mormonsandscience

Cdesign propensists need to stop whining that they aren't treated fairly. (That's not how science works, to begin with.) Since the days of William Payley (the 1700s), their case has been generously considered and then subsequently dismissed as not science, because it is lacks usefulness, predictability, and is not falsifiable. End of story.

It just so happens that the non-scientific public generally does not understand that science isn't some hunky dory feel good party where all are invited on a perpetual basis. As far as what ideas can come to fight it out for a place in our textbooks, science will listen to any hypothesis with an open but cautious ear. But as far as what hypothesis survives, science is as red in tooth in claw as the natural world it studies. Astrology failed, as have others.

We did not need a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge to tell us that ID is not science, but he certainly benefited from having real scientists there to show him what it is and isn't. Nothing wrong with making a decision that a certain "subject" should not be taught in a science class, when it is, in fact, religion. As I have said before, even natural history is not science, but it is extremely useful to science. "Cdesign propensism" (aka ID/creationism), at best, is a misguided religious man's version of natural history, and, at best, it has zero usefulness in science.

A main reason why Intelligent Design is not scientifically recognized as a science is because it constantly tries to circumvent the scientific game. Watch this Kenneth Miller video from 07:00 onward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_u9W6_UWA

I'm with Steve in agreeing (kind of) with Dave. I don't think that ID must necessarily be unscientific. I don't see any reason why certain experiments couldn't be performed that would confirm or deny some kind of intelligent design in nature. The problem is that such experiments simply aren't being performed.

Maybe if the Discovery Institute actually spent more of their immense resources on doing actual science rather than simply trying to convince people that it could be done they might make sure headway.

In other words, ID <i>could</i> be scientific, but as things stand it sure isn't.

Maybe they stayed away because they knew ID was indefensible.

"The show’s producers were decidedly one-sided in that they clearly favored evolution over intelligent design."

Translation:

The show’s producers were decidedly one-sided in that they clearly favored SCIENCE over MAGIC.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

Dave,

"if a strong research paradigm does not emerge, then it will fade away."

You assert this often, but here's the thing, a strong research paradigm has not emerged despite decades of efforts. Rather than fading away the ID movement continues to tread water whilst adding little or nothing in the way of scientific discovery. My assessment is that it is able to stay afloat purely based on the popular interest generated from the christian fundamentalist demographic. So, although I believe in the free market of ideas in principle, I don't think ID will simply fade away, despite it's having been scientifically stymied at every turn.

Maybe if it morphed into a movement purely focused on addressing the shortcomings of neo-darwinism it could contribute more, but thats already being done by more informed and serious minded folks. See the following for some examples:
http://tinyurl.com/3qujgmu
http://tinyurl.com/3g6dr6b
http://tinyurl.com/3hvel5n

Hey Dave, is your position softening a bit? It seems like you've made a lot of concessions in this thread. Maybe it's just me and my wishful thinking. =:)

Speaking of wishful thinking, I'd like to make an observation that may be obvious. Given that ID has not provided the data needed to persuade the scientific community, or even you it seems, why do you champion it? Is it simply because it supports your religious world view? Aren't you trying to fit God into your own idea of how life works rather than the other way around? Why can't God work through evolution? Aren't you limiting his abilities and second guessing his methods by wishing a questionable theory to be true because it fits *your* idea of His creation? I say follow the science where it leads. Right now, it leads to evolution.

"They should have gotten involved and made sure that ID was not mixed with creationism, that ID was not proven ‘guilty’ by association."

Maybe they should not have used the term "creationism" in drafts of their first book.

Judge Jones' ruling on whether ID is science is irrelevant unless your goal is to push it in public schools--he has no hold on the judgment of the scientific community. It's also worth pointing out that both the plaintiffs and defense asked the judge to rule on that question.

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/discovery-institute-tries-to-swift-boat-judge-jones

I think IDs been given a chance by the scientific community. They've had ample time to come up with something. Their strongest arguments are all purely mathematical and have been shown invalid by mathematicians. There's nothing to point to and say, "here's something problematic."

Now of course people can still continue to do this. Maybe one day they'll be successful. But right now ID isn't even at the same place as say String theory since at least String theory has been mathematically productive despite being empirically futile. Plus String theory, unlike ID, has had the support of the scientific community. Yet even String theory we see that the lack of empirical evidence has caused a backlash with a lot of scientists turning against it. If even something like String theory needs empirical data in some reasonable time shouldn't we expect that with ID?

Put an other way if we're asking to give ID a chance exactly how long are we supposed to wait? It's been a long time since Behe started all this.

ID will prove to be science. It may take some time but then again, the truth usually does take some time to take hold. Right now the world is still in love with fairytales and science fiction. What still bothers me to about the whole Dover case is that they infused ID with religious creationism. ID took a big hit in that case because it was wholly misrepresented. The other part about the Dover case is that in the case, the grounds the judge used to rule on actually breaks our amendment rights, not upholds them.

It really isn't up to the judge to rule on establishing whether or not evolutionary theory can be taught as "theory only". This was just another case of the ACLU pushing their smug noses in and denying the correct ruling to come forth and be played out. The ACLU lawyers were very "sly" in their deceptive attack on the stand. They basically turned into a whole creationsim and religious thing when in fact, that is not what the case was supposed to be about and certainly not what the judge was to rule upon.

What really hurts in this case involving our amendment rights is that freedom was not upheld, no, it was stomped upon. All the Dover school board wanted was to let the kids know that there were alternatives to Darwins theory of evolution and offered a reference book to give balance to the only one sided view. So who cares if the original intent was religiously motivated? Do we not all support things in the public school system that are religiously or spiritually motivated?

Is it the rights of us as individuals to freely aknowledge and support those views even in a public setting such as school? This is where the judge ruled against our rights as citizens. The governemnt does not have the power or right to rule on matters of religious conviction and belief. They basically said it was unconstitutional to state that Darwins theory is just that- a theory and that there were other scientific alternative theories available. Listen to how bad that sounds! LISTEN!

Our government does not have the right to rule on such manners. It cannot rule on such religious expressions. This is no different than the government saying that no prayers can ever be offered on public property in a public setting!

Oops . .


"the value of MLM juices . . . "

Rob --

Mr. Behe is a dry hole. I assume you are claiming that his book is scientific because it talks about scientific material That is a pretty low threshold.

Many thinks talk about science -- Tom Clancy novels, science fiction books, etc. But, merely tackling the topic does not science make.

Science requires testable theorems and observable evidence. Behe falls on both fronts. His material has been shredded by laboratory and field analysis. He was weak on the stand because he really has nothing solid to protect.

He is like someone who claims that aliens live on comets and then has to deal with aftermath after a space craft finds no aliens. At best, he is a person whose ideas have failed. At worse, he is a flim-flam man. You decide.

As to the arrogance of evolutionary theory, theorist and me, it may appear that way when you have 150+ years of scrutiny, a mountain of physical evidence no contrary evidence. Yeah, it is tough when the other side has zip, nada, zilch.

Steve,

Then what is exactly covered in his book? Seems like science to me.

It only fails in evolutionist eyes because they have already deemed anything not part of "random nature" unscientific. Id is very similar to forensic science. Looking at a murder scene scientifically, it is observable to conclude how and under what process it may have happened. Looking at nature, ID assumes the same role- looking at the evidence and determining best how it may have happened.

Evolutionists will only accept "that nature did it" and exclude any form of intelligence from that process. It's kind of like if evolutionists were forensic scientists they would always look for some random natural way the person died and never come to the conclusion he was murdered through some thought out intelligent process.

Evolution must exclude any intelligent process or entity from interfaring even if the logic and evidence points directly to it.

I simply say- well, that's the typical beat of the atheists drum. Arrogance at it's finest!

I find it kind of funny that some say there is no evidence of intelligent design and yet all life is the continuation of millions of sequences of intelligent plans being carried out by intelligent agents!

Talk about not seeing the forest because of the trees!

Dave C. --

I don't think many understand how overwhelming the fossil record on this issue is.

Let me give you a few examples.

For instance, dinosaurs. If one goes to Montana, the evidence is that an ancient sea extended from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico. That sea would ebb and flow towards the Rockie Mountains. One can trace in the rock dating those movements. In layers that were the uplands from that sea, one can find various duck-billed dinosaurs. In the sections of rock that are dated the oldest, the fossils are less complicated. By following the layers back and forth across Montana one can find more and more complicated species of the same dinosaur. Clear and convincing evidence that they evolved over about 20 million years.

In Utah, one can find sauropods that demonstrate the same phenomena. Older varieties are simpler. More modern are more complex. By the way, much of the work in this area has been done by BYU.

In Eastern Idaho, there are fossils of bison. In the oldest layers, there are skeletons of bison latifrons which had long horns. Next, in newer levels, are bison antiquus which were bigger than modern bison and had longer horns. Most recently, one finds modern bison that greeted early settlers to the West. All three varieties are highly distinctive. There are clearly related. But, they are not mixed in the fossil record. Older layers have the first. Median age layers have the second variety. More modern layers have the modern kind. Of note, the correlation between the fossils and datings is extremely consistent. You never find rock dated older that has modern bison. Of note, even modern bison divide into two species -- plain bison and wood bison. Distinct species but clearly related.

I could outline the same for dozens and dozens of related species. The point is that one can trace through the fossil record the evolution of varies varieties. And, one never finds more modern types mixed with ancient ones. Why? Because they evolved into the modern varieties.

The fossil record is really amazing when you get down to it.


P.S. The creationism movement has sought desperately for examples of ancient and modern varieties intermixed. They have scrambled to find human fossils mixed with dinosaurs and other improbable (under evolutionary theory) examples. Every once and awhile they claim to have found one. Of note, not once in 150 years has one of these so-called proofs of evolution's falsity survived even elementary scrutiny. In fact, often desperate to create evidence, most have been pathetic forgeries by evolutionists. If evolution was false, this kind of proof would exist. It simply doesn't.

I find the contrast between Darwin's "Origin of Species" and Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" to be very enlightening.

Darwin's book is chalk full of many, many experiments and findings which he had performed and gathered over decades to support his hypothesis. Behe's contains nothing of the sort. He talks a lot about what can be found "in the literature", but even that he gets way wrong.

No matter which of the two spoke truth, Darwin was actually doing science while Behe was simply talking about science.

The propagation of life is the very process of an intelligent agent at work. in fact, it is the process of hundreds of millions of intelligent agents at work. How life is created such as how we are formed from sperm and the egg is intelligence at work. What we have witnessed and observed is that this law we call "biogenesis" remarkably propagates it's own over and over again with pretty extreme clarity considering everything involved.

What we have not witnesed however is if the various parts of what makes life intelligent can be formed from something nonintelligent. In fact, nature shows us the simple fact that intelligence or intelligent processes such as life, only come from an intelligent source. Never, ever, has there been a scientifically documented case of an intelligent process arriving from an unintelligent source.

Stated another way, complexity in nature such as the way a cell operates, is an intelligent process. A myriad of intelligent and purposeful processes happen simulatneously in the workings of a cell. Evolution states that this process evolved from virtually nonpurposeful an nonintelligent processes. But, here is where ID makes it's claim. ID is exactly stating on this premise alone that what we define as complexity (intelligence/intelligent processes) in nature did not arise nor could have from nonintelligent processes. There is literally a myriad of evidence out there that shows through all kinds of lab experiments that randomness in nature cannot- is not capable, of producing any intelligent process let alone a long line of them happening simultaneoulsy in order to sustain the existance of a life-form.

Sure, they zap certain chemicals and juggle them around in the lab until they create some feeble lone building block but that in no way is an intelligent process- it created nothing intelligent and certainly nothing that completes intelligent and purposeful tasks.

What these experiments have shown is that as far as we know, complexity in nature is not the random act of events in nature. What the evidence points to is that when we do see complexity in nature- intelligent processes, we can conclude without any doubt that it originated from an intelligent and purposeful process above it. This is the entire premise of ID theory. Under this theory we can test and observe and show how intelligence must come from an intelligent source to begin with.

As of date, there is absolutely no evidence that evolution is capable of generating intelliegence from scratch let alone purposeful and new intelligent information.

Dave C. ---

Do you have a proposed alternative as to why the entire fossil record is layered from simple to complex, both overall and by species?

What process besides evolution could cause such a result --- world-wide --- without exception?

I've heard claims that the Earth was made of other worlds. But, that wouldn't create the layering we see. Instead, you would see different types of animals in each "chunk" of the Earth and no systematic simple-to-complex layering.

Any other options?

Rob,

"There is literally a myriad of evidence out there that shows through all kinds of lab experiments that randomness in nature cannot- is not capable, of producing any intelligent process let alone a long line of them happening simultaneoulsy in order to sustain the existance of a life-form."

We're all waiting. Where's all this evidence? What experiments were performed? Where is all this data that is being hidden from us all?

As for the fossil layer being assembled from simple to complex...
There is some evidence that small sealife creatures are at lower levels and then larger land dwelling animals are on higher levels. But that evidence would be evidence showing how dead bodies would assemble themselves in a global flood.

The whole "simple to complex" in the fossil record is a crock of shipyard. Life begins suddenly and is fully complex when it has arrived. On top of that, we do not analyze the cellular structure of those simple life-forms to really see just how simple or complex that life-form was. For all we know, DNA- the blueprint of life, has always existed in it's digital form. What evolution must really get to the point with the whole simple to complex mantra is to show how the DNA evolved in the first place.

Even evolutionists themselves are baffled by the sudden disappearance of animals in the fossil record and the sudden appearance of new creatures. This is where evolution has to fill in the gaps and make up things. Evolutionists would have you believe that there is this slow gradual climb from one species to the next showing how complex life evolved but that is a LIE! They all know that life on the lower layers are already fully complex and it shows no reason why! How did fully functioning and complex life suddenly arrive?

Evolution is a fable of grand proportions and riddled with lies and fictional tales.

Rob ---

You stated: "Evolutionists would have you believe that there is this slow gradual climb from one species to the next showing how complex life evolved but that is a LIE! They all know that life on the lower layers are already fully complex and it shows no reason why!"

Name one evolutionist who believes life was fully complex early on . . I don't.

The fossil evidence indicates that the first very simple life forms emerged 3.8 billion years ago. Very simple single cell pre-plants followed about at 3 billion years with the first multi-cell organisms emerging at 1 billion years. As to animals, simple animals appear at about 600 million years ago, followed by fish at about 500 million years and the first amphibians at 350 million. Simply put, the record shows slow, drawn-out evolution.

What I suspect you are alluding to is the emergence of simple animals and land plants between about 600 and 475 million years ago. Compared to the age of the Earth, that was relatively sudden but most would consider 125 million years as rather stung out.

One point I do need to tackle, you also made the claim that the layering from simple to complex reflects a worldwide flood. Simply untrue.

Rock layers show all kinds of depository environments. Some are former deserts, others small rivers & streams and some are ocean-based. There is absolutely no evidence that most rock layers occurred in a flood event.

For instance, I discussed Montana dinosaurs above. The duck-bill dinosaurs were deposited mostly in fluvial environments (streams and rivers). You can even see evidence of the water flows in much of the rock. A massive flood would wipe out all those kinds of deposits.

Jeff,

C'mon man, I ma sure you are well aware of the differing theories and experiments into "abiogenesis".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

What they must achieve is to first observe a protocell to originate. If they could just create one of them in purely natural conditions it could give the theory of abiogenesis something besides scince fiction to work with. Here is a part fromt he article-

"No one has synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."


Need I say more?

"The propagation of life is the very process of an intelligent agent at work."

Rob, ID needs to demonstrate this connection between an intelligent agent and the propagation of life. All you've done is state that it is so.

Rob,

You need to say A LOT more. You have yet to show a reference a single scientific article (NOT wikipedia) which disconfirms what evolutionists teach.

All you have done is the equivalent of searching every room in your house, and not having found God sitting in any one of them concluded that God cannot possibly exist. Surely you see how childish that would be.

By the same reasoning, showing that scientists have yet to show how exactly life originated (something which evolutionists freely admit btw) evolution must be false.

Dave C it sounds like your philosophy of science is an odd mix of Kuhn and Popper. Is that about right?

I confess I'm pretty skeptical of that. For instance I'm not sure there necessarily is a "crucial" experiment. Sometimes a prediction is so odd that when it proves true it convinces a lot of people. However I think you'd agree that within the history of science that sort of progress is the exception rather than the rule.

Likewise while we can loosely talk about falsification I'm not sure it's any better than talk about verification for reasons that have been oft discussed in the literature. (i.e. you can always say some other phenomena was at work that led to the falsification or verification)

The reason I bring that up is that the way many ID proponents are pushing falsification seems to assume science can be deductive rather than inductive in its reasoning. But this just isn't the case. I used to teach physics to freshmen and all those obvious experiments that are purportedly so convincing are a bit contrived. You have to deal with things like friction and so forth that make them a true "falsification" problematic.

So I confess I just don't understand the whole appeal to a falsifiable theory. It seems to me any theory makes predictions and you can go out and test them. If the variations from what you predict are small we can explain them by secondary effects. If not then we know something odd is going on. What I don't understand with ID proponents is why they think this isn't happening every day with evolution. Honestly I think they push a laboratory experiment only because they think it can't be done and givens them a space to disbelief evolution. Yet this seems pretty disingenuous to say the least.

Stan,

How about this- I as an intelligent agent get together with my wife, another intelligent agent, we share intelligent information in a purposeful process (sex) and then about 9-10 months later we have propagated a new life-form. How is that for proving the point of demonstrating this connection between an intelligent agent and the propagation of life.

Is it not reasonable that this very process I have explained is also what started life on this planet? And, is this not scientific?

If evolution is a tree, then there obviously must be a start to it, right? So, the most important piece of the entire evolutionary tree is how the tree got there in the first place. Evolution demands that it got there through various random events in nature. It must say this because it has already ruled out any intelligent process.

This gets right to the heart of the matter. I mean really- we are taliking about a process that would eventually lead to a highly sophisticated life-form. So, if this first step did happen it must be extremely simple to begin with. And yet....Scientists- the best in the world are completely baffled on how chemical evolution could have possibly occurred! We have waited over half a century, placed rovers on Mars, took silicon etechnology to the nano extremes, and yet we can't seem to be able to synthesize some simple protocell in a lab even with the best intelligent agents at the controls!

You tell me, how can they assume all the billions of extremely more complex steps in the evolutionary tree if they can't even solve the first and simplest of them all?

Steve,

How much evidence of "possible processes" means nothing if it doesn't conclude to the desired result. There are plenty of "what if's" on this critical point and not even "one" that works! Just because they can make a myriad of possible stories doesn't make it true. Up to this point all that evidence means nothing except for producers to make cool movies from the science fictional accounts of lab junkies posing the merely hypothetical.

Jeff,

I stand by ID because it makes complete sense and is in perfect harmony with my religious beliefs. Mormonism is all about the Creation and the Creator. Our entire existance is solely because of a loving Heavenly Father. We exist because of his actions. All of nature exists because of his actions. Nature is the cause of God not the other way around.

My biggest complaint with evolution is that it poses its theory as if it were fact and because of that it makes itself holier than thou. It absolutely lets no other theory to compete against it or try to refute it.

After those complaints, I have a hard time believing that all of the complex information found in both the universe and especially in life-forms has arose from purely random sources and events. Steve will say on one hand that God is behind it...somehow, but when pressed he actually will admit that perhaps God himself is a product of nature and evolution.

All of the scientific evidence we have regarding the complexities of life point to an intelligent cause. The more we search, the more we find, the clearer the picture becomes that there is a grand underlying intelligence at work. It's pretty mucvh like finding the signature of God in everything around us. It all testifies that there must be a God. When I was young and didn't know much I considered evolution as perhaps plausable. Then, they figured out the whole DNA things and began really disecting genetics and how cells work and the more they studied the more myteriously complex it became. It wasn't long after that that I started looking into creationism but was turned off by it in some degree because of some of its strict religious hang-ups being promoted. Then ID came along and immediately it made total sense.

ID is the first real movement to challenge Darwinian evolution at its most basic and principled point. That point being- life is complex- does evolution answer the reason why and how life arose and to what extent complex information is created?

So far, evolutionary models have pretty much failed to explain why intelligence exists. It can't answer how intelligent life arose int he first place and it still can't really answer how new intelligence is formed and creates purposeful functions in life-forms.

As I see it, evolution is a tool to mark simple genetic drift and mutations, none of which really add any new information needed to create entire different functioning species. Evolution fails to answer the basic questions such as how organs evolved, how they work, and where they would evolve next. The evidence- "fossils" are largely clueless as to how evolution played out over the years. It is at this point that evolutionists make their greatest claims because they can put their imagination into the picture and make a fossil fit where they want to and make it look and act the way they want it to. It's not hard to recognize that we have a lot of similarities with animals. But does those similarities point to common descent? No.

I have read a lot of statements by evolutionists who even state as fact that the evolutionary evidence they have is not that great, that the geology isn't really as textbooks say, and that there are way too many problems with evolution itself that doesnt really prove it is factual. Evolutionists want so bad to show that Darwinian evolution is true they will go to almost any length to make this happen. The lies, half-truths, deception, and unscientific principles they have to go by all say to me to stay away from that branch of bunk science.

ID s where I will stay.

Rob,

I'm still confused. There are various types of creationism (ID being but one of them). Accordingly, I'm not sure how you can have hang-ups with creationism but not with ID.

More to the point, however, you say:

"So far, evolutionary models have pretty much failed to explain why intelligence exists."

Why don't you simply replace "evolutionary" with "scientific" and then simply use this to show that science gives an incomplete picture of reality at best? Why insist that we actually have some other scientific model (ID) that does explain such thing when we clearly don't?

I really think your position would be a lot more stable and defensible if you took issue with the scientific endeavor as a whole rather than just evolution. Why continue to push that ID is science when 1) it clearly isn't and 2) you don't have to? What do you think ID brings to the table that some other form of creationism doesn't?

It does not say much if the Discovery Institute staff are the "heavy hitters."

They have not published one single piece in any peer reviewed science journal that has any status in the field.

How can a perspective call itself a science that does not contribute to science?

Jeff,

We are not going to get anywhere until we both agree that ID is not creationism. You simply can't claim it is creationism. Creationism may have given rise to the ID movement, but the theories and direction that ID is principled by now is different than typical "creationism". Id is not on the same path of creationism- they have different agendas, write from different perspectives and have different followers.

Science can be found in a myriad of research, papers, lectures, etc. There is good science coming from both evolutionists and from ID'ers. However, I say "evolutionists" because they are attempting to hijack the whole of "science" and claim sole rights. They do not have the right to it.

Get used tot he fact that ID is science whether you like it or not. You may decide to continue to dismiss ID as science, but do so knowing that Science itself is not, nor should be not, be partial to only one theory.

And I wasn't lying about evolutionists telling lies and half truths. Very typical of evolutionists to claim this or that about ID and it turns out evolutionists just lie. They have their own deceptive standards and aren't afraid to use them if it threatens their precious theory.

Just callin a spade a spade.

First of all, thanks to Rob Osborn for calling me dishonest.

I simply was unaware of the long list of unimpressive publications provided at the link below:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

How many of those articles were peer-reviewed? From what I can tell, maybe only two or three.

Of that handful, how many are really I.D. articles? From what I can tell, really none.

But, if I.D. was really making a dent in science, which it is NOT, then I would expect to see articles in the foremost journals, like Science and Nature. There are none.

The real lie is the claim that I.D. is legitimate science. It is not. Such a claim has NOT held in Federal Court (Dover case).

No major scientific conference seriously discusses I.D.

The impact of I.D. is only that of a pesky gnat.

S.Faux,

This is why mainstream science has taken so long to aknowledge ID as being legitamate. On the one side you have basically truthful and aknowledgeing people (the ID side) and on the other you have an elite group of know-it-alls who honestly believe that evolution is not falsifiable and any attempt to falsify it can't be considered science.

The public (me) are caught in the crossfire. But, even more at stake is the fact that evolutionists seeks to hold my beliefs in contempt and mock my beliefs, suppress them, and disallow them in any public setting. The evolution machine has become an enemy to science, has sought to overthrow scientific purity and made a complete and utter mess of the scientific process.

Rob,

How do you know which side is lying and which is honest?

Jeff,

I don't intentionally mean to be rude towards evolutionists but in general I feel they do not give ID a chance.

"Theistic evolution" is funny because every major evolutionist I have talked to will not accept theistic evolution and most of these people believe in the Creator! Go figure! This is a funny area especially because evolutionists agree that it would be impossible for another life-form to evolve into humans- we have just taken the road of improbability. So the question becomes- if it is pretty much impossible for another life-form to evolve into humans then it is also pretty much impossible that we ever evolved in the first place. But, then to be formed in God's direct image makes it completely impossible "unless" evolution was "guided by an intelligence". But, this the definition of falling under ID theory and not Darwinian evolution theory. Theistic evolutionists will not give up Darwin- precious Darwin and so, they must also give up Theistic evolution. There can be no such thing as a Darwinian believeing theistic evolutionist. Darwinian evolution requires there to be no intelligence involved- hence- "natural" selection!

Steve,

It doesn't really matter how little ID theory has made it into scientific peer reviewed publications. The point was that you guys keep claiming that "none" was in peer reviewed works. This is the common tirade of evolutionists. I was simply pointing out that obviously evolutionists lie on this point.

Doesn't really matter to me how little of it finds its way into peer reviewed work. But, it does bother me for evolutionists to get their facts wrong. this by definition makes you guys liars on that point. Am I wrong?

Rob,

"Seriously though, I look at all the evidence and then decide who is lying and who is telling the truth."

How can you tell who is lying or telling the truth? How do you decide other than by some process of guilt by association? If we're just going to compare the character of the two organizations, let's have at it:

The evolutionists are scientists. They think everybody is wrong except themselves and are out to prove that this is so. They aren't very polished in terms of public relations, so they focus more on data than on slick rhetoric. But it is precisely because of these seeming faults, that science has become so strong.

The Discovery Institute is a think tank. They are constituted primarily by lawyers and are funded by people with an agenda. They never perform any field work or experiments of any kind, but they have very polished rhetoric. This matches well with their strategy of attacking Darwinism not by way of experiment and field work, but by way of political and litigious activism.

I agree with much of your assessment of scientists as a bunch of self-righteous jerks who refuse to take anybody else seriously. But let's not be distracted from the fact that while the scientists have all the appearance of evil, it is (as always) the slick lawyers, politician who are actually the polished sepulchers filled with rotting bones.

If you just look at how the two sides present themselves, then ID holds up pretty well. But if you drop all of the politics, analogies and appeals to intuition and focus exclusively on the hard data, there is no contest at all.

Re: theistic evolution. I think it's hard to figure out what on earth the term means.

Jeff,
You said-

"But let's not be distracted from the fact that while the scientists have all the appearance of evil, it is (as always) the slick lawyers, politician who are actually the polished sepulchers filled with rotting bones."

Are you referring tot he ACLU and NCSE here....them darned evolution loving politicians and slick lawyers....pushing their agenda...all with their polished rhetoric..


You see. it's funny how both sides have their slick talking types. But in truth, much of the work contributed on the Discovery Institue site is that of actual scientists with degrees from good colleges. They scientifically do know what they are talking about and their research and work is based off of the assessment of scientific work. For that matter the NCSE is or can be considerewd a "think tank" if that is how you want to define things. What's the point?

Let's put it where it counts- where the rubber meets the road. We both know that the work backing up both the NCSE and the Discovery Institute are founded in science by scientists who have degrees.

The hard data from both sides can be compelling in their own rights. But, when you really start to analyze using common sense and logic, there is no contest to the hard data put up by the theory of Intelligent design.

Steve,

I guess it's all in how one interprets the data. I really see no hard data that supports macro-evolution and I certainly see no evidence whatsoever that explains life popping into existance from random events as evolutionists claim. Hum....shouldn't there be at least one tiny bit of evidence for that? There's is not even a sliver of evidence for it.

You claim ID is a mirage. That is fine, by your standards. But, then again evolution is a fairytale- complete make-believe! A fabrication of a myriad of fairytales at that.

This is fun...isn't it? We could go back and forth bashing each others beliefs and get nowhere.

I was watching a piece on DNA today and it was mentioned about the mathmaitcal improbability of it ever assembling on its own. They said that the odds against it were greater than all the events in the entire universe since it began. This mystery of how DNA came about completely baffles evolutionists- they are indeed stopped in their tracks- they have no idea whatsoever. ID theory on the other hand can easily explain it, let it be, go out to dinner and enjoy and then go home and peacefully rest. Ahh, the nature of believeing the truth when it stares you in the face- how peaceful it is indeed.

Jeff,

I definately don't think that judges should decide on what is and isn't taught in biology and other sciences. I find nothing offensive if a school board teaches an alternate theory to Darwinian evolution such as ID. I honestly believe that ID has all the strong merits warranted to give it scientific status and thus very well should be examined by students.

The criteria for a theory to be sound biology it must have reasonable and explainable principles, objectives and conclusions. For instance- ID shows the improbability for DNA to form on its own without some intelligence at work in the process. The principle here is that intelligent things are always observed to come from intelligent sources above it. The objective here is to show that intelligence is not formed from non-intelligent processes. The conclusions derived are thus obvious- it can reasonably be concluded that the hypothesis of intelligence only coming from intelligence is sound and needs time to be further examined. Testing and observations need to be taken to further the research into this hypothesis.

Hi Rob,

I got here late, but most points seem to have been covered. One thing to add, tho. While it's true that not much research has been done, much will in the future, and I’ll elaborate in a bit.

The current attempts to stifle any discussion of 'design inferences' in toto is plainly fascism, and must be, correction WILL be stopped. If not, science is the loser. Scientific research, and academia in particular is under assault by organizations out to defend the currently formulated evolutionary theory (NDE), and not by empirical means, but by plainly political ploys, a form of fascism.

The following example has been spearheaded by HS Senior Zack Kopplin, and I respect him for his efforts, although misguided I feel. I legislation he is attacking has done nothing thus far to promote religious teaching within the classroom, nor could it ever, given prior Court cases and the Constitution. Basically, laws like this should never have been necessary, were it not for the imposed restraints on science education that have been place there by regulatory organizations.
http://www.repealcreationism.com/397/41-nobel-laureates-send-a-letter-to-the-louisiana-legislature/

As I mentioned, things will change. What I see down the road is a new crop of scientists, students who will enter the classrooms, many already self-educated in physics and biology via the Internet, and among those willing to buck the tide, and pursue areas now restricted. But for that to happen, I look to guys like you Rob, to maintain your blogging efforts in that regard. You will be attacked right and left, but hey, in the end, you’ll see positive results.

Just a brief word regarding the Kitzmiller v Dover case. Worst (2nd part) decision ever, and plainly in violation of judicial, ethical, and yes, scientific standards. Hailed by many as protective and conciliatory for science, it is just the opposite. It could well open the door for other decisions in the same ilk (challenge the Big Bang Theory for example), but of more concern, begin legislating over what medical procedures are valid, how to do physics, and more.

Anyway Rob, keep on working for academic freedom, and consider that the Dover decision (part two) could well be ruled in violation of judicial authority, and sent to the Supreme Court for reversal. I’m even considering sponsoring a move to do just that.

Jeff,

I have a hard time with theistic evolution because once one goes there it turns into very strange and mysterious ground. For instance- At what point is it guided by intelligence(God) and at waht point is it just purely nature? I have asked various Christian evolutionists this and they all agree and believe in the Creator, but after that it gets real tricky trying to get them to nail down exactly what role He has in the creation event.

You bring up a idea about God having possibly "adjusted the selecting pressures in the past". And so my response naturally is- Ok, what selecting pressure in the past did he adjust? This is where most theistic evolutionists would say "I don't know". But in reality it really just means that they don't want him in any part of the past. If they did they would actually suggest something other than just say "I don't know".

My point here is that theistic evolution is a nice parade for some evolutionists, but in reality, where the rubber meets the road, the diehard christian evolutionists have no placing for the Creator in how we came about. It is always about "nature" and nothing else.

Like was said in previous posts, and I stand very firm in this- If God had any part in our existance and how we came about, then that is by the strictest of terms called Intelligent Design. There is no wiggle room here for LDS because our daoctrine demands the belief that there is a Creator and that He planned and carried out the creation and that we are directly planned and designed under God's hand. That is the very definition of Intelligent Design, like it or not!

Dave C.,

Good points. Theistic evolution and Neo-darwin evolution are at complete odds with each other and is why you will not get very many theistic evolutionists. LDS evolutionists are especially in their own paradox because their understanding of evolution doesn't allow it to be guided or intelligently planned and yet their religious beliefs demands it. This is where you get these types to be very wishy-washy on the matter of how to fit God into the picture. To me it is pretty clear- they want to believe in the Creator just as long as He doesn't interfare with how life was first created....but they will never come right out and admit that even though it is the truth.

Go figure!

Jeff,

No evolutionist I know of is going to believe in a God going around and doing magic wand waving to guide evolution the way He sees fit.

As for all of the apparent supernatural stuff in our doctrine such as bodies emitting light, etc, I don't attack these because I am fully aware that science can't answer all things "yet". So how is this different than God using hid magic wand waving in evolution? What we have been discussing is whether or not evolution is guided or unguided. The Darwinian evolution approach is that evolution is not guided by any intelligence nor can be. So, basically you are plotting two different theories against yourself. For you it's Darwinian evolution versus Intelligently guided evolution. I have been trying to point out that this second intelligently guided evolution is Intelligent design and not Darwinian evolution. If you have noticed even a little bit in all of my posts over the years, my defense with intelligent design has not been with evolution in general but Darwinian evolution in particular. Specifically it has been with arguing against a random unguided and unintelligently model of random mutations and natural selection acting and selecting those mutations void of any intelliegent factor. This brings up another point about natural selection.

Suppose God did guide natural selection as you propose. This still doesn't answer the quest. Natural selection in Darwinian evolution only selects the mutations when they randomly happen. This means that the engine driving change is still a random process. Natural selection does not the engine that drives or guides evolution, evolution happens randomly in Darwinian evolution. Now if we were to come right out and say that God somehow guides the mutation event also then it would be more correct.

Any way you look at it, if God becomes involved, in order to bring about his direct purpose (which BTW, is what LDS believe), then you must find yourself in the intelligent design theory group and not the darwinian evolution group. Somehow there is this false beliefe that theistic evolution is still darwinian evolution. But it is not. Theistic evolution is intelligently guided evolution and thus anything guided by an intelligence is thus intelligently designed to bring about an intelligent and planned purpose.


So, what we must really argue here is not whether or not God can wave his magic wand around in evolution or not, but whether one adheres to life being either a completely random unguided and unintelligent process (darwinian evolution), or if life is indeed guided by an intelligent plan and process.

Your arguing for theistic evolution is indeed intelligent design- nothing more and certainly nothing less! So, if you are arguing for theistic evolution, as it appears you are, then brother- we are in the same camp- that of Intellgent design.

So, it appears we can thus graduate together in this belief and then discuss what really matters here- does intelligently planned and designed life come about through a process similar to darwinian evolution where one life-form morphs over time into completely different lif-forms according to a design and guided process by God or is life only designed to bring forth life within a set of bounds of the which it cannot cross over (such as a dog species always just a dog species and a bettele species always just a beetles species)?

Jeff,

Please just admit that Darwinian evolution is unguided and that theistic evolution is guided and lets move on.

My beef is with unintelligent and unguided evolution.

What do you want me to say? OK, let's take gravity for example. Gravity acts upon objects to attract them to other larger objects. Gravity is a law that we can discern and make various tests with. So how does someone like the angel Moroni "float" and apparently defy gravity? I am not sure But I am pretty sure that Moroni is breaking no law of physics in the universe. I am intrigued by this as I am witha lot of other things. So what. I can embrace physics to the exytent of what i know and can observe and am fully aware that we will find out new things pertaining to physics int he future.

Now, pleas eanswer my question-

So, are you a theistic evolutionist?

Jeff – “After that, I embraced theistic evolution … It doesn't deny evolution”

Nor does ID in its current synthesis.

“its status as the only scientifically respectable account of the origin of individual species.”

Actually ID and TE have common ground, it’s just that the devil is in the details.

• TE: Evolution, but with intervention at life’s onset, to self-evolve species over time.
• ID: Evolution, but with interventions when required for un-evolvable novelty additions, and to facilitate upward progressions.

Both TE and ID are totally disputed by mainstream evolutionists, so to shy away from both may put one into their camp. Divine intervention is obvious to any rational assessor of the data. Religious precepts are an aside from the empirical evidences, however, with regard to a science based perusal. But from the empirically assessable data alone, inferences CAN be made, such that there is purpose in the biologic unfoldings. This perhaps, is what bothers Dawkins et al the most. He and others hold to an unsupportable assumption [uncaused causation], and one that is being supplanted with more rational conclusions.

So in defense of Intelligent Design, it could include Theistic Evolution as a possible subset, since timelines are not specified in its predictions. Also, Divinity is not specified, so even non-believers could embrace it. And finally, to refute that it’s a science-stopper and denies evolution, I predict that it is an ‘adjunct hypothesis’ to current NDE, to augment change mechanisms by ‘induced mutations’ (as required for novelty and non-evolvable complexities). Random mutations still exist, but only for adaptation to a changing environment, and may-in-fact consist of a preset set of gene variations, put in place for just that purpose, which would itself be a designed-in adaptive process.

A brief aside: We design mother boards, right? They are now up to ten layers of complex pathways, that no human mind could formulate. We use ‘designed’ software to do the grunt work, although we take credit for the actual designs, which we in no way do. This combination of ID and formulated tools is a valid analogy for God’s work, and I’m sure that Moroni would agree.

“I don't think you understand what theistic evolution is. It is basically like ID, only with pretending to be scientific or to know details that we clearly do not know.”

It attempts to reconcile religious belief with evolution, and often entails coaxing Biblical text to conform. But the allegorical approach to (in particular) Genesis 1 & 2 is a somewhat failed attempt to validate scripture, in light of scientific data. To elaborate further, read ‘Darwin’s God’ and frequent ‘BioLogos’.

How would you characterize ID? You stated that there are no empirical confirmations of ID, but that Darwin’s work was full of them. But when confronting causation and methodology, Darwin’s work says nothing. He conjectures gradualism, and somewhat supports it with limited fossil evidences, but fails to detail the mechanism(s).

Had he lived later, he would have included Mendel’s work, and perhaps genotype to phenotype, but even then, neither he nor present day scientists have proven empirically (just by conflation) that random mutations can build complexity, beyond minor adaptive changes.

Jeff,

How life first evolved has everything to do with Darwinian evolution. If you have an evolutionary tree, it needs to start somewhere- you can't just say well it starts right here at this point. It still begs the question of how that point came into being. Besides that, every biology textbook I have encountered discusses how life may have began when it discusses evolution. If they are completely different subjects, how come they are always coupled together and connected in the bilogy textbooks?

Jeff, all I can say is that Darwinian evolution has placed itself beyond the means of falsification by limiting the rules by which it can be applied with and to. I mean really- If it is unscientific to state that perhaps evolution is guided, then what is left to be able to attempt falsification?

Jeff,

"You are arguing that since neither Newton nor Einstein have an account of how time, matter and energy first came into being that their scientific theories should be thrown away?"

I think you bring up a valid point. Here is how I view this issue. Evolution's common descent of man makes an assertion that opposes Christian theology, physics does not. Now it is true that heavenly beings instantly traveling billions of miles from the throne of God and suspending in the air opposes the laws of physics, so why no backlash against physics which says that such things cannot happen?

My answer is that celestial beings are not beholden to mortal laws. I am a little uncomfortable with the old adage, "God follows natural laws." It is more accurate to say that He follows celestial laws of which we, in our telestial sphere, can never grasp. And so it goes with the creation of Adam and Eve. Their bodies were created in a celestial sphere following celestial law which is out of reach of our understanding as telestial beings.

Dave,

I think your position regarding physics is perfectly defensible. Now, why can't you simply take the exact same stance toward evolution? Why can't you simply say "sure, Darwinian evolution is true just as Einsteinian physics is true, but this is not to say that God hasn't felt the need to step on the scene every once in a while to make sure things go according to His plan"? Why try to force the religion peg into the science hole in the case of biology as ID tries to do when you feel no need to in the case of physics? (I should also mention that ID does not dispute the common descent of man.)

Rob,

"Your point is not relevent. I have answered already on this.
You really seem to sidestep the real question here and try to shift focus into physics"

I know you answered the question, but you are still not getting the point I am making. Here it is as clearly as I can put it:

There is no argument which you have brought against evolution which you do not already reject in the case of physics. Your own arguments (against evolution) contradict your own position (for physics). You can't have it both ways.

Hopefully you now see that I'm not "sidestepping" anything. Instead, I'm cutting right to the core of your position surrounding science in general.

Hahaha! I see Rob's as a clear case where philosophy can help science a bit. You're right in that it is clear that no amount of evidence is going to sway him either way. This to me is a clear indicator that the only way the conversation can progress is by refocusing on our prior assumptions.

What I'm trying to do with Rob (which he is desperately resisting) is stop talking about Darwinism and instead use physics as a way to clarify his attitudes toward science in general. Once we see what these attitudes and assumptions really are, then I suspect that we can use his own arguments against him.

Hopefully he will see that in the same way that we can believe that even if we accept God's creation of all matter and energy in the beginning along with His occasional intervention in the physical order of things and still accept all the Newton and Einstein's theories as true and roughly compatible with religion, so too we can accept God's creation of the first species in the beginning along with His occasional intervention in the biological order of things and still accept Darwin's theories as true and roughly compatible with religion. The parallel can be followed further, but you get the point.

Mormon Times today has a great quote from Elder Talmage:

"The opening chapters of Genesis … were never intended as a textbook of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.”

Rob,

That's one of the reasons that relying on ID literature for an understanding of evolution is dangerous. They lean very heavily on the word "random" without ever really defining it, leaving it to the reader to rely on their intuitive understanding of the word. This would be a mistake on the reader's part, though I place none of the fault on them.

Randomness, in the common sense of the word, could never be a convincing explanation of anything, if only because the word basically denotes the absence of an explanation. It is for this reason that people want to reject the idea that "random" evolution can "explain" life. Of course it can't.

But Neo-Darwinian Evolution is meant to explain life in the same way that physics is meant to explain which way rocks fall on a mountain. Just as the rocks aren't "seeking" anything at the bottom of a ravine, so too species weren't "seeking" any particular lifeform. All the word "random" is meant to convey here is the non-teleological nature of the laws at work. Darwin is no different than Newton on this point.

But again, just as people can "use" physical laws to further their own ends, as in the case of building water dams or levies, so too there is nothing which can prevent people using evolutionary laws to further their own ends, such as in the case of intentional breading and artificial selection. On this point too, Newton and Darwin agree.

There is, however, one particular aspect of evolution which can be considered "random" in the more traditional sense, namely the source of genetic differences. Let us be clear on this point too, however. The word "random" merely serves to label a conceptual black box of sorts. What Darwin maintains is that it doesn't matter where genetic differences come from, for such a question is irrelevant to the theory. Darwin is not committed to a total statistical randomness in genetic mutations. Indeed, modern theory suggests that genetic mutations are not all random in the intentional sense at all. But what is most important is that it doesn't matter to Darwin what the odds of each particular mutation are, because all of that is in a conceptual black box to him. He simply doesn't care. It is also significant for religious believers that the evolutionist is not able to empirically falsify the claim that some particular mutations were intentionally caused in some way. To repeat a third time in this paragraph alone, such a claim has no baring on the Darwinian theory.

But again, this is not unlike Newton's theory either. Consider a pile of rocks at the foot of a mountain. To a physicist, some questions we can ask about the pile are going to be more relevant and/or answerable than others. The pile being at the foot is random in the sense that the rocks were not "seeking" something at the foot rather than the peak of the mountain.

But what caused the rocks to break loose and fall in the first place? Why did they break loose when they did rather than the day before? Why did exactly that much rock fall rather than a slightly smaller portion? The physicist simply places all such questions in a conceptual black box which he might call "random". The existence of this conceptual black box causes no stress for the physicist in the same way that the genetic black box doesn't worry the evolutionist. Sometimes things happen one way rather than another without having any baring whatsoever on the scope of the theory in question.

Let us go a little bit further, if only to handle a potential objection. Suppose that we get some funding and organize a search for evidence that somebody intentionally caused the rock to fall. Let us also suppose that some kids, in fact, did intentionally knock those rocks loose sometime in the past. Will our search turn up any evidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, the physicist isn't going to be all that worried about the legitimacy of Newton's laws of gravity.

In case you couldn't figure it out, that search party is the exact position in which ID researchers find themselves. They might find evidence that somebody has intentionally tinkered with life in the past. Maybe not. Either way, the biologist isn't going to be too worried about Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, just as our search party's not turning up evidence of the kids' activities doesn't prove that it didn't happen, so too the IDer's inability to turn up biological evidence of a Designers doesn't prove that there wasn't one either. Again, Darwin and Newton are in the exact same boat.

Rob --

The evidence indicates that life emerged over about 200 million years.

The how is fuzzy.

But, very simple forms emerged at the end of that period.

Scientific experiments show that a prehistoric primordial soup could create the building blocks for proteins which are essential to life. But, what they can't do is compress a couple hundred million years of activity.

But, the experiments do outline a plausible path to the creation of life.

Waving your arms and claiming that direct evidence of THE path means that the evolutionary path couldn't work is kind of silly. Gaps --- when factoring how much is clear --- do not undermine the theory.

As Jeff has indicated above, evolutionary theory does allow for the possibility that initial life came from somewhere else (Mars? Comets? God?). But, because of the passage of time, it is virtually impossible to identify the particular mechanism.


P.S. My friend, you continue to allege that there is no evidence of inter-species evolution. To anyone who has ever worked with fossils, that is just plain wrong. As I noted earlier, many of the dinosaurs can be traced from one species to another. Step by step by step by step. The record sometimes has gaps but the level of detail is significant. You can do so for sauropods, duck-bills and many other varieties.

er, ah...that last post was directed towards Steve.

Jeff,

Evolutionists always make their appeal to the unknown. They never appeal to the known because what is known doesn't fit with their theory. But what I find always amazing amongst evolutionists who also believe in the Creator is that ultimately they also have their appeal towards an intelligent cause even if they are unsure exactly "where" or "how" that fits in with their Darwinian views.

Darwin was ultimately trying to establish a theory that explained how complexity in life arose through the process of natural selection acting upon unintelligent causes in nature. Of course he could not see the intricate workings on the cellular level at his time let alone the fact that within those cellular workings was a material that was encoded with a digital language. What his entire theory would suppose is that the entire workings of the individual cell, including DNA, was the product of natural selection acting upon undirected and unintelligent events in nature. According to Darwinian evolution coupled with what we now know about the digital code DNA, the current evolutionary theory is that this digital blueprint for life arose slowly and steadily from a simple or primitive first protocell. But, evolutionist have to disregard the whole chiken and egg scenerio here because as everyone knows- DNA is also the blueprint for making the proteins themselves that duplicate and replicate the bluprint itself.

The identity of intelligence is communication ability. We know that a rock falling down a mountain conveys no intelligent information. We also know that lightning hitting a tree conveys no intelligent information. These are all well known facts found in nature. The cases where intelligent information is conveyed always comes from a source of intelligence itself. What we can ascertain from this is that intelligent bodies/entities, possess the power to convey intelligent information and produce intelligent processes. One of the tell-tale signs of intelligence is communication- "language". DNA is one of those observations of intelligence conveying language.

Darwinian evolution wants to desperately avoid this problem because it knows that there has never been any documented case of something intelligent arising from natural and unintelligent processes. So, they say all these "what ifs" and then claim them as evidence for how chemical evolution occurred. It's complete BS! You know, you guys say we appeal to "God" who is undetectable, and yet, you appeal to some made up law or circumstance that is also undetectable!

Isn't that a bit funny! I have read about numerous studies into AI. An AI programmers dream would be to truly create an AI capable of true intelligence. Of course this is impossible. Even with the greatest minds at work they cannot create a program that is truly intelligent. This ties in directly with how nature could have produced and started life. Many computer models have been made to show how it may be possible to generate new information from completely random events. But never has their programs ever created anying truly intelligent and novel on their own. From that angle alone we should be clued in on the fact that language- the communication capacity of intelligence, is not, nor ever was, the product of mere unintelligent operations.

Scientists tothis day are completely baffled as to how the structure of DNA arose. Sure they have a lot of what ifs, but no solid evidence. So, until they can prove it, it thus stands that intelligence only comes from intelligent causes directly preceding it.

Rob --

I think you just like to argue.

You claim scientists are "baffled" by how life arose. In truth, all kinds of theories have been advanced and a variety of experiments have been conducted.

What is missing is determinative evidence of which specific method started life. So far, the fossil record hasn't answered the question.

Big difference.

Of note, BYU scientists released a paper this week exploring the evolution of the HIV virus. They have done some great work on how it may have evolved in the first place and are exploring its further evolution. But, remember, the LDS Church fiercely opposes evolution even though they spend tithing money to research it.

Steve,

I really don't know how to be more clear ont he subject. It's kind of like adding simple numbers like 2+2=4.

Scientists are completely baffled as to how life arose (supposing it was purely all natural). How do I know this? It's pretty simple really. If they had a clue they could actually duplicate it in some tiny itsy-bitsy amount in the lab under controlled conditions. Guess what? They can't even do that! It's thus quite obvious that they don't have a clue as to how or even "if" life can arise out of nothing.

Just merely doing tests and proposing theories means absolutley nothing to the credibility of an idea if it brings forth no fruit to that desired result. Tell me Steve, how close are they ( the greatest minds on earth)to creating a simple life-form in the lab from nothing?

You always bring up your precious BYU argument. Guess what? Who really cares? BYU evolutionary scientists are no different than Berkeley evolutionary scientists. Who really cares? We all know that the official doctrine of the church is not taught in Evolution 101.

Rob --

Please outline for me how to create an experiment that can outline 200 million years of interaction of primitive seas, pools, cosmic bombardment, primitive atmosphere, etc.?

You are throwing out a canard. No one can duplicate that period of time directly.