An intelligent design think tank has launched a new website recounting the failures of Darwinism that were left unmentioned by study materials on a PBS documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial.
The Discovery Institute plans to post a slide show presentation critiquing the online materials from PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary on www.judgingpbs.com.
The presentation, entitled “Darwin’s Failed Predictions,” challenges an assertion made by PBS that evidence “unequivocally supports the theory of evolution by natural selection.”
"The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change,” according to Anika Smith, a contributor for the group’s Center for Science & Culture.
“Moreover, key postulates of Darwin’s theory – universal common descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology,” Smith added.
According to the website, some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:
• The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
• The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution
• The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent
• The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code
• The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
In addition to Judgingpbs.com, the Seattle-based group has published a briefing packet about intelligent design for teachers in response to a teacher’s guide on the documentary that was issued by PBS.
Experts at the Discovery Institute charged PBS with injecting religion in the classroom through the guide with questions such as “Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?”
The documentary, which first aired in November, follows the federal case where a group of parents challenged the Dover School District’s requirement of teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The judge ruled in favor of the parents.
Contributors at the intelligent design group have regularly pointed out inconsistencies to the documentary through its blog site evolutionnews.org.
Comments
its hard not to accept evolution with all the modern evidence
IDNO, I love how you say we did evolve, as if you went back in time and saw the primordial goo form the first cell, and then you saw it randomly mutate over the next billions of years. It is all fine and good to say the Discovery Institute has just put forth 100-200 year old information, it is another thing to prove it. Who said anything about a flat planet? People like to compare apples and oranges when making their points.
Dear readers: what the Discovery Institute (DI) has to say is not new, but a rehash of time-weary arguments for the existence of God which have been around for centuries. That you wish not to open your eyes and ears and explore the world you live in is your most unfortunate choice. There is a wealth of information that shows these points the DI makes have been disproven. Not so incidently, what exactly has the DI and its self-touted membership ever discovered? Nothing to date. They claim to do research but time and again its been shown to be inaccurate, unscientific in its approach, suspiciously uncertifiable. What the DI does excel in is quote mining, setting up organizations for falls, and peddling jibberish. They want a forum to peddle their ideas, free speech they claim, while they and their followers have trashed the name of the Smithsonian, and are trying to do the same at Iowa State. Free speech? Their adherents fired a long-time Texas educator for bringing to the science committee's attention that a speaker was a proponent of ID/creationism? They didn't jump to her defense in re free speech, now did they? Dear reader, the earth is not flat, and we did evolve.
galapagos,
I just wanted to comment on one thing. You said at the end that science can only use naturalistic explanations to explain things. (I have heard the same argument by historians who disagree with certain biblical accounts, but the evidence points obviously to the truth of the Bible) But what I want to ask is, if these disciplines rule out the possiblity of God doing anything, then they just turn a blind eye to the possiblity. For instance, lets just say that God did create the universe, and Christ did die and resurrect as the Bible account gives. Historians and Scientists would be forever unable to say that and only give the wrong answer for all eternity, that is silly.
What is more, if God came to earth and created a huge mountain in 5 minutes in front of 1 million people and then He left. The next day by your definition, scientists would have to say, "Well we know God couldn't have been the reason for this, now let's see how it might have came so quickly naturalistically" and then historians would have to say, "God did not come to earth and create this mountain because we can't say anything about God, probably the President built it yesterday"
My point is this, if science cannot answer these questions and will not, then why do I care, it is clearly biased and wouldn't (by its own definition) accept ID even if it was true.
I guess, ifeelfine, that I am an agnostic towards macroevolution. That just means I can't be 100% sure that it didnt happen. You know, I feel about the same about macroevolution as I would say of believing that nonliving matter randomly formed into a flying spaghetti monster (mind you it would have happened over billions of years!)
ifeelfine, I am not against evolution! I am 100% against atheistic evolution, naturalism, the idea that evolution happened randomly, without God. I am also highy suspect of macroevolution. ID means that you believe God created the world, you can be an ID proponent and say I believe in theistic evolution. But scientists will quickly point out that evolution (actually atheistic evolution) is based upon "randomness" and if God has a hand in it, then it is no longer evolution as they define. By the definition so-called scientists have given of evolution, it is impossible to believe in God and evolution, unless your god is not very powerful and actually useless.
Evolution does not scare me in any way, it is a theory without fangs. But the implications of atheistic evolution does scare me, and it scared Darwin as well. Why, because there is nothing in atheistic evolution to stop us from decimating other races because we deem them inferior.
The so-called predictions you list are not predictions, they are theories, theories that cannot be proven true. What homologies by the way? Between african apes and other apes? Or between African apes and people? What does that show? What kind of a prediction is that. Would I be an evolutionary genius if I "predicted" that my house cat and an african lion have certain similar traits?
As far as why do I believe in ID? Because I believe it fits the universe and life as an explanation far better than the evolutionary (atheistic) theory does. Apart from that why do I think it is necessary to believe in ID if you believe in God? Let's see, the alternative is a universe that happened completely by itself and life that randomly became more and more complex all by itself, and then we just say that God is nice for something else.
By the way, your or other scientists shear opinion that life might have spawned from different pools does not help your case. The chance of life happening randomly in one "pool" is already mathematically zero, so I guess random particles are pretty lucky at becoming life.
GMG, You have supported my point. As the definition says, "Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life," not the idea of spontaneous generation, which was the belief that "held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain." Only creationists try to connect the two.
And abiogenesis can be supported by evidence, as when early steps in the hypothetical process can be replicated in the lab, but it likely will never be proved or disproved. Nothing in science is ever "proved", because science is always open to new discoveries that could completely overturn current theories. Of course, these ideas have to be in line with scientific principles, and they must better explain the phenomenon being studied using only natural explanations.
Chris333 - The other question I have is why is believing in ID necessary to believe in God?
Chris333 - I aboslutely agree with your statement about the Bible but that isn't what literal means and when Christians debate other Christians they use that word like a weapon. Some Christians talk out of both sides of their mouths and this is one of those instances. "I take the Bible literally, but not really literally." It doesn't work both ways.
Evolution is not atheistic - it is science. It neither promotes nor denies the existance of a creator. I don't deny you ID as a system of belief (I hold to a theistic view of evolution - that God created the process of evolution to create everything - but I don't include that in my scientific worldview - just my Christian worldview).
What I meant by the common ancestor is they don't know for sure if the formation of life happened just once or if life formed more than once in the "primordial soup" as you called it.
Evolution makes tons of predicitons that have come true. Darwin himself predicted homologies with African apes and said that humans probably first evolved in Africa and he was right. ID makes no scientific predictions because its not science.
I am a Christian (although some might not think so because I believe in evolution) - well then I guess my United Methodist pastor isn't and neither was the one before him because they both know the scientific validity of evolution.
There is both the short simple answer as to why I am against ID being taught in science class and there is the more complex answer. The short answer is because it is not science - its not testable, it doesn't make predictions, there is no natural evidence to support it and there really isn't a scientific theory of ID.
Thank you for the prayers - I have many vices and plenty of sin in my life but this is not an area that anyone should be concerned about for me. I would challenge you to think about why ID is so important to you and why evolution scares you so much.
I have a serious question for you though ifeelfine, why do you deny ID? I think I have heard you say you are Christian before, or at least that you believe in God. I understand when atheists say it, because they have to defend their way of life and beliefs, but why are you against it? There is at least good reason to believe that even if God used some aspects of evolution for his method, it is obvious that it couldn't have happened randomly, and if you already believe in God, then why deny ID? Try to work it out and think about what the real issue for you in this is. I am praying for you.
By all means I do not propose a "God of the gaps" anymore than an atheistic evolution believing individual would say "I propose macroevolution of the gaps, if there is any discrepancy just say 'MUTATION'" You have misunderstood my comments. I do not know that I interpret the Bible the same as "the rest of us" either. When I say literal I mean that you can fully believe in the Bible, that every message within it has real ultimate and true meanings for us in it, and that the Bible is Historically accurate. As far as Creation goes, I do not believe that we must assume the 6 days mean actual days like the ones we experience now (after all the first day there was no sun so it couldn't have been the same as our days) However I would not say that any part of the Bible needs to be "reinterpreted" or remade into something that fits modern societies values or beliefs.
As far as telling me that I am wrong about evolution's claims of ancestors I don't see what you are telling me I am wrong about? Your statement seemed to suggest that there are both one and several ancestors? Originally there was only one, sure later (according to evolution theory) they broke off, but ultimately we came from the puddle of goo.
And finally I am a little confused by your last question. What do you mean by predictions? Is that predicting the future? Or predicting what we will find in the future? Or predicting something else? For that matter what predictions does atheistic evolution make? That some day the superior human race will kill off all the rest and then evolve into X-men? Or do you mean like that of Darwin who knew that the fossil record did not support his theory and he predicted that later discoveries would change that (but actually they didn't)? What is wrong with saying, "Right now due to the nature of the universe and complexity of life and the knowledge we have now, it seems the best answer is an intelligent force behind it, and we predict that later evidence will further corroborate this", as many have said?
What predictions does intelligent design make? Anyone? A true scientific theory makes predictions - what predicitions does ID make?
Chris333 - By the way, you are wrong. All living things might only have one ancestor according to evolution but there might be a few.
Chris333 - Finally an honest statement from you about the literalism of the Bible - you interpret scripture just like the rest of us. I don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old (I believe it is about 4.5 billion years old but not sure, would have to check the evidence). If someone did literally interpret the Bible I might have some respect for them but none of us do, some claim that they do but no one does. We all do the best we can and follow where the Spirit leads us.
I do have to say though what I find most insulting about the arguments you and others put forth regarding evolution is that you turn God into a "God of the gaps" and that takes the wonder and awesomeness of God out of the equation.
In any case, your most recent comment isn't evolution. Evolution isn't the study of "no life to life," it deals with the transition of life.
Hey hey, Question!
What is the difference in the probability of nonliving matter coming together to form life by itself and the same thing happening on the head of a pin? Trick question, they are both mathematically ZERO!