Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Education|Sat, Mar. 28 2009 04:10 PM EDT

Texas Board Approves New Standards Requiring Critique of Evolution

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

In a final vote, the Texas Board of Education approved on Friday new language that requires science teachers to encourage students to "critique" and examine "all sides" of scientific theories.

In adopting the new science standards, the board dropped a 20-year requirement that teachers address both the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. The vote was 13-2.

The new curriculum will be in place for the next decade.

"Texas now has the most progressive science standards on evolution in the entire nation," said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, in a statement. "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned."

Although critics of evolution praised the move, it wasn't a total victory for them.

The Board rejected two amendments that were written by Chairman Don McLeroy. They required students to study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection of species, according to The Dallas Morning News.

"Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this," said a disappointed McLeroy, as reported by the Dallas publication. McLeroy believes many aspects of Charles Darwin's theory are not supported by fossil records.

Pro-evolutionists were pleased with the decision to drop McLeroy's proposals. However, some questioned the board for adopting compromise language in the areas of fossil records and the complexity of the cell. New language also requires students to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning those two areas.

"Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks," said Kathy Miller, president of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, according to the Associated Press.

The newly adopted standard states: "In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Board member Barbara Cargill, however, said the new standards were "more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words" that helped convince the board to "agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence," as reported by AP.

Discovery Institute's West also responded to the concerns by pro-evolutionists, assuring them that the new curriculum does not open the door to teaching religion.

"Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes 'creationism' or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period."

The new science curriculum standards will take effect with the 2010-2011 school year. Texas is one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation and thus has significant influence nationwide as publishers adapt their material to its standards.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
  • Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Let's remember that evolution is a theory, so there will be segments of it that are in question. Still, the overall premise of natural selection and mutation has a mountain of evidence to support it, so we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Evolution is still the basis of biology as we know it and to science, it doesn't matter whether there is a Prime Mover behind it or not. His existence can't be proven, so He is irrelevant to the scientific method.

    Id's attempt to imject a "designer"- God- into the equation negates it as real science. The aim of ID is to support a literal interpretation of Genesis by "disproving" human ancestry as we understand it to have occurred through evolution. That's a religious goal, not a scientific one that should not be offered in science curriculum. Offer it as an elective humanities course, but don't be unfair to students by having philosophy masquerade as science. They should not be offered side by side for comparison because its a comparison of apples and oranges.
    Let each be taught separately on their won and evaluated on their merits, not on a very dubious comparison as equals.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    The compromise language is a perfect example of why the level of science education in the United States is in such a dismal condition, and it explains why science ignorance exists even on the Texas Board of Education.

    When creationism can <i>stand on its own</i> under a rigorous tests of the scientific method, then, and only then, should it be considered in a science class.

    However, if creation is allowed, then we should also consider astrology. That, too, is popular.

    There are over 4000 known religions in the world today, and each one, except for a few, have their own creation story. Which one is the true creation? Why, the one YOU were taught to believe, of course.

    What one believes to be the sacred truth of creation is a function of the religion into which one is raised, unless, of course, one is fortunate enough to receive a solid science education devoid of religious interference.

  • Mik »
    Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Evolution as a Science. I know these have been mentioned, but since they are basic laws of science I think they are worth repeating...

    "First Law of Thermal Dynamics:

    The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy.

    Although an argument can be made that the earth isn't a "closed system"; and as long as energy flows into such a system it can transform simple things into the more complex. Using this reasoning, the sun is decreasing in energy as it "burns up", but it increases the complexity of things here on earth.

    All observed cases in which complex things are derived from less complex things demand an already existing "machine" that is at least as complex as that which it produces. While this machine requires energy to do its work, energy by itself is not enough. Energy and raw materials, for example, are used in an automobile factory to make complex automobiles, but nothing would come of these resources were it not for the even more complex machines, designs, and intelligent workers associated with the factory.

    Second Law of Thermal Dynamics:

    The Law of Entrophy states that all elements and systems tend to disintegrate to a lower order of available energy or organization.

    en·tro·py definitions:

    The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

    Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

    Creationists are convinced then that there is a law against the
    theory of evolution -- the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists, on the other hand, continue to reject the idea that thermodynamics is in any way incompatible with evolutionary theory. They insist that creationists simply don't understand thermodynamics. But the great physical scientist Lord Kelvin, who was the very founder of the second law of thermodynamics, was a Bible-believing Christian and a creationist! Kelvin, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, was convinced that the science of dynamics was incompatible with evolution. In one of his published lectures, Kelvin said:

    "I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life
    on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of all
    sound speculation in dynamical science. The only contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life.""

  • Sun May 03, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hawk, sorry you feel that way but just to set the record straight

    I did not use "evolutionists sumaries" in my cites but rather web infor from CP DI and others of this type. These are hardly evolutionists sources. I presented quotes from Behe which are clear and unambiguous.

    You state I am using a simpleton understanding of information. Actually I did not use any particular understanding I simply pointed out that your statement could not be evaluated without defining the terms that you used in your unsupported assertion.

    Well in closing I hope my earlier discussion of logical argument has helped you to see the importance of testing the validity of premises and inferences in making or accepting conclusions.

    Be well

  • Sat May 02, 2009 11:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hello viking;
    you said: Given this I wonder if you really grasp ID the way Behe is arguing it?

    I grasp Behe's discussion of ID and common ancestry very well and comprehend the distinctions between ID of the DI and his personal preference to common ancestry. You are mixing apples and oranges. You'd have to actually read Behe's book to understand and critically think this one out. Using evolutionists summaries fall short for your purposes. Behe's leaning towards common ancestory is only an aside in his book and could have been left out altogether and not detracted from his subject for ID and limitations of evolution.
    Go to the DI site and seek the truth:
    "Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry, but it must be noted that intelligent agents commonly re-use parts that work in different designs. Thus, similarities in such genetic sequences may also be generated as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than by common descent. The NAS ignores this possibility and asserts that "[m]olecular biology has confirmed and extended the conclusions about evolution drawn from other forms of evidence." In fact, Darwin's tree of life-the notion that all living organisms share a universal common ancestor-has faced increasing difficulties in recent years."
    http://www.discovery.org/a/4405

    You're using a simpleton version of information that doesn't apply to DNA; The information model to use consists of Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics as discussed by Dr Werner Gitt, head of the department of Information Technology. I'd suggest you read his book, but since you haven't bothered to read Behe's I really won't expect you to read Gitt's work either.

    Your line of questioning is getting rather tedious since you offer nothing substantial to the discussion. Since you are unable to answer my original question regarding programming of the DNA for the bacteria flagella I do believe it is time to terminate this thread.

    Have a great Sonday and perhaps we can begin a discussion on another thread in the future.
    HAWK

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hawk if you do not accept Behe's conception of ID which includes (as I have shown by Quoting Behe himself as well as reviewers) Common descent and natural selection. Then could you tell me your personal model of ID.

    But if you are rejecting Behe and freinds models since they conflict with creationism then please don't try to convince me of something that you don't accept yourself.

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, you make the statement.

    There is no naturalistic answer to the creation and processing of information. Only an intelligent agent can create information and encode whether computers or DNA or architectural design

    This is of course a simple assertion for which you provide no evidence. But before we could even begin to evaluate this claim you would have to define what you mean by such terms as information and intelligent agent.

    For example if you define information as data organized and recorded by intelligent agents then of course you statement is true only due to circular reasoning. On the other hand if information is understood as it is in physics (see wikipedia's physical information) then your statement is clearly incorrect.

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk hi you state in response to my request

    you are confusing ID with other beliefs that Behe has made. Common ancestory is not part and parcel to ID so there is no conflict.

    The basis of my supposed confusion was the CP information on Behe's postion which I cited.

    On this topic in its review of Edge of evolution wikipedia states.

    Behe goes on to state his support for common descent and natural selection, but questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes.

    Here are some more direct Behe statements regarding common descent.

    "Let's acknowledge that genetics has yielded yet more terrific (and totally unanticipated) evidence of common descent.".

    And here are three pieces of evidence Behe offers as proof of common descent of hominids.
    1. vitamin C pseudogene: "Both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C." (71); "It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." (72)
    2. hemoglobine pseudogene: "More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from (...) a broken hemoglobin gene." (71)
    3. yeast whole-genome-duplication: "Although duplicated genes can be used to trace common ancestry" (74)

    Given this I wonder if you really grasp ID the way Behe is arguing it. It is clear he believes that all organism on earth descend from a common ancestor that speciation occurs through natural selection. The only real disagreement he has with Darwinian evolution is he holds that mutation is non random (that the mutations are guided by an intelligent designer) rather than random.

    Given this your assertion of support of ID (at least as Behe presents the concept) is in direct conflict with the creationist model which you also assert.

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    viking,

    The way I see it, we had a scientific revolution a couple centuries ago when we also entered the industrial revolution. A significant paradigm shift took place and 'material and energy' were the primary focus of both those revolutions.

    We are now into the 'Information Age' and that has become a third an equal factor along with 'material and energy' in our culture.

    There is no naturalistic answer to the creation and processing of information. Only an intelligent agent can create information and encode whether computers or DNA or architectural design. Biology and cosmology are now in the paradigm shift dealing with information.

    Human nature, however, is reluctant to accept the new paradigm if it has banked on the old paradigm (ie: Galileo dealing with his old paradigm peers and the church)

    As Russell Kirk wrote, one of conservatismâ

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    I believe you are confusing ID with other issues of science, such as common ancestry and age, etc. ID only looks for degrees of CSI with systems. ID also fits into creation science. Therefore, there is nothing I need to reconcile. You, however, need to really study what ID is; you will not find the truth at talkorigins.

    you owe me a response to my Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:17 pm post. If you are actually reading The Edge of Evolution you'll also find out how you've been duped about the e coli mutation issue being an example of macroevolution.

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    the e coli study is one of the "icons of evolution."
    the e coli scramble existing information, but does not program new information that was not in the e coli in the previous generation.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/01/31/observation-evolution-bacteria

    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

  • Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    you are confusing ID with other beliefs that Behe has made. Common ancestory is not part and parcel to ID so there is no conflict.
    I suppose you would have to demonstrate that ID incorporates in its definition that it has to include common ancestry.

  • Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi hawk, expanding my question on reconciling your positions here is material taken directly from CP info on ID from DI.
    Defining what biological evolution is
    There are three simple, but very different definitions of biological evolution. When speaking with people about the issue it is important to ask them which definition of evolution they are using.

    1) Change over time (even billions of years, most leading ID proponents believe the universe is billions of years old)
    2) Common ancestry, all forms of life evolved from a single original life form
    3) Natural selection acting on random mutation is the primary mechanism by which life forms have evolved.

    ID scientists do not have a problem with definition #1. There is some debate over definition #2, but it is not incompatible with ID.

    Since ID proponents accept 1 and do not dispute 2 then how do you reconcile your acceptance of "ID" and presumably the positions of its proponents with your assertion of perfect creation at the beginning.

    also by the way what do you mean by "perfect" that statement sounds more like a YEC position than an ID position?

  • Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk,
    The quote you give at 7:41 is demonstrated to be observably wrong by the long term ecoli studies project.
    I referenced this study earlier and you did not respond to it at that time.

  • Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk,
    obviously we disagree on several points.
    But more importantly it seems you disagree with yourself.
    you state.

    "I am convinced DI is on the only logical path with the current state of studies available at this time."

    In almost the next post you state.

    "I accept that God created all life perfectly at the beginning and did not need to tamper afterwards."

    Since ID as understood by its main proponents such as Behe accepts both natural selection and descent of species from common ancestors species how do you reconcile these two inconsistent statements?

  • Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking;
    Behe is a source of many. He has made an excellent inroad for the intelligent design theory. Here is another source discussing the peer reviewed limitations of mutations.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

    An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called "hot spots," and rarely occur in others, known as "cold spots." An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model.

  • Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,
    I agree with your first 2
    3. I hold that methodological naturalism (the scientific method) is a valid and rational approach to understanding the natural world. -
    I would modify this to emphasize that it is one of many methods and has its limits wrt historical and origin science.
    4. I hold there is no conflict or inconsistency between acceptance of scientific discoveries and belief in God. I would modify this to allowing the scientific interpretations be subject to natural and supernatural analyses.
    5. I hold that the synthesis of Mendelevium genetics and Darwinian evolution in modern molecular biology is the best current explanation of biodiversity on our planet.
    Biodiversity within kinds, yes; between different kinds, no. There is no Darwinian macro evolutionary process.
    6. I believe that our universe was created (unlike the above this is not a logical necessity but rather my personal belief)
    I believe this to be a logical necessity
    7. I believe that in its creation all of the natural laws and processes (including what we call quantum mechanics and evolution) were initiated with inevitable results, including life.
    I disagree, I believe only God created life, not natural laws and processes as an intelligent agent is necessary to create and program the DNA, etc.
    8. I hold that while natural processes are sufficient to explain the physical existence of human beings they are by definition incapable of explaining rationality, free will or identity. (even the materialists agree with this)
    Obviously, I disagree with the beginning phase of this.

    In a way you could say that I believe in a version of Intelligent Design. By this I mean that as stated in 7 above life including the species we see today are the result of natural processes which in turn were the result of an intentional and purposeful creation. It is just that my God is more clever than the Intelligent designer envisioned by Behe. My God does not need to tamper with his creation. The creation itself had from the beginning inherent within it the natural processes that would lead to a creature such as ourselves.

    I accept that God created all life perfectly at the beginning and did not need to tamper afterwards.

  • Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Viking,

    read pages 101-102 ...."on the other side are the examples of what random mutation and natural selection clearly cannot do...." then all of Chapter 5. Appendix C illustrates quite well design and purpose that neo-Darwinism lacks. This is based on examples we know.
    ID provides the best answer at this time due to the complexity of programming within the DNA; programming is produced only by intelligent agents.
    I am convinced DI is on the only logical path with the current state of studies available at this time. It appears more highly qualified evolutionists (or former evolutionists) are also convinced of DI's approach.

  • Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi again Hawk,
    I have really enjoyed researching some of the issues you have brought up.
    The more I read of ID as it is presented At DI etc. The more convinced I am of them pursuing a false lead. I am curious though about where we might diverge in our personal beliefs on these topics. To be clear let me state some of mine.

    1. I hold that it can be shown that philosophical naturalism (or materialism) is inherently self defeating and logically inconsistent.
    2. I hold that the only rational philosophical position is one of super naturalism.
    3. I hold that methodological naturalism (the scientific method) is a valid and rational approach to understanding the natural world.
    4. I hold there is no conflict or inconsistency between acceptance of scientific discoveries and belief in God
    5. I hold that the synthesis of Mendelevium genetics and Darwinian evolution in modern molecular biology is the best current explanation of biodiversity on our planet.
    6. I believe that our universe was created (unlike the above this is not a logical necessity but rather my personal belief)
    7. I believe that in its creation all of the natural laws and processes (including what we call quantum mechanics and evolution) were initiated with inevitable results, including life.
    8. I hold that while natural processes are sufficient to explain the physical existence of human beings they are by definition incapable of explaining rationality, free will or identity. (even the materialists agree with this)

    In a way you could say that I believe in a version of Intelligent Design. By this I mean that as stated in 7 above life including the species we see today are the result of natural processes which in turn were the result of an intentional and purposeful creation. It is just that my God is more clever than the Intelligent designer envisioned by Behe. My God does not need to tamper with his creation. The creation itself had from the beginning inherent within it the natural processes that would lead to a creature such as ourselves.

  • Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hawk, (post continued)
    However we do not have to go that far in reference to the question that you raise. In reading Behe's (and others) commentary on his own book (which again you referenced) I note that the edge Behe refers to in his title is what he claims is a limiting factor in the capacity of random mutation to produce genetic variability for natural selection to act upon. He indicates that the limitation on the capacity of random mutations is primarily one of the population of a species. He proposes that in general the larger the population of a species the more probable it is that random mutation will have the capacity to explain new genetic variability and conversely the smaller the population the less probable it is. He holds that at some lower limit the size of the population is insufficient to explain the mutations by random chance. He calls this the Edge. Even if we accepted this argument it does not support your proposition since the population of the bacterium in question during the time of its evolution would have been enormously large even by Behe's standards. And thus even applying Behe's argument once again your statement.
    "There is no naturalistic process that explains these phenomena. Mutation is totally inadequate as an explanation" would be incorrect.

  • Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hawk, I have not had the opportunity to fully read Behe's book yet. But I have read some of his commentary on his own work. Let me give you a quote of his which is sited of all places on the DI web site.
    "it is an extremely difficult evolutionary task for multiple required mutations to occur through Darwinian means, especially if one of the mutations is deleterious. And, as I argue in the book, reasonable application of this point to the protein machinery of the cell makes it very unlikely that life developed through a Darwinian mechanism."
    You will note that even Behe in commenting on his book which you cite as an authority for your position does not make the contention that you make that
    "There is no naturalistic process that explains these phenomena. Mutation is totally inadequate as an explanation"
    Rather Behe only claims that it is highly unlikely. He then based on his assessment of improbability (not impossibility of implausibility as you claim) moves to a presumption of a designer. However even if we accepted that random mutation is insufficiently probable to be accepted as underlying the subsequent process of natural selection from common ancestry (which Behe accepts)the leap to a designer is not logically justified. Routinely in science when a proposed process has been found to be inadequate to account for a result further investigation leads to the discovery of the actual natural process which produces the result. This is where the issues I raised regarding logical argument comes into play (If a=b etc.) Behe jumps to one possible solution to the "problem" of mutation being inadequate without applying the rules of logic to it. You could state his argument in short form as follows.
    P1. natural selection from common ancestors occurs
    P2. random mutation is improbable as a source of genetic variety for natural selection to operate on
    C1. new genetic variety for natural selection to select from must be the result of an intelligent intervening agent.
    As you can see even if the premises that Behe puts forth are correct (which has not been clearly shown) the conclusion is not a logical necessity.

  • Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking;
    So answer your own reworded questions. Explain the naturalistic process of placing the drill bits just at the precise position they are, consisting of the shape and material they are to do a specific job? One this a one time chance or multiple tries until the right combination was found? What was the decision process to decide it was the right combination? Explain just how the DNA was programmed to insert the connector proteins between the hook and the flagella. Explain how the DNA developed the control signals for the operation of the operons. There is no naturalistic process that explains these phenomena. Mutation is totally inadequate as an explanation.

    Do yourself a favor and read The Edge of Evolution to realize the fantasy you composed. The mirco evolution you discuss does not equate to macro evolution. The bacteria remain bacteria. The DNA changes do not constitute new, more complex coding, just rearranged and lost coding.

  • Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk hi
    You asked for a discussion of the programming or coding requirmeents for DNA to develop such a system. You ask "for instance, what is the naturalistic process to decide to create..." the way you frame the question itself betrays a prejudice in evaluating the possible process. You use the term "decide" implicating from the outset the action of an intelligent agent in this process by definition this excludes a naturalistic process which you supposedly are asking for. The answer to your question of course is that there is no such naturalistic process which "decides to do anaything. So by the framing of your question (rather than the facts of the matter) you preclude any possibility of an acceptable answer. You repeat this predeterminatio of outcome in you subsequent questions with the use of the terms "chosen" and "decided". That being said if you were to ask "How did the structure of the drill bit arise.." ond "How was the timing to place the drill bits into place established" these would be answerable questions.
    You follow with the statement "there is no known naturalistic process for accomplishing this type of programming" Itis interesting that you state this as a bald assertion without any supporting facts or demonstration. In fact this is quite incorrect. There is a known and demonstrated naturalistic process for the change of DNA over time producing successive changes int he DNA of a species resulting in specific structures being altered to take on new and different functions. This field is known as molecular evolution. Not only is the process of DNA changing over generations through mutation and selection well known the result of changes in DNA alleles consequently resulting in adaptive changes in the structure of bacteria has been successfully demonstrated through the long term E-coli experiments. These changes in alleles on DNA and functional structural improvements have been observed occurring through mutation and selection over the course of 40,000 generations. Occuring over only a few generations this is a short time compared to the millions of generations available for the flagellum to develop through the successive incremental changes described int he paper previously cited. While it may be difficult to imagine these types of changes in DNA resulting in highly complex and specific information through these processes once it is directly demonstrated through repeatable and verifiable experimentation it is absurd to expect rational persons to accept bald unsupported denials such as "there is no known naturalistic process for accomplishment of this type of programming.

  • Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    post didn't finish loading will complete tommorow night now

  • Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, Hope all is well with you on this wonderful Easter day. The day dawned bright, clear and crisp for our sunrise service here in Maine. Ok you asked for a discussion of the programming or coding requirements for DNA to develop such a system. You ask â

  • Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk49,
    thanks for recognizing my on point post and I hope you will note that the 6:30 am post was as indicated a by the way note not a diversion.

    In relation to the "logic methodology" this is not something that "I use" it is pretty basic stuff for determining if a conclusion is valid.

    For example a example that you might recognize is

    P1. a=b
    P2. b=c
    c1. a=c

    Now then if either of the premises is false then the conclusion is false that is why in mathematics we say If a=b and b=c then a=c (transitive property).

    However the validity of the premises does not guarantee the validity of the conclusion. In addition to the premises being valid the inference to the conclusion must be valid.

    For example
    P.1 some dogs have fleas
    P.2 prince is a dog
    C.1 Prince has fleas

    As you can see even if P1. and P2. are true the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Therefore we say that the conclusion is not justified.

    While these are simple examples this same evaluation of whether an argument or conclusion is valid can be applied to any topic including for example ID.

    By the way I am still not dodging the question you ask just trying to be clear on the fact that one of the problems with ID is that it is not as presented logically coherent.

    will address your response to the talk origins article in next post.

  • Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    going through the last few messages I noticed I missed one of your posts. Sorry about that. The talk.origins post of the bacteria flagellum. It's the same so-so story AO directed me to.
    It totally fails to discuss decision making and reprogramming the genetic codes of the DNA to build such a machine. Where is the discussion of the creation and assembly instructions???? How does naturalism solve this dilemma?

    BTW. Thanks for the insight to the logic methodology you use. Didn't work too well for this exercise. I am sure Dembski, Meyer, et al have addressed all legitimate concerns talkorigins and others may have raised. From the discussions of attack & defend I have come to the conclusion that much of talkorigins is disengenuous.

  • Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iff;
    Your concept of IR is flawed. Remove the rod and you have no baterial flagellum. Perhaps you remove the connector proteins between the hook and the flagella and you have no "propeller." IR works wonderfully for the BF.

    Have a blessed Good Friday and on Sonday thank God He has risen.

  • Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking;

    It is obvious the diversion tactic is due to being empty handed wrt the programming of the DNA to create the parts and assemble them into a marvelous machine.

    With every attack there is a response. Did you bother to compare Dembski's responses to these assertions by the evolutionists?

    That is your job since you bring the subject up, not mine. Have fun doing a true critical research of the issue.

    Have a blessed Good Friday and on Sonday thank God He has risen.

  • Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK: Most parts of the bacterial flagellum have uses in other similar bacteria which proves that it is not irreducibly complex.

  • Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk,
    Hi again also you may find this link helpful in regards CSI

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html

    This contains a fairly succinct analytic evaluation of Dembski's concept of CSI.

    have fun.

    By the way remember contrary to implicit claims by Behe, Dembski and others the validity of evolution does not and never has invalidated the existence of God.

  • Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hawk,
    Hawk thanks for responding. I accept that you are unfamiliar with inductive reasoning. Until you get up to speed on this you will just have to accept that your argument as presented is invalid. This aside lets go back directly to your question
    Ok I will address the bacterium flagellum directly by referring you to a comprehensive addressing of what you previously indicated did not exist. Specifically the whole argument that you present is base on the claim made by Behe and others that the bacterium flagellum is irreducibly complex and therefore that there is no possible evolutionary pathway(under the rules of evolution) by which the Bacterial flagellum could arise.
    By Behe and others own argument if a possible evolutionary pathway for the arising of the flagellum can be shown then the whole theory becomes bankrupt.
    So please read the article at this link
    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
    which shows authoritatively how the Bacterium flagellum could have arisen through evolutionary means. Remember before crying "well that's only speculation", that the claim that you and the ID proponents have made is not that an evolutionary path could not be proven. Rather you and the proponents have claimed that one could not even be conceived. Once you have made such claims as demonstration of the validity of the IC concept then your argument of course must live or die with the claim.

    When you are ready to understand inductive logic arguments and how to evaluate them I would be happy to direct you to some resources. i.e.

    P1. All dogs have fleas
    P2. Prince is a Dog
    C1 Prince has fleas.

    Argument invalid and conclusion unsupported because P1 can be shown to be invalid.

    By the way such logic has been used for thousands of years to successfully test the validity of inferential claims (which ID is full of.)

  • Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking;
    This is an interesting rabbit trail to divert from the primary topic of the bacteria flagellum.

    Perhaps you are using a special logic argument that I am not familiar with. If that is what the Premise 1, Premise 2 and Conclusion are then please excuse my ignorance, I have not been educated in this. Perhaps after we discuss the DNA and bacteria flagellum you can help me learn the forms of logic.

    Let's look at what you are trying to conclude.
    CSI goes beyond the one form known as irreducible complexity. Premise 2 says "one easily testable form of CSI". (You'll need to read The Design Inference to get a grasp of the subject and the full extent of CSI) to understand the other testable forms.
    1. In this matter of irreducible complexity the issue is specifically discussing biological systems, as the bacteria flagellum is the issue at hand.

    2. You do need to address the other testable forms of CSI with other designed systems.

    your conclusion:
    "If an object is designed it will be irreducibly complex" is false. It should read;
    If an object is designed it will contain a high level of CSI, (Premise 1) and may be irreducibly complex (Premise 2).


    Now it is time for you to refocus on the bacteria flagellum which you said you were going to answer.

  • Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk Hi thanks for responding and restating the argument in a classical form so that it can be evaluated for validity. As you know an argument is valid only if the premises are valid and the conclusion follows logically.
    So lets see how this argument holds up.
    Lets look at the first premise and to the extent possible in terms of contexts that ID has itself commonly used.

    Premise 1. "Designed objects contain high levels of complex and specified information (CSI)"

    To evaluate this premise we must be able to identify CSI. According to the statement in your premise 2 "one easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity". To know if an object is irreducibly complex we must define irreducible complexity. I will use the definition you give in premise 2
    "they (the objects) require all of their parts to function"

    Ok. So taking this together in order for Premise 1. in your argument to be valid the following must be true.

    Designed objects must contain CSI
    The presence of CSI can be identified by the presence of irreducible complexity in the objects
    If an object is designed it will be irreducibly complex.

    Therefore if we can show that a known designed object is not irreducibly complex then premise 1. as you have stated is false and the argument is invalid.

    So how will we know from observation whether an object is irreducibly complex. Well according to your statement if we can take away a part from an object and it can still function then it is not irreducibly complex and according to premise 1. not designed.

    Clearly we can think of thousands of household objects that are human designed where we can remove parts and the object still functions.

    Therefore Premise 1. as you have stated it is invalid. Therfore the argument as you have stated it is invalid and the conclusion unsupported.

    However we can invalidate Premise 1. even more directly with a designed object that is irreducibly complex. I give you "the Wheel" clearly this is a designed object and yet no one would try to claim that a wheel contains information which is complex and specified.

    Once again premise 1 is invalid and therefore the argument is invalid and the conclusion is unsupported.


    Therefore ID is logically invalid as you have presented it.

  • Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk
    thank you for responding with your restatement of the argument I will respond this evening
    Math,
    Hi thank you and glad to here you are not a zombie (if you know what I mean)

  • Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    Thank you for helping me understand. I agree with your argument from rationality. It seems it can only be one of those two possibilities, and the naturalistic view seems to be self-defeating.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iff

    I suggest you go to your own Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:54 am post and see where the original text came from :-)

    You said:

    Hawk: Give me an example of irreducible complexity (IC). The bacterial flagellum? The hallmark of IC in the past? Nope, its been shown how it evolved. The eyeball, yet another past hallmark for IC? Nope, that one's been shown to have evolved as well. As a Christian, it is very dangerous to hang your hat on Intelligent Design because what happens is you create a "God of the gaps" and pretty soon there are no more gaps for Him to hide . . . I don't know about you but my God is bigger than that.

    I followed with asking for the proof by stating:

    iff72,

    The bacterial flagellum? The hallmark of IC in the past? Nope, its been shown how it evolved.

    Where's the proof?

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking;

    Premise 1. Designed objects contain high levels of complex and specified information (CSI)
    Premise 2. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
    Conclusion: Therefore through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK: Earlier you said "The bacterial flagellum? The hallmark of IC in the past? Nope, its been shown how it evolved."

    Now you seem to be changing your tune and saying exactly what I said before (that the bacterial flagellum was a hallmark of ID and IC specifically) - I don't mean to put you on the spot but do you care to explain?

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathetes,
    Hi thanks for the clarifying question. I put the question that way only because of the seeming rejection by ID proponents of the possibility you articulate. As a person who accepts evolution in a theistic context and in the context of a created universe (although that last is a personal belief not one that arises as a necessity of a supernaturalist or theistic world view) I believe personally that what you describe is in fact the most likely of possibilities. That being that the Universe at its initiation had certain characteristics set into it that ultimately resulted through the natural processes to bring about the current state of affairs. That amongst other things these characteristics include Quantum physics and evolution. However I do not contend that the universe or any examination of the external universe does or can prove the existence of the Supernatural or God. Rather I hold as a logical necessity that if you believe you are a rational being with the capacity for intentionality then you must logically reject philisophical naturalism. Contrarily if you accept philisophical naturalism you must also accept that you are not rational, free willed nor have any true identity as a self.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ok hawk I have taken some time to review the material you directed me to. Also reviewed in more depth than in the past the premises of ID. In so doing it became clear that the fundamental argument of ID is that the existence of Irreducible complexity is by implication evidence of design because we see irreducible complexity in objects that we know from direct experience are designed (i.e. mousetrap)

    Here is the argument as I understand it presented classically

    Premise 1. Designed objects demonstrate irreducible complexity
    Premise 2 There is no conceivable way that irreducible complexity could occur in non designed objects
    Conclusion Therefore any object in which we find irreducible complexity is designed

    Before we proceed further please let me know if this is not correct in describing the argument and modify it for me in the form of a logical argument as above if it needs revising.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,

    your search can begin with Minamino and Namba. Self-assembly and type III protein export of the bacterial flagellum. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 7:5-17, 2004

    Later

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    I do believe your focus is on the wrong topic at hand. ID is used to evaluate the object of study (DNA in this case) not to evaluate the intelligent agent. The study is on the creation, not the Creator. The DNA is physcial loaded with language. That is measureable and determinable.
    The answer for ID is not due to the lack of an evolutionary explanation but due to the positive correlation with our activities and events of our known world, along with irreducible complexity, etc.

    There are loads of references to the following except to satisfy your questioning.
    "Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause.

    Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences. ID thus is based upon the claim that there are "telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

    Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent agents. Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that "[t]he principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice." When "an intelligent agent acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities" to create some complex and specified event. Dembski calls ID "a theory of information" where "information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation." ID thus seeks to find in nature the types of information which are known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence.....
    http://www.discovery.org/a/7051

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, thanks for taking it in the right spirit.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, Steve, Hawk:
    Thanks for your civil discussions; I almost always learn something when you post.

    Viking, I have a question about something you posted: "Describe for me the specific mechanisms or instrumentalities by which the "designer" intruded into the natural world to bring this about."

    I may be mistaken, but your request seems to assume the designer is working in an already existing universe, as opposed to designing + implementing at the beginning. ID tries to remain separate from
    any religious idea of "God" so I'm not invoking Him, but your request does seem to impose limitations on what answers you would accept.

    I too must go to work, but I look forward to reading more of this discussion late tonight.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk,
    thanks for responding. I must go to work now but please check back later. I would like to respond to your specific on flagellum and Behe's assertion. In the meantime could you help me out by identifying the specific mechanisms and evidence of such for a designer to accomplish the following that you raise.
    For instance, what is the naturalistic process to decide to create the drill bits, place them at the end of the rod to bore through the cell walls. How was the shape and structure of the drill bit chosen to bore through the tough cell wall surface via a naturalistic process? How was the timing to place the drill bits into place decided and coded

    Please don't beg the question by simply saying it must be because it couldn't have happened through evolution. Describe for me the specific mechanisms or instrumentalities by which the "designer" intruded into the natural world to bring this about. When a human for example designs and builds a car there are specific instrumentalities of that process.(i.e. blueprints that are seperate from the object itself DNA doesn't count since it is part of the item not a seperate design plan, etc.)
    see you later.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    As far as the link I gave steve I was only acting as an agent to help him along his exploration if he were interested. I have just a passing interest in this field.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    dynamic processes of physics, chemistry, biology????

    How about a discussion of the programming, or coding, requirements for DNA to develop such a system with all the intricate movers, sorters, builders, etc.
    For instance, what is the naturalistic process to decide to create the drill bits, place them at the end of the rod to bore through the cell walls. How was the shape and structure of the drill bit chosen to bore through the tough cell wall surface via a naturalistic process? How was the timing to place the drill bits into place decided and coded.
    There is no known naturalistic process for accomplishing this type of programming?

    As Behe noted, there is no serious evolutionistic explanation for this mechanical marvel.

    This is a sure sign of irreducible complexity and an intelligent agent for the complete system.

  • Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steve,
    that's a shame. I did do my research on the bacteria flagellum, not on earth science. Funny how you can discuss biological features about ancestry but not about the coding of DNA. Incorporating the factor for intelligence within a naturalistic framework is foreign. I was ready to then discuss ID and the Devil's Postpile.
    Take Care
    Hawk

  • Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The answer to Richards "Is there Merit" question is that if there is any it is not to be found in this article or any like it.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links