http://statenews.com Dr. Kenneth Miller is a biologist I admire for his work promoting evolution and debunking creationism. However, he also encourages public acceptance of evolution by arguing, unconvincingly, that it’s compatible with religious belief. en-us Foundry4 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:16:30 -0400 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:58 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13864/view Ken Miller is a highly respected evolutionary biologist, and a practicing Roman Catholic. He manages to reconcile science and religion. Thus, the two can be reconciled. Not everyone insists that religion and science must be understood by the same terms and in the same ways. Bice makes his usual error of assuming that “religion” is the same thing as “fundamentalist religion”. This is a major error, and shows just how childish Bice’s understanding of religion is. Indeed, I would say that his understanding of the subject is on par with a typical fundamentalist Christian. I work in an evolutionary biology lab. I am a practicing Unitarian Universalist. My present and past co-workers in the lab have included devout Hindus, Catholics, Jews, Pagans, and Muslims. I my time working in science, I have known other very good scientists of a variety of other religions, including atheists and agnostics of various flavors. Indeed, my masters thesis advisor was a practicing Protestant Christian. None have had the slightest problem reconciling their scientific understandings and religious beliefs. These facts, if nothing else, put the lie to Bice’s point. Science is a different way of understanding the universe than is religion. To insist this is not so, and then to require harmony between the two in order for religion to be considered a legitimate way of viewing the world is the hight of lunacy. This column displays all that I find appalling in Bice and the “New Atheists” he represents. There is poor understanding of those of different religious perspectives, arrogance, disrespect, outright bigotry, and rhetoric that serves only to inflame existing tensions between those of religious perspectives that currently and needlessly exclude science, and scientists. All it does is reinforce the idea in their minds that science is completely incompatible with their belief. It says something quite disturbing that Bice and his position that he decided to spend an entire column essentially attacking and alienating a natural ally because he isn’t sufficiently ideologically pure. What does that accomplish? I beg you: please stop this. As an evolutionary biologist, I earnestly hope for improved understanding of evolution in this nation and others, and do my best to work for that. Bice and others of his ilk just make my job, and the jobs of others like Dr. Miller and MSU’s own Dr. Robert Pennock (himself a devout Quaker), that much harder. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:29:18 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13864/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13866/view Ehhh, Bice is a tool. Plain and simple. He is full of hatred and a complete misunderstanding of religion. But he has a cool pair of sunglasses now… Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:27:51 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13866/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13867/view The religious are very good at deluding themselves. That’s how Miller and others can reconcile science with their beliefs. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:11:31 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13867/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13869/view Did anyone else notice that Mel didn’t address one point from the column … he just went off a personal attack on the author. Interesting. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:16:34 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13869/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13871/view Bice’s column attacks his interpretation of Catholic beliefs using his idea of what religion must be. I respond to his attack in general and his approach to religion and its relation to science. I am not in a position to defend specific Catholic beliefs because I am not Catholic. I will leave that to Catholics who wish to post. I can say that part of Bice’s problem is that he thinks that religious statements and texts should always be read in the same manner as science texts. That is really a very radical position that is pretty much identical to fundamentalist religious opinions, and Catholicism is not a fundamentalist religion. Consider this, his arguments have no merit as actual critiques of the religion. Besides, my bigger difficulty with Bice is he seeks here, as always, to conflate science with his rather fundamentalist, evangelical version of atheism, and that just makes it harder for scientists to obtain public acceptance and understanding of science. Don’t you care about that, amused? Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:37:01 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13871/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13873/view This was a rather weak article, I must say. Mr. Bice presented his argument that if both God and evolution existed, God must be terrible because evolution contains suffering (via natural selection). Then Mr. Bice went on to say that God doesn’t exist at all, thus rendering his previous argument useless. I understand Mr. Bice’s point of view; it is very rational in a sense. I myself have doubts about the Catholic belief of an “Immaculate Conception.” However, Mr. Bice continues his delusion based on a terribly weak scientific pretense. There has never been a single piece of evidence that evolution occurred on a macro level. Species evolved from one species to another? Not one iota of scientific evidence. Does similarity of design prove a common ancestor or a common designer? Did the pot evolve from the teaspoon? In my opinion it takes more faith to be an atheist. I feel sorry for Mr. Bice, in a way, because he makes his atheist vision a reality by rigorously excluding all supernatural factors in solving problems. Atheism, like communism, is a simple rational faith. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:58:26 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13873/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13875/view Dan, regardless of Bice’s lack of understanding of religion, evolution has happened, and continues to happen. Far from there being no evidence of evolution or speciation, there is an abundance of evidence. There are literally millions of pages of findings and data regarding this from almost a hundred and fifty years of work since Darwin to be found in scientific journals in the MSU library. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of more pages of new research, so of which occurs on campus, are added each year. Before you make sweeping statements you, like Bice, should think and read a bit more. Of course, Dan, you could always resort to your old standby of plagiarizing and misappropriating Robert Jastrow’s words… Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:35:20 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13875/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13876/view Mel writes, “Bice’s column attacks his interpretation of Catholic beliefs using his idea of what religion must be” No, he simply help up Catholic beliefs for scrutiny. Mel continues, “I will leave that to Catholics who wish to post. I can say that part of Bice’s problem is that he thinks that religious statements and texts should always be read in the same manner as science texts.” Atheists often take religion more seriously than the religious, and that’s what really annoys them. The catechism is the official summery of Catholic beliefs. Catholics are actually expected to believe that nonsense, and people have been excommunicated, or killed for disagreeing. Mel writes, “Besides, my bigger difficulty with Bice is he seeks here, as always, to conflate science with his rather fundamentalist, evangelical version of atheism, and that just makes it harder for scientists to obtain public acceptance and understanding of science. Don’t you care about that, amused?” Yes I do. It’s possible that coddling religious belief may be better for acceptance of science. But in the long term it may be better to break the tendency for believes to think that science must pass a religious test. We ought to be saying, “evolution is a fact, religion isn’t a consideration,” instead of vapidly asserting “evolution is just the way god made life.” That’s all for me … Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:39:51 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13876/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13878/view If i read correctly, the main point of his article is to use the problem of evil to disprove a creator. I just had a lecture on this so I will use my lecturer’s arguments. First you must ask, who is entitled to ask the question: why do bad things happen to good people? Only people who can agree with the following: God exists, God is all good, God is all knowing, and God has the ability to control every situation. If you do not agree with one of the aforementioned premises, you have no right to ask the question as your answer will become circular. as it says in our texts “God formed light and created darkness”. What does this mean? In the spiritual world only light exists, so God formed it onto our physical world. But there was no darkness in the spiritual world so God created it for the physical world. Keep in mind that light represents all things good and darkness represents all things evil. So why did God create this darkness, evil? God realized that in the physical world, we cannot see light if we cannot see darkness. He created the darkness so we can appreciate the light. You may ask, how can something pure (God) create something impure (evil), or vice versa? Let us use the metaphor of oranges and their seeds. You eat an orange, so sweet, but their seeds are so bitter. But they need each other to survive. This teaches us everything in humanity, even if it appears to contradict, is all connected. Nothing in the entire world is only good or only bad. So now we know why there is evil in the world in general, but why do good things happen to bad people? 3 reasons: 1)reasons of past 2)reasons of present 3)reasons of future Reasons of past is pretty simple. Someone may appear to be a good person from afar, but really is a bad person, and results in the bad thing happening to them. Reasons of present means something you thought was bad that happened turns out to be good. Like, you get a traffic ticket and miss your flight, but it turns out your flight crashed. Reasons of future is hardest to conceive. Just because someone deserves something, presumably good, doesn’t mean they should receive it. Temporary suffering can help a good person in the long run. Pregnancy is an example. Women suffer temporarily but receive a much greater prize in the long run. The point is that all suffering happens for a reason, whether we conceive that reason at the moment or not. You can look at the world as junk, or as an opportunity to improve oneself. Why is Joe always poor, no matter how hard he works? Joe is poor so that we have the opportunity to help him. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:24:08 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13878/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13881/view Hey, amused, you and John Bice both talk about religion like fundamentalist Christians talk about science…neither you nor them understand what you are talking about, but you are so sure you are right about everything, you never stop to think about that. I really hope we never see countries led by atheists like you or Christians like them. We would be in trouble either way, ‘cause I could see concentration camps with both. They would imprison those who aren’t like them, and you will imprison those who are not like you…all for the safety of civilization… Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:14:09 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13881/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13882/view “We ought to be saying, “evolution is a fact, religion isn’t a consideration,” instead of vapidly asserting “evolution is just the way god made life.”” I don’t believe in God, so I don’t say that. What I do say to people who hold that there is a creator is that evolution is a fact. I don’t then say, “so your beliefs are bunk”, as you and Bice seem to like to. I tell them the truth: the findings of science don’t rule out the existence of a god or a creator or whatever – believe what you find you must – but they do rule out particular beliefs regarding the state of the universe. They can either accept that or not. The findings of science say nothing beyond that. The methodological naturalism of science does not compel those who accept it to also accept a purely naturalistic metaphysics or religious view. To say otherwise is make a separate, and really quite religious, one way or the other, statement with a host of assumptions. Whichever way you go on that, you need to accept that you are, in fact, making assumptions, and thus should be tolerant of those who make other assumptions (to the extent they are willing to be tolerated, and within the bounds of non-violence). “Atheists often take religion more seriously than the religious, and that’s what really annoys them.” That is, bar none, one of the most asinine and arrogant statements I have ever read. Fundamentalist atheists fundamentally and, I think, intentionally misunderstand the variety of religious belief that exist. Instead, they simply have decided, it seems, that all religious texts should be read literally, and that all persons who are religious hold the same beliefs as Jerry Falwell. That is incorrect and ignorant. To insist otherwise is to simply revel in your own ignorance. Traditionally, religions have been metaphorical. Myths are not supposed to be read as literally true. The idea that Genesis, for instance, is supposed to be read a literal description of the creation of the universe is really rather recent. You shouldn’t forget that. To ignore the fact that a great many religious people are not literalists, but to insist that the beliefs or texts of those people be considered as though they are literal is ridiculous, in addition to be very inconsiderate and rude. I don’t see why I am bothering. You don’t care. You, like Bice, and Falwell, and Robertson have decided you are right, and that is that. No further thought necessary, and certainly no tolerance, acceptance, or understanding. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:33:08 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13882/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13886/view Bice’s article is not about the incompatibility between religion and science, or how people achieve it, rather about the lack of compatibility between empiricism and religion when it’s indispensable to science. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:09:08 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13886/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13890/view “The methodological naturalism of science does not compel those who accept it to also accept a purely naturalistic metaphysics or religious view. To say otherwise is make a separate, and really quite religious” Unless I read the column incorrectly, the writer never suggested that science positively disproved religion. He wrote, “there’s nothing contradictory in saying that a vaguely defined supernatural entity used evolutionary processes to create life. However, Miller is a practicing Roman Catholic, and conflicts do emerge when considering specific theology.” His point simply seemed to be that evolution does undermine specific Catholic beliefs which are, at least up to this point, taken literally by the church, such as original sin and immaculate conception. “I don’t see why I am bothering. You don’t care. You, like Bice, and Falwell, and Robertson have decided you are right, and that is that. No further thought necessary, and certainly no tolerance, acceptance, or understanding.” Someone protests too much. You’re sounding pretty sure of yourself there buddy — like only you have the answers — not a lot of tolerance, acceptance or understanding :-) Apparently, anyone who doesn’t see things your way is a “fundamentalist” who lacks your enlightened understanding of religion. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:25:39 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13890/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13892/view Just because Bice doesn’t get it and Darwin didn’t get it, doesn’t mean there is nothing to get. Bice’s obsession with disproving or “debunking” religion is really absurd. He resents religion or even spirituality. If someone believes in religion what bust their bubble, or even try. Let it be man. What are you and your superiority complex trying to prove? We know you THINK your better and smarter then everyone, what else is there. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:47:17 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13892/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13895/view The lady doth protest too much, methinks. If that line is, in fact, what you were referencing, thank you, methodological naturalism, for actually understanding it. It is very often misinterpreted (and misquoted). Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:44:01 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13895/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13901/view “Someone protests too much. You’re sounding pretty sure of yourself there buddy — like only you have the answers — not a lot of tolerance, acceptance or understanding :-) Apparently, anyone who doesn’t see things your way is a “fundamentalist” who lacks your enlightened understanding of religion.” As to the statements I made that the above is in reply to, I was a bit out of line due to frustration (it was very late), and I apologize. However, I don’t think the reply is correct. I don’t have all the answers. I simply try to keep that in mind, and not convince myself that I do. I don’t think that makes me enlightened. Others have religious views that differ from mine. So? I just try to keep in mind that history has taught that intolerance breeds more intolerance, and that, in this area, intolerance of any religious beliefs aside from atheism has been terribly destructive in trying to get significant numbers of religious persons to even consider understanding evolution or certain other aspects of science. There is a myth that acceptance of science requires atheism, and it isn’t true, and that has to be fought if we decide that teaching science is more important than ideological purity. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:26:06 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13901/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13904/view Just a few clarifications. (and I can’t speak for Catholicism as I am not) Christianity does posit that the effects of the Fall into sin were both spiritual and physical. Genesis states that God cursed the ground, meaning physical corruption, suffering and death as well as moral. Whether you appreciate that explanation of the Christian worldview is up to you, but orthodox Christianity does provide explanation for it. Secondly, speaking on the “facts” of evolution must be done wisely. I grant as a scientist, real and true observations (“facts” if you will) of 1) Descent with modification: like begets like with some reshuffling, 2) Random mutation: meiotic or otherwise reproductive DNA replication is not always perfect, and very rarely results in selective benefit, like antibiotic resistance, 3) Natural selection: certain traits or phenotypes are preserved in the gene pool due to selective advantages or adaptations to habitation, limited resources or competitors/predators, and 4) Homology: similarity of phenotypes which are at least partially explained by genetic similarities between species. The more tenuous “theory” part is 5) Common descent, which has very little evidence (disagreeing phylogentic trees based on molecular or phenotypic markers, abysmal paucity of transitional fossils (archaeopteryx and tiktaalik quite alone, abysmal paucity of tenable mechanisms for molecular evolution, Miller-Urey experiment: quite intelligently designed… among other problems). And with ID theory knocking on the door (ala Kuhnian paradigm shift) Darwinists are tripping over themselves to 1) conflate ID as creationism, which its not and 2) redefine “science” as metaphysical or methodological naturalism. Frankly, yes, if one assumes an a priori limitation on causation, then yes, Darwinism is your best bet, from a purely naturalistic perspective. But when molecular evidence of irreducible and specified complexity clearly present a probabilistic chasm between what we see in biology and what “mindless, unguided” processes can actually produce, then such an a priori limitation becomes less and less attractive. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:37:16 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13904/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13906/view Two other points of irony: Ken Miller’s attempts (feeble though they were) to falsify the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum would suggest that ID is falsifiable, something many naturalists claim ID is not. Also, Ken Miller’s pleading before the AAAS that co-option of the “design inference” is preferable if scientists are to win the battle in the public eye… this tactic by Miller is quite telling. But then theres the nasty semantic problem of explaining away the teleological connotations that are inherent to anyone’s concept of “design”. Miller just might be a liability to “true science”. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:43:17 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13906/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13910/view No mention on Islam?.... Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:40:39 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13910/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13920/view Josh: Where did you copy all that from? All I need to know is which process, evolution or ID will help my get a cheeseburger faster and I aint’ got all day to wait. So far praying hasn’t worked and the brick I put between the sandwich buns is still a brick. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:23:20 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13920/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13921/view beau, I, unlike others on these forums, write my own stuff from my own wrestlings with the topic. You can Google-check phrases if you’d like. Web-plagiarism is rampant these days… Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:32:12 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13921/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13927/view Josh, Do you buy your tickets yet for “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”? Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:09:16 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13927/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13928/view *did Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:09:40 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13928/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13929/view Josh, The IDists already “conflated” ID with creationism with that cut and paste job a few years back in “Of Pandas and People”“: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.” And you wanted that book taught in schools? Sheesh. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:21:15 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13929/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13935/view I’m glad ISLAM was not mentioned or we would issue a fatwa and heads will literally roll. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:11:22 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13935/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13937/view Josh: Cool on the verbage, sorry about you losing the wrestling match though dude. Maybe you can make it two out of three. Bice most likely will be up for it. Ciar: Never tried rolling a head, bet it takes too much weed and hard to keep from spilling your stuff all over the place. Might consider it during Cedar Fest. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:32:11 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13937/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13944/view Mr. Bice, please take a new picture without the sunglasses. You look like a complete tool with them on. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:15:15 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13944/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13950/view “The more tenuous “theory” part is 5) Common descent, which has very little evidence (disagreeing phylogentic trees based on molecular or phenotypic markers, abysmal paucity of transitional fossils (archaeopteryx and tiktaalik quite alone, abysmal paucity of tenable mechanisms for molecular evolution, Miller-Urey experiment: quite intelligently designed… among other problems).” Little evidence only if you decide to either deliberately ignore the findings that have been published in the last few decades or else, as is so common with creationists, revise your criteria for transitional data or fossils whenever new ones are presented. As for not having sufficient explanations for aspects of molecular evolution or chemobiogenesis, that is a poor argument given the nascent state of our study into those problems. Come back in a thousand years and see what we have found then… As for the intelligent design of the Urey-Miller experiment…yeah, it was intelligently designed. All experiments are (save for the ones that we sometimes design incompetently), as it requires intelligence to set up any experiment. However, the object of any experiment is to set up conditions under which you can see how nature behaves. Urey and Miller set up their experiment to see what chemistry would take place under the conditions of the early Earth. They used their intelligences to set up those conditions, but that does not say anything about any intelligence behind the original occurrence of those conditions on the early Earth. As it happened, from what I understand as I haven’t read into this much (my area is experimental evolution with bacteria, and not chemical evolution), Urey and Miller’s experiment is invalid at this point so far as replication of the early Earth goes, given that new findings have indicated conditions were different than they thought. However, their experiment is still valuable in that is shows how complex organic chemistry can develop from a simple set of ingredients and conditions. As for ID knocking, please keep in mind that ID was the dominant paradigm that was overthrown by Darwin and the theory of evolution by natural selection that he presented. It is an old idea. It is not new. It is also dead. Given that you are clearly a practicing Christian, I would recommend you seek out some of Francisco Ayala’s writings that go into how ID not only fails on scientific grounds, but also on religious grounds, as it leads to very, very poor theological conclusions about the nature of any deity or creator. Yes, science excludes the supernatural from the formulation of causative hypotheses. This is called “methodological naturalism”. Science would not work if the supernatural were added as a possible explanation for phenomena. This has been a very fruitful way of proceeding with the business of trying to understand how the universe behaves. However, acceptance of science and methodological naturalism does not compel elimination of the supernatural from one’s own particular metaphysics or religious understanding of the universe. It doesn’t require acceptance of the supernatural, either, of course. Science is neutral on that matter, and rightly so. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:34:44 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13950/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13965/view Mel, As I said before… “tripping over themselves…”. “please keep in mind that ID was the dominant paradigm that was overthrown by Darwin and the theory of evolution by natural selection that he presented.” So you’re telling me they had notions of molecular data like DNA structure and coding as well as multi-protein complexes in Darwin’s day? …because these are the hallmarks of ID theory. So you’re either ignorant about what ID is or willfully dishonest about its main tenets, which is it? Straw men are fun to push down, but only for so long. ”Given that you are clearly a practicing Christian, I would recommend you seek out some of Francisco Ayala’s writings that go into how ID not only fails on scientific grounds, but also on religious grounds, as it leads to very, very poor theological conclusions about the nature of any deity or creator.” Creationism is a nice theological position, but it’s not science. It’s based upon a religious text. ID deals with molecular evidence and probabilities in science, not religious texts, therefore ID is not creationism. Deal with the evidence. At least Miller has my respect for taking a jab at it… only thing is, he implicates ID’s (at least potential) falsifiability in the process, which is not a problem for ID, but for the smoke screen Darwinists are throwing up. I’m sorry you or Ayala can’t reconcile theology with ID, that’s not really a scientific problem. But I would assure you it’s not a theological problem either. I’ll even concede that Darwinism has been a good theory; the assumptions of common descent are consistent with common design and so the technological advancements and research methods in genomics and molecular biology have not suffered under it. But just like Newtonian mechanics was a good theory for a time but eventually gave way to Quantum mechanics, so Darwinism can be viewed as a good and even helpful theory for its time in many respects, while likewise not being totally correct. That’s just progress; better ideas start with conflict (Galileo, Bohr/Einstein… Behe?) Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:10:17 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13965/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13966/view True, science and religion don’t mix well. Of course if a scientist wants to be religious, he/she is free to do so. HMMM! We haven’t changed much since the Galileo trial of three to four centuries ago as I can see. However, science has so far failed to answer our ultimate question: How life started and evolved to become us? The greatest mystery. And I doubt science will ever be able to answer that. I can’t. Much less Mr. Bice. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:14:19 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13966/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13974/view Josh, it is clear you have read a lot of ID tracts and proselytizing. I recommend you go to the MSU library, and spend a few weeks in the stacks with evolutionary biology journals. You will find that you really don’t know much about the actual work of evolutionary biology, evolutionary theory, or the data that emerges from the former to inform the latter. It is really clear that, for all your erudition, you really haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about when it comes to the actual science. You will find with having read even a few years of “Science”, “Nature”, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)”, “Molecular and General Genetics”, “The Journal of Theoretical Biology”, “The Journal of Evolutionary Biology”, “Evolution”, “Molecular Evolution”, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on that evolutionary biology is doing quite well, is not tottering, is not in crisis, and is progressing right along with the business of understanding the biological world, regardless of what the ID-faithful might think or wish. As for ID being a throwback, you might want to go and re-read William Paley, as you will find there pretty much all the ideas now in the ID community. All they have done is taken old ideas and tried to say that molecular data support them. More often than not, they simply don’t know what they are talking about, or have decided to simply ignore large chunks of data, and when that fails, they have no problem with bald-faced lies when it suits them. Some of the reading in those journals will show that, as well. I hope you take the advice and go to the primary literature – I think you would find it eye-opening to say the least, even if it does nothing to change your mind. As for Dr. Ayala – I think I would trust his theological ideas over yours. The man is a former Dominican priest as well as an extremely highly regarded evolutionary biologist. I think he has likely thought a great deal more deeply about the two subjects and their relation than you. And with that, I am going back to the lab and get back to work doing science. You should get to reading those journals if you have nothing better. I assure you that you are missing a great deal. Its been fun… Peace be with you through all your days. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:46:56 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13974/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13977/view Mel, “you really don’t know much about the actual work of evolutionary biology” “you haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about when it comes to the actual science” These are some pretty haughty assertions from one who hasn’t provided anything to back them up. At least when I asserted you didn’t know about ID, I specified the portions about the molecular data which are the hallmark of current ID theory as evidence. You have provided none. You merely throw up your hands and say ‘go read some articles’. So I’ll ask this question, what one piece of evidence or argument is most convincing for you regarding the “fact” of common ancestry? And maybe a good paper to accompany it. I sincerely doubt Dr. Ayala has any firm grasp on Biblical, systematic or historical theology; his tenure as priest lasted less than a year. Indeed, consideration of intelligent causation of the universe predates Paley by centuries. Cicero (50 BC), referring to movements and mechanisms of the heavenly bodies states: “do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence?” But the design inference has gained the most traction with discovery of encoded genetic material and molecular biology which, as you know, is more recent than Paley. Best of luck in your studies, Mel. And one challenge for anyone else. Given what I’ve already acknowledged as the non-controversial observations of descent with modification, random genetic mutation, natural selection and homology between species: name one area of research where the “fact” of common ancestry has played a fundamental role in a major beneficial discovery that could not also be attributed to common design. Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:05:12 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13977/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13981/view Last one… “These are some pretty haughty assertions from one who hasn’t provided anything to back them up. At least when I asserted you didn’t know about ID, I specified the portions about the molecular data which are the hallmark of current ID theory as evidence. You have provided none. You merely throw up your hands and say ‘go read some articles’.” I directed you to the primary literature because that is where you will find all the evidence you wish. In science, that is where we put our findings (not books intended for lay readers). I present you with evidence in that body of literature. I don’t have time to go through it all to find what would convince you (though I doubt anything would). You see, this issue isn’t controversial to me, and I have better things to do. (Besides, in science, if you are curious about something, you go and read the primary literature yourself – you generally don’t ask others to abstract it for you.) You did not specify any molecular data that back up ID. You simply said that there are molecular data that ID people claim support their views without actually giving any data. Thank you for confirming that intelligent design in an ancient idea. The problem with the “design inference” as applied to molecular data is that it does not distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design. In evolutionary biology, there is a designer, but it is an unintelligent designer in the form of the biotic and abiotic environments in which organisms live. ID as applied to molecular data simply looks at the design in those data and says, as Paley and Cicero did of whole organisms,“it is too complicated to have come about by natural processes.” That isn’t a difference, but an old principle applied to new data. As for traction, ID has no traction in the scientific community. There is a comparatively small group of fringe-residing people who don’t publish and don’t do much in the way of actual research, and have attained public attention due to financing from conservative religious and political interests. “And one challenge for anyone else. Given what I’ve already acknowledged as the non-controversial observations of descent with modification, random genetic mutation, natural selection and homology between species: name one area of research where the “fact” of common ancestry has played a fundamental role in a major beneficial discovery that could not also be attributed to common design.” 1. You realize that descent with modification and homology go to common ancestry, don’t you? 2. The onus is on you, and not me. Conserved dna sequences, protein structures, and enzymatic pathways, et cetera all meet the predictions that would emerge from a model of common ancestry (again, you will find huge amounts of information regarding this in the primary literature). What does your idea of common design add? I don’t see how it is helpful or predictive. If you assume that common design is responsible for the appearance of common ancestry, then you have to add lots of little tweaks to the common design to make it fit the data (deactivated genes and molecular fossils retained in related lineages, odd biological solutions to challenges compelled by evolution having to work with materials and structures available, phylogenetic inertia, et cetera – they all have to be explained, and they are by a model of common descent). Common ancestry requires fewer assumptions and has much more explanatory and predictive value. Where do you see that your idea of common design helps advance inquiry? What specific predictions would that hypothesis make? I hope you understand, but I really don’t have time to continue this conversation. I get sucked into these things far too easily, and have spent too much time on it today. I trust you will be honorable enough to accept that. I hope I have maybe taught you some things. I apologize if I have come across as insulting from time to time during it. I don’t mean to, but I admit that I am not the best to teach ones like you, as I tend to get hot at times. That said, I really do think you would benefit from some time digging in the journals if you are really interested. It can be difficult to go through, but you might find it beneficial and interesting. I also wonder if you have by any chance read a really good, though dense book (which is something in between a monograph and a book for a more general audience) by Simon Conway Morris called “Life’s Solution”. Conway Morris is a devout Anglican in addition to being an accomplished and respected paleontologist. He presents his personal concept over the course of cataloging an impressive array of examples of convergent evolution of common design as emerging from the very structure of the universe. The point is more or less that the creator made the universe such that humans were “coded into the system” and guaranteed to emerge from evolution (the idea of “the evolutionary routes are many, but the destinations are few”). I don’t agree with him, of course, for I don’t share his religious views, but I respect him for finding a nice way of harmonizing his faith and science. I don’t think it would change you mind about anything (I really doubt anything would), but I think you would find it interesting. Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:26:45 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13981/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13993/view I wish someone could explain where all of the water came from. Did the water evolve or was it created. And why don’t we know? Water is abundant, over 70 percent of the planet is covered with it. So, Bice, Darwin, religous folk, where did the water come from. Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:33:45 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13993/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13995/view How OLD is John Bice? 45-50? time to move on from tired college news papers. creepy. Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:11:44 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/13995/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/14257/view “How OLD is John Bice? 45-50? time to move on from tired college news papers. creepy.” What is it with you and your preoccupation with people’s ages? ‘Don’t trust anyone over 35?’ Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:21:17 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/14257/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/14324/view Champ, can MSU professors post or publish in the State News? How about alumni? Not saying Bice is either, of course—but what does age have to do with it? Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:50:33 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/14324/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/14709/view Miller’s the one who is wrong. Creation is totally exclusive of evolution. To believe in evolution, on ANY level, is not believing in the God of the Bible. I claim that though Miller says he is a Christian, he is doomed to Hell for worshipping the wrong God. Jesus taught the God of creation…there was no room for evolution. If Miller is not worshipping the God that Jesus did, he is worshipping the wrong God. Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:43:35 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/14709/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15221/view Jason, I’ll take that as satire, but it is sad that many people believe exactly what you said, that evolution vs. creationism is an all or nothing enterprise. The uninitiated like to see things in simplistic categories. Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:58 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15221/view