ย ย ย Scott Weber (Letters 6-18) always attempts to present something as science but without scientific evidence! His recent letter (Source Jun.19) pans evolution and supports Intelligent Design (ID). His first three paragraphs are merely cribbed from the referenced paper of Harris and Calvert! No scientific evidence is presented in support of ID. To be science, it must have conclusive evidence, not opinion. I’m aware of only one known fact for ID, The great guru, Biochemist Michael Behe, said under oath that the designer is God! It’s disguised “creationism.” Harris and Calvert relied heavily on Behe’s “expertise.”
ย ย ย Curiously, Weber does not respond to the scientific information I presented in my letter from renowned scientists.
ย ย ย The second half of his letter relates to William Harris and John Calvert, but he neglects to identify them. Harris has a PhD in nutritional biochemistry. Calvert is a lawyer with a B.A. in Geology. They wrote a paper entitled “ID: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution.” Very simply, there is no scientific alternative to evolution. I’ve read their paper and it lacks evidence to back it up. The most telling lack is that the paper was not submitted to the scientific community, it was published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003, prior to Behe’s admission that God is the designer. Under “evidence supporting ID”, they say the “compelling evidence for design is the appearance of design in living systems.” “Appearance” is as unscientific as one can get! “Evolution has not been observed or stimulated.” Nonsense. Renowned Geneticist Steve Jones says: “Every AIDS patient is a monument to the theory of evolution. Natural selection alters the identity of the virus as the disease progresses.”ย
ย ย ย Weber suggests that I’m “ignorant of, or just plain foolhardy regarding a major paradigm shift that is going on in science today.” I accept that I’m “ignorant of any paradigm” shift in science, none exists. The shift is the religionists. It’s a desperation attempt to rationalize “creationism.” I leave the “foolhardy” with Weber.
ย ย ย Weber believes his dog Koosah was ID’d. If Koosah could talk he would say: Wrong! I’ve evolved from the wolf! My challenge to Weber is, when was Koosah designed and by whom?
ย ย Don’t hold your breath.
Bob Bates, Bendย
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Concerning evidence:
When seeking the truth do not confuse evidence with facts. Evidence may lead us forward to the actual fact, or it may send us back to the apparent, and possibly false, assumption.
(Relative Truth–> Apparent)
(Constant Truth–> Evident)
(Absolute Truth–> Fact)
Once we have established the type of truth that is present then we must examine it with simple logic, that is, is it consistent and irrefutable.
The scientific method must not be adjusted to suit the evidence.
….James E Gambrell
“Under รข evidence supporting ID’ they say the ‘compelling evidence for design is the appearance of design in living systems.’รข ย
IOW they’re saying: “It looks to us like it’s designed; therefore it must be designed.” This isn’t science — it’s just tautological thinking.
You can look at an organism that is beautifully adapted to its environment and conclude, “Aha — it must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer to survive in that environment.” Or you can look at it and say, “Aha — it must have evolved over many generations to survive in that environment.” But the first explanation requires us to assume the existence of an all-powerful, supernatural being and the second does not. Why is there any need to invoke a supernatural explanation for phenomena when a perfectly plausible natural explanation (and one which, incidentally, is supported by abundant real-world evidence) is available?
When evidence is replaced by belief and faith, one is able to develop a theory of ID that can be rationalized as scientific by a needful believer who is afraid to confront the reality that what he or she does is truly meaningless. What possibly has meaning when considered against the backdrop of a limitless universe? The best way to give an action meaning is to sanction it with religion–make each and every one of us special because of a creator–sanction our existence and actions as part of a divine plan.
Better deal with the ‘harsher’ realities and do what is right anyway.
HBM said;”Under รข evidence supporting ID’ they say the ‘compelling evidence for design is the appearance of design in living systems.’รข ย
IOW they’re saying: “It looks to us like it’s designed; therefore it must be designed.” This isn’t science — it’s just tautological thinking
I am not defending Evolution or Intelligent Design, but let’s be fair.
“It looks to us like it evolved therefore it must be evolved” is also tautological thinking.
Evidence can support a theory but all theories must be falsifiable and therefore cannot be used to predicate the absolute truth.
…James E Gambrell
Other than the inaccuracy that dogs evolved from wolves, I agree with Bob on this one. Both dogs and wolves had a common ancestor, from which they both evolved. Don’t worry…common mistake.