On Reading the Cell’s Signature

January 7, 2010
Category: Guest Features

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue.

Dr. Francisco Ayala, University Professor at the University of California, Irvine, is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The former President and Board Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Ayala was initially trained as a Dominican priest in Spain. He came to the United States to study under the legendary Theodosius Dobzhansky, only to go on from there to become legendary himself.

Dr. Ayala has been a moderating influence in the science/religion dialog. We have seen him kindly but forcefully admonish new atheists for their style (this conference is a good example). He also is noted for his admonition of those associated with the Intelligent Design movement. He, like us, believes the approach taken by those in the Movement creates very significant theological and scientific problems. We sent him a copy of Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. The essay below is his response. We especially ask you to take note of this sentence: “I do think that people of faith may find in the world many reasons that support their belief in God. But I don’t think that intelligent design is one of them.”

Note added on March 8, 2010: Dr. Ayala was not asked to do a formal review of "Signature in the Cell." He was asked to enter into the conversation initiated by our essay posted on December 28, and, at his request, was sent a copy of the book. This was his response.

How should a person of faith respond to Signature of the Cell? I am an evolutionary scientist who would suggest the following considerations.

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume. Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point? It is as if in a book about New York, the author would tell us that New York is not in Europe, and then dedicate most of the book to advancing evidence that, indeed, truly, New York is not in Europe.

Signature of the Cell offers Intelligent Design (ID) as the alternative explanation to chance in order to account for genetic information. This suggestion turns out to be no more convincing than a proposal by the author of the book about New York, who having exhausted all possible ways of telling us that New York is not in Europe, would now offer Peoria as the alternative city to visit. We would rather read about New York’s architecture, splendid avenues, and great parks; about the rich culture and ethnic diversity of the city; about its restaurants, concert venues, theatres, and wonderful sights in and around the city. But regarding natural selection, genetics, ecology, development, physiology, and behavior in the evolution of genetic information, there is nothing substantive in Signature of the Cell.

Christians and other people of faith should be troubled about Signature of the Cell for several reasons. One is that Meyer avoids consideration of the negative implications of ID as an explanation of the origin of genetic information, which is his main subject. According to Meyer, ID provides a more satisfactory explanation of the human genome than evolution does. ID’s explanations envision “discrete or discontinuous intelligent activity in the history of life” (p. 481). Scientists have now obtained the complete DNA sequence of the human genome. The genome has a length of about three billion nucleotides, the “letters” of the DNA alphabet. Scientists have also obtained the complete DNA sequence of the chimpanzee genome—also three billion letters long—and of several hundred other species of organisms. How can we envision the “discrete or discontinuous activity” of the Intelligent Designer? The human and chimpanzee genomes differ from each other in just a few percent of the DNA letters, less than two percent in the genes that code for proteins. Did the Designer tweak the chimpanzee genome to make the human genome? Or, perhaps more likely, did the Designer use a preexisting genome and tweak it a bit to make the human genome and tweak it a different way to make the chimpanzee genome? Did the Designer go on tweaking genomes a bit at a time to design the genome of the gorilla and other primates, and more and more tweaking for other animals, all the way down to mice, and even to fruitflies, with which we share a good fraction of the genome?

The human genome includes about twenty-five thousand genes and lots of other (mostly short) switch sequences, which turn on and off genes in different tissues and at different times and play other functional roles. There are also lots and lots of DNA sequences that are nonsensical. For example, there are about one million virtually identical Alu sequences that are each three-hundred letters (nucleotides) long and are spread throughout the human genome. Think about it: there are in the human genome about twenty-five thousand genes, but one million interspersed Alu sequences; forty times more Alu sequences than genes. It is as if the editor of Signature of the Cell would have inserted between every two pages of Meyer’s book, forty additional pages, each containing the same three hundred letters. Likely, Meyer would not think of his editor as being “intelligent.” Would a function ever be found for these one million nearly identical Alu sequences? It seems most unlikely. In fact, we know how these sequences come about: one new Alu sequence appears in the genome for every ten newborns, generation after generation. The Designer at work? Unlikely: many of these sequences damage the genome causing abortion of the fetus during the early weeks of life.

Perhaps one could attribute the obnoxious presence of the Alu sequences to degenerative biological processes that are not the result of ID. But was the Designer incompetent or malevolent in not avoiding the eventuality of this degeneration? Come to think of it: why is it that most species become extinct? More than two million species of organisms now live on Earth. But the fossil record shows that more than ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived became extinct. That is more than one billion extinct species. How come? Is this dreadful waste an outcome intended by the Designer? Or is extinction an outcome of degeneration of genetic information and biological processes? If so, was the Designer not intelligent enough or benevolent enough to avoid the enormity of this waste?

Meyer asserts that the theory of intelligent design has religious implications. “Those who believe in a transcendent God may, therefore, find support for their belief from the biological evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design” (p. 444). I do think that people of faith may find in the world many reasons that support their belief in God. But I don’t think that intelligent design is one of them. Quite the contrary. Indeed, there are good reasons to reject ID on religious grounds, in addition to scientific grounds. The biological information encased in the genome determines the traits that the developing organism will have, in humans as well as in other organisms. But humans are chock-full of design defects. We have a jaw that is not sufficiently large to accommodate all of our teeth, so that wisdom teeth have to be removed and other teeth straightened by an orthodontist. Our backbone is less than well designed for our bipedal gait, resulting in back pain and other problems in late life. The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.

I could go on about human features that betray a design that certainly is not intelligent. I will add only one more consideration. More that twenty percent of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion during the first two months of pregnancy. That is because the human genome, the human reproductive system, is so poorly designed. Do I want to attribute this egregiously defective design to God, to the omnipotent and benevolent God of the Christian faith? No, I don’t. It would not do to say that God designed intelligently the human genome and that it then decayed owing to natural processes. If God would have designed the human genome, surely He would have done it so that this enormous misfortune would not happen. Think of it: twenty percent of all human pregnancies amount to twenty million abortions every year. I shudder at the thought of this calamity being attributed to God’s specific design of the human genome. To me, this attribution would amount to blasphemy.

Before the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the like were attributed to direct action by God, so that the tsunami that five years ago killed two hundred fifty thousand Sumatrans might have been interpreted as God’s punishment. Now we know that these catastrophes are the result of natural processes. Similarly, people of faith would do better to attribute the mishaps caused by defective genomes to the vagaries of natural selection and other processes of biological evolution, rather than to God’s design.

Filed Under:

science, religion, Stephen Meyer, Alu, DNA, evolution, intelligent design, Francisco Ayala, biology, Discovery Institute, Signature in the Cell

Share |

Comments (143)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

pds - #1899

January 7^th 2010

Dr. Ayala appears to be one of the many reviewers who have not read Dr. Meyer’s book. If he has read it, he has not explained why he chose not to address any of the main arguments Meyer’s makes in the book.

Dr. Ayala, you also do not seem to understand Intelligent Design. You go on and on about “bad design” in nature, without showing any awareness of the responses to such arguments that design proponents have made for many years. This does not further the debate.
Glen Davidson - #1901

January 7^th 2010

Another way of asking Ayala’s questions is, was the “Designer” an adept computer programmer in giving us so many Alu segments, and in adapting Archaeopteryx quite incompletely from its reptilian ancestors, virtually guaranteeing its eventual extinction?

I put it that way because, for public consumption, Meyer does not hesitate to claim an intelligent and competent designer of life, except that he puts it this way:

the creator was not only capable of creating great beauty but he was a pretty adept computer programmer

http://multimedia.play.it/m/audio/27941971/stephen-meyer-interview.htm

[I checked the audio (starting around 3:20) first this time, and the transcript is quite good, though I improved its readability a bit]

That’s coming uncomfortably (for IDists) close to a falsifiable, and falsified, prediction about life. No adept programmer put code into cells in order to produce the defects with which we live, and I rather suspect he knows the evidence fails to support such a claim.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Mere_Christian - #1902

January 7^th 2010

OK, so I don’t have a PhD, but, in the world of probability, there is either intelligent design for everything in the universe, or there are a bunch of accidents bumping into each other that has us where we are. And of course, all of those accidents starting from nothing. To say there was the egg before the chicken is the embracing of and celebration of insanity. And yet we hail people like Dawkins and Dennett (highly educated men) fellow evolutionarians, as people ALSO that have achieved legendary status.

By the way, before the “sixteenth and seventeeth centuries” (long, long before), some Hebrew wrote” The fool says in his heart there is no God.” Darwinism before Darwin.

It’s also interesting how accurate his assessment of non-godly society is in general. (Psalm 14 BTW.)

This creation/evolution debate is not some coffee house conversation between warring school employees. While your ministry to crush the life out of the ID movement and to catapult Darwin into Church legend is fascinating to watch implemented, how is ID not sound math, good sense and better philosophy? And when contemplated, is far healthier for the mind of man.
Kathryn - #1903

January 7^th 2010

Thank you, Dr. Ayala, for this terrific post. I share your concerns about ID and appreciate your highlighting the negative implications of Design. However, I feel that your post seems to leave no room for God to work in the natural world in any meaningful way. How do you envision His action? Do you hold to His omniscience and omnipotence?

Like you, I don’t believe the facts of nature can prove the existence of a creative Intelligence, but I presuppose one on the basis of Scripture. From the Bible we see that God is intimately and continuously involved in creation. From science we know He seems to take pleasure in doing so by the secondary means of variation, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc. Many argue that death and waste are the results of the Fall; this is problematic because all these processes were going on long before man. And yet the Bible does affirm that the whole world is groaning, waiting for redemption. I think we can see that in spontaneous abortions, in natural disasters, in disease. It seems the entire created order is crying out for renewal, not just to the way things were before the Fall, but to an entirely NEW heavens and a NEW earth.
David Graham - #1906

January 7^th 2010

This is a very nicely presented response to “Signature of the Cell”, one that seemed coherent and well argued to me. The only sentence I found troublesome was this one, “I could go on about human features that betray a design that certainly is not intelligent.” It is the last two words in the sentence that troubles me. Wouldn’t it be better to use the word “flawed” or “imperfect”, so that the sentence would read, “I could go on about human features that betray a design that certainly is flawed”? An inventor might write a computer program that turns out to have flaws in it - so that the overall program breaks down - but that doesn’t mean the inventor is “not intelligent”. Nor does it mean that there “isn’t a design” present. Rather, it means that there is a design and it has “imperfections”.

In the case of an Intelligent Designer and the natural world, whether these flaws are intentional or not would be a good point to discuss.

Again, this was a very nicely framed statement by Dr. Ayala.
pds - #1908

January 7^th 2010

Dr. Ayala states: “The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell [sic] is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms.”

This not the keystone argument of Signature in the Cell, which makes the rest of his comments the knocking down of a straw man.

Since Dr. Ayala repeatedly gets the title of the book wrong, I wonder if he even read the cover.

You don’t have to be a scientist to see when a scientist does not understand the basic concepts of intelligent design or the state of the current debate.
John Kwok - #1911

January 7^th 2010

@ pds -

Your concluding remark to your last post is quite false, “You don’t have to be a scientist to see when a scientist does not understand the basic concepts of intelligent design or the state of the current debate.”

Dr. Ayala has written and lectured extensively about Intelligent Design, explaining why it is not valid science, period (I have heard him speak on this very issue in the relatively recent past here in New York City.). He has also written a superb book critical of it, “Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion”, whose central theme is to demonstrate how Darwin himself demolished most effectively the concept of Intelligent Design, by discovering that, via natural law, there could be “Design without a Designer”.
VMartin - #1912

January 7^th 2010

PART 1.
I am really surprised by low intellectual niveau of this Ayala’s review. I considered Ayala to be a greater thinker. But ideas presented in the review are like ideas of a darwinian debater from Pandas thumb or other neodarwinian pit. Firts Ayala is not a prophet to know what God would have done and what He would not have done. Perhaps he even thinks he knows better how to
organize DNA.

His argument that chimps and humans have 2% difference in genome is in my opinion ridiculous.
Some yeras ago scientists claimed that human had 100.000 genes. But already at that time 2% difference was taken for granted. Obviously without knowing - and thus comparing - real genes, or better all alleles between chimps and humans. One calls such 2% number “Hausnumero” or “Bulgarian constant”.
VMartin - #1913

January 7^th 2010

PART 2.
In the review we find also this dubious sentence:

“The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.”

Actually this argument speaks more against neodarwinian paradigma than anything else. Because natural selection should have given advantage to woman with wider canals. You know: more offsprings, survival advantage, blabla - all that neodarwinian mantras.
pds - #1915

January 7^th 2010

Ayala does not even consider or discuss whether the Fall or the introduction of sin, evil and death into the world could be the cause of the apparent “bad design” he observes. He does not seem to realize that ID does not state that evolution plays no role in biological history. All ID proponents affirm at least micro-evolutionary processes. Michael Behe accepts much more.

Ayala seems to think that the Problem of Evil defeats ID. He does not move on to the question of whether Darwinian theory deals with it any better. TE holds that God used evolution to create. Does that really solve the problem? If God used random mutation and natural selection to produce all the horrible things Ayala describes, how does that solve the problem? The TE proponent cannot attribute evil and death to The Fall. They were part of the random mutation and natural selection processes that God created from the very beginning, before Mankind had a chance to rebel.

And yet the Biologos folks think this is great stuff.

You don’t have to be a scientist to see when a scientist does not understand the basic concepts of intelligent design or the state of the current debate or the underlying philosophical and theological problems.
Glen Davidson - #1918

January 7^th 2010

Is God so constrained, or could a better pelvis for birth and walking have been designed from scratch?

Or, more to the point, why must babies come into the world through the pelvis at all, from a design standpoint?

The virtual inability of evolution to reroute the birth canal to avoid pelvic constraints should be obvious, and explanatory for why the problem of the birth canal persists.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Mark - #1920

January 7^th 2010

Ayala takes several rambling pages to eek out a very simple “keystone argument” that can be safely ground down to this: “If God would have designed the human genome, surely He would have done it [differently].”

Ayala’s use of the word “surely” is telling. I have a rule about that word: Never take much stock in a person who uses the word “surely” when waxing intellectual about the infinite mind of God.

Ayala cites the rate of natural abortion being attributed to God’s specific design of the human genome as a case of “blasphemy.” I disagree. The only thing I find blasphemous is the outrageous idea that the less-than-optimal human genome are somehow proofs that God didn’t design us. Someone needs to remind Ayala, the former Catholic monk, that we are living in the fallen world, not the optimal one. The optimal one comes next. Errrr that’s the whole point of the “religion” thing.

Sorry, but I too wonder if Ayala read Meyer’s whole book. The point another reader made about the title misnomer should not be dismissed so frivolously. How you gonna review a book and get the title wrong? Seriously. Talk about blasphemy.

My .o2
John Kwok - #1926

January 7^th 2010

@ Mark -

I find Ayala’s critique of Meyer’s book far more cogent and better stated than Darrel Falk’s review here at BioLogos. Unlike Darrel, Ayala is quite clear that Meyer is absolutely wrong from both a philosophical and scientific perspective (In stark contrast, Darrel is somewhat deferrential to Meyer, which I think is not only wrong, but, as others have noted elsewhere online, comes across as appeasement.).

As I noted to another poster here, your “concern” about Ayala’s accuracy with regards to the title of Meyer’s book is completely misplaced. You seem far more fixated on that than what is clearly important, the actual substance of Ayala’s remarks. Since you are so “concerned” about the accuracy of titles, please do not refer to me - or to anyone else posting here who does accept as scientifically valid, the fact of biological evolution - as a “Darwinist” or even suggest that I might be an “Atheistic, Liberal Darwinist” (which I have noted here at BioLogos, at a different blog entry, is absurd since I consider myself a Deist and am a registered Republican with strong Libertarian biases).
Steve - #1933

January 7^th 2010

I am as skeptical of ID as anyone, I daresay. I cheered for Dr. Falk’s review. I thought Dr. Ayala’s criticisms of ID are cogent and on point.

However, I confess to disappointment that BioLogos wasted money purchasing and sending Meyer’s book if he wasn’t going to interact with any arguments within it anyway. Surely there was some (even pseudo-)scientific argument in those hundreds of pages that could have been addressed! This is going to be trumpeted by the ID crowd as Exhibit A of how ID critics won’t give them a fair audience. I reiterate, this was a great read, but it should have been published as a response to Meyer rather than as a general critique of ID with mentions of the book in it.
Steve - #1935

January 7^th 2010

Correction: I meant to say that this article should not have been published as a response to Meyer’s book. But again, it is commendable as an exposition of why I remain wholly unpersuaded by the ID critique of mainstream science.
John Kwok - #1937

January 7^th 2010

Steve -

I respectfully beg to differ. I think Ayala did respond to Meyer’s arguments, with the notable exceptions of Meyer’s concept of science and claim that Intelligent Design is scientific because it can create “testable” scientific hypotheses. Why he opted not to address these issues is a valid question, though I might venture to say that maybe Ayala didn’t think they were noting (though I wish he would, merely to inform others as to why Meyer is wrong with regards to what science is and why Intelligent Design isn’t science because it can’t generate testable hypotheses.).

Sincerely,

John
Darrel Falk - #1941

January 7^th 2010

We’ve had to delete a number of comments that had degenerated to a level that we won’t tolerate. This discussion must center on ideas and not on personalities. As RJS has mentioned over at Jesus Creed today, we want you to think of this as a discussion over coffee. I might add that as you get up and leave, we want to be able to think of each other as friends that are on a common journey towards a better understanding of truth. We want to be able to leave our “coffee time” still friends.

Please disagree with each other. Please feel free to disagree with the author of the post. However, we won’t tolerate personal attacks. BioLogos exists for the purpose of building a harmonious spirit even if we disagree about ideas.

Darrel
John Kwok - #1943

January 7^th 2010

@ pds -

Apparently my earlier reply to you was deleted, but again let me observe that your comments are irrelevant. Ayala is interested primarily in the scientific content - or rather, lack thereof - in Meyer’s book. Any discussion of religious issues is simply pointless from the perspective of determining what is - and what isn’t - science. Two devout Christians and professional scientists - cell biologist Ken Miller and Vatican Astronomer (and Jesuit brother) Guy Consolmagno have noted in public that, as scientists, they consider ONLY scientific issues. It is only when they have concluded their scientific duties that they will entertain any religious considerations (And frankly for both of these devout Christians, scientific considerations substantially outweigh their religious convictions. I don’t know whether Ayala, a former Dominican monk, is still religious. But if he is, then his treatment of “Signature in the Cell” is absolutely valid, especially from a scientific perspective.).
Drew Smith - #1953

January 7^th 2010

I think there are a few issues that respectfully need to be addressed on the ID side and evolutionary creationist side. I think some of the them are the following:

ID SIDE:

1. Some ID theorists make a distinction between intelligent and optimal design. I think a discussion on whether that is a valid distinction needs to be addressed. Someone may argue that just because something is not an optimal design, does not make it an unintelligent design.

2. Can the analogy of detecting design by humans be translated into detecting design in nature by an invisible God?

3. How does one find purpose/teleology in nature? Isn’t philosophy or theology better suited for this above task?
Drew Smith - #1954

January 7^th 2010

Evolutionary Creationist side:

1. Where does one find marks of genuine intelligence in a world of natural selection?

2. Must the intelligence factor be relegated to the philosophical or theological?

3. How is intelligence defined in an evolutionary creationist paradigm?

These are just some of the isues that I have thought of. i’m sure there are a lot more. Anybody feel free to provide some answers if you like. I really would like to represent both sides fairly. I’m personally an Evolutionary Creationist.
John Kwok - #1955

January 7^th 2010

@ Drew Smith -

I find your questions irrelevant to determining whether or not Intelligent Design is valid science, but I will note that your question # 2 (Evolutionary Creationist) is an interesting one, which I believe can be explored from both a philosophical and theological perspective. As for question # 3 (Evolutionary Creationist), that implies some kind of Anthropic Principle, and though my friend Ken Miller does accept a weak version of it (which he discusses at some length in his book “Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul”), I personally find it objecitonable since that is really more a philosophical and theological issue that can’t be addressed by science.

Sincerely yours,

John
Russell Belding - #1958

January 7^th 2010

(continued) Prof Ayala makes some insightful comments, showing his take on ID, about design imperfections and current processes in genomes. Before tagging a biologic feature as “less than well designed” as in “our backbone is less than well designed for our bipedal gait”, one must know something of the intent of the design. A quick assessment of suitability of the backbone for one of its functions is precarious.

The suggestion that the million or so Alu sequences are not functional is also a precarious statement. But it may be true. It certainly is asserted with emotion, being linked to aborted fetuses. Alu sequences are “obnoxious”? Asking if the designer was incompetent or malevolent indicates Prof Ayala’s objections to design being present in biology are based on imposed values not on evidence.

A good rule-of-thumb to follow in constructive conversations is to let your colleague speak for themselves. Meyer should be read so that he is allowed to speak for himself.
Darek - #1959

January 7^th 2010

Some of the comments to this article are pretty telling:

> Ideas, no matter how well thought out, can somehow be undermined or dismissed because they contain spelling mistakes

> Intelligent Design can’t be refuted because, apparently, in spite of the arguments put forth or against, we must consider things like falls and sins…

> It ISN’T ‘blasphemous’ to consider that a caring deity would use natural selection - a process which has driven 98% of life’s history on earth extinct - as his (we know the sex of this deity, apparently) design methodology

Surely, we can see what the real motivations are behind the apologetic of things like intelligent design - and they are far from being anything remotely scientific.
Darek - #1960

January 7^th 2010

“Evolutionary Creationist”

What does this even mean?
Darek - #1961

January 7^th 2010

Russell Belding,

To say that something is designed is not an explanation. It is an observation. There is no point in even discussing ‘intent’, for you’ve already assumed so much. I think that’s the point Ayala is making even if inadvertently.

In other words, if its precarious for me to point out what I think is a design flaw, its just as precarious for you to say that that something was not only designed but I may not be considering what could be an infinite number of possibilities of intent.

This is only one of the many inherent problems with the intelligent design idea.
Russell Belding - #1964

January 7^th 2010

Hello Darek
Have you suggested observations and explanations are either/or categories? I suggest both can be allowed here. I know of no ID thinking person who claims that a particular biological object was designed as it now is. Design by an intelligent agent considerations should not be ruled out of explanations. “There is design in biology” is enough. The history of biological objects can be investigated further. I do not mean to say that “design” considerations are exhaustive explanations.

I suppose Prof Ayala’s comments about design imperfections could be simple sarcasm. But even if he was serious about admitting design considerations into explanations, his comments are not convincing because he notices only single function shortcomings. As if my car is poorly designed because it does not have a television in it.

With respect, there may not be “an intelligent design idea”. For me ID is a platform to promote notions of design in biology as oppsed to the atheistic idea that there is no design in biology because there is no God.
John Kwok - #1965

January 8^th 2010

@ Russell Belding -

There is indeed proof of Intelligent Design and it is due to the Klingons, whose very existence is far more substantiated, than anything which Intelligent Design advocates have offered.

However, on a more serious note, two prominent scientists with backgrounds in Roman Catholic Christianity - Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller - do recognize the existence of Design in Nature. But they also recognize that Design is the natural product of emergent processes of speciation and taxonomic diversification via Natural Selection (or some other similar, related, means of “descent with modificiation” to use Darwin’s original term for evolution). As Ayala has stated in one of his recent books, Darwin recognized “Design without a Designer”.
John Kwok - #1966

January 8^th 2010

Russell Belding (continued) -

Most scientists who are evolutionary biologists do subscribe to some notion of a Supreme Being, whether it is Yahweh/GOD/Allah or some polytheistic deity(ies). Most of them would not accept that evolution is an “atheistic idea”, but, more importantly, virtually all would recognize that their scientific considerations - not their devout religious faith - are of utmost paramount importance when they work as scientists (An important distinction ignored by Discovery Institiute “scientists” like Behe, Dembski, Meyer and Wells, and other “scientific” creationists.).
John Kwok - #1967

January 8^th 2010

Russell Belding (continued) -

The bottom line is that ID is absolutely useless. It can’t function as “a platform to promote notions of design in biology”. Nor can it serve that purpose for any other science, period. Eminent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher in his book “Living with Darwin” has made a most succinct, quite persuasive, case for Intelligent Design as “dead science”; that is a scientific idea that once had merit and encouraged scientific research centuries ago. It doesn’t have any useful function in science now, hence it should be viewed as “dead science”. In light of the dubious, deceitful, and reprehensible acts committed daily by Intelligent Design proponents - especially those of the Discovery Institute - I believe it ought to be regarded as mendacious intellectual pornography.

Are you interested in science, or iinstead, in promoting a dead science that should be viewed as mendacious intellectual pornography, Russell? That, I believe, is a fair question to ask.
Mere_Christian - #1979

January 8^th 2010

@pds #1915

- Ayala seems to think that the Problem of Evil defeats ID. He does not move on to the question of whether Darwinian theory deals with it any better.

The evidence of goodness and those seeking justice proves ID sound and shows Darwinism Darwinist social activism as probably a higher calling than the greedy gene being horny. Nature has no civil rights lawyers fighting the cause of suffering baby animals. There is a world of rationality that shows a functioning God in human “kind.” Intelligent Design is just another word for logic being present.

- You don’t have to be a scientist to see when a scientist does not understand the basic concepts of intelligent design or the state of the current debate or the underlying philosophical and theological problems.

You don’t have to be a scientist to see that scientists are not our moral or social leaders. They are though, employees that look at how things work, develope products and give their educated opinions. Another place where Intelligent Design is proven as sound. Their greatest weakness is looking at things through materialism. That gives rise to emotionalism overriding logic. And boy how scientists are emotional folk.
Mere_Christian - #1981

January 8^th 2010

Another thing . . .Here is the home page of BioLogos: Francis Ayala (with photo): ID does not support belief in God

Now isn’t that a “civil” way of saying that Dr. Meyer is either incapable of understanding reality, meaning he’s and idiot, or, he is purposely misleading others, which means he’s a liar? Civility in academic prose, still throws down the gauntlet does it not?

I ask this, because as someone that sees BioLogos as a valuable tool to help drug addicts, alcoholics and the dangerously promiscuous (college students and secularized youth) turn to a better way of life believing in the God of reality (Christ Jesus), “I” have been accused often of not being civil towards those I question. Obviously insult is taken when confronted. I don’t see BioLogos as just a coffee house of intellectuals wasting their youth and effective years contemplating contemplation, I see BioLogos as more important than academics wasting time trying to impress each other.

How many people died this week that would have turned their lives around if they would have embraced Christ effectively? I know of quite a few.

And I’m not a scientist or former Jesuit. And if I had an email I’d pose this directly to B-L staff.
Brian - #1983

January 8^th 2010

I completely agree with Ayala’s “bad design” arguments. Why, I was on a commercial aircraft the other day: the seats were too close together, it was loud, the food was stale and expensive, and I was late to my destination. And worse, every year some number of planes actually crash, causing injury or even death to the passengers. Given this undeniable line of evidence, it is only reasonable to conclude that commercial aircraft must have arisen by natural processes alone.
Brian - #1988

January 8^th 2010

Ayala clearly believes that no one should ever experience pain, or death, or discomfort of any kind. His logic is clear: since these things exist, belief in God as an intelligent creator is not only not tennable, but “amounts to blasphemy.”

Interesting, when I doubt that any of his education or professional research life has focused on “blasphemy” for even a minute. Thus, Ayala’s piece is sadly typical of the sort of polemic that’s often put forth by evolutionary biologists. In spite of his scientific credentials, the core of his argument contains no science at all, but is rather a dictation of theology to Christians. Indeed, he seems to know all about the “omnipotent and benevolent God of the Christian faith” and what he should and should not do.

The common language for this objection to theism is the problem of evil, which has been written on extensively, falls squarely within the realm of theology/philosoply, and has nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se.

If he wants to write theological treatises, I’m game, but he would do well to get up to speed on the subject first.
John Kwok - #1992

January 8^th 2010

@ Brian -

As a Deist, I find it odd that you can accuse a former Roman Catholic monk, Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, of the risible accusations so stated in your most recent post. I think what Ayala is saying - and it is a point that I know other religiously devout scientists recognize (including, for example, Ken Miller) - that one should not trivialize GOD, an omnipresent, omnipotent entity, into an entity that works more as some kind of “Intelligent Designer” who can capriciously intervene in natural events whenever it strikes GOD’s fancy. And, I might add, that this observation of Ayala’s is yet one more philosophical reason why he finds Intelligent Design so objectionable and why he hopes that religiously devout people who are willing to think critically about Intelligent Design will arrive at similar conclusion.
John Kwok - #1998

January 8^th 2010

@ Mere_Christian -

Ayala is interested only in the scientific merit - or rather, lack thereof - of Intelligent Design creationism. Your recent comments are irrelevant to the issue, especially when it is BioLogos’s intention to seek some useful dialogue between science and faith from a Christian perspective, not to serve as yet another means of recruiting converts to Christ (And given the substance of your questions, can one also say whether that there are other, potentially better, alternatives to Christianity that can be found in Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, or some other faith?). As to why Ayala doesn’t think that Intelligent Design supports “Belief in God”, then read what I wrote lately in reply to Brian’s post.

Like Stephen Meyer you seem to think that it is science’s duty to develop a scientific theory that could allow everyone to have some meaning, some purpose in their lives. That isn’t science’s function nor should it be. To paraphrase Jesus Christ, let’s render to science what is science and to religion, what is religion.
John Kwok - #1999

January 8^th 2010

@ Mere_Christian (continued) -

Rephrasing what I just wrote as the concluding comment in my latest post:

To paraphrase Jesus Christ, let’s render to science, that which is science, and to religion, that which is religion.
Darek - #2002

January 8^th 2010

Russell Belding,

Observations and explanations are not the same thing. That needs to be clear when moving forward in this (ID) area because these two things are often conflated.

Take what you’ve put forth as an analogy with relation to design - a car. Cars are not organisms. You’re conflating the two to insinuate that they draw upon similar principals of coming into being (namely, that there are designers - or a designer). I can be content with saying a car is designed because I have the background filled in to support the assumption without ‘exhaustive’ thinking. I can’t do this with respect to a frog, a whale, a human being, a strain of bacteria, or any other living organism. Indeed we find those things are ‘designed’, but not in the way we think things like cars are designed.

I should say that I don’t know whether or not you think ID is a worth while scheme (events in Dover, PA aren’t enough for some people) - I took that for granted to make a point - no hard feelings.
Darek - #2003

January 8^th 2010

I should say, with the help of evolutionary biology, that that background is being pieced together for the organisms I mentioned.
Darek - #2005

January 8^th 2010

Mere_Christian wrote: “The evidence of goodness and those seeking justice proves ID sound and shows Darwinism Darwinist social activism as probably a higher calling than the greedy gene being horny. Nature has no civil rights lawyers fighting the cause of suffering baby animals. There is a world of rationality that shows a functioning God in human “kind.” Intelligent Design is just another word for logic being present.”

Goodness and justice are opinions of people. To call that evidence for ID I think is actually making pretty good point with respect to what intelligent design (at least its movement with respect to organizations like the Discovery Institute) actually represents: an opinion - not science.

In fact, I think one can learn much from what Mere_Christian has written - which is the anthropomorphic thinking religion often equips itself with.
Brian - #2006

January 8^th 2010

Hi John,
I made no accusations against the man (which I found interesting, given the language you often employ against those with whom you disagree…). I did point out, however, that, in spite of the introduction which touts the man’s scientific credentials, the core of his argument contained no science at all. I also pointed out that this is a common rhetorical device employed by many evolution advocates, namely: frame the argument in scientific terms; make the argument in metaphysical ones. Given your response, which also contains no science at all, I’ll take it that you agree.
John Kwok - #2008

January 8^th 2010

Typos above so am reposting here corrected:

Brian -

I employ such language because I find it necessary and sufficient, even if it comes at the risk of being “uncivil”; there are times when you have to call a spade a spade. As for Ayala, I think he made some compelling points with regards to how useless the notion of good “Design” is from a biological perspective (from my vantage point as a former evolutionary biologist) and, as a former Roman Catholic monk, his is an interesting - and useful - perspective as to how one should view GOD (BTW he was ordained a Dominican monk in his native Spain, and then, shortly thereafter, emigrated to the United States so he could earn a Ph. D. in evolutionary genetics from another religiously devout scientist, the great Russian - American evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (who noted nearly forty years ago that “Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution”) at Columbia University.).).
Darek - #2009

January 8^th 2010

Hello Brian,

What would be some scientific arguments against intelligent design? What would be some points of contention one could discuss that would satisfy you in terms of it not being ‘framed’ or ‘rhetorical’?

If pointing out inadequacies or ‘design flaws’ isn’t good enough - I’m sure you could point me to where I or Ayala would want to be looking?

Also - how is ID exempt from initiating the mother of all metaphysical arguments? (a designer) Even if Ayala is talking metaphysics - which I don’t think for a second he is - he’d be guilty of no wrong doing, after all, how else are we to argue metaphysics?
John Kwok - #2010

January 8^th 2010

@ Darek -

You may be well aware that, though they contend otherwise, leading Intelligent Design advocates like Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer, often muddle the issue - and furnish ample ammunition for their critics - by conflating the religious implications of Intelligent Design with what they would view as “scientific”. While there are others here who doubt the Discovery Institute’s commitment to a bizarre “brand” of Christianity, the fact remains that these figures - as well as their colleagues - often lecture before sympathetic audiences at suitable “Christian” churches. In fact, Dembski has made no bones of saying how acceptance of Intelligent Design can lead to a better understanding of Christianity.

If and when they cease to make such “confusion”, then and only then, will I stop insisting that the Discovery Institute is overtly (and covertly) promoting its own “Christian” agenda by advocating the dissemination of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism.
John Kwok - #2014

January 8^th 2010

@ Brian -

Darek raises some interesting points in his most recent comments, and, like him, would be interested in reading your replies. Assuming that Intelligent Design advocates are correct in asserting that there was indeed an “Intelligent Designer” (BTW which they do admit to sympathetic “Christian” audiences is Yahweh/Jehovah), then where did the Intelligent Designer come from? Who or what designed the Intelligent Designer?

I’ve sought to get around this issue by invoking Klingon Cosmology, for which I contend there is substantially more proof of than there is for Intelligent Design creationism. How? Why? Here:

1) Since you see Klingons on TV and the movies, then they must be real.
2) An official Klingon Language Institute exists, based here in North America.
3) Religious ceremonies are often conducted in the Klingon language.
4) Both the Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

Tell me, where does Intelligent Design have any proof as persuasive as the proofs for Klingon Cosmology?
Brian - #2015

January 8^th 2010

Hey Derek,

“What would be some scientific arguments against intelligent design?”
Great question. What we both seem to agree on is that there are none in Ayala’s piece.

“If pointing out inadequacies or ‘design flaws’ isn’t good enough…”
You misunderstand me. Of course he can make that argument. Many, many others have made the problem of evil argument long before anyone knew who Darwin was. My point is simply that his argument isn’t a _scientific_ one, and by extention, given the sorts of points he makes, he doesn’t appear to be familiar with the best xian responses out there to the problem of evil.

“Also - how is ID exempt from initiating the mother of all metaphysical arguments? (a designer)...”
You misunderstand me again. I _do_ think many ID arguments are metaphysical in nature. But many of the most common evolution ones are too and Ayala’s piece is a classic example of how religion—not science—drives evolutionary polemics.
Brian - #2016

January 8^th 2010

—2—

“Even if Ayala is talking metaphysics - which I don’t think for a second he is…”
You’re kidding, right? “Blasphemy” isn’t metaphysics? OK. How about he submit something like this the next time he writes for a science journal: “A study of the effects of selective pressure on the growth rates of e-coli when subjected to increasingly strident blasphemous statements.” LOL. Read it out loud and laugh with me.

Why not synch the argument up with the introduction? Why not tell us that Mr Alaya—regardless of what his day job is—is also an amateur theologian who would like to share some of his faith-based, subjective opinions about God with us?

I think we both know the answer.
Mike Gene - #2017

January 8^th 2010

These evolution vs. design debates always overlook the fact that design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, there is a third possibility – the design of evolution. In this regard, the Alu elements are far more interesting than Dr. Ayala conveys. James Shapiro considers them to be genome reformatting devices that are part of the ‘natural genetic engineering’ toolkit used to facilitate alterations in genomic architecture to meet adaptive needs. For example, while Alu elements can damage the genome, leading to spontaneous abortions and congenital defects, it may very well be the case that the human brain would never have evolved with their existence.
John Kwok - #2020

January 8^th 2010

@ Brian -

What aspects of evolution do you regard as “metaphysics”? This former evolutionary biologist really wants to know, because if there are aspects of evolution that are “metaphysics”, he doesn’t remember encountering them either in college or in graduate school. Please enlighten us.

How is Intelligent Design far more valid or persuasive than Klingon Cosmology? Indeed the “proofs” I have provided clearly demonstrate that it is both far more valid and far more persuasive than Intelligent Design will ever be.
John Kwok - #2022

January 8^th 2010

Mike -

What Gordon Glover has said in the latest blog entry bears repeating here:

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-design-and-history/

In particular, these latest comments of his:

”....What bothers me is when the design argument is used (mistakenly) as a trump card for useful scientific paradigms like common descent. That would be analogous to arguing that since concrete can’t pour itself, these driveway-looking things must have been designed for drianage, even though they do not resemble other structures that are optimzed for drainage elsewhere. It’s a complete red-herring argument. The history of what we see today should stand or fall on the forensic evidence—not on our ability to understand exactly how how concrete is poured, or how ‘information’ gets added to the genome in the case of descent with modification.”
John Kwok - #2024

January 8^th 2010

Mike (continued) -

“The history of our biological evolution, as expressed by the degree of relatedness between species, is a question in and of itself. It doesn’t depend on the various proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change. It either happened or it did not. How it happened is another question. Many IDers argue that design trumps history—which it doesn’t.”

While I commend you for trying to make a persuasive case, you, like “IDers”, have fallen into that trap that “design trumps history”. Design in bioloogical evolution should be seen solely as the consequence of history.

Sincerely,

John

P. S. Gordon, I hope you don’t mind my “recycling” of your post, but it does a fine job in addressing the very issue, history (or genealogy or rather, to be precise, phylogenetic history) which ID advocates have chosen deliberately to forget and/or to ignore.
John Kwok - #2027

January 8^th 2010

@ Brian -

I still concur with Darek (# 2025) and strongly advise you to read, and to understand, my recent replies to Mike Gene, especially my observation (with the typo now corrected) that “Design in biological evolution should be seen solely as the consequence of history”.
Glen Davidson - #2028

January 8^th 2010

These evolution vs. design debates always overlook the fact that design and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

No, they don’t.

They simply utilize the same class of evidence that IDists accept as evidence for non-teleological “microevolution” as evidence for non-teleological “macroevolution.”

Theistic purposes are what drive people to suppose that the same type of evidence of “selection” for more successful propagation should be treated differently, so that they can inject their own desires and hopes into the process. There is no scientific or philosophical justification for doing so at all, however.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Mike Gene - #2042

January 8^th 2010

Hi John,

I have not fallen into any trap nor do I maintain “design trumps history”. You write, “Design in biological evolution should be seen solely as the consequence of history.” But why stop at this level? It is certainly possible that design can influence history. Therefore, there can be a symbiotic relation between the two. Evidence for evolution is not evidence against design.
Pastor Harvey Burnett - #2047

January 8^th 2010

Sorry Doc, doesn’t work for me. Your suggestion that what you consider to be ineffeciency such as the Alu sequence, species extinction, spontaneously aborted pregnancy, or other “design flaws” etc as being evidence against intelligent Design and more specifically against “GOd’s involvement in the process of design doesn’t fly.

First you misrepresent ID. ID doesn’t hold that “intelligence” equals effeciency or longevity. Intelligence doesn’t have to meet what you or I think is a rational method or methodology or longevitity or duration. Based on your inference, we could say that evey Lexus, Mercedes and BMW is of piss-poor design (excuse my language) because most of them will all rust and not be around in less than 100 years…Isn’t that right?

Does that speak against the fact that these cars were designed by intelligence? NO. The ID is contained within their ability to display the design/purpose/intent of their designer.

Bio-Logos….If this Doc is supposed to be MODERATE…and you hail him as such, then I don’t believe you know what moderate is. This further affirms your bias against ID based on non-scientific grounds.
John Kwok - #2053

January 8^th 2010

@ Mike -

Design can only “influence” history only in the sense of the pre-existing history - or rather, to be technically precise, phylogenetic history of the organism(s) in questions. This was recognized by 19th Century scientists, especially German paleontologists, who introduced the concept of “bauplan” (body plan). If you insist that Design is more important than phylogenetic history, then you are mistaken, simply because one could assert that there have been “successful” designs in Nature, then that begs the question as to why a successful “design” (e. g. powered flight in vertebrates) had to arise several times over the course of tens of millions of years, if we were to place undue emphasis on design itself.
John Kwok - #2054

January 8^th 2010

@ Pastor Burnett -

I have the utmost regard for men of the “cloth” since I have counted Christian ministers of various denominations as dear friends and acquaintances, have an uncle who is a retired Methodist minister, and a cousin who is a well-known Muslim cleric. However, I believe that all would recognize that the scientific issues discussed by eminent evolutionary geneticist Francisco J. Ayala are those to be dealt solely by science, unlike historian of science Stephen C. Meyer who thinks both science and religion need to be more fully intertwined than what has been accepted scientific policy for centuries; indeed were we to follow Meyer’s wishes, then science would be unrecognizable to anyone who is truly familiar with it.

When there were those who thought Jesus Christ’s ministry was a not too subtle attempt to usurp control from the Roman Empire; Christ responded with his famous comment comparing and contrasting Caesar with GOD. In a similar vein, may I ask you that we should render to science, that which is science, and to religion, that which is religion.
Mere_Christian - #2066

January 9^th 2010

@J. Kwok #2054

CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE

What if the coin flipped to Jesus was that of Augustus? I doubt in those days coins were scooped up when a new Caesar came to power.

Or Tiberius: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS

Looking at what is written on those coins makes what Jesus said a declaration of substance far more impressive than an encouragement to pay taxes. There is only one heir apparent Son of God.

Science and the bible are not enemies. The whole idea of seperation of Church and laboratory is absurd. The New Testament witness exists there as easily as it does in a cathedral..

Anyway FYI
Jacob - #2072

January 9^th 2010

@Pastor Harvey Burnett - #2047

We can talk about the claims of ID all day long and ID still wouldn’t be a more adequate theory. If we want to attempt to prove common descent, then we can talk about the geological order or organisms with “transitional features” (defined as both phenotypes and genotypes between two arbitrary organisms that speak of descent with modification). If we want to prove that evolution works on its own devices, then we can point to the numerous acts of mutation plus selection, genetic drift, and specitation which we have observed, plus all of the thousands of studies that have been done which attempt to explain how specific genes evolve into a certain state. The current theory of evolution, while it is continuously improving, has far more explanatory power than ID ever will, and so it obviates ID totally and irrevocably.

Unfortunately, IDists often want it both ways. They want their approach to be scientific, but when the science points to another explanation, they abdicate science and retreat to the position that the designer’s intent cannot be known (I have heard Behe use this one).
Jacob - #2073

January 9^th 2010

(continued)

Certainly that is true, since science cannot gauge intent, but then there is absolutely no consistency in ID’s claims, and it certainly is not science. Anybody can simply shrug tough questions off by saying, “Who knows what the creator would do?” Well, that just makes it vague and untenable, and evolution can answer those questions anyway. Even if evolution could not answer them, ID would still not fill that scientific vacuum because it is essentially a null hypothesis and cannot come up with any way to address design besides the fact that something is not design. So Ayala has every reason to address things on the grounds upon which he is addressing them.

And let’s get real. Just about anybody positing ID also believes in a good God, so let’s put that belief to the test in light of the evolution vs. ID debate. You certainly don’t think that the creation of all living organisms is analogous to a human designing a car.
Arthur Hunt - #2083

January 9^th 2010

I am disappointed by Dr. Ayala’s commentary on Meyer’s book. It comes across to me as little more than a sort of Monday morning quarterbacking (would a coach actually run a shovel pass with fewer than 20 sec left in the half ???!!!), trying to second guess an entity (that would be God) that by definition really cannot be understood, let alone psychoanalyzed.

Christians should be disappointed in Meyer’s book, but not because it may be theologically wanting. They should criticize the book because it is rife with errors of fact. Meyer is wrong about the genetic code, wrong about RNA, wrong about protein evolution, wrong about almost every facet of biology that he discusses in the context of ID. That’s where the discussion should start (IMO).
Pastor Harvey Burnett - #2087

January 9^th 2010

John Kwok,

Thanks for your response. I noted you said this:

unlike historian of science Stephen C. Meyer who thinks both science and religion need to be more fully intertwined than what has been accepted scientific policy for centuries; indeed

My friend the intertwining of science and God comes from the philosophical metaphysical naturalistic conclusions and assertions that we find by the most vocal scientists which are mostly atheists. THEY are the one intertwining this, drawing absurd conclusions about God, which science isn’t positioned to address. I’ve written about that HERE.

Now, Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center For Science Education (NCSE), recognizes this fine line which the philosophical materialists cross. So Meyer I believe does science justice by calling back to it’s roots to reevaluate what the intent of it really is.

I don’t believe that anyone is saying “preach God through science”, but you sure can’t preach atheism either and still call it science.
Pastor Harvey Burnett - #2090

January 9^th 2010

Jacob,

Why penalize a can opener for not being a BMW? I mean ID is good for what it does, why penalize it because it doesn’t do what you feel it should further do. No matter how you shake it or what bogus theories that attempt to circulate, vast amounts of information do not arise by process of natural selection when there has been previously no information. This doesn’t work in our natural world but yet we stoop all over and throw all the rules out to support natural selection and it’s ugly twin common descent.
Gregory Arago - #2102

January 9^th 2010

Hello Pastor Harvey Burnett,

Points accepted against the metaphor of ‘natural selection’ to explain a variety of things. From reading C. Darwin’s biology, it is apparent that he lamented how this term was appropriated and promoted as a stronger ‘agency’ than he in fact meant it.

I’m curious however in what light you view the term ‘BioLogos’. Is it a potentially interesting contribution to (dialogue between) ‘science, philosophy and religion’? Does it give dignity to God’s creation that neither ‘evolution’ nor ‘intelligent design’ give simply by the fact that it involves ‘Logos’ together with ‘life’ or ‘Life’?

I have read evangelical religious persons attack ‘intelligent design’ because IDM leaders refuse (in public, though not in churches) that the ‘hidden designer’ is necessarily the God of Abraham.

Do you perceive a potential contribution by BioLogos people like F. Collins and K. Giberson who openly profess their Christian faith while also accepting *some* but not *all* (e.g. rejecting universalistic ideological) truths of the evolutionary scientific narrative?

Respectfully,
Gregory
Gregory Arago - #2103

January 9^th 2010

Correction:

Second sentence - “From reading C. Darwin’s autobiography, it is apparent…”
Jacob - #2106

January 9^th 2010

Harvey Burnett -

Are you talking about the arisal of the very first forms of life? Of course natural selection can’t account for that. No one says that it does. In fact, there is one hypothesis that traditional evolution did not begin until well after life had been fomented. It’s strange that you would have such certitude, however, when scientists don’t even have total certitude of how it all began. Someone like Meyer relies on fraudulent math and unwarranted filters, but it just doesn’t work.

ID can be penalized for a lot of things, but why should Ayala feel constrained only to certain claims of design without discussing their implications? I understand that you can (at least in theory but probably not in reality) prove design, and that would be independent of everything else, but it’s impossible to act like these arguments aren’t just as threatening to one who believes in specific creation. Those who argue ID use it as a buffet for a belief in a specific God. Suppose, for instance, that we can somehow show that ID is correct but the designer was not the Christian God.
Jacob - #2107

January 9^th 2010

(continued)

Is that really going to satisfy you? Are you not going to object to that? Then why dismiss the original article? Sorry if these things get conflated together, but it’s all part of the belief system of the IDists. You can’t just ignore the other aspects of it.

And just to support common descent, which is so well supported that even some in the ID community believe in it, how do you explain the incredible order of the fossils in the geological layers or the evidence from the whale, for instance, that unequivocally exposes it as the descendant of land-based mammals?
Mike Gene - #2123

January 9^th 2010

Hi John,

You write, “Design can only “influence” history only in the sense of the pre-existing history - or rather, to be technically precise, phylogenetic history of the organism(s) in questions.”

If true, this would mean design could influence history at the origin of the Universe or the origin of life on this planet. If we add the possibility that the designer is God, history can be influenced by design at any point; it would just mean that we could not scientifically detect it (as Ken Miller has noted). But of course, there are many aspects of reality we cannot scientifically detect.

No, I am not insisting that design is more important than phylogenetic history. I’m just pointing out that these either/or, black/white debates that treat design and evolution as antagonists overlooks huge stretches of middle ground. There is nothing in nature that prevents phylogenetic history from being influenced by design. In fact, we know of one example where phylogenetic history has been influenced by design – it’s called artificial selection.
Mike Gene - #2127

January 9^th 2010

Ayala: “Come to think of it: why is it that most species become extinct? More than two million species of organisms now live on Earth. But the fossil record shows that more than ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived became extinct. That is more than one billion extinct species. How come?”

If they had not gone extinct, we would not be here.
John Kwok - #2133

January 9^th 2010

Pastor Burnett -

I don’t speak for my friend Genie Scott, but I know that she and her NCSE colleagues have done a most admirable job demonstrating that there is no legitimate conflict between science and religion, especially from a Christian perspective, with regards to both the scientific fact of and established scientific theory for biological evolution. I will note that, as a Deist, I concur with the Dalai Lama’s observation that if Buddhism is wrong and science right, then Buddhism must conform with science. I also endorse my friend Ken Miller’s declaration that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should reject such faiths ASAP.

When I was doing scientific research and using “methodological naturalism”, I found no need to invoke GOD. Nor, might I add did one of my graduate school mentors, eminent ecologist Michael L. Rosenzweig, a devout Conservative Jew. Nor does Ken MIler. Nor does Vatican Astronomer - and Jesuit brother - Guy Consolmagno. Nor do many religiously devout scientists around the world. Regrettably, the ones who do invoke GOD - and believe he/she/it/them should be part of their scientific work - are “scientific” creationists like Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Behe.
John Kwok - #2134

January 9^th 2010

Pastor Burnett (continued) -

The Discovery Institute’s pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers (which includes biologists Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich and mathematician and philosopher William Dembski as well as Meyer and Behe, to name but a few) want a new definition of science, in which “methodological naturalism” is “overthrown” for one which includes consideration of supernatural causes and explanations (which, incidentally, both Meyer and Behe have admitted this in recent publications, and Behe especially, under oath, during the 2005 KItzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.). Were they to succeed the very fabric of science as we know it would cease to exist.

We have had centuries of demonstrable scientific progress via the scientific method which has saved countless lives from the agony of dying from deadly diseases, of saving women in labor at risk of death from childbirth, and, quite frankly, been the fundamental reason why we live lives that are much easier and longer than those experienced by our grandparents. Why should we change this for a method that would mean the return of superstition? Do you really want this?
John Kwok - #2136

January 9^th 2010

@ Mike -

As Francisco J. Ayala has demonstrated - and which Gordon Glover has echoed recently at BioLogos too - history trumps design with regards to looking at the evolutionary histories of organisms (In plain English, we are referring to their genealogical histories.). My observation does not depend on the origin of either life or the universe, but instead, on a critical examination of the phylogenetic histories (the technical term for “evolutionary histories”) of species and higher level taxa. Nor did Darwin and Wallace’s independent co-discovery of Natural Selection depend on either the origin of life or the origin of the universe (As far as I am concerned with both, i believe that Klingons were responsible, not Yahweh. But that’s my own personal philosophical take.).

Sincerely,

John
beaglelady - #2148

January 9^th 2010

(As far as I am concerned with both, i believe that Klingons were responsible, not Yahweh. But that’s my own personal philosophical take.).

Well now, has not Professor Behe mentioned science fiction movies in his Dover trial testimony?
Karl-Heinz - #2154

January 9^th 2010

Quote….Mere_Christian: “how is ID not sound math, good sense and better philosophy?”

As far as math is concerned. ID has no footing. The math portion of the ID theology comes from Will Dembski. You may remember his book where he laid out the arguments “No Free Lunch”.

Well, No Free Lunch was based on the No Free Lunch Theorems discovered by David Wolpert. I encourage you to google this as David Wolpert has responded to this portion of the ‘math’ in ID in an article entitled “WILLIAM DEMBSKI’S TREATMENT OF THE NO FREE LUNCH THEOREMS IS WRITTEN IN JELLO”. This is the man who’s work Dembski (and by extension Meyer) is using as a basis for his mathematical arguments.

Also, for those interested, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf , is the Elsberry and Shallit paper. This paper goes through each of Dembski’s claims, exposing the bad math and flawed logic. My favourite is 9.2 “CSI holism - page 29” where Dembski miscalculates the amount of ‘information’ in the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

As far as the math is concerned, ID fails utterly. I encourage you to read the paper I have linked to see why, on a point by point basis.
John Kwok - #2161

January 10^th 2010

@ beaglelady -

Ken Miller thinks Behe should write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry.

@ Karl - Heinz -

I believe Jeffrey Shallit may have served on Dembski’s Ph. D. dissertation committee when both were stil at the Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago. If credible mathematicians like Shallit - and he has not be the only one - have condemned Dembski’s abysmal understanding and usage of matehmatics, should anyone think that there is any credible mathematical reasoning associated with Intelligent Design creationism? Obviously the answer is a resounding “NO”!
John Kwok - #2164

January 10^th 2010

PAstor Burnett -

As I have implied in my earlier posts this evening, many religiously devout scientists do accept both the fact of biological evolution and the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which has the Darwin - Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection as its fundamental core) and, to the best of my knowledge, none see evolution as a means of advancing Atheism. On the other hand, there is ample evidence demonstrating that Intelligent Design creationism (and other forms of creationism) are being used by their proponents to advance the spread of their particular “brand” of Christianity (It is this very deceit which has led me sadly to conclude that all proponents of creationism - including Intelligent Design - should be viewed as mendacious intellectual pornographers.).

I wonder what Christ would say to a man of the cloth such as yourself who seems to accept the right of anyone to lie or to bear false witness in the name of Christ in order to advance some form of “scientific” creationism. I wouldn’t speculate, but I think that you, as someone who is better informed about the New Testament than yours truly, should know the obvious answer.;
John Kwok - #2184

January 10^th 2010

Typos (# 2161) so am reposting here:

@ beaglelady -

Ken Miller thinks Behe should write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry.

@ Karl - Heinz -

I believe Jeffrey Shallit may have served on Dembski’s Ph. D. dissertation committee when both were still at the Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago. If credible mathematicians like Shallit - and he has certainly not been the only one - have condemned Dembski’s abysmal understanding and usage of matehmatics, should anyone think that there is any credible mathematical reasoning associated with Intelligent Design creationism? Obviously the answer is a resounding “NO”!
Theda Cranberry - #2200

January 10^th 2010

John Kwok, in comment #2134:

We have had centuries of demonstrable scientific progress via the scientific method which has saved countless lives from the agony of dying from deadly diseases, of saving women in labor at risk of death from childbirth, and, quite frankly, been the fundamental reason why we live lives that are much easier and longer than those experienced by our grandparents. Why should we change this for a method that would mean the return of superstition? Do you really want this?

Well, personally, I am in it for Astronomy Picture of the Day, and actual visualizations of S and P orbitals, and fast home computers, not just medicine.
Mike Gene - #2206

January 10^th 2010

Hi John,

“As Francisco J. Ayala has demonstrated - and which Gordon Glover has echoed recently at BioLogos too - history trumps design with regards to looking at the evolutionary histories of organisms (In plain English, we are referring to their genealogical histories.).”

Well, yeah, if by demonstrate you mean that the human body is connected to other animal bodies through evolutionary descent rather than coming off the watch maker’s assembly line. As evolutionists, we all acknowledge the reality of human evolution. But my point lies elsewhere – as explained in my original comment to this thread.
John Kwok - #2216

January 10^th 2010

Correcting a typo, so I am reposting this:

@ Mike -

My comments refer only to the scientific validity of evolution. All other issues are irrelevant, and, moreover, have no place in any discussion on the merits of the scientific fact of biological evolution and as to whether or not the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution should be regarded as the best, most comprehensive, scientific theory that we have now that can account for the origin (biological, not chemical, geological, etc.), history and current structure and composition of our planet’s biodiversity. Am sure you are well aware that Ken Miller would regard your interest in seeking a “middle ground” with similar disdain, since he places far more importance on scientific considerations, not his personal religious convictions, when discussing science (A stance which is ignored or lost on any and all creationists, period. Since you claim not to be a creationist, may I suggest you adopt this stance too…. sooner rather than later, or else run the risk of being lumped with creationists.).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok
Alex McDonald - #2229

January 10^th 2010

It seems to me that Dr. Ayala’s main point (or at least one of them) is that ID is unjustifiably selective regarding which aspects of the physical world are discussed.That is, ID chooses only those examples which make a good case for a benevolent and wise Designer, all the while overlooking various deficiencies (like wisdom teeth, a misshapen spine, and difficulties in procreation). It reminds me of the old idea that God can be either morally good or else be wise/powerful—but not both.

I feel like there might be a way around this problem. Suppose God created a good world, achieved at through the “messy” process of evolution. This world would indeed bear the full imprint of its Creator. Now suppose that none of us “modern folk” actually know anything at all about what that world was like, because somehow both the physical and moral world fell into decay and disorder through a moral Fall. In this way, the modern world would have only a resemblance to its original state of perfection. Its a terribly non-scientific explanation for how nature could display both order and disorder, but I think it is consistent with orthodox Christian theology.
John Kwok - #2231

January 10^th 2010

@ Alex -

Yours is a comment best addressed in a theological or philosophical seminar. What some here are forgetting is that we are primarily interested in evaluating the scientific arguments - or rather the lack thereof - from those who advocate Intelligent Design. Personally I have no problem with someone telling me that the “Intelligent Designer” was some omiscient, omnipotent Deity that set the universe in motion, allowing things to unfold via natural law, starting with the Big Bang. But again, that belongs in a discussion pertaining to theology or the philosophy of religion, not science.

Sincerely,

John
Gregory Arago - #2259

January 11^th 2010

“we are primarily interested in evaluating the scientific arguments” - JK

John Kwok is speaking for a ‘we’ that doesn’t exist.

BioLogos is, according to Collins and Giberson, interested not *only* in science, but also in philosophy and theology.

Some people just don’t like the idea that there is a Mind behind the ‘order’ of the universe. An actual ‘Fall’ of mankind, thus, does not interest or convict them.
mmm - #2264

January 11^th 2010

Ayala wrote:

“there are good reasons to reject ID on religious grounds… humans are chock-full of design defects… Do I want to attribute this egregiously defective design to God, to the omnipotent and benevolent God of the Christian faith? No, I don’t. It would not do to say that God designed intelligently the human genome and that it then decayed owing to natural processes.”

Ayala’s problem is the existence of evil and “bad design”. But I don’t see, why it should be Meyer’s problem, but not Ayala’s own problem at least as well. As William Lane Graig showed in recent debate with Ayala (where Ayala was very bad, see a review here http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/report-on-the-craigayala-debate-at-indiana-university/ ), Ayala cannot claim that natural selection frees God from being responsible for the results: even if God only had designed the evolution program, He would be responsible.

Ayala: “If God would have designed the human genome, surely He would have done it so that this enormous misfortune would not happen.” I don’t know, what is the purpose of humans in God’s plans. Ayala claims that he knows, that God wouldn’t have done human genome, but I don’t see how he got the knowledge from that.
aaa - #2268

January 11^th 2010

From the beginning:

“We especially ask you to take note of this sentence: “I do think that people of faith may find in the world many reasons that support their belief in God. But I don’t think that intelligent design is one of them.””

This is scientific question: do people of faith actually find the intelligent design as a reason that support their belief in God?

As far as I know (and studies about the subject I have read have also said) the answer is yes. Many see intelligent design of our world as evidence for existence of God. Maybe Ayala himself doesn’t see, but that doesn’t allow him to claim, that intelligent design couldn’t be one reason that supports (“people of faith”) belief in God.

Ayala’s claim is unscientific.
beaglelady - #2277

January 11^th 2010

Oops! I screwed up my tags and wish to re-post my comments.

Suppose God created a good world, achieved at through the “messy” process of evolution.

The messy world of evolution included carnage, suffering, and death (along with many good things, I might add), long before man arrived on the scene to morally fall.

Now suppose that none of us “modern folk” actually know anything at all about what that world was like, because somehow both the physical and moral world fell into decay and disorder through a moral Fall. In this way, the modern world would have only a resemblance to its original state of perfection.

But we do have a very good knowledge of earth history, unless God, in an act of unimaginable deceit, faked everything, tampered with evidence, tried to deceive us. But what kind of God would that be?

Its a terribly non-scientific explanation for how nature could display both order and disorder, but I think it is consistent with orthodox Christian theology.

But it isn’t consistent with reality, unless God is a charlatan. If God is a charlatan, it isn’t consistent with Christian theology.
Nate Johnson - #2298

January 11^th 2010

My first consideration has to do with what has been called ‘junk DNA. Two questions, without name calling please., could stand some scrutiny.

1) Does the term ‘junk DNA’ possibly reflect assumptions of the data in question, or is there consensus as to its lack of utility, at least, current utility?
3) If there are examples in the history of science in which data deemed junk and/or useless at one moment in time, but later its utility was understood, then what is the likelihood, given the quantity in question, that such is possible with the data currently labeled as ‘junk’?

My skim of Meyers, is that he believers there is either ignorance or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim of junk DNA. Meyers claims recent research has confirmed that, “...nonprotein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions…”, which in his mind, “decisively refutes prominent critics of ID (Shermer, Miller, and Kitcher), who have continued to argue (each as recently as 2008) that the genome is composed of mostly useless DNA.”

Can we rationally approach this with deference of respect and therefore set the stage for mutual understanding, if not, mutual enlightenment?

In hope of mutual enlightenment,
Nate
John Kwok - #2317

January 11^th 2010

@ Nate -

Meyer is definitely on shaky ground with respect to “junk DNA” since he has no credible background in the biological sciences, period, whereas at least one of the prominent ID critics you mentioned, my friend Ken Miller, does have the necessary and appropriate background to refute him (I’m not going to get drawn into this simply because I don’t have much of a background in molecular biology, so I have to rely instead, on the informed assessments made by the likes of Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, and others who do have that background.).

Meyer’s position that Intelligent Design is “testable” since it produces “testable scientific hypotheses” is simply not borne out by his contention that one could measure “deviations” from “perfect Design”. Why? As both Gordon Glover and I have noted elsewhere here, Meyer ignores the importance of history - that is genealogical history (or to be precise, phylogenetic history) - of the organism(s) whose “design” Meyer is interested in.
hmm - #2319

January 11^th 2010

Tom Gilson made many good points, when he evaluated Ayala’s earlier arguments. For example:

“Ayala says God is not the designer (that’s why God is absolved from responsibility for imperfections and evil)... Later on Ayala explains that our beliefs are just wrong; that we need to let loose of God’s creative involvement in the world.

Ayala’s version of evolution, which (like Kenneth Miller’s) leaves God entirely out of the process of life’s development, is a friend to Ayala’s version of Christianity. Better this than Dennett’s or Dawkins’s versions, which are clearly at enmity with Christianity. But one could wish that he had not stated so baldly that evolution is no threat to Christian beliefs, for it certainly is at odds with any view that says God has been intimately, providentially, guiding the course of life and nature from the beginning.”

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/series/darwinsgift/

Why Ayala speaks nowadays about “people of faith”, or “religion”, but not about Jesus or mere Christianity?

(Ayala emphasized in this review, that he sees also non-christians nowadays as “people of faith”, when he wrote: “Christians AND OTHER PEOPLE OF FAITH should be troubled about Signature of the Cell”)
Nate Johnson - #2321

January 11^th 2010

Dr Ayala states:

“Before the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the like were attributed to direct action by God, so that the tsunami that five years ago killed two hundred fifty thousand Sumatrans might have been interpreted as God’s punishment. Now we know that these catastrophes are the result of natural processes. Similarly, people of faith would do better to attribute the mishaps caused by defective genomes to the vagaries of natural selection and other processes of biological evolution, rather than to God’s design.”

I’m hesitant, but it seems that Dr. Ayala’s above paragraph belies an unfamiliarity with the religious dimensions of the philosophy of science. This ‘either/or’ - natural OR divine approach to data reflects what is commonly labeled as “God of the gaps,” i.e., only when there are no natural explanations, can we bring God onto the explanatory level. I am not aware of any thoughtful person who honestly subscribes to this sort of reasoning, and I find such arguments ‘non-starters’ and therefore cannot be taken seriously.
Nate Johnson - #2328

January 11^th 2010

Hi John (John Kwok, #2317),

Thanks for responding. I do not have a credible background either, John, but I can follow deductive reasoning. It’s ok to bow out of a discussion, but I’m sure you realize that your following claim, that Meyers has, “no credible background in the biological sciences, period,” is simply an example of an Ad Hominem argument, which by definition, is not argument at all. Incidentally, Meyers is not out of his field; He has a Ph.D. from Cambridge in the philosophy of science, and that makes him minimally, a credible source.

I might ad that leaving things to the experts is not wise, nor will it help the impasse we find ourselves in as a culture. Humility, then, by all means - ad hominems, no.

Respectfully,
Nate
John Kwok - #2329

January 11^th 2010

@ hmm -

Ayala is speaking more broadly I suppose in light of increasing activity by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya. But, his view resonates with someone like the Dalai Lama, who has observed that if Buddhism is wrong and science right, then Buddhism must conform with science. IMHO that is a most enlightened view from one of the most important religious figures of our time.
John Kwok - #2331

January 11^th 2010

@ Nate Johnson -

It is not an adhominem remark to note, as I have done correctly, that Meyer does not have a background in the biological sciences. Nor have I been the first to do so, as for example, my friend Donald Prothero has noted more than once, including the November 30th debate in Los Angeles which pitted Don and Michael Shermer against Meyer and Richard Sternberg - the publisher of Meyer’s ridiculous 2004 “Cambrian Explosion” “scientific” paper - who is now, apparently, a willing servant of the Discovery Institute.

And no, I am not “bowing out of the discussion”. I possess substantially more of a background in the biological sciences than Meyer ever has, and I will challenge him on any risible comment he may choose to make with regards that Intelligent Design is capable of making successful, testable, “scientific” predictions with respect to phylogenetic history, and in general, the history of life on Planet Earth.
John Kwok - #2337

January 11^th 2010

@ Nate Johnson -

Based on your criterion, then I must be viewed too as a credible source since I have bachelor’s degrees in history and geology - biology from Brown University, and several graduate degrees, including a MS degree in Geosciences from the University of Arizona. One’s credibility - especially in the sciences - depends not on where that person earned that degree, but whether that person has done anything credible that is worthy of the degree in question. Under this definition then, Meyer is not a credible philosopher of science, since neither his publication history nor the quality of his work is remotely close to those attained by such eminent philosophers of science as Robert Pennock, Philip Kitcher, or Barbara Forrest; all of whom have been leading critics of creationism, espeiclaly of Intelligent Design, for years.
hmm - #2341

January 11^th 2010

John Kwok:

“Ayala is speaking more broadly I suppose in light of increasing activity by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya.”

I don’t believe that Ayala had Harun Yahya in his mind, when he wrote about “people of faith” (the term used sometimes also by Obama). “People of faith” is term, that he uses describing himself. Ayala is supporter of God of the Gaps theology (belief that God is working only in the gaps): for him God is very limited person (if he is person for Ayala, I’m not sure about that in his theology), and can do only the things that science can not explain.
Nate Johnson - #2347

January 11^th 2010

Dr Ayala says:

“Think of it: twenty percent of all human pregnancies amount to twenty million abortions every year. I shudder at the thought of this calamity being attributed to God’s specific design of the human genome.”

Dr. Ayala’s logic would follow, but he needs one much-needed premise:
“The way things are, are the way things always have been.”

Through out its history, Christianity has postulated , a space-time fall, i.e., sin’s entrance followed by God’s curse due to mankind’s representative regal status. Great! That’s all we need now is to bring religious doctrine into the picture! Two responses follow: 1) Aren’t we faced with something along these lines when pushed to explain ultimate origins? We have only to remember Crick’s extra-terrestrial visitation, and not as evident, but possibly no less religious, is the attempt at contravening of Ex nihilo Nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes). 2) Chrisianity has too many historical underpinnings to be lumped together with the fanciful; indeed, as Whitehead noted - Christianity played a vital role in the creation of modern science. It has earned a right to be heard how it might address these and other issues.
Nate Johnson - #2350

January 11^th 2010

Hi again, John (John Kwok - #2337)

Why, or course, I’ll include you. I bet with a nice cab from Sonoma, I could easily be enriched by you.

(John Kwok - #2331)
John, your remark, “It is not an ad hominem remark to note, as I have done correctly, that Meyer does not have a background in the biological sciences.”

True, the above remark isn’t ad hominem, but the use of it to discredit Meyer’s claim is a CLASSIC example of what an ad hominem argument entails. Below is its definition:

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
Nate Johnson - #2358

January 11^th 2010

Hi John (John Kwok - #2317)

I’m glad to read,

“And no, I am not “bowing out of the discussion”.”

But you did say earlier, “I’m not going to get drawn into this…”

In terms of a valid argument, it doesn’t matter if you think Meyers is credible or not. What matters is simply the truth or falsity of his claim, which is “...nonprotein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions…”, which in his mind, “decisively refutes prominent critics of ID (Shermer, Miller, and Kitcher), who have continued to argue (each as recently as 2008) that the genome is composed of mostly useless DNA.”regarding the utility of what others claim to be “junk DNA.”

Is this true, why or why not? I’m willing and ready to engage, and believe it or not, I’m willing to learn from you, but let’s stay away from ad hominems.

Respectfully,
Nate
January 11th 2010
Jay Richards - #2360

January 11^th 2010

From these comments, I think it’s quite clear that Ayala didn’t read Meyer’s book. Ayala has just summarized his own pre-existing prejudices here, for instance, by reiterating the old bad design retort. His summary of Meyer’s book is laughable. No one who actually read the book would say: “The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms.”

Meyer dispatches that “chance only” argument, notes that few experts seriously consider it an adequate explanation, and moves on to detailed discussion of various chemical evolutionary and self-organizational scenarios. Ayala doesn’t seem to know this. He may have glanced at the book and found a quote about religious implications. But that’s the only empirical evidence he provides that he even knows Meyer’s argument. Hence, I would bet that he hasn’t read the book, despite the title of this feature.
John Kwok - #2362

January 11^th 2010

@ Nate -

Meyer claims to have made the most significant biological discovery possible, by asserting that Intelligent Design is the best, most comprehensive, scientific theory accounting for the origin of life and for the history of life on Planet Earth in his book, “Signature in the Cell”. Don’t you think that’s a bold, quite audacious, claim, and one for which he ought to have the requisite scientific training. But regrettably for Meyer, he doesn’t, and his ignorance is apparent to anyone who has the requisite biological knowledge and understanding (which I certainly do). Moreover, he makes claims about a certain aspect of biology - paleobiology - that I am especially familiar with, since I had studied paleobiology in college and graduate school.
John Kwok - #2363

January 11^th 2010

Nate (continued) -

So I am merely stating the obvious when I say Meyer isn unqualified to comment on matters biological. I am also stating the obvious when I observe that both his publication history and the quality of that history pales in comparison to his philosophy of science colleagues Robert Pennock, Philip Kitcher and Barbara Forrest; the same can be said too for his history of science work, which doesn’t even remotely come close to the excellence demonstrated by someone as notable as William Provine, one of our foremost living historians of science, especially with regards to evolutionary biology.

Now it would be an ad hominem attack if I were to observe that “Stephen Meyer is such a pathetic writer and mediocre literary stylist, that he could never earn even a mere blurb of praise from bestselling memoirist Frank McCourt” (I mention Frank McCourt only because he’s not only among the greatest writers of our time, but beause I knew him, since he he was my high school English and creative writing teacher, and the one to whom I owe ample thanks for teaching me something about the craft of writing. I might add that Frank did approve of my attacks upon creationists, and am sure may be enjoying this wherever he is now.).
Nate Johnson - #2364

January 11^th 2010

John,

I simply do not understand the necessity of someone’s credentials or lack thereof, when it comes to weighing an argument. He is either right or wrong. His claims stands or it doesn’t. Again, his claim is:

“...nonprotein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions…”, which in his mind, “decisively refutes prominent critics of ID (Shermer, Miller, and Kitcher), who have continued to argue (each as recently as 2008) that the genome is composed of mostly useless DNA.”regarding the utility of what others claim to be “junk DNA.”

Then on this topic, we can go no further.
John Kwok - #2365

January 11^th 2010

@ Nate -

TO be succinct, I trust Ken Miller’s knowledge and judgement (And I say this not only because Ken is a friend, but more importantly, because he has demonstrated that knowledge and judgement on countless occasions for years) far more than Stephen Meyer’s. Why? Ken is a professional biologist, while Meyer, though he claims expertise in biology, has never published anything noteworthy in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, including of course his notorious “Cambrian Explosion” paper that should never have been published in the first place. Nor has Meyer made any truly meaningful, substantial contribution to either the history of or the philosophy of science; his work pales in comparison with the likes of Robert Pennock, Philip Kitcher, Barbara Forrest, William Provine, David Kohn (a leading historian on Darwin’s work and the director of the American Museum of Natural History’s Darwin Digital Library) or Janet Browne (whose two volume biography on Charles Darwin is regarded by many as the definitive account).
Nate Johnson - #2369

January 11^th 2010

John,

We’re having a communication problem, and it would be helpful to separate the issues in order to move forward. I can appreciate your reluctance to ‘accept’ anything from Meyers, because you do not view him credible. And we can discuss that issue on its own merit. But I’ve never asked you to ‘accept’ anything Meyers has said; I’ve only asked you to engage his truth-claim. It never has been about Meyers. I really don’t care whether he has published or not. As we know from the past, there can be all kinds of reasons why someone cannot publish, or have his voice be heard. Does this make sense? What possibly, am I not grasping here?

Unless we engage the issue that I raised, I believe this ‘credible issue’ is not advancing anyone’s understanding, and I will hereby withdraw further engagement that does not address the truth claim under consideration.

Respectfully,
Nate

Nate
John Kwok - #2380

January 11^th 2010

@ Nate Johnson -

And I have engaged Meyer in his “truth - claim”, having rejected his absurd claim that Intelligent Design can be a “scientific theory” in a substantial one star negative Amazon.com review I have written of “Signature in the Cell”. His “truth - claim” has no merit, period, whatsoever.

What “credible issue” can I have with someone like Meyer whose career has been devoted to advancing the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism? Sadly, the answer is “NONE”!

Respectfully yours,

John
Tim Elston - #2399

January 12^th 2010

@ Nate

I understand your point, Nate. John dismisses any claim Meyer makes without engaging his arguments. John is apparently not the right person to engage in logical or empirical argument. But he is a tremendous resource in the art of Who-you-know. Maybe someone else will come along who is willing to address your question.
John Kwok - #2426

January 12^th 2010

@ Tim -

There is nothing that Meyer has said which is worth noting. I especially reject his claim that Intelligent Design is “scientific” since it provides “testable” scientific hypotheses. The very examples he offers at the end of “Signature in the Cell” with regards to assessing “deviations from perfect Design” neglect the importance of genealogy or history (more correctly referred to as phylogenetic history) which Gordon Glover has noted elsewhere here at BioLogos. So any assertion by Nate that Meyer has valid “truth-claims” is ridiculous, period. The same can be said for his lame assertion that I am engaging in ad hominem attacks on Meyer, and I provided an excellent example why I’m not in referring to the late Frank McCourt, who was one of the greatest writers of our time.
John Kwok - #2429

January 12^th 2010

@ Tim -

Compared to the likes of such eminent philosophers and historians of science like Robert Pennock, Philip Kitcher, Barbara Forrest, William Provine, David Kohn and Janet Browne, Stephen C. Meyer is a mediocre philosopher and historian of science. While this may be an opinion of mine, it is a well-informed one, based entirely on his publication history and comparing it to others. On the other hand, Meyer has been an uncommonly good “evangelist” on behalf of Intelligent Design creationism since the early 1990s, and both his style and methods of argumentation are - upon close scrutiny unfortunately - more akin to those employed by the best propagandists of the great totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th Century than by the distinguished scholars I have just cited whom Meyer believes are his peers (And sadly, for Meyer to think so means that he is delusional IMHO.).
Pierre - #2453

January 12^th 2010

I guess I’m unclear why a human’s understanding of a flaw in a design would mean that it is an actual flaw (no matter how intelligent the human)? It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that any person may know what perfection in design is without knowing what the intention of the design is. Something imperfect to us in our worldview may in fact be a perfect design to bring about what the Creator intends in His view…
John Kwok - #2455

January 12^th 2010

@ Pierre -

Your observation is best suited for a discussion on theology. It should not have any bearing on science - which is what Meyer wants - since science can not ascertain the wish(es) of an unseen, omnipotent, omnipresent DEITY (CREATOR). By mixing the two you have, as a result, both bad science and bad theology, which many here fail to realize.

You are also missing my observation - and, I might add Gordon Glover’s too, which he has stated elsewhere here at BioLogos - that those who accept Design forget that Design must be seen in the context of history (or rather genealogy or more precisely, phylogenetic history) of the organism(s) in question. There are more than a few current scientists, such as for example, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller, who recognize that Design does exist in nature, but they would also observe - and I might add rightfully so - that this is the result of natural laws, not the Divine Intervention(s) of a CREATOR.
beaglelady - #2456

January 12^th 2010

Pierre,

(responding to #2453…)

I think that’s part of the problem—scientists are NOT allowed to ask ID proponents any questions about the designer—not his/her identity nor his/her methods nor his/her intentions, and so on. That makes ID compatible with everything and therefore useless. “I guess the designer just made it that way or made it appear that way”

Even in the very creepy, gross-out (I hope you aren’t eating lunch) example of sexual cannibalism, is it really arrogant to ask what in the world the designer was thinking when he thought of this, instead of just shrugging it off? After all, we are expected to use our human understanding to make moral decisions, and we are accountable in courts of law, so we can’t blame everything on our flawed perspective.
John Kwok - #2457

January 12^th 2010

Beaglelady -

In a letter to his friend and colleague, eminent American botanist Asa Gray, Charles Darwin noted:

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

Advocates of Intelligent Design put themselves in a philosophically precarious position whenever they contend that “Design in Nature” must be the result of some providential “Intellgent Designer” (though in my case, I’ll simply say that the Intelligent Designers were the Klingons!).

Appreciatively yours,

John
Pierre - #2466

January 12^th 2010

@ John
Thanks John. I didn’t miss your observation but appreciate your follow up. I understand what you are saying that science needs to stand alone from theology and not be directed by it. I agree completely and am confident in the end that all science (done independently from any theology) will point back to a Creator no matter what it may look like at any given time. I am not worried about that. It is simply the interpretations of the science by certain folks that concerns me.
I am a scientist, and I do not purport to know the answer to everything. I understand evolutionary principles clearly and witness adaptation in the lab every day. I am neither a proponent of ID nor of inter-species evolution. To me, there are ample reasons on both sides to remain open-minded. Neither is blasphemous but both need to be interpreted in light of the fact that we are not perfect and cannot see the entire picture. My objection above was to the statements that seemed to indicate that ID is incorrect because the design is imperfect. I was merely putting out there the question of “imperfect by what measure?” As scientists we need to be really careful about our conclusions and interpretations and keep our arrogance in check.

(continued…)
Pierre - #2467

January 12^th 2010

@John

...continued

Too many times I review papers in which incorrect conclusions are made from one particular interpretation without taking into consideration that the interpretation may be incorrect and that other interpretations need to be equally considered. Yes, ID seems fanciful and a cop out with respect to science in some senses, but just because it may seem that way doesn’t mean it is not true.
I submit that ID is as valid an hypothesis as evolution. Perhaps difficult to test but not any less worthy of serious consideration. It may be wrong, but it should not be so easily dismissed because it may be right. If so, then designed at what level? Or conversely, evolutionary adaptation from what level? There is compelling evidence that can be interpreted to the advantage of both sides. We just need to be careful…
Pierre - #2468

January 12^th 2010

@John

...finally

Yes, I agree completely that some designs we see in nature are well described by natural laws. Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to continue with that assumption. In certain cases, this direct result can be reproduced and manipulated and in these cases the role of the natural laws is proven. That’s an easy one. But that does not automatically mean that ALL designs in nature can be explained by natural laws (or at least by the natural laws that we are currently aware of and that adequately define our immediate world). We should not presuppose that this is all there is and as scientists, we need to remain open to the FACT that there is more out there and there is a bigger picture than what we see and that we may never be privy to. To interpret all design only in the context of history is to limit oneself. When you say that it MUST be seen in the context of history, yes it must be one of the parameters….but not the only one.
Pierre - #2473

January 12^th 2010

@ beaglelady,

You’re funny. I agree….I have no idea why the Creator made cannibals, if He did. He obviously made people that turned to cannibalism. Whether or not he made people using evolutionary principles alone, or used these principles in addition to some design or by design only…I have no idea and it is incredibly arrogant for me to lean one way or another. I can go by what i KNOW (science only) or what I BELIEVE (theology only) or by both, using them to substantiate each other…which I believe is the correct way since science is the search for the truth and the turth will lead to Him. Whether or not I am correct we will have to wait and see. I do not know how God created everything from nothing, it’s very cool and I am working on it…I’ll let you know when I figure it all out…
beaglelady - #2474

January 12^th 2010

Pierre,

Well, science is not the search for ultimate truth. All of science is tentative. And I certainly don’t believe my faith is tentative. The thing about science is that it only considers the natural world because it has no way of exploring the supernatural world—it can’t stuff God into a test-tube.

Medical science is like this also. When my little nephew started to have seizures he ended up in Yale-New Haven hospital where he was diagnosed with epilepsy using the tools of science. You can be sure that the doctor never considered demon possession as the cause of his seizures. I trust the doctor’s diagnosis and yet still pray for my nephew. I know the difference between the realm of science and the realm of faith.
John Kwok - #2475

January 12^th 2010

@ Pierre -

Intelligent Design was soundly rejected as “valid” science by notable scientists - who were themselves creationists (for scientific, not religious reasons) - such as Adam Sedgwick, Charles Darwin’s Cambridge University geology professor, back in the beginning of the 19th Century. Eminent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher has made a most cogent, quite persuasive case in his “Living with Darwin” for Intelligent Design as “dead science”.

If you wish for science to view somehow the inner workings of the “Creator” then you are seeking to alter completely the very fabric, the very essence of science (which is what Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, William Dembski and their Discovery Institute colleagues wish to do. If you doubt this, read their writings, and read especially, Behe’s admission in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial testimony). You are also mixing theology with science, and, again, as I have noted before, to do both would yield both bad theology and bad science.
John Kwok - #2476

January 12^th 2010

Pierre (continued) -

For more than twenty years, Intellligent Design advocates have had ample opportunities to present their “research” before mainstream science via time-tested, well-respected means (the process of scientific peer review). They have refused to do any real science on Intelligent Design or to submit the results of such work for scientific peer review. Instead they have engaged in advertising, in condemning their critics, in lying, in ignoring published data (contrary to their beliefs), and yes, even in theft. Instead, they cry “foul” and accuse mainstream science of “persecution” as though mainstream science was a “Spanish Inquisition” maintained by and for the “evil Atheist Liberal Darwinist” scientific community (NOTE TO WEBMASTER: DO NOT DELETE THIS.).
John Kwok - #2478

January 12^th 2010

Pierre (continued) -

If you wish to believe that the Creator was involved intimately in organizing all of Creation, then I have no philosophical problems with that (I may disagree, but I will disagree respectfully). However, I will strongly object to any effort by you or others to insert your religious views into the mainstream scientific community or to insist that they be taught alongside legitimate science like biological evolution in science classrooms. Indeed, if one were to allow your views to take hold in both mainstream science and in science classrooms, then why shouldn’t we give equal time too to the Hindu GODS, to Native American GODS, to Buddha, and yes, even to Klingon Cosmology?

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok
Pierre - #2493

January 12^th 2010

@beaglelady,

Well, while science may not lead to the Ultimate Truth, as you define it, it is in fact the search for truth in the realm of what we can understand and in our world. I understand what you are saying with respect to science being considered tentative in the larger realm, it certainly is not the aim for it to be tentative in our realm. It is based on fact and observations that allow us to manipulate our surroundings in a predictable manner. Of course, it has limitations and it changes as discoveries are made. Science is not the end-all be-all, but it is also not be the enemy of Christianity. I never meant to imply that you did not know the difference…

I am sorry to hear about your nephew. You have my sympathies and prayers. It is precisely for that reason that I am in science…

Best wishes,

-Pierre
Pierre - #2500

January 12^th 2010

@John,

I apologize if I hit a nerve there… I don’t recall ever (in this blog or elsewhere) advocating that ID be taught next to science in the classroom. Your strong objection to any effort you think I have made is noted, but misplaced. I tend to agree with you. Having said this, just because someone or even several someones a long time ago dismissed something (or advocated something, for that matter) doesn’t mean that it should be accepted as correct. There is a saying that I heard circulates at Oxford “have you muzzled a dogma today?” There is nothing wrong with asking questions and questioning, I have a problem with blind acceptance and conclusions being made with incomplete data, that’s all. This is certianly a hot topic of debate and I’m glad it’s being debated, but it is by no means settled, no matter how angry you are about it. I truly welcome your input and views as many people hold the same ones. Please remember, however, yours isn’t the only one and may in fact may not be the correct one.
beaglelady - #2503

January 12^th 2010

Pierre,

Thank you!
John Kwok - #2513

January 12^th 2010

@ Pierre (# 2500) -

My apologies if you thought I was accusing you of being someone who would want his or her religious convictions rammed down the throats of others. I greatly resent the “evangelizing” done by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on behalf of New Atheism (which I prefer referring to it as “Militant Atheism”) as I do from those who are Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

However, having said this, you must recognize that for virtually all of science, Intelligent Design is a dead issue. It should be viewed, as philosopher Philip Kitcher has noted, as “dead science” simply because it serves no useful purpose in science, period. I would go further and contend that it is also mendacious intellectual pornography, given the ongoing abysmal conduct of its advocates, including Stephen Meyer.
Tim Elston - #2515

January 12^th 2010

@John,

Nate asked a question about ‘junk DNA’. Do you care to address the question?
John Kwok - #2518

January 12^th 2010

Tim -

I have answered it already, by noting that I concur with what Ken Miller, Francisco J. Ayala and others have said about it. I am in agreement only because that falls within their area of expertise and I am not someone sufficiently familiar with molecular biology to comment accurately. However, I can comment on Meyer’s absurd claim for making testable, “scientific” predictions about determining “deviations from perfect Design” from fossil record data,since I am a former paleobiologist. Meyer’s declaration is utter nonsense - and I am repeating myself again here if you haven’t noticed - since he neglects the importance of history (or of genealogy or more precisely, phylogenetic history) in assessing Design (In case you’ve forgotten, Gordon Glover has posted on this very issue here at BioLogos and agrees completely with my assessment.).

If you want to play “gotcha” with me, then I’m not interested. I have much better things to do with my time, and frankly, answering yours and Nate’s questions merely illustrate how much I have been wasting my time.
Pierre - #2520

January 13^th 2010

@John,
I hear you. I do not consider ID a science either. I can’t help but wonder, though, the complexity and details of life that continue to be uncovered-first the human genome was thought to encode life, and now we find that methylation of genomes can be carried over to future generations as a result of stress on preceding generations-more detail within detail. I understand the power of evolutionary adaptation over time but my research studies into the biochemistry of proteases reveals similar detail within detail to the point that the loss of a single proton in the active site of an enzyme renders it completely inactive. I find it hard to stick solely to evolutionary processes to satisfactorily explain these observations for a single molecule, let alone a series of enzymatic events or something as complex as a cell (or even just the cell membrane). There just seems to me to be so many seemingly obvious signatures of design that I find it hard not to consider it at some level. No, it is not science as we define it and these observations and opinions will never be published in any scientific journal, but I admit I feel terribly uncomfortable dismissing them outright… Thanks for the opportunity for discussion, John.
John Kwok - #2540

January 13^th 2010

@ Pierre -

Yours are arguments based on ignorance (# 2520), which is unfortunately, one trait you share with creationists, including those who espouse Intelligent Design. There’s a lot we don’t know about evolution, such as reasons for the prevalence of long-term morphological stasis in the fossil record, how extinction works (or how quickly the biosphere recovers after a mass extinction), how well evolutionary developmental biology fits within established evolutionary theory (some would say not well at all). But we don’t know everything about geology, physics, chemistry, etc. Just because we don’t know the mechanism(s) for what transpires at the molecular level gives you - or anyone who claims to be doing the science - the right to even think that we can’t “stick solely to evolutionary processes to satisfactorily explain” - when virtually everything else in biology CAN BE EXPLAINED as a result of biological evolution at work. If you truly feel that way, then maybe you ought to consider a career outside of science (I’m not kidding about this.).

Respectfully yours,

John
John Kwok - #2543

January 13^th 2010

@ Pierre -

Two religiously devout scientists I have known, eminent ecologist Michael Rosenzweig and cell biologist Ken Miller, DO NOT MIX their religious views with their science when they work as scientists. I think it is because they recognize that to do so would result in bad science and bad theology. How can you call yourself a credible scientist and cast doubt on the scientific method itself, by questioning whether your data is the result of biological evolution? If you want to go on questioning this, then you are leaving science and entering instead, the realm of theological metaphysics. If you can’t separate your religious convictions from your scientific work while you are working as a scientist, then you should consider another line of work.

Respectfully yours,

John
Pierre - #2551

January 13^th 2010

@John,

Oh John, John John…. must you lower yourself persistantly to personal assaults when you have nothing to say?

Credible scientists are credible only if they do not dismissoutright things that they do not agree with or understand. I feel very sorry for you.

Best wishes in your endeavors.
John Kwok - #2558

January 13^th 2010

@ Mike -

I have the utmost respect for credible, religiously devout, scientists I have met, including my old friends Mike Rosenzweig and Ken Miller, and Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno (whom I met after a World Science Festival panel discussion here in New York City last June, in which he participated alongside Ken Miller and physicist Lawrence Krauss, who is, incidentally one of the more prominent Atheists). All of them know where and when to separate their religious convictions from their duties and obligations about scientists. Their views stand in stark contrast with those from the Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and apparently, with a number of people posting here (And to those who are posting here who can’t separate their science from their faith, then you have to pardon me when I say that I am inclined to agree more with Dr. Szostak’s comments posted elsewhere here, than with yours.).
John Kwok - #2559

January 13^th 2010

typo, so am reposting here:

@ Mike -

I have the utmost respect for credible, religiously devout, scientists I have met, including my old friends Mike Rosenzweig and Ken Miller, and Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno (whom I met after a World Science Festival panel discussion here in New York City last June, in which he participated alongside Ken Miller and physicist Lawrence Krauss, who is, incidentally one of the more prominent Atheists). All of them know where and when to separate their religious convictions from their duties and obligations as scientists. Their views stand in stark contrast with those from the Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and apparently, with a number of people posting here (And to those who are posting here who can’t separate their science from their faith, then you have to pardon me when I say that I am inclined to agree more with Dr. Szostak’s comments posted elsewhere here, than with yours.).
Drew Smith - #2562

January 13^th 2010

Sorry everyone it has taken so long for me to come back and post. In response to “What does Evolutionary Creationist even mean,” I would like to champion Dr. Lamoureux’s definition of Evolutionary Creation because he can say it I think better than I ever could. “Evolutionary creation asserts that God created the universe and life through and ordained, sustained, and design reflecting evolutionary process…It contends that the Creator established and maintains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of a teleological evolution…Notably, this view of origins argues that humanity evolved from pre-human ancestors, and through this process the Image of God and human sin were gradually and mysteriously manifested.” (I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution pg 26) Dr. Lamoureux’s l previous book is called Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution and is much longer (about 500 pages). I would highly recommend it. Dr. Lamoureux helped me reconcile science (especially biology) with my faith.
John Kwok - #2564

January 13^th 2010

@ Drew Smith -

I prefer the term theistic evolutionist myself for Dr. Lamoureux’s convictions. As one keeps those views solely within the realm of theology and not science, then I have no problem with them.
beaglelady - #2573

January 13^th 2010

Drew,

I share your enthusiastic support for Denis Lamoureux. I thought his book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution was excellent. (And John, when he is doing science he considers only natural causes.)
Tim Elston - #2614

January 14^th 2010

@John

Thanks for answering conclusively that you don’t want to discuss it yourself but are rather content to point to the discussions of others. Is there a board where these people you keep mentioning, or people like them, want to discuss the biological issues?
Benson Bear - #2666

January 15^th 2010

“intelligent design” doesn’t mean “good design”.
beaglelady - #2718

January 15^th 2010

Tim,

I believe that John has been banned.
Stevo - #2803

January 16^th 2010

Mr. Ayala has raised some questions that deserve to be answered but he hasn’t saved his position notwithstanding. The problem is that his world-view requires New York to be in Europe, but in stead of solving the problem and saving his position from this crux he spends his time in this piece pointing to all “europeanesque” things that can be found in New York. Good points but New York still hasn’t made it out of the United States and your philosophical basis for conducting science and interpreting facts about you still faces a very serious problem.
Joshua - #3961

February 4^th 2010

@Pierre #2520

>>but my research studies into the biochemistry of proteases reveals similar detail within detail >>to the point that the loss of a single proton in the active site of an enzyme renders it completely >>inactive.

This is facinating. Thank you for sharing.
Tim - #6513

March 11^th 2010

I think the good Doctor read the wrong book. Steve Meyer wrote Signature in the Cell, not Signature of the Cell. This would explain why he didn’t respond to any of the arguments is Steve’s book.
meestahjoose - #7231

March 20^th 2010

Re: post 2200

So that’s what science is good for? Speed and comfort? How about basic knowledge and understanding, for its own sake? It may or may not contribute to an improvement in the physical quality of life.

MJ
Stephen Bishop - #13858

May 15^th 2010

Why would a logical, philosopher, depend on the logical fallacy of arguing from conclusion? More specifically, Ayala asserts that a designer (i.e. God) would never have produced what exists, or allowed it to become so.

Why would a man who lacks the sound capacity for logical reasoning, as Ayala has demonstrated here, presume to know the mind of God sufficiently to assert what we would/would not have done?

And why would a faith-based rationale be used to undercut a scientific argument on the basis of separating science and religion?

But if faith-based reasons are to be included, then Ayala should at least reflect the best faith-based answers to his objections. On the other hand, he only lasted a year as a Priest.
Christina Wilson - #21272

July 10^th 2010

Please read Dr. Stephen Meyer’s response to Dr. Ayala in the digital book, Signature of
Controversy, edited by David Klinghoffer. The book is available through the Discovery Institute Press website. In my opinion, Dr. Meyer completely wipes out Dr. Ayala’s argument.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

On Reading the Cell’s Signature

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment