Design Arguments Behe vs. Orr
|
|
- Gyles Wilkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Design Arguments Behe vs. Orr I assume that everyone is familiar with the basic idea of Darwin s theory of evolution by natural selection. While this did not seem to be Darwin s intention, philosophical naturalists (i.e. atheists) claim that Darwin s explanation for the origin of living organisms has greatly weakened the argument from design. What is it about Darwin s theory that weakens the design argument? It is not the thesis that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor, so that taxonomical relationships are a matter of how close the closest common ancestor is. (This idea allows that the process of evolution was guided by God, and could not have happened by itself.) Rather, the challenge comes from the fact that Darwin s main mechanism for the evolutionary process, natural selection, is unguided, lacking any goal or purpose. Natural selection is basically a filter that chooses (selects for) some biological characteristics and rejects others. Some characteristics will, in a given context, cause the organisms that have them to produce more offspring, on average. For example, sharp eyesight will help predators, especially if their prey is well camouflaged. Now, if such traits are inherited, then the offspring of these animals will likely have the same traits. Such beneficial traits will therefore become prevalent in the population, over a period of some generations. As the name suggests, natural selection is a natural process that does not seem to require the action of a creator. Moreover, the source of the small changes between parents and offspring is thought to be random sexual recombination and occasional random genetic mutations (copying errors). Random events are the opposite of purposeful, intelligent acts. Naturalists argue, therefore, that not only is there a continuous line of descent with modification, from bacteria to humans, but that the whole process happened by purely natural processes, namely the accumulation of small changes, filtered by natural selection. Some theists are happy with this picture, but others (now often called intelligent design advocates, I.D. theorists) argue that it is inadequate. The most common line of attack from ID theorists is that some complex structures would be very difficult to make by a sequence of small improvements. Note that, for natural selection to approve of a mutation, it must cause increased offspring right now, not at some time in the future. Biochemist Michael Behe developed a version of this argument, which is summarised below. Behe writes How can we decide if Darwin's theory can account for the complexity of molecular life? It turns out that Darwin himself set the standard. He acknowledged that: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, 1
2 slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But what type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Let's consider an everyday example of irreducible complexity: the humble mousetrap. The mousetraps that my family uses consist of a number of parts. There are: 1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; 2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; 3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; 4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied, and 5) a metal bar which connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. Now you can't catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces of the mousetrap have to be in place before you catch any mice. Therefore the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. Demonstration that a system is irreducibly complex is not a proof that there is absolutely no gradual route to its production. Although an irreducibly complex system can't be produced directly, one can't definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. However, as the complexity of an interacting system increases, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows. The Cilium Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are. A good example is the cilium. Cilia are hairlike structures on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that can move fluid over the cell's 2
3 surface or "row" single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. What is the structure of a cilium? A cilium consists of bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double "microtubules" surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing a protein called dynein. But how does a cilium work? Experiments have shown that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other. The protein cross-links between microtubules in a cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme. Now, let us consider what this implies. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore, we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex; an enormous monkey wrench thrown into its presumed gradual, Darwinian evolution. And in another essay, Behe writes about the bacterial flagellum, which is a rotating version of the cilium, driven by a little motor The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection. Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system. The sterility of Darwinism indicates that it is the wrong framework for understanding the basis of life. As I argue in my book, an alternative hypothesis is both natural and obvious: systems such as the flagellum were intentionally 3
4 designed by an intelligent agent. Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems. This conclusion may have theological implications that make some people uncomfortable; nonetheless it is the job of science to follow the data wherever they lead, no matter how disturbing. H. Allen Orr criticizes Behe, claiming that his science is completely wrong. Orr does regard Behe s claim as a scientific one, however, and offers a scientific rebuttal. Other scientists dismiss Behe as a creationist, whose work doesn t count as science at all. Orr writes, for example: Although Behe discusses his religious sentiments he notes his Roman Catholicism, is disturbed by the ill will between science and theology, and is subtly (but clearly) offended by biologist Richard Dawkins's atheism he never places himself squarely in the creationist camp. 3 He maintains that his position is strictly scientific and that the data have driven him ineluctably to his views. As though to prove his scientific restraint, Behe even refuses to speculate on the identity of the designer. Although his last chapter offers many hints of the designer's divinity, the door is left open ever so slightly to some variety of alien intervention (although one wonders who designed them). It's hard to say if Behe's reluctance to utter "God did it" is tactical or sincere. On the one hand, creationists learned long ago to be discreet about religious motive. But on the other, Behe seems sophisticated enough to see that Darwinism never threatened any but the most literal-minded of religious creeds anyway (as dramatically confirmed by Pope John Paul II's recent acceptance of evolution as "more than just a hypothesis"). In any case, I will take Behe at his word. His arguments should and must be dealt with on scientific grounds, just as he has requested. For, in the end, Behe is simply right or wrong. And I am convinced that he is very wrong. What is wrong with Behe s argument? Here is Orr s response. The first thing you need to understand about Behe's argument is that it's just plain wrong. It's not that he botched some stray fact about evolution, or that he doesn't know his biochemistry, but that his argument as an argument is fatally flawed. To see this we need to first get clear about what kinds of solutions to irreducible complexity are not open to Darwinism. First it will do no good to suggest that all the required parts of some biochemical pathway popped up simultaneously by mutation. Although this "solution" yields a functioning system in one fell swoop, it's so hopelessly unlikely that no Darwinian takes it seriously. As Behe rightly says, we gain nothing by replacing a problem 4
5 with a miracle. Second, we might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car's transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity. Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become because of later changes essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required. The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches like dry land that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries they are essential. The punch line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong. It's worth noting that our scenario is neither hypothetical nor confined to the often irretrievable world of biological history. Indeed it's a common experience among computer programmers. Anyone who programs knows how easy it is to write yourself into a corner: a change one makes because it improves efficiency may become, after further changes, indispensable. Improvements might be made one line of code at a time and, at all stages, the program does its job. But, by the end, all the lines may be required. This programming analogy captures another important point: If I were to hand you the final program, it's entirely possible that you would not be able to reconstruct its history that this line was added last and that, in a previous version, some other line sat between these two. Indeed, because the very act of revising a program has a way of wiping out clues to its history, it may be impossible to reconstruct the path taken. Similarly, we have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway. But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual 5
6 evolution any more than the irreducible complexity of a program does which is to say, not at all Behe responds Declining the opportunity to address my biochemical arguments, Orr questions the concept of irreducible complexity on logical grounds. He agrees with me that "You cannot... gradually improve a mousetrap by adding one part and then the next. A trap having half its parts doesn't function half as well as a real trap; it doesn't function at all." So Orr understands the point of my mousetrap analogy-- but then mysteriously forgets it. He later writes, "Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added, because it helps A." Some part initially does some job? Which part of the mousetrap is he talking about? A mouse has nothing to fear from a "trap" that consists of just an unattached holding bar, or spring, or platform, with no other parts. I do sympathize with Orr's muddling of the analysis. The concept of irreducible complexity is new, and can be difficult to grasp for people who have always assumed without demonstration that small, continuous changes could produce virtually any biological structure. Perhaps in the future that assumption will not have such a strong hold on the minds of evolutionary biologists. Behe obviously doesn t think much of Orr s criticism. To see what Orr is talking about, let s think about a structure called a free-standing arch. It s made of stones that are slightly tapered, so that they don t require any mortar to stay together, but are held in place by gravity. If you remove any one of the stones, then the whole arch will collapse. It therefore fits Behe s definition of an irreducibly complex system. How could such a system have evolved, through a sequence of small, individually-advantageous changes? You certainly can t build one by adding one stone at a time! Well, you might start with a small pile of dirt. This might, let us suppose, have something of the arch s eventual function. The pile of dirt gradually gets bigger, thus gradually increasing its function. It then develops, by gradual increments, into a nice hemispherical mound. Finally, stones are added to the top of the mound, which slightly improve the function of the mound. (At this point the stones aren t really necessary, and the system isn t irreducibly complex.) Then, since the stones are now doing the job, the dirt isn t needed, and slowly withers away. Thus the stones are left in place, supporting each other, in an irreducibly complex system. Behe acknowledges such possible evolutionary pathways, saying, Although an irreducibly complex system can't be produced directly, one can't definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. [My emphasis.] 6
7 The disagreement between Orr and Behe seems largely centred on the question of the extent to which such indirect routes are biologically important. Orr thinks they re at work everywhere in evolution, whereas Behe regards them as exceptional. 7
Quaerens Deum: The Liberty Undergraduate Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Quaerens Deum: The Liberty Undergraduate Journal for Philosophy of Religion Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 5 January 2017 Modern Day Teleology Brianna Cunningham Liberty University, bcunningham4@liberty.edu
More informationOutline Lesson 5 -Science: What is True? A. Psalm 19:1-4- "The heavens declare the Glory of God" -General Revelation
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY'S t elpyoect Th~ Outline Lesson 5 -Science: What is True? I. Introduction A. Psalm 19:1-4- "The heavens declare the Glory of God" -General Revelation B. Romans 1:18-20 - "God has made
More informationINTELLIGENT DESIGN: FRIEND OR FOE FOR ADVENTISTS?
The Foundation for Adventist Education Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists INTELLIGENT DESIGN: FRIEND OR FOE FOR ADVENTISTS? Leonard Brand,
More informationBehe s Black Box. 14 June 2003 John Blanton The North Texas Skeptics 1
Behe s Black Box Creation versus evolution Advent of intelligent design Michael Behe s irreducible complexity Darwin s Black Box Behe in the light of modern science 14 June 2003 John Blanton The North
More informationScientific Dimensions of the Debate. 1. Natural and Artificial Selection: the Analogy (17-20)
I. Johnson s Darwin on Trial A. The Legal Setting (Ch. 1) Scientific Dimensions of the Debate This is mainly an introduction to the work as a whole. Note, in particular, Johnson s claim that a fact of
More informationwww.xtremepapers.com Context/ clarification Sources Credibility Deconstruction Assumptions Perspective Conclusion Further reading Bibliography Intelligent design: everything on earth was created by God
More informationMyth #5 Evolution is Scientific; Creation is Religious
Myth #5 Evolution is Scientific; Creation is Religious Here is one example of how Evolution is contrary to science, the 2 nd Law of Thermodynamics, as illustrated through the Design Theory. Creation vs.
More informationIntelligent Design. Kevin delaplante Dept. of Philosophy & Religious Studies
Intelligent Design Kevin delaplante Dept. of Philosophy & Religious Studies kdelapla@iastate.edu Some Questions to Ponder... 1. In evolutionary theory, what is the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry? How does
More informationDarwinist Arguments Against Intelligent Design Illogical and Misleading
Darwinist Arguments Against Intelligent Design Illogical and Misleading I recently attended a debate on Intelligent Design (ID) and the Existence of God. One of the four debaters was Dr. Lawrence Krauss{1}
More informationThe Laws of Conservation
Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything supernatural. By default, atheists are also naturalists and evolutionists. They believe there is a natural explanation for
More informationCoptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States Evangelism & Apologetics Conference. Copyright by George Bassilios, 2014
Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States Evangelism & Apologetics Conference Copyright by George Bassilios, 2014 PROPONENTS OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IMPACT ON IDEOLOGY Evolution is at the foundation
More informationIntroduction to Evolution. DANILO V. ROGAYAN JR. Faculty, Department of Natural Sciences
Introduction to Evolution DANILO V. ROGAYAN JR. Faculty, Department of Natural Sciences Only a theory? Basic premises for this discussion Evolution is not a belief system. It is a scientific concept. It
More information112, 407, 640 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS Lesson 4 The Defense Continues The Defense of the Biblical Worldview Part 2
112, 407, 640 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS Lesson 4 The Defense Continues The Defense of the Biblical Worldview Part 2 II. Argument from Design (Teleological Argument) Continued WHAT ABOUT LIFE ITSELF? A. Design
More informationJason Lisle Ultimate Proof Worldview: a network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which all observations are interpreted (25)
Creation vs Evolution BREIF REVIEW OF WORLDVIEW Jason Lisle Ultimate Proof Worldview: a network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which all observations are interpreted (25) Good worldviews
More informationLecture 5.2Dawkins and Dobzhansky. Richard Dawkin s explanation of Cumulative Selection, in The Blind Watchmaker video.
TOPIC: Lecture 5.2Dawkins and Dobzhansky Richard Dawkin s explanation of Cumulative Selection, in The Blind Watchmaker video. Dobzhansky s discussion of Evolutionary Theory. KEY TERMS/ GOALS: Inference
More informationThe Existence of God & the Problem of Pain part 2. Main Idea: Design = Designer Psalm 139:1-18 Apologetics
The Existence of God & the Problem of Pain part 2 Main Idea: Design = Designer Psalm 139:1-18 Apologetics 10.23.13 Design & Suffering Objection: How could a good God design things that bring suffering?
More informationCritique of Proposed Revisions to Science Standards Draft 1
1 Critique of Proposed Revisions to Science Standards Draft 1 Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D. American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow www.cancer.org Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of
More informationCharles Robert Darwin ( ) Born in Shrewsbury, England. His mother died when he was eight, a
What Darwin Said Charles Robert Darwin Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) Born in Shrewsbury, England. His mother died when he was eight, a traumatic event in his life. Went to Cambridge (1828-1831) with
More informationGod. D o e s. God. D o e s. Exist?
D o e s D o e s Exist? D o e s Exist? Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? - Martin Heidegger, The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics Comes back to Does exist? D o e s Exist? How to think
More informationBehe interview transcript
Behe interview transcript David Marshall In late July, I interviewed maverick biologist Michael Behe by phone, at his office at Lehigh University. Behe is the author of Darwin s Black Box (Free Press,
More informationINTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong
INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong Note from Pastor Kevin Lea: The following is the introduction to the book, Icons of Evolution, by
More informationWhy Computers are not Intelligent: An Argument. Richard Oxenberg
1 Why Computers are not Intelligent: An Argument Richard Oxenberg I. Two Positions The strong AI advocate who wants to defend the position that the human mind is like a computer often waffles between two
More informationGod After Darwin. 1. Evolution s s Challenge to Faith. July 23, to 9:50 am in the Parlor All are welcome!
God After Darwin 1. Evolution s s Challenge to Faith July 23, 2006 9 to 9:50 am in the Parlor All are welcome! Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with all its marvelous order, its atoms,
More informationIn today s workshop. We will I. Science vs. Religion: Where did Life on earth come from?
Since humans began studying the world around them, they have wondered how the biodiversity we see around us came to be. There have been many ideas posed throughout history, but not enough observable facts
More informationCan Faith and Reason Work Together?
Thank you for downloading CQ Rewind Summary Only Version! Each week, the Summary Only version provides you with approximately 4 pages of brief excerpts from the program, along with Scripture citations.
More informationTEACHING THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION
TEACHING THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION PROFESSOR EDGAR ANDREWS TEACHING THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION Creation has been in the news recently because Emmanuel Technology School in Gateshead had been found teaching
More informationIs Evolution Incompatible with Intelligent Design? Outline
Is Evolution Incompatible with Intelligent Design? Edwin Chong Mensa AG, July 4, 2008 MensaAG 7/4/08 1 Outline Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (ID) What are the claims on each side? Sorting out the claims.
More informationTITLE: Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance
ARTICLE TYPE: Regular article. TITLE: Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance AUTHOR: Peter Olofsson Mathematics Department Trinity University One Trinity Place San Antonio,
More informationLook at this famous painting what s missing? What could YOU deduce about human nature from this picture? Write your thoughts on this sheet!
* Look at this famous painting what s missing? What could YOU deduce about human nature from this picture? Write your thoughts on this sheet! If there is NO GOD then. What is our origin? What is our purpose?
More informationDNA, Information, and the Signature in the Cell
DNA, Information, and the Signature in the Cell Where Did We Come From? Where did we come from? A simple question, but not an easy answer. Darwin addressed this question in his book, On the Origin of Species.
More informationIS PLANTINGA A FRIEND OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE?
IS PLANTINGA A FRIEND OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE? Michael Bergmann Purdue University Where the Conflict Really Lies (WTCRL) is a superb book, on a topic of great importance, by a philosopher of the highest
More informationThe Debate Between Evolution and Intelligent Design Rick Garlikov
The Debate Between Evolution and Intelligent Design Rick Garlikov Handled intelligently and reasonably, the debate between evolution (the theory that life evolved by random mutation and natural selection)
More informationPrentice Hall Biology 2004 (Miller/Levine) Correlated to: Idaho Department of Education, Course of Study, Biology (Grades 9-12)
Idaho Department of Education, Course of Study, Biology (Grades 9-12) Block 1: Applications of Biological Study To introduce methods of collecting and analyzing data the foundations of science. This block
More informationIDHEF Chapter Six New Life Forms: From Goo to You via the Zoo
1 IDHEF Chapter Six New Life Forms: From Goo to You via the Zoo SLIDE TWO In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog
More informationInformation and the Origin of Life
Information and the Origin of Life Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D., Materials Science Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University and Baylor University Information and Origin of Life Information,
More informationReligious and non religious beliefs and teachings about the origin of the universe.
Friday, 23 February 2018 Religious and non religious beliefs and teachings about the origin of the universe. L.O. To understand that science has alternative theories to the religious creation stories:
More informationUNIT 3 - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Does Reason Support Or Challenge Belief In God?
KCHU 228 Intro to Philosophy Unit 3 Study Guide - Part 2 UNIT 3 - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Does Reason Support Or Challenge Belief In God? IV. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS FOR & AGAINST THEISM A. ARGUMENTS FROM BIOLOGICAL
More informationOne Scientist s Perspective on Intelligent Design
Science Perspective on ID Nick Strobel Page 1 of 7 One Scientist s Perspective on Intelligent Design I am going to begin my comments on Intelligent Design with some assumptions held by scientists (at least
More informationThus people who understand the actual nature of ID will be unlikely to be phased by this ruling.
By Casey Luskin Not-So-Quick But Nonetheless Dirty Review of the Kitzmiller Decision Introduction: This is a response to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board (hereafter "Kitzmiller) decision (see
More informationFeb 3 rd. The Truth Project
February 3, 2013 January Jan 6 th The Truth Project Who is God? Part 1 Jan 13 th The Truth Project Who is God? Part 2 Jan 20 th The Truth Project What is True? Part 1 Jan 27 th The Truth Project What is
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al : : CASE NO. v. : :0-CR-00 : DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, : et al : TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BENCH TRIAL
More informationPROBABILITY, OPTIMIZATION THEORY AND EVOLUTION
PROBABILITY, OPTIMIZATION THEORY AND EVOLUTION JASON ROSENHOUSE A Review of No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence by William Dembski 2002. Rowman and Littlefield
More informationDARWIN S DOUBT and Intelligent Design Posted on July 29, 2014 by Fr. Ted
DARWIN S DOUBT and Intelligent Design Posted on July 29, 2014 by Fr. Ted In Darwin s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, Philosopher of Science, Stephen C. Meyer
More informationVideo 1: Worldviews: Introduction. [Keith]
Video 1: Worldviews: Introduction Hi, I'm Keith Shull, the executive director of the Arizona Christian Worldview Institute in Phoenix Arizona. You may be wondering Why do I even need to bother with all
More informationReplytoMyCritics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Biology and Philosophy 16: 685 709, 2001. 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. ReplytoMyCritics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
More informationHas not Science Debunked Biblical Christianity?
Has not Science Debunked Biblical Christianity? Martin Ester March 1, 2012 Christianity 101 @ SFU The Challenge of Atheist Scientists Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge
More informationAn Outline of a lecture entitled, Intelligent Design is not Science given by John G. Wise in the Spring Semester of 2007:
An Outline of a lecture entitled, Intelligent Design is not Science given by John G. Wise in the Spring Semester of 2007: Slide 1 Why do humans have so much trouble with wisdom teeth? is childbirth so
More informationScience and Christianity. Do you have to choose? In my opinion no
Science and Christianity Do you have to choose? In my opinion no Spiritual Laws Spiritual Events Physical Laws Physical Events Science Theology But this is not an option for Christians.. Absolute truth
More informationDarwin s Theologically Unsettling Ideas. John F. Haught Georgetown University
Darwin s Theologically Unsettling Ideas John F. Haught Georgetown University Everything in the life-world looks different after Darwin. Descent, diversity, design, death, suffering, sex, intelligence,
More informationUnless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version of the Bible.
First printing: October 2011 Copyright 2011 by Answers in Genesis USA. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher,
More informationDiscovery Institute definition
Reading for Discussion CR WS 8-1, Tuesday, May 17: Topic: What kind of Theory is Intelligent Design: Conceptual or Empirical or what? Is it any good? Contents I Intelligent Design:What is it? Discovery
More informationIn the beginning..... "In the beginning" "God created the heaven and the earth" "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
In the beginning..... It is difficult for us to think about our existence and not think about beginnings. We live in a 24-hour day, each day starts with a sunrise and ends with a sunset. Time is broken
More informationFour Arguments that the Cognitive Psychology of Religion Undermines the Justification of Religious Belief
Four Arguments that the Cognitive Psychology of Religion Undermines the Justification of Religious Belief Michael J. Murray Over the last decade a handful of cognitive models of religious belief have begun
More informationReasons to Reject Evolution part 2. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Reasons to Reject Evolution part 2 Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Reasons to Reject Evolution 1. It s a matter of faith Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe
More informationTHE INTELLIGENT DESIGN REVOLUTION IS IT SCIENCE? IS IT RELIGION? WHAT EXACTLY IS IT? ALSO, WHAT IS THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE?
THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN REVOLUTION IS IT SCIENCE? IS IT RELIGION? WHAT EXACTLY IS IT? ALSO, WHAT IS THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE? p.herring Page 1 3/25/2007 SESSION 1 PART A: INTELLIGENT DESIGN Intelligent design
More informationA Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science
A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science Leonard R. Brand, Loma Linda University I. Christianity and the Nature of Science There is reason to believe that Christianity provided the ideal culture
More informationSaul Kripke, Naming and Necessity
24.09x Minds and Machines Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity Excerpt from Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity (Harvard, 1980). Identity theorists have been concerned with several distinct types of identifications:
More informationArgument from Design. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. David Hume
Argument from Design Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion David Hume Dialogues published posthumously and anonymously (1779) Three Characters Demea: theism, dogmatism, some philosophical arguments for
More informationThe Christian and Evolution
The Christian and Evolution by Leslie G. Eubanks 2015 Spiritbuilding Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
More informationLast Sunday of each 9:45 AM
Last Sunday of each month @ 9:45 AM Did God Make Man or Man Make God? Christopher Merola 10-2- 16 Recap The Last Three Lessons All Creation Shows a Cause and Effect Relationship All Creation Moves in a
More informationEvolution is Based on Modern Myths. Turn On Your Baloney Detector. The Eyes Have it - Creation is Reality
This File Contains The Following Articles: Evolution is Based on Modern Myths Turn On Your Baloney Detector The Eyes Have it - Creation is Reality Evolution is Based on Modern Myths There is a preponderance
More informationDOES ID = DI? Reflections on the Intelligent Design Movement
DOES ID = DI? Reflections on the Intelligent Design Movement by Howard J. Van Till Professor of Physics and Astronomy Emeritus Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA CiS Day Conference, 28 September,
More informationDisclosure. Seventy-five Theses. of things evolutionists don t want you to know. Volume 12 Issue 6
Disclosure of things evolutionists don t want you to know Volume 12 Issue 6 www.scienceagainstevolution.org March 2008 Seventy-five Theses Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation
More informationGCE Religious Studies. Mark Scheme for June Unit G571: Philosophy of Religion. Advanced Subsidiary GCE. Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
GCE Religious Studies Unit G571: Philosophy of Religion Advanced Subsidiary GCE Mark Scheme for June 2016 Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body,
More informationWk 10Y5 Existence of God 2 - October 26, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 The Existence of God (2) Module: Philosophy Lesson 10 Some Recommended Resources Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig. pp. 91-204 To Everyone an Answer, by Beckwith, Craig, and Moreland. pp.
More informationRedeeming Darwin: The Intelligent Design Controversy
Redeeming Darwin: The Intelligent Design Controversy Dr. Bohlin, as a Christian scientist, looks at the unwarranted opposition to intelligent design and sees a group of neo- Darwinists struggling to maintain
More informationDoes Personhood Begin at Conception?
Does Personhood Begin at Conception? Ed Morris Denver Seminary: PR 652 April 18, 2012 Preliminary Metaphysical Concepts What is it that enables an entity to persist, or maintain numerical identity, through
More informationGetting To God. The Basic Evidence For The Truth of Christian Theism. truehorizon.org
Getting To God The Basic Evidence For The Truth of Christian Theism truehorizon.org A True Worldview A worldview is like a set of glasses through which you see everything in life. It is the lens that brings
More informationCreation and Evolution: What Should We Teach? Author: Eugenie C. Scott, Director Affiliation: National Center for Science Education
Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach? Author: Eugenie C. Scott, Director Affiliation: National Center for Science Education Bio: Dr. Eugenie C. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center
More informationNaturalism Primer. (often equated with materialism )
Naturalism Primer (often equated with materialism ) "naturalism. In general the view that everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is belongs to the world of nature, and so can be studied by the
More informationMillersville Bible Church Apologetics Class T he E xistence of G od
Millersville Bible Church Apologetics Class T he E xistence of G od The fool says in his heart, There is no God. (Psalm 14:1) He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what
More informationLesson 1: The Importance and Nature of Evidence
Lesson 1: The Importance and Nature of Evidence I. Evidence versus proof A) Evidence (Random House Dictionary): noun 1. Ground for belief; that which tends to prove or disprove; proof. 2. Something that
More informationThe Fallacy in Intelligent Design
The Fallacy in Intelligent Design by Lynn Andrew We experience what God has designed, but we do not know how he did it. The fallacy is that the meaning of intelligent design depends on our own experience.
More informationThe Clock without a Maker
The Clock without a Maker There are a many great questions in life in which people have asked themselves. Who are we? What is the meaning of life? Where do come from? This paper will be undertaking the
More informationGrand Designs and Facile Analogies
Grand Designs and Facile Analogies Matt Young Department of Physics Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado 80401 Matt Young's home page Though analogy is often misleading, it is often the least misleading
More informationJudgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
Name Period Assignment# Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hzzgxnyl5i 1) What is the main claim of Intelligent Design advocates? 2) Kevin Padian claims that Intelligent
More informationThe Design Argument A Perry
The Design Argument A Perry Introduction There has been an explosion of Bible-science literature in the last twenty years. This has been partly driven by the revolution in molecular biology, which has
More informationThe emerging discipline of intelligent
Intelligent Design and the State University: Accepting the Challenge Douglas Groothuis Douglas Groothuis The emerging discipline of Intelligent Design (ID) is a legitimate scientific research program and,
More informationI am writing to challenge FTE s amicus brief on six points:
Hubert Yockey reply to FTE amicus brief Hubert P. Yockey 1507 Balmoral Drive Bel Air, MD 21014-5638 phone: 410-879-1805 e-mail: hpyockey@aol.com 11/16/2005, Wed. I am writing to challenge FTE s amicus
More informationRevelation: God revealing himself to religious believers.
Revelation: God revealing himself to religious believers. Nature of God - What God s character is like. Atheist a person who believes that there is no god. Agnostic A person who believes that we cannot
More informationCorrecting the Creationist
Correcting the Creationist By BRENT SILBY Def-Logic Productions (c) Brent Silby 2001 www.def-logic.com/articles Important question Is creationism a science? Many creationists claim that it is. In fact,
More information"Are Eyebrows Going to Be Talked of in Connection with the Eye of God?" Wittgenstein and Certainty in the Debate between Science and Religion
Macalester Journal of Philosophy Volume 16 Spring 2007 Issue 1 Spring 2007 Article 9 5-1-2007 "Are Eyebrows Going to Be Talked of in Connection with the Eye of God?" Wittgenstein and Certainty in the Debate
More informationEvolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871
Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871 DAY & DATE: Wednesday 27 June 2012 READINGS: Darwin/Origin of Species, chapters 1-4 MacNeill/Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions
More informationIf you are in ninth grade and live in Dover, Pennsylvania, you are learning things in
New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050530fa_fact 23 May 2005 annals of science Master Planned Why intelligent design isn t. by H. Allen Orr If you are in ninth grade and live in Dover,
More informationAfter Eden Chapter 2 Science Falsely So Called By Greg Neyman Answers In Creation First Published 11 August 2005 Answers In Creation Website www.answersincreation.org/after_eden_2.htm When I read the title
More informationOn Consciousness & Vedic Science
On Consciousness & Vedic Science 594 Essay Alan J. Oliver * Abstract The essays I have written on the subject of consciousness have been a record of my personal effort to understand my experiences as a
More informationB. Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, page
APPENDIX A: to Amicus Brief filed by Discovery Institute in Tammy J. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District and Dover Area School District Board of Directors, Civil Action No. 4:04-cv-2688. Documentation
More informationFrom Last Week. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, it was met with much theological backlash from atheists. Why do you think this happened?
From Last Week When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, it was met with much theological backlash from atheists. Why do you think this happened? From Last Week As we ve seen from the Fine-Tuning argument,
More informationTHE GOD OF QUARKS & CROSS. bridging the cultural divide between people of faith and people of science
THE GOD OF QUARKS & CROSS bridging the cultural divide between people of faith and people of science WHY A WORKSHOP ON FAITH AND SCIENCE? The cultural divide between people of faith and people of science*
More informationFAITH & reason. The Pope and Evolution Anthony Andres. Winter 2001 Vol. XXVI, No. 4
FAITH & reason The Journal of Christendom College Winter 2001 Vol. XXVI, No. 4 The Pope and Evolution Anthony Andres ope John Paul II, in a speech given on October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of
More informationCognition & Evolution: a Reply to Nagel s Charges on the Evolutionary Explanation of Cognition Haiyu Jiang
60 : a Reply to Nagel s Charges on the Evolutionary Explanation of Cognition Haiyu Jiang Abstract: In this paper, I examine one of Nagel s arguments against evolutionary theory, that the evolutionary conception
More informationHume s Is/Ought Problem. Ruse and Wilson. Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Naturalistic Fallacy
Ruse and Wilson Hume s Is/Ought Problem Is ethics independent of humans or has human evolution shaped human behavior and beliefs about right and wrong? In every system of morality, which I have hitherto
More informationGround Work 01 part one God His Existence Genesis 1:1/Psalm 19:1-4
Ground Work 01 part one God His Existence Genesis 1:1/Psalm 19:1-4 Introduction Tonight we begin a brand new series I have entitled ground work laying a foundation for faith o It is so important that everyone
More informationMedia Critique #5. Exercise #8 4/29/2010. Critique the Bullshit!
Media Critique #5 Exercise #8 Critique the Bullshit! Do your best to answer the following questions after class: 1. What are the strong points of this episode? 2. Weak points and criticisms? 3. How would
More informationEvolution and the Mind of God
Evolution and the Mind of God Robert T. Longo rtlongo370@gmail.com September 3, 2017 Abstract This essay asks the question who, or what, is God. This is not new. Philosophers and religions have made many
More informationMath playground duck life 3 evolution
Math playground duck life 3 evolution 16 Walkthroughs for PC and 40 Console Cheats are represented in this new version from Strategy Games, Adventure Games to Action Games. Like with all the. As such it
More informationHuman Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race. Course Description
Human Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race Course Description Human Nature & Human Diversity is listed as both a Philosophy course (PHIL 253) and a Cognitive Science
More information32 Behe, Darwin s Black Box, Ibid., Ibid.
210 Cells We can see further evidence of God s design in the life at the cellular level. The cell is the basic structural unit of all living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that can be classified
More informationReviewed by U. Mohrhoff
BOOK REVIEW William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems Dallas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008 ISBN-13: 978-0-9800213-0-1
More informationThe Problem with Complete States: Freedom, Chance and the Luck Argument
The Problem with Complete States: Freedom, Chance and the Luck Argument Richard Johns Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia August 2006 Revised March 2009 The Luck Argument seems to show
More information