Witness says God isn't only possible designer

October 20, 2005

Lehigh prof draws line between religion, controversial idea.

By Christina Gostomski

Call Harrisburg Bureau

The Morning Call

October 19, 2005

HARRISBURG | ''Intelligent design'' is not creationism, Lehigh University professor Michael Behe insisted Tuesday in a federal trial over how public schools should teach evolution.

In his second day of testimony, Behe vehemently defended his life's work while a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union reminded the court that Behe has been unable to convince leading scientific organizations — and even his peers at Lehigh — of the concept's validity.

''Intelligent design'' is the belief that mankind's development is too complex to have evolved without an intelligent designer. Critics says it's the same as creationism, a biblical explanation of the formation of life that the U.S. Supreme Court says cannot be part of public school science curricula.

Behe told the court Tuesday that while creationism is a religious concept, intelligent design is a scientific idea.

''Intelligent design … does not rely on any religious text,'' he said. ''It relies exclusively on physical information about nature and logical inferences.''

Defense lawyers have pitted Behe, a prime witness in a trial that is increasingly becoming a battle between scientists, against Kenneth R. Miller, a Brown University professor and author of the biology textbook used by the Dover Area School District. The school board requires biology students to hear a statement that alternative beliefs to evolution exist, including intelligent design.

Miller has called intelligent design ''repackaged creationism.''

Behe, author of the 1996 best seller called ''Darwin's Black Box,'' is the first witness for the board, which was sued by eight families. The families believe the mandatory statement inappropriately blends religion and science.

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State represent the plaintiffs and the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., represents the school board.

Behe kicked off Dover's defense Monday and continued most of Tuesday. Late in the day, plaintiff lawyers began his cross-examination, a process scheduled to continue today.

Behe testified Tuesday that intelligent design, unlike creationism, does not make references to religion or religious text. Although he said he believes that the intelligent designer is God, he said the intelligent design movement does not identify the designer and that there could be other causes.

Behe said he believed that telling students there are alternatives to evolution will help them understand that evolution is a theory and that scientific theories are not always proven facts. He said it will not necessarily cause students to discard the idea of evolution.

''I don't view this as something that would cause a ninth-grader to jump up and say, 'Aha, there must not have been common descent,''' he said.

Behe also testified that scientists who use evolution to explain biological processes, such as the immune system, don't support their claims.

But during the cross-examination of Behe, ACLU attorney Eric Rothschild reminded the court that the National Academy of Scientists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and even the biology department at Lehigh University, have denounced the idea of intelligent design.

''So you have not been able to convince your colleagues,'' Rothschild said to Behe after reading a statement from Behe's peers.

The statement, posted on Lehigh's Web site, reads in part:

''While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.''

Behe said the department's statement has no scientific importance. ''Intelligent design is certainly not the dominant view of the scientific community,'' he said, ''but I'm very pleased with the progress we're making.''

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III will decide the outcome of the nonjury trial, which is expected to last through the end of the month.

October 20, 2005

Intelligent design is to evolutionists what water was to the wicked witch of the west. Whenever it is brought up they seem to start crying "I'm melting". Evolutionists have an arrogance about them that anyone who disagrees with them cannot be a true scientist. Of course when Jesus comes in the clouds of glory they actually will start melting. But it will be too late then for them to embrace their Creator. We need to feel pity for them really.

Evolution is the basis of secularism and using their own argument of seperation of church and state, evolution itself shouldn't be taught in public school. I have no issue with religion being taught in public schools as long as 1. it is a voluntary class and 2. opposing views are taught as well. I do not see how teaching a voluntary "religious" class that presents opposing views would violate the establishment clause.

Intelligent design is the middle ground. Is it creationism repackaged? Perhaps. But so what if it is? While it may teach the possibility of a god, it is not endorsing Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism or any other major religion. It is teaching what millions on the planet believe.

Now the pointy-head intellectuals will cry, "Don't teach it in a science class." Why not? If a scientific theory contradicts what millions on the planet believe, how can the theory be taught without also teaching that there are millions that do not believe it? Until science can recreate life from nonorganic matter, evolution will remain a theory. To teach it otherwise is dishonest.

October 20, 2005

ID is a theory that says

(a) the world is millions of years old

( there has been a huge amount of evolution

(d) there must be a designer that gets us across these steps

However

(a) we have repeatedly found ways of getting across gaps that had previously been regarded as non-obviously bridgeable

( there are no gaps today that are obviously non-bridgeable

In short, Behe can not point to a single step that REQUIRES ID

/Bevin

October 20, 2005

Many creationists would be very upset if they really understood ID. It clearly violates their understanding. It is for this reason that feel that ID really isn't a religious doctrine of creationism. In addition, it does not posit a god in any specific form. I.e. it does not posit a Biblical god. The god of ID, if you want to suggest that ID has one, could as easily be the god Vishnu, as the Christian god. As this is so, on the theoritical level, ID does not violate the First Ammendment provision regarding the establishment of a religion. There is no establishment when there is no specific god, and not even a god posited.

As to whether or not ID would be taught as such, remains to be seen. I.e. I think that there would be people who would attempt to teach ID from a specific Biblical perspective. If such were to happen, Constitutional problems would arise, and it would result in the demise of ID from the public classsrooms.

October 20, 2005

Quote:

Until science can recreate life from nonorganic matter

We can. Today.

There is a HUGE concern that people will take the chemical formula for a nasty virus and create the virus and release it as a bio-terrorism weapon. With modern chemistry it is no big deal to do this.

Quote:

evolution will remain a theory.

Theory - in science this word means a detailed explanation that corresponds to observed results. It is the MOST SOLID level of explanation - you can't get better.

Gravity is a THEORY...

/Bevin

October 20, 2005

Bevin has stated that we can create life from non-organic matter, at this time. That issue is subject to debate.

Bevin, I invite your response to my comment.

1) Shane used the phrase "organic matter." There is a considerable difference between organic matter and non-living matter.

2) In science, there is a branch of chemistry called "organic" chemistry. That branch defines organic chemistry in a manner that requires a carbon atom in the molecule. I.e. If the molecule contains a carbon atom, it is considered to be organic, and if it does not, it is considered to be inorganic.

2) Strictly speaking, Shane is correct. Humans cannot create living matter from matter that does not contain carbon. Carbon is the fundamental essential to all life. From this perspective, life cannot be created, as we know it on earth, without carbon. [NOTE: We could get into philosophical discussions regarding the possible existance of living organisms on planets where carbon was not a part of that life. We could also get into philosophical discussions regarding how we would define living organisms, and therefore the possible existance of life here on earth in the absence of carbon. But, such is beyond my comments, and I will stay with the simple, that life, as we generally define it cannot exist on earth in the absence of carbon.]

3) When we attempt to discuss this issue from the context of "lliving matter," rather than "organic matter," our discussion becomes much more complicated. If we are to define RNA as non-living (I am only giving an illustration.), and inject it into the nucleus of a cell that we have rendered non-living, and if that cell were to burst into life, would we have created life?

Folks, don't get bogged down in the specifics of my illustration. I have attempted to state a point in a very simply way, which I have made so simplistic that my illustrations has problems.

My point is this: One might define life in such a manner that one could combine two non-living things in such a way that life came into existance. But, in my illustration, we started with a cell that at one time had been living, and there is the issue as to the origon of the RNA. Please don't bring prions into this discussion. We can just further complicate it. In any case, the fact that we have used matter that was once living may suggest that we have not actually created life.

But, that gets into philosophical issues that are beyond my desire to discusss today.

October 20, 2005

Bevin is correct. The most solid level of explaination is often a theory.

But, that does not entirely eliminate the position of those who say that evolution should be taught as a theory. Such would only say that there are areas of the evolutionary theory that are not fully proven and still argueable.

October 20, 2005

Erm - this discussion is the exact kind that Norm and I put in considerable work setting up the Origins forum for! Would you be willing to take it there? I think it's an interesting one, with 'legs' (though I'm not saying who designed its legs!)

October 20, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bravus said: I think it's an interesting one, with 'legs' (though I'm not saying who designed its legs!)

October 20, 2005

I will put together an initial post for the Origins forum on the definition and creation of life

/Bevin

October 20, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

this discussion is the exact kind that Norm and I put in considerable work setting up the Origins forum for!

Problem with the orgins forum is that it has so many rules and regulations that many are discouraged from participating there. It is quite intimidating. Townhall is a much less rigid and relaxed environment.

October 21, 2005

Shane wrote "Until science can recreate life from nonorganic matter, evolution will remain a theory".

There is several possible interpretations of this sentence...

One is "scientists can do it in the lab" and the other is "science can explain how it happened in a universe with only nonorganic matter in it".

Let us start with "scientists can do it in the lab".

There are only three steps needed to create a living organisms.

(a) Get the right atoms

( Put them together into the right molecules

What are you allowed to start with? Which collection of atoms and what machines and energy sources?

(a) Getting the atoms

Assuming you are allowed to start with people and technology and individual atoms but not compounds, then (a) is easy. Even if you aren't allowed to have carbon atoms in the initial set of atoms, it is easy enough to make them - a large-scale thermonuclear reaction will do the trick . If you have to start with pure energy and no matter at all, then it is outside our scope today.

( Assembling molecules

Assembling the atoms together into molecules is now understood - Google "chemical synthesis of proteins" for some of the recent published research.

This depends on your definition of "life". And this is a VERY difficult issue. However, by most definitions of "life", viruses qualify.

See...

http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/main.asp?intSubsectionID=553

/Bevin

October 21, 2005

Correct me if I am wrong, but all that sounds like some intelligence is involved with the process...

October 21, 2005

Here YOU go once again making your mind the measuring stick of truth instead of the Bible.

God cannot enlighten a mind darkened by its own greatness.

“Professing to be wise, they became fools” Rom 1:22

“GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE” JAMES 4:5

October 21, 2005

Quote:

Amelia said:

Witness says God isn't only possible designer

I'm willing to investigate that idea when the scientific community comes up with a test tube that will contain the fullness of why man has developed to the point where his normal brain usefulness is at about ten percent of its' full potential and yet hasn't conquered his own achilles heel in respect to death, at least without recognition of Divine intervention.

[:"red"] "...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" [/] Hebrews 9:27

Keep the faith!

October 21, 2005

Quote:

bevin said:

Gravity is a THEORY...

/Bevin

When I was a young boy, while sliding across the floor of a hay mow, I fell through a hole head first onto a concrete floor and obviously lived.(could be a matter of debate) I'm not willing to pay much attention to a person subscribing to the idea that gravity is a theory, or that there wasn't Divine intervention when I hit the floor about seven feet below the start of the fall.

Now as to my present intelligence quotient, that could be a matter of theory.

[:"red"] "But those who came before us will teach you. They will teach you from the wisdom of former generations." [/] Job 8:10 NLT

[:"red"] "Wisdom will multiply your days and add years to your life. " [/] Proverbs 9:11 NLT

Keep the faith!

October 21, 2005

Our learned witness and scholar of ID above has failed to consider the theory that the origin of life in fact arose from quite humble circumstances.

Many, many years ago, an alien spacecraft arrived in the skies above our beautiful planet. After enjoying their visit, the occupants of the craft released the contents of the vehicle's holding tanks, then departed for other oases in the vastness of space.

Soon after their departure, a bolt of lightning struck the sterile, discarded effluent, and there, life on earth began. Soon, bacteria grew tired of being just bacteria, so they turned into amoebas and parameciums. These multi-celled life-forms grew tired of not having sex, so they split up, one half male, one half female, then had babies quite unlike themselves.

In a short time, just a few eons or so, the earth was covered with an impressive array of flora and fauna, mainly because the plants and animals got tired of what they were and became something else. This theory, indeed, encapsulates the Magic of Evolution, yet acknowledges the culpability of intelligence in life's origin.

Mankind must especially bow low in humility when it can trace its lineage to a pile of poop.

Seriously, our profound lack of knowledge on how life began makes it risky business trying to recreate it on paper. We can make guesses and assumptions, but unfortunately, we can't go back in time and return with any proof. We may even disassemble and re-assemble cells, but still, there's no proof of how life began.

We can see many, many fossils of extinct creatures and plants, but can only invent theories about what might have happened. We should be very careful, then, not to ridicle what seems to be lack of "science", since "science" is mainly guessing about this, anyway. No one here today was there to see what happened.

Either life created itself, or, extraterrestrials brought it here or made it here in order to colonize this planet. We can't prove how life began, either way, even though some claim they can and ridicule others who don't agree with their assumptions as stupid.

We can look at the fossils and say there's no proof of extraterrestrials writing the codes for life and generating the corresponding life forms, then moving on, but the fossils aren't talking at this time. They're all piled up underground mostly, all dead.

We have proof that living things can adapt to environmental changes. What we lack is proof that aquatic creatures were able to transform themselves into land creatures, or that lizards could turn themselves into birds. "Science" can study the fossil record and prove the dinosaur/bird transition: the dinosaur is down here and the bird is above it, therefore the bird descended from the dinosaur, but the conclusion is based on assumptions not everyone can agree with.

"Science" should be very careful not to completely discount "religion", because "religion" may be based on something that was originally true, then distorted and mutated over the years.

Misunderstood highly advanced alien technology has mutated into the Magic words of a Magic God in the misunderstanding of the ancient writings. Rather, an expedition sent to colonize the earth with life received its orders, then carried them out. Magic words didn't alter the earth's surface or generate light or life. Workers were told what to do, then carried out these orders.

The problem with Christianity is that is doesn't acknowledge that God is, in fact, an extraterrestrial being. Superstitious beliefs cast religion into disrepute. Look carefully and with an open mind at the Bible. You'll see technology far beyond our ability to duplicate. There's the beam weapons from space, the huge flying mountains and flying "thrones", DNA repair, bringing a dead person back to life, etc.

Those who discard the Bible are missing out on an important source of information. It could very well be telling us how life began. You just have to disconnect the Bible from religion, and you'll be OK.

October 21, 2005

Quote:

Intelligent design is to evolutionists what water was to the wicked witch of the west. Whenever it is brought up they seem to start crying "I'm melting". Evolutionists have an arrogance about them that anyone who disagrees with them cannot be a true scientist. Of course when Jesus comes in the clouds of glory they actually will start melting. But it will be too late then for them to embrace their Creator. We need to feel pity for them really.

This is a gross distortion of those who teach evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about whether or not there is a designer. It simply studies and observes. It is true that atheism embraced evolution as a causal rationale for no God, but that is not supported by evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about first cause.

The issue of a designer is a philosophical position or a belief. This is not something that should be mixed with science. The issue of no God is equally a philosophical position.

Quote:

Evolution is the basis of secularism and using their own argument of seperation of church and state, evolution itself shouldn't be taught in public school. I have no issue with religion being taught in public schools as long as 1. it is a voluntary class and 2. opposing views are taught as well. I do not see how teaching a voluntary "religious" class that presents opposing views would violate the establishment clause.

We can have classes about religion, but a class that promotes a particular religion should not be in a public school.

Quote:

Intelligent design is the middle ground. Is it creationism repackaged? Perhaps. But so what if it is? While it may teach the possibility of a god, it is not endorsing Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism or any other major religion. It is teaching what millions on the planet believe.

That's the point. It is a belief. It is not within the realm of science. Science simply cannot answer the question, "Is there a designer?" There is no way to isolate "God" in a scientific manner. Atheists often point that because there is a lack of evidence for a God then the conclusion should be made that there is no God.

Science is simply too limited to address the issue of God.

Quote:

Now the pointy-head intellectuals will cry, "Don't teach it in a science class." Why not? If a scientific theory contradicts what millions on the planet believe, how can the theory be taught without also teaching that there are millions that do not believe it? Until science can recreate life from nonorganic matter, evolution will remain a theory. To teach it otherwise is dishonest.

If you want to dialog about science then use scientific language. The term "pointy-head intellectuals" indicates your inability to dialog about things scientific. God can be addressed in so many other areas that are far more effective than science.

I would suggest that because religion has used a form of rationalism, that it has lost most of its effectiveness. And the more religion tries to use science to "prove" God, the smaller its god will become.

If someone is using science to dis-prove God then that is not a scientific argument. It is philosophical. And if someone is using science to prove there is a God then that is also a philosophical presentation.

Science can show us, in its terms, that life is complicated and has order. The leap to the idea that the order came from a designer is not provable by science. It is unknowable within that discipline.

October 21, 2005

Bevin is correct when he stated that the defination of what is living and what is not is quite difficult. In my opinion, that is fundamental to the question as to whether or not humans are currently able to create llife.

He also stated that most consider viruses to be living. I consulted "wikipedia" as Bevin often uses that as reference in his posts. Here is what it says on that question:

"A virus makes use of existing host enzymes and other molecules of a host cell to create more virus particles (virions). Some viruses encode part or all of their own genome replication machinery and are not entirely reliant on host polymerases for replication of their genetic material. Such viruses can be targeted by antiviral drugs that specifically inhibit the virally encoded replicase molecule(s). Viruses rely on host cell ribosomes for the production of viral proteins. Viruses are neither unicellular nor multicellular organisms; they are somewhere between being living and non-living. Viruses have genes and show inheritance, but are reliant on host cells to produce new generations of viruses. Many viruses have similarities to complex molecules. Because viruses are dependent on host cells for their replication they are generally not classified as "living". Whether or not they are "alive", they are obligate parasites, and have no form which can reproduce independently of their host. Like most parasites, they have a specific host range, sometimes specific to one species (or even limited cell types of one species) and sometimes more general.

Some viruses form by self-assembly of protein and nucleic acid molecules. These macromolecules are assembled within host cells from smaller organic compounds. Virus self-assembly has implications for the study of the origin of life. Some viruses also incorporate lipids from the host cell membrane when their core protein-nucleic acid complex buds from the surface of a host cell. Concerning whether viruses are alive or not, if the requirement for autonomous self-reproduction is abandoned, it can be argued strongly that viruses are indeed alive. Some small viruses are more efficient than most cellular life forms as their ratio of functions to working parts is so high. If viruses are alive then the prospect of creating artificial life is enhanced or at least the standards required to call something artificially alive are reduced."

I will suggest that the question of whether or not prions are living is more difficult.

In my personal way of thinking, issues that modern science brings to the table in regard to cellular/nuclear biology and DNA are mor substantial than are those of geolog in the creationism/evolution battle.

In all attempts to create life, scientists begin with atoms and molecules. As Bevin has correctly stated, to begin with pure energy is outside of the scope of our ability today. But, evolution begins with exactly that, and posits the creation of all atoms from pure energy. We simply cannot replicate those conditions in any lab today.

October 21, 2005

Quote:

But, evolution begins with exactly that, and posits the creation of all atoms from pure energy. We simply cannot replicate those conditions in any lab today.

I think there is three distinquishable steps

(a) The origins of huge amounts of subatomic mass

( The origins of the stars/planets/... ending with a planet circling a star with a significant amount of water and other simple molecules

The (a) step starts with an inexplicit event (one guess being the big-bang) ending with many simple atoms spread throughout a universe

( is relatively straight-forward physics (gravity pulls things together, once they get dense enough there is a thermonuclear explosion, this creates the set of atoms that we know and love - repeat on a cosmic scale).

The (a) step is almost pure hypothesis based on its relics.

The ( step happened on a grand scale, it did basically the same things everywhere, and we can do them today in a lab, and we can see them happening today throughout the universe.

The © step only needed to happen once. It could be extremely unusual. As soon as a self-replicating thing happens even in a really unusual way, it can suddenly become extremely common. Then all you need is a refinement process - trial and error works just fine.

Evolution is the description of a collection of possible mechanisms involved in © along with the evidence in the real world for some of those mechanisms to have been/to be in effect.

/Bevin

October 21, 2005

Re: "I'm not willing to pay much attention to a person subscribing to the idea that gravity is a theory, . . ."

The theory of gravity is quite complex, and involves much more than what happened to you when you fell onto a concrete floor. Some of the aspects of the theory of gravity include "gravitons" and the intersting fact that the force of gravity is considered to be instantly transmitted, to an infinate extent, and therefore exceeds the speed of light by an infinate amount.

Yes, the above is a simplistic statement.

Science does not have an answer to what I have stated above. As science has not discovered the Unified Theory, of which gravity must be a part, gravity must remain a theory regardless of the fact that one may fall from the top of a haystack, to a concrete floor.

You do not have to pay much attention to me. But the fact remains, scientificly, gravity is a theory, with some aspects demonstratable, and replicatable, and other aspects relatively unknown.

October 21, 2005

Bevin, you have done well in reducing a complex subject to a very simple paragraph. Probably many such simplisities become somewhat inaccurate due to the simplification. I know that I sometimes look back at my attempts to reduce a complexity to a simplicity, and am not very happy with what I have said. But, you did well.

October 22, 2005

Science is about observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

If there is a God and God created life what should science expect to observe? If a scienctist, when observing DNA becomes convinced that it could have only been designed by some sort of intelligence, that is science. He is observing, describing, identifying and making a theoretical explanation of a phenomena. The fact that he disagrees the the majority of his peers, does not make his explanations any less science than theirs.

October 22, 2005

What Behe has NOT done is

(a) find any particular piece that REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer

( make a prediction based on his idea of something that can not be equally predicted by a contradictory idea

This is why it is NOT science. It does not make any testable predictions. Science is not about opinions. It is about ideas whose predictions of the outcomes of experiments can be tested.

/Bevin

October 22, 2005

He makes a theoretical explanation of a phenomena based on observations. That is science.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It does not make any testable predictions.

It doesn't have to make any to be science AND if there was a God that created life, what type of testable predictions would we be talking about?

Sign In

Witness says God isn't only possible designer

Recommended Posts

Amelia

Dr. Shane

bevin

Gregory Matthews

bevin

Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews

Bravus

Gail

bevin

Dr. Shane

bevin

Dr. Shane

Robert

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Aliensanctuary

cardw

Gregory Matthews

bevin

Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews

Dr. Shane

bevin

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity