Topic: Science education
Intelligent Design as an Unscientific Concept Science is a methodology that depends on observation, experimentation, and empiricism. So why do certain people wish to bypass that process to claim something as science that doesn't follow those rules?by Dale Husband
(centrist liberal)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Over the past decade, the concept of Intelligent Design (I.D.) has caught on among those who are seeking a secular alternative to evolution and has sparked fierce debate as well as attempts to force this idea into public schools. The question we must consider is this: can I.D. be conclusively supported by any physical evidence in nature? If so, not only would that make it scientific, it would indeed allow believers in a religion to use biology as a means of promoting their brand of theism once again. There are two basic components to I.D. that must be critically examined.
Irreducible complexity Reviving the arguments of the 18th Century religious philosopher William Paley, the I.D. promoters claim that many biological structures in nature have parts that all must function together to make the structure work. Removal of any part would cause the structure to fail. This is the idea of "irreducible complexity". I.D. promoters refer to a bacterial flagellum, a whip-like structure, as an illustration of this. Flagella are made of proteins and all of them are needed to make the flagella function. Therefore, the flagella must have been designed by a supernatural intelligence. The problem with this assumption is that while the flagellum may indeed fail if one of its proteins is missing, the proteins themselves may all have other uses in a cell that may not involve being parts of a flagella. Consider the very computer system I am using to produce this essay. It consists of several parts, including the monitor, the printer, the mouse, the keyboard, and the central case of the system. We may ignore the printer since it is not essential for the computer to function, though its absence prevents me from printing documents. Let us look at the remaining parts. The central case contains the CD-ROM and DVD drive, the hard drive, the CPU, the memory chips, a power supply, a modem, and various system boards that enable the computer to function. The CD-ROM and DVD drive functions much like an ordinary CD player, while the hard drive may be considered a relative of CD-ROM drives. The modem is descended from the telephone, while the memory chips, system boards, and CPU resemble circuit boards in many other electronic machines. The monitor, including its speakers, is clearly descended from the television and may be modified to serve as one. The keyboard is descended from the typewriter. The mouse can be turned upside down and turned into a track ball device similar to the one used in the classic video game Centipede. This track ball can be used either as a pointer for the computer like a mouse or as a body-massaging device. Thus a computer system may appear to be irreducibly complex, but most of its components can have different uses and are directly descended from other devices that need not involve computer work at all. It is the same with those proteins in a flagellum. Research has already discovered proteins similar to the ones in flagella that have different functions. (And it must be noted that many species of bacteria lack flagella, raising the question of why the Intelligent Designer would give flagella to some bacteria but not others.) But if we merely assumed that flagella could not have formed via natural selection, we might never have discovered those other uses for the protein components of flagella. And that is the danger of the I.D. concept. Its proponents in essence are saying, "We don't understand yet how this could have developed naturally, so we will assume it came about supernaturally." If such attitudes were accepted, the advancement of science would come to a grinding halt. Hippocrates, the founder of medicine as a scientific process, stated, "Men think epilepsy divine because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine that they do not understand, there would be no end to divine things." Today, of course, we know what causes epilepsy and do not consider it "divine", merely a nervous disorder that can be treated.
The only reason computers need humans to design and build them is that computers cannot reproduce themselves and thus are not subject to natural selection. Living things do reproduce themselves. Indeed, the process of growth and reproduction seen constantly in living things are known to occur quite naturally, so why would anyone assume that the origin of life itself would involve anything outside of nature? Because of our ignorance, combined with prejudice related to religious belief. And that is totally opposed to science!
Specified Complex Information I.D. promoters also are fond of stating that the simplest cell is far more complex than the finest pocket watches, which everyone knows do not self-assemble. Thus, it must have taken an intelligence to create the first cell, since a cell is said to contain a vast amount of "specified complex information". However, biologists do not assume that life began at the cellular level, especially since even today there are life forms smaller than any cell called viruses. Instead, life may have started at the molecular level. DNA and proteins are polymers, which are defined as molecules consisting of repeating parts. They occur due to the amazing ability of a carbon atom to bond with up to four other atoms at a time, thus enabling carbon in conjunction with other atoms to form long chains of unlimited length. DNA and proteins are made of smaller molecules that are common in nature. On the Earth of four billion years ago, there may have been trillions upon trillions of organic molecules of various forms. Though it is highly improbable that the right combinations of molecules could have started the process of DNA or RNA replication, it was not impossible and it only needed to happen once for life to began. And as those life forms, which may have been little more than viruses, proceeded to reproduce, the process of natural selection would have begun to work on them to gradually change them over billions of years. Because of the very simplicity of those early forms, they would have been extremely adaptable and hardy. Mutations of all kinds would have been possible that would not have necessarily hindered the ability of the organisms to live and reproduce, but could have added more order to the organisms. Longer and more varied DNA and RNA sequences would have generated longer and more varied proteins. Ironically, most species of life forms today, including us humans, are so complex (that is, their standards of order are so extremely high) that only a very limited number and range of mutations can be tolerated without disrupting the workings of the life form. Bacteria may seem lowly compared to us, but they are so adaptable that they can colonize extremely hostile places on Earth no other "superior" organisms have ever reached. Viruses such as HIV can mutate even faster than bacteria, which makes the efforts to find a vaccine against it extremely difficult and uncertain. The concept of "complex specified information" only has any meaning in the human world and is entirely subjective in nature, while the concept of "order" is objective. A person who cannot read would look at the text of a book and only see patterns of ink on paper, nothing more, while a person who could read would see the information in the page. But both the reader and non-reader would agree that the page contains order. Information can only exist in the mind of the reader, not in the book being read. The very assumption of complex specified information in nature instead of order presumes the existence of a Creator which is Himself beyond the realm of scientific study, therefore making the entire concept a semantic one rather than a legitimate scientific one.
Censorship? I.D. promoters claim that the exclusion of their favored concept from science classes would be unjustified censorship. But in that case, evolutionists should insist that the criticisms against I.D. should also be allowed into science classes, including the criticisms I have written here. But that would make the science classes appear to be promoting atheism by arguing directly against the possibility of an Intelligent Designer rather than for evolution. Teaching evolution alone does not promote atheism because it is possible to believe in God and assume that God was involved in the evolutionary process. Evolution is not atheistic, but it is anti-fundamentalist, and that is the real issue. And when one considers that it is fundamentalists of all kinds that have pushed for censorship throughout history of anything that goes against their narrow views, their arguments for including Intelligent Design in biology courses fall flat.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 21 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dale Husband only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dale Husband is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'd like to do a thought experiment with you - using your own computer analogy. Let’s take this "computer" and put it on a barren planet. That computer sits there, all alone. One day some alien comes across that computer on that planet... re-discovers it.
What is the correct thinking for that being to have? - is the computer a product of the planet - a product of chance, or did something with intelligence make that computer and put it there?
Seeing no one around, the alien deduces that "obviously" the computer came about through random interactions - in fact it is the "likely" outcome of this planet. There is no other explanation for a perfectly good computer on this planet. In fact, you can't scientifically prove any other explanation at all!
Given how much more complex we are than computers, and how obviously a computer is created by a higher intelligence, you can see how I am skeptical of your evolutionary assertions. I applaud your effort of submitting mind-boggling quantities of time and an "anything could happen" theory to debunk specific complex information. I'll bank on "God"... it just seems to make more sense that way.
On another note, I think that science has "lost its way". Being a scientist has nothing to do with finding truth these days (*cough* global warming scam *cough*). Being a scientist has everything to do with securing funding and finding evidence to support pre-conceived ideas.
You even admitted that science can only deal with what it can observe. My hypothesis is that "truth" is bigger than what is observable. It would be a lot like a fish saying there is no land because it can't go up there. The fish would be scientifically correct - but also %100 wrong.
So I'll agree with you - science is banking on evolution as its ace in the hole. ID believers can't battle it scientifically. However, in the pursuit of "truth" - I'll hang my hat with ID before random chance any day.
*I am not an ID believer. I think they get some of it right, and some of it wrong. However, I think they are closer to "truth" than Dale Husband.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-12-30 09:32:25
Hi Dale,
This is a good article; well written and concise. . . but futile. Reason and faith are tools from incompatible frames of reference.
Arguments that are decisive in one frame carry no validity at all in the other. Trying to get everyone on the same side by using tools that are only valid for those already on that side is folly.
Worse than mere folly, this activity distracts focus from the real problem...the GOVERNMENT is running our schools.
Get the government out of the picture and this problem goes away. Some schools will teach I.D. and some will not. The free market of ideas will eventually determine which schools are viable in the real world.
In the meantime, I'm not going to get too worked up about some people deciding to be wrong, just as long as the government doesn't force me to be wrong too.
Hi Dale, Good Article. We have seperation of church and state, or we are suppose too, but I wouldn't have any problem with religion being taught in a scientific way. In other words, a class where the basic tenets of all the religions are explained in a general way, basically a philosophy class. Atheism would be included. it's good info for any student and might help them look at the "religious" problems and wars we have in another way, maybe outside of their own "religious" views.
The other frame that is interesting, scientific theory is forever changing through time. the earth was flat, etc. yet we view it in a "religious" way, as gospel truth. if we look back one hundred years much of what was taught is now fallacy. Do we think we are different now, that we "really" know?
You are right that teaching anything as science that isn't, is false and shouldn't be presented in the same context.
a theologian, your thought experiment is nonsense. I already said that computers (and watches, televisions, light bulbs and even simple things like knives) must be designed. Why? Because they CANNOT reproduce themselves. They have nothing like DNA to transmit genetic information from one generation to another and are not subject to mutation. Once you have things that can reproduce and mutate, they are subject to natural selection. Natural selection can explain why the eyes of vertebrates (ALL of them) are wired backwards, producing a blind spot which is an obvious physical defect that no human designer would tolerate. Cephalopods have eyes that are wired forwards and have no blind spot. So maybe an Intelligent Designer made them but not us?
And your reference to a "global warming scam" is even more rediculous. Just as evolution is consistent with the known laws of chemistry and physics, so is the man-made global warming hypothesis, even if we are still learning more details about how climate works in an effort to make it more accurate. Saying it's a scam is assuming facts not in evidence. Unless you can show conclusively that the scientific method is itself a scam operation, your charge is without merit.
Finally, EVOLUTION IS NOT A PROCESS OF RANDOM CHANCE! Mutations do occur via chance, but natural selection is the opposite, eliminating those mutations that are harmful and keeping in the gene pool those that prove to be beneficial.
And even if a fish never emerged on land, it could infer the existence of land by finding fossils of land animals and understanding how the ocean floor could be uplifted to form land via tectonic and volcanic activity. Even if the land was not directly observable, if the known laws of physics and chemistry allow for it, and if the existence of land explained certain things that the nonexistence of land would not, land would be an acceptable scientific idea for fish.
Jahfre Fire Eater: Thank you for the insights about the essay itself. However, if the government does not run any schools so people can be educated for free, then only the wealthy will have access to an education. I don't believe that those who are already rich should have all the advantages to keep themselves rich and shut out competition from those who are born in poverty but wish to make their lives better. If public schools are failing, they must be reformed, but throwing them out would only make poverty, crime, and social decay worse.
gene, a lot of the ideas that were once dominant, such as the flat Earth theory, the Earth-centered universe theory, and Creationism, were not discovered by science, but were religious dogmas that were enforced by institutions that had nothing to do with science. Once science was able to operate freely, the old dogmas were sucessfully challenged and discarded. Science becomes more accurate and detailed over time. A century ago, we knew much less than today, lacking such ideas as the continental drift theory. And a century from now we will know much more, and some theories commonly accepted will be overthrown. Why? Because science is a self-correcting process. It's that PROCESS that's as important as the results it produces. Science cannot be dogmatic because its ideas are firmly based on evidence and as we gather more evidence, science is subject to revision.
You are right science itself cannot be dogmatic, it is the view that science is absolute truth that is dogmatic. As you said, it is subject by its nature to constant revision. Actually the flat earth theory is ancient and only lasted till the greeks. it was though based on evidence and experiment, walking around!
Dale asks: "The question we must consider is this: can I.D. be conclusively supported by any physical evidence in nature?"
Intelligent design creationism (as we know it today) was carefully crafted (following the 1987 US Supreme Court decision ruling its predecessor, "creation science," was religion, not science) to remove all references to the Genesis creation myth. It refers only to an anonymous supernatural "designer" (who may or may not also be the "creator") who cannot be experimented upon, theorized about, predicted or observed. As such, intelligent design has effectively removed itself from the realm of science - and then has the audacity to complain that actual science is discriminating against it!
The "cdesign proponentsists" have had plenty of time, but so far have been unable to produce any actual science supporting intelligent design creationism. Don't hold your breath.
Thanks, Paul. The question was purely rhetorical, a device to show that in fact there was no science involved in Intelligent Design at all. ASSUMING that something is too complex to have evolved is not evidence, but a failure of the imagination. The only way Intelligent Design could be supported in science is by us discovering the exact nature of the Designer through direct access to him. How do we know that computers, televisions, watches, and light bulbs were designed by an intelligence? Because in some cases we can find out directly about the companies that made them, and we know from the laws of chemistry and physics that such things do not arise by themselves. Quite simply, they are not alive.
Great article, good summary of the current 'thinking' on ID. I also find it telling that for all the claims of how much support for ID there is, none of it seems to be scientific. It's religious and political, not scientific. Just do a search on Intelligent Design in any of the scientific reference sites, like PubMed, and you get some hits, but when you look at them you find that it's not mentioned within a biological context, or if it is it's derided rather than supported. Of course do a similar search for 'evolution' and you get hundreds of thousands of returns.
The other thing that I find a bit telling is how much of the 'work' being done are attacks on evolution rather that support for ID. Even if they managed to put together a valid argument against evolution (which they have not that I have found) that wouldn't advance their pet concept at all. I mean if I could prove 1+1 does not equal 2, that doesn't mean it equals 3, right?
Intelligent Design does NOT deny a creator. It does not say, "There is no God". Rather, notes that something is happening beyond the explanation random chances can explain. Actually, it makes no statement at all, but merely notes:
Hey! The coin flipping is not coming up heads 1/2 the time and tails the other 1/2. Something is happening that can not be explained by random chances.
It has nothing to do with God, nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with which way your toilet's water vortexes, either.
Terryeo observes: "Intelligent Design does NOT deny a creator. It does not say, "There is no God"."
Exactly. As I noted in my reply yesterday at 18:51:54 (above), intelligent design creationism was carefully crafted after the 1987 US Supreme Court decision to not deny a creator, and to not say "There is no God." So what? That was deliberately done, to avoid offending the pro-creator / pro-God folks.
(In fact, there is actually nothing in the official intelligent design creationism canon that says the intelligent designer and the intelligent creator are the same entity. This leaves open the possibility that the intelligent designer was not the intelligent creator, but contracted the actual creation out to another entity, much as King Solomon contracted with Hiram of Tyre to build the Temple in Jerusalem.)
Terryeo then states: "Rather, notes that something is happening beyond the explanation random chances can explain."
This just shows that terryeo does not understand evolution (which most definitely does NOT follow random chance, contrary to the lies of evolution-deniers). Just because terryeo can't understand this, doesn't make it false. Terryeo is providing a good demonstration of the logic fallacies "argument from incredulity" and "argument from ignorance" here. Thanks, terryeo.
I wish people like Terryeo would read an essay and ALL the comments made after it before making one of his own. Then he wouldn't have looked so foolish.
"You even admitted that science can only deal with what it can observe. My hypothesis is that "truth" is bigger than what is observable. It would be a lot like a fish saying there is no land because it can't go up there. The fish would be scientifically correct - but also %100 wrong".
A very profound and important statement. Scientific tools presently used have limited ability to understand our natural environment.
"Scientific tools presently used have limited ability to understand our natural environment."
True, but progress has been made in that field that has settled many debates. By contrast, religion has no way to test claims of the supernatural, and so its debates never end, except by promoters of one side using force to destroy the advocates of the other.
If only religion had not intruded on the territory of science with its creation myths, there wouldn't be this conflict between the two now!
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-01-01 19:10:32
Hi Dale,
I disagree with your rebuttal and it doesn't resolve the logical dilemma you have created. There is no solution in your paradigm. Always, people who oppose your philosophy and religion will seek to use government to protect themselves from the oppression you pursue. Since you believe government to be the final arbiter you have bought into an unending conflict. I don't feel sorry for you, it is irrational and illogical to pursue your path of making sure government is always used on your behalf to oppress thinking you happen to disagree with, today. Tomorrow the mob may be against you but you will have created a culture where using the government to oppress those who disagree. You will deserve the consequences your actions today will deliver to you in that future.
As you pointed out in another article, your positions are not based in principle but on whim regarding what you believe to be best for America at the time. Therefore your positions are totally baseless and indefensible. Plainly this is evidenced by your choosing to resort to illogical tactics and rebuttals. This is obvious to anyone who is not similarly blinded by your faith and passion in your self-righteousness. You make an irrational faith-based, emotional case against faiths you disavow and you cannot even grasp the irony. You make a beautiful stereotype. You actively advocate the politics that perpetuate the public school situation you abhor. Apparently you either thrive on the conflict or you are unable to understand your politics cause it. Ideas have consequences, as Richard M. Weaver put it so well. Not accepting the direct consequences of your beliefs and subsequent actions is either irrational or cowardly.
In none or these cases, your thriving on conflict, or your blindness to irony, or not accepting the responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs or being a coward, are your arguments sound. Your position is based on the ends-justify-the-means. There is no logical or moral justification for advocating such tyranny.
I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt until you rejected out of hand the cause, and the only solution, to your problem. Now I see you are a tyrant bent on using the force of government to oppress those who disagree with you. You are an enemy of liberty and an ally of the State. Even though I'm likely to agree with your opinion of religious instruction I cannot lend support to your intent to use the force of government to impose your faith on others.
I am simple person. Could someone from the darwin side explain to me this:
Since evolution of a species takes a great deal of time in order to take advantage of existing conditions, why do new species suddenly appear in a new epoch for which there was no previous support?
The explanation of this non linear evolution, which is supported by fossil evidence would be appreciated.
ronslim: The problem is that the definition of a species (a population of organisms that can interbreed among themselves, but not with other populations) is not really applicable to fossils. Consider dogs. They are all considered members of the same species, but the skeleton of a Chihuahua is very different from that of a Great Dane, a Bulldog, or a Dachshund, and if they were buried and then dug up millions of years later by alien paleontologists, they would assume those dogs were all of different species.
Attempts to identify species among fossils, including human ancestors, are guesswork. When paleontologist speak of kinds of dinosaurs, they usually refer to genera rather than species for the reason I just gave.
Jahfre Fire Eater, I have no idea where you are coming from with your extreme rhetoric. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, I am not trying to convert others to atheism (equating evolution with atheism is a logical fallacy), I am not a Communist, nor am I advocating endless wars around the world. Therefore, your words do not fit me at all. Equating support of public schools with tyranny and oppression of minority viewpoints just seems like paranoia to me. Sure, many kids must regard being send by compulsion to school (public or private) as tyranny, but it's still for their own good.
Ronslim asked: "Could someone from the darwin side explain to me this: Since evolution of a species takes a great deal of time in order to take advantage of existing conditions, why do new species suddenly appear in a new epoch for which there was no previous support?"
New species "suddenly appear" in geological timeframes, not in human timeframes. Here for instance is the beginning of the Wikipedia article about the Cambrian "Explosion":
"The Cambrian explosion...was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record. This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms... Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells... Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s."
So "suddenly" in this context can be millions or tens of millions of years. But to creationists who believe the world is only 6,012 years old, with creation taking place in 4004 BC, there just isn't time.
Actually, the real "explosion" that creationists can't explain is the post-Deluge "explosion" of speciation that took place starting in 2348 BC, after Noah's Ark landed after the Flood. This is hard to explain without invoking multiple miracles (such as how the kangaroos got from Mount Ararat to Australia and the sloths got anywhere), and once miracles show up, it's no longer a discussion about science.
I am simple person. Could someone from the darwin side explain to me this:
Since evolution of a species takes a great deal of time in order to take advantage of existing conditions, why do new species suddenly appear in a new epoch for which there was no previous support?
The explanation of this non linear evolution, which is supported by fossil evidence would be appreciated.
------
When engineers design systems, there is frequently a jump from one technology to another. For instance valve technology used for radio suddenly gave way to semiconductor technology and then to integrated circuits.
If engineers can do this, why not nature? No one will dispute the fact Nature is a master designer, having created a planet of boundless beauty. A much better designer than we humans are.
Paul and Dale miss the point entirely. Oh hum. Intelligent Design looks at the coin toss and notes that random chance would not account for 700 heads out of 1000 tosses. Woot! The situation acts AS IF there were some intelligent overseer. Because the odds would never allow 700 heads out of 1000 tosses. Woot! Get smart beanbrains!
Yes, Terryeo, we miss the point because it is not even a valid point at all! Evolution is not random, even if the mutations that provide the raw material for evolutionary change are, because natural selection is the mechanism for the actual change.
Intelligent Design CANNOT be applied to living things, period. Once you have a population of organisms subject to mutation, reproduction, and constant interaction with an environment, natural selection works within that population to keep the organisms fit for their environment.
Unless and until you can actually distinguish between an Intelligently Designed life form that could NOT have arisen by human influence, and a natural evolved life form, Intelligent Design has no scientific basis whatsoever.
"Natural selection is the mechanism of change" -- Oh yeah! That's what people have said for a long, long time. And Intelligent Design doesn't disagre. But there is a point "natural selection" overlooks and ignores. The point being that if you simply allow natural selection to happen and watch the results, you'll soon find results that don't follow the laws of chance. Intelligent design is a comment or theory or idea that addresses chance, it addresses averages and what you would expect as you watch the die roll. And those rolls don't add up as you would expect them to. They don't average.
ID is not a "scientific proof", it is not meant to convince you. Instead it observes Life. And notices that mutations cause survival more often than you would expect, if you follow scientific laws of averages. It is an observation, and idea, a theory. It notices the laws of averages are not being followed. It notices how Life tends to mutate toward survival more often than Life mutates toward death. And it says, "woot, what is this? Is there some kind of intelligent design involved?"
It isn't meant to be a scientific proof, but to be an observation. A manner of looking so as to understand what is happening, better.
Terryeo: "Paul and Dale miss the point entirely. Oh hum. Intelligent Design looks at the coin toss and notes that random chance would not account for 700 heads out of 1000 tosses. Woot! The situation acts AS IF there were some intelligent overseer. Because the odds would never allow 700 heads out of 1000 tosses. Woot! Get smart beanbrains!"
Using your analogy, each coin toss indeed has a 50-50 chance of being either a head or a tail. Stringing together 100 consecutive heads would truly have astromical odds. (This is the classic creationist "randomness" arguement.) What Terryeo misses or doesn't understand is that the "intelligent overseer" of sorts in evolution is natural selection. If you want to have 100 consecutive heads and apply natural selection to each toss, you get to throw out the tails and not count them. How many tosses to get 100 heads using natural selection after each random toss? - about 200.
We must realize that this controversy is not doing the reputaion of science much good, so the sooner it is resolved the better. Since it is unlikely that Biologists will be able to resolve this controversy; it is time to hand over the problem to mathematicians, who will have the tools to calculate problems relating to probability.
What biologists need to do is to convert the biological model into a mathematical model. For instance we can try to compute the time it would require for the wings of a bat to evolve into wings of a bird (by random mutation and natural selection). Let's say the complete DNA of the bat can be represented by 10 million switches which have OFF and ON positions, of which say a thousand switches relate to the wing, which need to swith from one combination to another. Even with an oversimplified model, assuming a certain probability of a switching event occuring, we should be able to get a feel for the problem!
..."Un-Intelligent Design" is rather a bit of an oxymoron and in addition to this, please remove or at least modify from your realms of probability and mathematics the factor of "mutation" as being a major catalyst for your progressive Evolution, and place it within the perspective of a very, very rare and random cause, because...
..."Interestingly enough, genetically and scientifically, as observed to date, a genetic mutation always equals a loss of existent genetic make up within a species [And never an "addition"]. Despite the X-Men hype, the reality of mutation is that it is a phenomena of the inexplicable loss of a part of the existing genome of a particular species within a particular individual of that species. On very [very] rare occasion this has afforded an [observable] adaptative advantage--for the most part the deprived mutation dies and does not reproduce. As observed to date mutation equals a loss within a defined species and a[n advantageous] trans-species transfer of genetic materials does not [nor ever has] occur naturally..."
Its like, a mountain of mixed material falls onto and into a pool of oil. The odds of heat creating a working automobile are one in a gazillion. But if that happened, you would have to say Intelligent Design because the odds are astronomical that random events would create something useful. So too with the Intelligent Design theory. We can't point to a specific event and know that an intelligence oversaw that event.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
