Intelligent Design

[Jake]

Intelligent Design

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am in need of your assistance. A good friend of mind has been given a list of I.D. arguments to try and sway her beliefs, and she has asked for my help to help refute them. I started writing a response, but decided I should see if anyone more scientifically minded could help me provide a more iron clad set of responses.

Thank you for your help.

· The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
· Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
· Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
· The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
· Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
· Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
· Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
· Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
· Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

[JohnW]

Most, if not all, of these objections were discredited years ago, but are still kicking around the creationist community. Answers to all of them can be found here.

[Astrobairn]

Are any of those arguements for intelligent design?

[Joff]

AstroBairn, despite the rhetorical nature of your question, I will answer...

Of course not. Intelligent Design is a Trojan Horse that the creationists are trying to sneak inside the city of science. It is not science and cannot advocate positive agendas and lines of enquiry of its own. The only objective is destruction (in the public eye) of inconvenient facts that obstruct their own agenda.

Good luck Jake.

[Mosheh Thezion]

There is no contridiction..... only blindness and confussion on both sides.
-MT

[Wolverine]

Intelligent Design

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am in need of your assistance. A good friend of mind has been given a list of I.D. arguments to try and sway her beliefs, and she has asked for my help to help refute them. I started writing a response, but decided I should see if anyone more scientifically minded could help me provide a more iron clad set of responses.

Thank you for your help.

Welcome to the forum, Jake. You should be able to find pretty much everything you need via Talk Origins, complete with references. There are also resources (that's Gishlick's debunking of the body of these errant claims) available at the National Center for Science Education. This list of "questions" originates directly from The Discovery Institute, a pro-creationist, anti-evolution group. I'll add additional TO entries below where applicable.

· The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Evolution does not presume to explain abiogenesis (life arising from inorganic matter). That's a common misconception. See here and here re: Miller-Urey.


· Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

See here.


· Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

See here.


· The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

See here and here.


· Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

See here.

· Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

See here.


· Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

See here (much more here, here, and here).

Hope that helps.

**Edited to add: I'd forgotten there was a dedicated page at TO covering TDI/Wells' claims as well. It's located here, covering the same material. Enjoy.

[Wolverine]

There is no contridiction..... only blindness and confussion on both sides.
-MT

That statement is inaccurate.

[peter eldergill]

I also didn't understand MT's remark.

MT, to what contradiction are you referring?

Pete

[Archer17]

Excellent posts Wolverine and Joff. Joff, your Intelligent Design-"Trojan horse" analogy hits the nail on the head.

There's a current battle here in the Keystone State about this malarkey being force-fed to our youth, and is discussed here.

[Joff]

I accept compliments under any name whatsoever.

[Archer17]

I accept compliments under any name whatsoever.

Ooops! Sorry, I'll fix that.