Atheist Professor: Intelligent Design Should Be Taken Seriously

In a soon-to-be released book, an atheist professor has argued that the critiques of the Theory of Evolution by intelligent design defenders should "be taken seriously."

Thomas Nagel, professor at the Department of Philosophy at New York University, argued this in a book titled Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

"Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously," wrote Nagel in chapter one.

"I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion."

Continue reading at www.christianpost.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Evermyrtle

Obama is intelligent, too, but that does not prevent him from serving Satan and the Islam which means he is not GOD'S child, This he has chosen for himself. The following scriptures tells us what will hoppen to HIS people as well as those who choose not to accept HIM. Problems are caused because of the anti-GOD practices but it is nothing that GOD cannot handle.

Matt25:31-34

31. When the SON OF MAN shall come in HIS glory, and all the HOLY ANGELS with HIM, then shall HE sit upon the throne of HIS glory:
32. And before HIM shall be gathered all nations: and HE shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats:
33. And HE shall set the sheep on HIS right hand, but the goats on the left.
34. Then shall the KING say unto them on HIS right hand, Come, you blessed of my FATHER, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
http://www.facebook.com/jerry.million Jerry Million

Perhaps I should not post this but I will. Though written as a work of fiction John Daniels new book, 'THE COMING: A TRUE STORY OF HORROR' @ amazon.com gives proof that God does exists. I know how outrageous that sounds but read it and you will understand…Incredible!!!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-True-Story-Horror/dp/1469955652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345638923&sr=8-1&keywords=the+coming+a+true+story+of+horror
http://www.facebook.com/richard.r.tryon Richard R. Tryon

How long, Prof. Nagel, did it take scientists to figure out that it took something more than a second to design and trigger the Big Bang event so that it has all unfolded according to the master plan? Did it take more than a generation or two of scientists with today's philosophical…err, I mean to also include scientific skills to both calculate how long it took to plan the universe. And by the way to also include for our tiny corner capacities that are not physical but emotional, cognitive and abstract, and test them to prove that they would work at the proper time.
I almost forgot! There must have been time to figure out how to automate the use of extra double helix space for mutations so that each invented species could tend to survive by virtue of mutations that could survive or evolve, thus freeing the central intelligence for more creative tasks. Or did that opportunity cease with the Big Bang? What happened to the holder of that array of planning skills? What designed the raw materials used to make it all come forth? Send me the response to put on http://www.gratisbooks.com
Evermyrtle

Evolution considered as Intelligent Design is an insult to GOD. Something should done about such atrocities in our country. I should not be accepted, because it the opposite of GOD'S plan.
- TOO_MANY_LAWS_NOW
  
  yeah? Like do what? Pass a law??? RIGHT!
Steve03

If Nagel's philosophy leads him to believe that an Intelligent Designer may exist without leading him to a belief in God, then either (1) he's not much of a philosopher or (2) the existence of a designer does prove the existence of God. If (1) is true, then his support of ID is worthless. If (2) is true, then Christians have nothing to gain by supporting ID.
- LeeBowman
  
  Nagel has been quoted as saying, "The purposes and intentions of God, if there is a god, and the nature
  of his will, are not possible subjects of a scientific theory or
  scientific explanation. But that does not imply that there cannot be
  scientific evidence for or against the intervention of such a
  non-law-governed cause in the natural order."
  
  He simply feels that the possibility is there, although he doesn't hold to it as a belief. Therefore, your conclusions don't hold up. For more, go here, a dated assessment of Nagel.
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/prominent_atheist_professor_of010791.html
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    If there is a god, why can his will not be tested?
    - KentPerry
      
      I guess for the same reason Jesus refused to do all those stupid pet tricks for the emperor to prove who he was. The same reason someone tells you to jump and you don't ask "How far?". The fact of creation by intelligence is obvious and the Mission of evolution constructed and defended so much by atheists to replace that idea, use many of the same methods and tactics we've seen used to convince us of global warming being the effect of mans carbon footprint.
      - Steve03
        
        Which Gospel has Jesus going to the Isle of Capri to talk to the emperor?
        And doesn't John inisist that Jesus did do miracles (signs) to prove who he was (e.g., John 2:18-19, 11:11-45, 20:30)
Bighoss

Competent scientists, such as the highly-distinguished Dr. Fred Hoyle, father of the Big Bang theory, have stated that the mathematical odds against life occurring spontaneously on earth were essentially zero, since the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest cell were something like
one in 1040,000. Hoyle was an atheist for most of his life, but ultimately found that he could not intellectually continue in his atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2001/09/Was-Life-Begun-By-Chance-Not-A-Chance.aspx?p=1
- LeeBowman
  
  "I think you meant, "that the mathematical odds SUPPORTING life occurring spontaneously on earth were essentially zero,"
  
  Actually, the odds are 1 in 10^72.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Hoyle was engaging in a fallacy because he was trying to calculate odds for an event that isn't well-defined. We can calculate the odds of rolling a fair die and getting a "6" perfectly, that is one out of six; for a poorly defined event, any probability calculation does no more than echo the assumptions on which it was made. Hoyle's assumption was effectively saying that a complete cell just somehow self-assembled, which actually resembles creationist thinking, or at least a creationist strawman, much more than it does abiogenetic research. On the basis of other assumptions — such as envisioning the Earth as a planet-spanning geologically active "bioreactor" with a range of environments operating for at least hundreds of millions of years to produce a primitive self-reproducing chemical system that could lead to "improved" derivatives and ultimately to life as we know it now — the probability can be assumed to be ONE.
  Either way, the calculation represents nothing more than a prejudice, though I would say the second one takes a much more valid view of what we actually know than the first. Hoyle performed his calculation strictly on the basis of the elaboration of the cell without any consideration of processes that might have produced it.
  To get an honest appreciation of the probabilities would require that we take a set of Earthlike planets more than, say, a few billion years old and determine the proportion on which life emerged. Since we have a sample size of ONE, there's no way to perform a useful calculation of probabilities. Hoyle's fallacy is an example of "pseudomath", a close relative of pseudoscience, nothing more than a game of presenting a partisan opinion under a false front of mathematical precision. Hoyle's fallacy was more a misuse of probability than of abiogenesis theory. He may have been right, the spontaneous origins of life may be unbelievably improbable, but we have no useful way of calculating such a probability.
  - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
    
    The odds of life occurring spontaneously from nonliving material is exactly zero, not because of probabilities, but because there is no known mechanism that would transform nonliving materials into living cells. Even if the proteins could somehow be randomly assembled, they still do not comprise a living organism. There is not a single shred of evidence to indicate that life can arise from anything other than pre-existing life. The odds of me turning a foot-long piece of 2X4 lumber into a gold brick are zero, as are the odds of turning non-living materials into living cells.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      The religious have always maintained that certain things are impossible. Yet science keeps discovering these impossible events. Your refusal to accept that will not prevent science from continuing to find out new information.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Why do you say "the religious" have always maintained that certain things are impossible? Christians believe in a miraculous creation of the universe, yet atheists insist that there isn't even a God, let alone a universe that arrived by a creative act.
        
        Atheists and secular scientists supposedly operate within natural laws, yet when something they believe, like spontaneous generation or evolution, violates those laws, they have to insert a fudge factor in which they claim that 'science' simply needs to discover something new. Science can indeed make new discoveries, but those discoveries have to be in accord with existing scientific laws and principles.
  - LeeBowman
    
    For more, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHoyle%27s_fallacy
    
    I agree with what you gleaned from that wiki page as well. Other attempts to calculate the odds of intelligent life in the Cosmos were by Frank Drake and others, and fail completely due to the lack of valid data to insert into the terms. First, an overview of the 'Drake Equation', then Carl Sagan's employment of it. Both fail in their attempts.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
    
    "There are an enormous number of stars. Only some of them will have planets suitable for life." Correct Carl, but from this point on, your conjecture escalates enormously.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY
Chris

I am a "designer" – there is no "Designer". If there really was a designer he would not design the human body with bits that evolved from a fish. He would not put the urinary tract through the middle of the prostate. That is truly stupid for the all knowing magic man. There is no fossil evidence to support intelligent design. People like this guy know, like Bradley Monton, Doug Groothuis and the Discovery Institute that you can make a few bucks off the gullible religious by making this stuff up.
- petroskhan
  
  1 – http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-does-fossil-record-support-intelligent-design-of-universe.html
  
  2 – http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/intelligent-design-has-scientific-merit-in-paleontology
  
  3 – In 1979 evolutionary paleontologist David Raup wrote that “we are now
  about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has
  been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of
  evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” The NAS further
  claims that “[t]he fossil record provides extensive evidence
  documenting the occurrence of evolution,”
  but other paleontologists have lamented precisely the opposite: the
  fossil record rarely provides evidence of Darwinian change. As
  evolutionary paleontologist Niles Eldrege wrote in 1995:
  
  “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long.
  It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields
  zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation
  of change–over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for
  all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.
  When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually
  shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils
  did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere
  else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn
  paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”
  
  4 – Leading evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001,
  “When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher
  taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly
  frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil
  record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
  connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”
  
  Wow, you're right again, Chris. On the serious side, if you're going to belief something in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, that's fine. Just be honest, and say you don't like the truth. But don't try to sell your magic bean of evolution as a fact. The evidence just isn't there.
- dntmkmecomoverther
  
  Wow, your intellect and articulate response have convinced me of your point.
  
  All the evidences point to design. If you want to debate that point, bring it on.
- LeeBowman
  
  "If there really was a designer he would not design the human body with bits that evolved from a fish"
  
  Yes he/it would, since that is how evolution progresses, by altering prior designs to embody new features.
  
  "He would not put the urinary tract through the middle of the prostate."
  
  Why? Because it doesn't work for reproduction? It has worked just fine for the hundreds of millions of vertebrates bred over vast millennia. If your prostate is bothering you, I would suggest spending less time sitting on your butt at the computer.
  
  Cheers!
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Yes, that is how evolution works. However, it is not how designers work.
    - LeeBowman
      
      Sorry, but a 'cosmic' designer may in fact work that way.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If the designer also created everything, then he would not be limited to working with existing forms as he could continue to create new ones.
        
        You are trying to equate the limits that people have with what the limits would be on a god, which should have no limits. If a cosmic designer worked that way, he would be the inept designer ever.
      - LeeBowman
        
        "Created everything" is a religious assumption, that of all creation, cosmic and biologic, being the result of one God. While possible true, there is no scientific data to confirm the correlation.
        
        The reductionist view held by mainstream science is that all matter and life are the result of natural causes. To embrace the 'one supreme God' premise is to essentially deny natural causation in toto.
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
  
  Chris says: "
  If there really was a designer he would not design the human body with bits that evolved from a fish."
  
  All you are doing is setting up a straw man assumption that the human body has parts evolved from fish, which is utter nonsense. You are correct, though, that God would not design the human body with parts that evolved from other animals, because evolution is entirely false to begin with, and God does not deal in falsehoods.
  - LeeBowman
    
    We have the same organs as fish, but with gills slits for extracting oxygen rather than lungs. But yes, this doesn't mean the fish gradually evolved into tetrapods, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, lizards, dinos, then birds, with the split-off of mammals (including primates) occurring in parallel fashion. By 'evolved', I'm referring to a progression occurring naturally due to various selective pressures.
    
    Yes, there have been these 'progressions', but due to the complex nature of the gained (or simply altered) morphologies, the data points to incremental designs, along with redesigned reproductive processes as well.
    
    This then would indicate fish as primate ancestors, but not in the manner proposed but the current evolutionary theory.
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      We may indeed have some of the same organs as fish, simply because we are both animals, but that does not presume a common ancestor. Each animal has its own unique set of organs that function in a very specific way for each organism, because that is how they were designed by God. In the fossil record, animals appear suddenly and fully formed, without an 'intermediary stages', which argues against any evolution or descent from a lower form.
      
      Fish are not primate ancestors, only other primates are. Fish are not human ancestors either, only other humans are. Every animal reproduces after its kind. A fish (egg) will give birth to another fish, and a human will give birth to another human.
      
      God designed each 'kind' as a unique organism, and similar creatures were given a similar design, because they were designed by a common Creator. Ford cars all have pretty much the same design, with minor modifications between models because they were all designed by the same company and all cars function about the same, They all have an engine, chassis, body, steering wheel, etc. because autos are based on a common design.
- KentPerry
  
  The Ford Edsel was thought to be badly designed also but no one was so stupid to think it created itself.
bill1776

Darwin says it is absurd to believe that the eye could have been formed by evolution.

In his book Origin of Species in chapter six he goes into detail about the human eye. He said, “I suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus of different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of the spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by national selection (evolution), seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree”.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Nice bit of quote mining there bill1776.
  The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
  photosensitive cell aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin pigment cells forming a small depression pigment cells forming a deeper depression the skin over the depression taking a lens shape muscles allowing the lens to adjust
  All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
  - LeeBowman
    
    Nor can we claim that it does, an assumption in support of a prediction, RM → NS.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design Theory ("IDers") are fond of erecting a strawman in place of evolutionary theory, one that they can then dismantle and point to as "proof" that their "theories" are superior. Perhaps the most egregious such strawman is encapsulated in the phrase "RM & NS". Short for "random mutation and natural selection", RM & NS is held up by creationists and IDers as the core of evolutionary biology, and are then attacked as insufficient to explain the diversity of life and (in the case of some IDers) its origin and evolution as well.
      
      Evolutionary biologists know that this is a classical "strawman" argument, because we know that evolution is not simply reducible to "random mutation and natural selection" alone. Indeed, Darwin himself proposed that natural selection was the best explanation for the origin of adaptations, and that natural selection itself was anoutcome that necessarily arises from three prerequisites:
      
      • Variety: significant differences between the characteristics of individuals in populations);
      
      • Heredity: genetic inheritance of traits from parents to offspring; and
      
      • Fecundity: reproduction, often resulting in more offspring than are necessary for replacement.
      
      Given these prerequisites, the following outcome is virtually inevitable:
      
      • Demography: some individuals survive and reproduce more often than others, and hence their heritable characteristics become more common in their populations over time.
      
      As I have alread pointed out in an earlier post, the real creative factor in evolution isn't natural selection per se, it's the "engines of variation" that produce the various heritable characteristics that natural selection then preserves from generation to generation. According to the creationists and IDers, the only source of such variation is "random mutations", and so there simply isn't enough variation to provide the raw material for evolutionary change.
      
      In my earlier post on the "engines of evolution" I promised a list of the "engines of variation" that provide the raw material for evolutionary change. It's taken me a while, but here it is. This list includes "random mutation,' of course, but also 46 other sources of variation in either the genotypes or phenotypes of living organisms. Note that the list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor are any of the entries in the list necessarily limited to the level of structure or function under which they are listed. On the contrary, this is clearly a list of the minimum sources of variation between individuals in populations. A comprehensive list would almost certainly include hundreds (and possibly thousands) of more detailed processes. Also, the list includes processes that change either genotypes or phenotypes or both, but does not include processes that are combinations of other processes in the list, again implying that a comprehensive listing would be much longer and more detailed.
      
      Anyway, here is the list of the "engines of variation", arranged according to level of structure and function (if a term is underlined, you can click on it and be taken to a definition and explanation of that term, usually at Wikipedia):
      
      SOURCES OF HERITABLE VARIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN POPULATIONS
      
      Gene Structure (in DNA)
      
      1) point mutations
      
      2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift” / "indel") mutations
      
      3) inversion and translocation mutations
      
      Gene Expression in Prokaryotes
      
      4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)
      
      5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites
      
      6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers
      
      7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors
      
      Gene Expression in Eukaryotes
      
      8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)
      
      9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs
      
      10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)
      
      Gene Interactions
      
      11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways
      
      12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways
      
      13) splitting or combining of biochemical pathways
      
      14) addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits
      
      Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure
      
      15) gene duplication within chromosomes
      
      16) gene duplication in multiple chromosomes
      
      17) inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome
      
      18) translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes
      
      19) deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons
      
      20) fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments
      
      21) fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments
      
      22) changes in chromosome number via nondisjunction (aneuploidy)
      
      23) changes in chromosome number via autopolyploidy (especially in plants)
      
      24) changes in chromosome number via allopolyploidy (especially in plants)
      
      Eukaryotic Chromosome Function
      
      25) changes in regulation of multiple genes in a chromosome as a result of the foregoing structural changes
      
      26) changes in gene expression as result of DNA methylation
      
      27) changes in gene expression as result of changes in DNA-histone binding
      
      Genetic Recombination
      
      28) the exchange of non-identical genetic material between two or more individuals (i.e. sex)
      
      29) lateral gene transfer via plasmids and episomes (especially in prokaryotes)
      
      30) crossing-over (reciprocal and non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in meiosis
      
      31) crossing-over (non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in mitosis
      
      32) Mendelian independent assortment during meiosis
      
      33) hybridization
      
      Genome Structure and Function
      
      34) genome reorganization and/or reintegration
      
      35) partial or complete genome duplication
      
      36) partial or complete genome fusion
      
      Development (among multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals)
      
      37) changes in tempo and timing of gene regulation, especially in eukaryotes
      
      38) changes in homeotic gene regulation in eukaryotes
      
      39) genetic imprinting, especially via hormone-mediated DNA methylation
      
      Symbiosis
      
      40) partial or complete endosymbiosis
      
      41) partial or complete incorporation of unrelated organisms as part of developmental pathways (especially larval forms)
      
      42) changes in presence or absence of mutualists, commensals, and/or parasites
      
      Behavior/Neurobiology
      
      43) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community
      
      44) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment
      
      45) learning (including effects of use and disuse)
      
      Physiological Ecology
      
      46) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community
      
      47) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment
      
      So, next time you hear or read a creationist or IDer cite "RM & NS" as the sole explanation for evolutionary change, point out to them and everyone else that there are at least 47 different sources of variation (including "random mutations"), and at least three different processes that result from them: natural selection, sexual selection, and random genetic drift.
      
      http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You sure put a lot of work in proving that you are an anti-GOD, anti-CHRIST, unbeliever. Take a rest, we already know where you stand, and we will not change because of all your effort.. We do care that you are lost, but pray that one day you will see the light of JESUS CHRIST.
      - KentPerry
        
        For that to happen, Jeff would have to be smart enough to know that he isn't smarter than everyone else here and that is something he just doesn't have the intelligence to understand yet and probably never will.
        
        Pity is what that is
        
        really sad
      - LeeBowman
        
        RM → NS.was simply an overview, and not intended as a detailed review of the various evolutionary processes, including GD (genetic drift, not G*D). But it is certainly not a 'strawman' argument.
        
        Regarding the 'engines of evolution', this consists of a summation of the sources of biologic innovation. But before breaking that down, let's separate 'adaptive traits' from 'novel traits'. I and others view adaptation as a 'designed in' function, drawing from the extant gene pool, and for the purpose of adapting to a changing environment.
        
        I say 'designed in' due to the probability that if there were designers, it/they would have enough foresight to know that (1) environmental changes would occur, and (2) the ability to 'adapt' on its own would help to minimize extinctions. Thus I fully accept the ability to self-evolve, but limited to adaptive traits only.
        
        Land mammals to cetaceans, however, is not adaptation, since there was not need for a land mammal to become aquatic in order to survive. So how then did that occur?
        
        Firstly, I'm conceding that it did occur, one evidence being hip bone vestigials. But there were NO selective pressures driving the evolutionary changes, since the land mammals were doing fine in their original environment. That then points to a 'directed' conversion process, rather than one necessitated by 'survival'. Extended giraffe necks is another example, which I view as a design challenge, perhaps by competitive designers.
        
        Now, back to MacNeil's arguments.
        
        (1), (2), and (3) are simply a chronicling of mechanisms falling under the categorical term 'random mutations.'
        
        (4) thru (7) refer to prokaryotes, thus not relevant to evolution or higher genera.
        
        (8) thru (32) Gene expression and interactions in eukaryotes, intron lengths (so what), splitting, inverting` and recombination (how accomplished), and other topics like fusion and fission, chromosonal regulation, etc. are not disputed, but do not have the least to do with the origination of information to create subsequent novel structures, referring to structures that would require multiple genetic alterations and additions.
        
        (33) Hybridization is simply a speciation event that stops there, since no reproduction follows.
        
        (34) thru (39) are simply observable genomic processes, some deleterious, such as homeosis due to abnormal hox gene mutations.
        
        Finally symbiosis and endosymbiosis, or outcomes with mutual genefits, including to third parties (us, when bees and fauna interact).
        
        So no, 'creationists' are not lying when they state summarily that RM → NS.is the primary alleged means of macroevolutionary progressions by evolutionists. It is simply a summary statement, sans the details, many of which were listed by Allen in this piece.
        
        And is it in fact complex? Actually, it would have made Occam grimace …
  - bill1776
    
    Reply to Jeff Dixon: Evolution is a big joke! It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution.
    
    Richard Dawkins, the high priest of
    today’s modern-day religion of evolution, has written a children’s book with
    the title, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. When a
    scientist tells you that he knows what’s really true, he is being a philosopher
    not a scientist. There are hundreds of examples of scientific truisms that are
    no longer true today. The geocentric model of the solar system and spontaneous
    generation are two of the big ones. Then there is the problem of the origin of
    everything. There is no scientific way of knowing what’s really true about how
    we and the stuff of the cosmos got here. Science writer Isaac Asimov can only
    say, “Without being able to be certain . . . (and perhaps we never will be), we
    can speculate as to the possible course of events in the primordial ocean.”
    Dawkins writes in a similar way in his book The Greatest Show on Earth:
    
    We have no evidence about what the
    first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have
    been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started.
    Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection
    can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by
    some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.
    
    We have no evidence about what the
    first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have
    been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started.
    Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection
    can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by
    some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      It takes no faith, other than to believe what the evidence provides.
      
      Where is it written that scientist's cannot not also be philosophers? But in this case, he is not being one. He is explaining what the evidence shows us.
      
      You are right, there are many examples of science improving upon itself. It is one of the strengths of science.
      
      But what does any of that have to do with the fact that you showed Darwin's quote out of context?
      - bill1776
        
        Reply to Jeff Dixon:
        Atheists are really the most strongest Supporters of God. They spend so much time and energy denying there is a God, that there must be one, or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to deny God.
      - Mary Wood
        
        I think atheists like Jeff are more prone to help others out from under what they see as a "delusion," as a humanist would warn his neighbor, than any primary purpose for themselves as to disprove the existence of God.
      - LeeBowman
        
        "Jeff has said he would change his mind in a heartbeat if someone showed him some reasonable proof."
        
        There will never be 'hard proof' of a god's existence. It would (1) negate the set-in-place 'faith' requirement, (2) it would act as an authoritative 'dictate' to honor, and (3) no matter what the 'proof', many would judge it as faked evidence.
        
        No, the present scheme of things makes more sense. You choose to believe or not, it's that simple. Virtually all of the arguments against believing are based on skewed human logic (Dawkins and others say the premise of a god violates Occan's Razor, or that if you choose the wrong god you're in trouble, or that if you choose to believe you cannot do valid science, on and on … ).
        
        But the major objections are based upon the canonized scripture the makes up the Bible, since much of it violates known physical laws, contains contradictions, and God directed violence (Old Testament and Koran). Newer versions of possibly valid information are contained in the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the D & C.
        
        But are any of those books valid words from the other side? Are there really multiple heavens (Mormon theology)? No way to know. And if one is truly skeptical of these premises, it is understandable. It is in fact understandable to reject organized religion, based on the fact that if there have in fact been any valid facts revealed over time, man has trampled them under his feet of corruption and decomposition.
        
        Rather than 'proof' the evidence is all one needs:
        
        • The bio realm is of a complexity that could in no way create itself.
        
        • Test
      - Mary Wood
        
        No "rather than proof" is permitted by someone like Jeff, sorry, as far as I know he won't buy it, and please don't accuse me of being his cheerleader, been through that argument and that won't cut it. Jeff is a realist, and requires reason to see a way to know, its that simple, and wouldn't we all really like a bit of that level of reason? I love the scenario set forth by the Mormons, it's a bit of a stretch to say the least. Many of my friends in the Mormon church are on the quest to look for academic, scientific truth, of the book of Mormon and evidence of Indians in America being progenitors of the peoples in the book of Mormon, and validations of the life of Christ and his alleged visits to America, simply the cold, hard evidence . By your descriptions I think perhaps you believe that our lack of faith (and we have lots of faith) precludes our ability to to apply logic and reason. Your final summary is in fact contradictory. You can't have "substantial evidence" at the same time as you have "contradictory scriptural accounts." I like the Mormon stance that there is still an infinity of things to know and it is not found in inaccurate biblical writings and/or interpretations that even the most diligent Reformist leaders cannot agree upon. That situation is no different than with the Mormon scholars, but the Mormon scholars honestly rely upon seers and revelators, as in biblical times, and (believe it or not, yes we have those in the Mormon church) their expositions are vastly more interesting. So you see, I love myth and fairy tales, and even believe some and in terms of good versus evil, how they affect the group. I want to believe in a good and gracious Father who art in heaven. I am absolutely sure that good and evil exists and can tell the difference. No one in the Mormon church is forcing me or even telling me to believe or what to believe, if anything. I think Jeff and I are not that different, only he blatantly will not accept the possibility of a God without the hard evidence, I have often read him, yet he certainly understands what is good versus bad when it comes to how these opposites affect people. I don't know what more you could want since contradiction must be accepted if you are not on the reasonable path. We used to called it "a mystery" in the Catholic church, where I was born and raised. I think the reason I am still a church goer is because I love the mystery and the search, but believe when the time comes, incrementally, I will know. This last part, you know, I can't speak for others.
      - LeeBowman
        
        Summary conclusion: While the plethora of scriptural
        accounts are contradictory, and violate human logic and reason, the
        premise of a God (or gods) has substantial evidence to back it. But I am
        not preaching, or even given advice. It is up to you to choose your
        poison, or perhaps to relent to reason.
LoneStar

How can you write off the Prophecies in the Old Testament that Hundreds of years before the Birth Of Christ predicted every single facet of his life, his Death, and that he was the Messiah. [ Quote by the Gipper Ronald Reagan]
http://www.facebook.com/people/David-B-Severy/557985964 David B Severy

Does he still have a job?
- LeeBowman
  
  Are you implying that he should be fired for taking this position? If that were to occur, it would gel with a plethora of previous cases cited in 'Slaughter of the Dissidents' by
  Jerry Bergman.
Mexseiko

Since the birth of the Theory of Evolution, scientists have "designed" all kinds of instruments to try prove Creation has not been the product intelligence.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Really? Just what are some of these instruments that have been designed for that purpose? Spaceships? Cars? Phones? Computers? I would love to know the device that was specifically designed to prove that Creation was not the product of Intelligence.
  - KentPerry
    
    The Theory of evolution is one such tool
millergroup2

@Jeff Dixon

Where are you? Now is your chance to dig yourself deeper.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  The same place I am always at. Putting some reason in the conversation.
LeeBowman

"“I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for
challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion
displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to
liberate us from religion.”

Wait 'till the ACLU gets a hold of this, and sues for a violation of the Constitutional Establishment Clause. How darest he even imply that there is anything 'out there' that could have anything to do with life progressing on its own?!

Why that is a blasphemous libel of the greatest scientist ever known, Charles Darwin, the founder of the most robust of all theories [AAAS].
- Jeff Dixon
  
  The theory of Evolution is the most robust and well documented theory in all of science. While I realize you were attempting to be sarcastic, it is appreciated that you made the comment at all.
  - KentPerry
    
    Ill tell you what it is. Evolution is the biggest pile of piltdown paleontology and faux fossil fraud, ever perpetrated as a hoax on man kind. The so called "Fact of evolution" is only a fact to the morons that believe it. There is no proof for it what so ever and there never will be because it simply isn't true.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      I am glad to see you continue to express idiotic ideas. Please continue to do so.
      - Mary Wood
        
        … his true calling may be scatalogical poetry … his voice does have a timbre
great_grandma

I guess now the argument will have to be "Whose intelligence?"
fliteking

S-L-O-W-L-Y the evolutionists are being force-fed the truth about Creation.

Denial is such a strong factor in liberal lives.