"Creation Science" experiments.

Hi Just Being Real and welcome to the forum. Absolutely. In my experience the people who are most up in arms about secular science tend to be those who know the least about it as well. Good grief no! But there are a couple of points to be made here. First, the majority of the scientists quoted in your link have been dead for over two centuries. As time has gone on, science has become more and more secular and there has been an increasing trend toward godlessness on the part of scientists. It is probably still true though that a majority of scientists are theists, but scientists are, on the whole, less likely than the general population to believe in gods.Also, I don't think that your quotes really address the heart of the matter. No-one is claiming that theists can't do good science. They clearly can. The issue is when people claim that they can bring their religious convictions into the science arena and still do worthwhile science. That is something I am extremely dubious of.Let's be clear; I'm not talking about involving one's religious convictions in a weak sense. If a person is inspired to be a scientist by their religion, I have no problem with that. A person could engage in science in order to discover the truth about God's amazing universe. That's fine. Where the problem comes in is when someone tries to drag God, kicking and screaming, into the lab.Creationists often claim that they can directly involve the divine or supernatural in scientific endeavours. It is this strong sense of religious/scientific crossover that people are objecting to. It is this kind of direct joining of Christianity and science that Hooah's OP was driving at. I have never seen an example of how this would be able to drive high quality science. I have however, seen a great many examples of "creation science" creating a total mess.The purpose of this thread is for creationists to provide examples of high quality science that directly involves religious elements. So far, no examples have been forthcoming. Make of that what you will. Mutate and SurvivePS; Nice brittle-star fossil. I want one!Added By Edit; Whilst I was writing, you posted this; But this is exactly what many creationists claim to be able to do. They seem to think that they can merge science and religion into a single discipline. That's foolishness, as I suspect you'll agree.Further, I believe that when Straggler says "Creationists and IDists" he's not talking about people like Newton or Pascal. He's talking about the modern creationist movement. It is not really fair to lump dead scientific greats into a modern anti-science movement like creationism just because they were theists. We have no way of knowing what someone like Newton would have made of modern creationism, but I tend to suspect that he would not approve.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi JBR, If you meant to communicate the concept of a hypothesis, why didn't you just write "hypothesis"?As it stands, your use of the word "myth", when you meant "hypothesis" makes it look as though you are trying to equivocate between the two meanings; to suggest an equivalence that does not exist.The creation myths in Genesis are not hypotheses. The were never intended as such. We can say this with confidence because the concept of a hypothesis simply did not exist in the time they were composed. The modern concept of a scientific hypothesis is, well... modern. A truly scientific hypothesis exists to be put to the test. Creation myths are not intended in this way.Of course, we could easily treat the creation myths as if they were scientific hypotheses. We can examine their claims and compare them to observed evidence. When we do this though, they fall apart. So, in summary, creation myths are not hypotheses and even if regarded as such, they are, at best, failed hypotheses.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi JBR,This I agree with; This I don't; Why would anyone want to argue that? we already know that it's not true.We know that alleles are based on DNA sequences.We know that DNA mutates.We know that mutations in the DNA affect changes in these alleles.We know that these changes include functional changes that allow the organism to independently develop new survival advantages.What more do we need to know here? We basically know that new alleles can be derived simply through the regular process of evolution. The genome of an organism doesn't come pre-loaded with viable alleles that might cover any possibility. Those alleles originate from mutations. For your design claim to make sense, we would need to suppose that some designer is undetectably tampering with the DNA of living things in order to affect change, somehow tinkering with every single beneficial mutation that has ever occurred. In every living thing. Constantly. Invisibly. Undetectably. In fact, let's be honest; magically.I don't think that's a very good example of the scientific method in action, do you? It's also a bit creepy. Your God, *ahem*, designer must be one serious control freak.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi JBR, That's an odd thing to say when you acknowledge in the very next line that there is evidence for it. Yes. You are alluding to Lenski's experiments, which prove, beyond doubt, that random mutation can produce function. Why? I agree that this would be very interesting, but really, you have evidence that mutation produces function. What exactly is it about bacteria that you think makes them so different? What functional difference do you think is going to interfere with this line of reasoning? You must realise that the short lifespans of bacteria make them much better subjects for this kind of experiment than other life forms. You are asking for something that is very difficult to achieve - as is typical of creationist rhetoric.Bacteria have DNA and it mutates and produces new function. Multi-cellular animals also have DNA, which also mutates and they also produce function somehow. Why is it so implausible to suggest that the same thing is happening in both? We can observe fruit flies mutating to produce eyeless examples or very dark examples. Is it so hard to believe that such features could prove advantageous? Organisms in caves very often have missing or diminished eyes. Flies living in polluted areas would find their dark colouration an advantage in avoiding predation. These could well serve as advantages and we know that they were caused by unguided mutation. I'd say this comes pretty close to what you're asking for.Also, let's be honest; no-one has ever seen your God, sorry, Designer either. No-one has ever caught him in the act of diddling with our DNA. You don't seem in the bit sceptical about him though.Be honest. Which do you think is more likely, more scientific, more parsimonious?That the same process we see in bacteria applies to other DNA based life?Or that a magic man is sneaking around invisibly, magically altering our genomes, without leaving so much as a mark?If you want to play the incredulity game, I think you have some catching up to do.Mutate and Survive

Hi JBR, This seems to be no more than a pointless distractionary tactic on your part. You admit, implicitly, that if not all the mutations were in plasmid DNA, then at least some were in the chromosomal DNA. This is a non-point. The point is that an unguided biological process can originate and new trait. No designer needed, contrary to your claims. You miss the point; the bacteria originated new function all on their own. They required no designer to do it for them. Clearly, biological processes are capable of producing complexity and diversity on their own. To claim that this shows the ingenuity of their designer is a perverse argument. What it actually shows is that no such designer is needed. You are trying to change the subject; the origin of life is not the issue here. However, the observed fact that biological complexity can arise through an unguided process scarcely argues against a naturalistic chemical origin of life.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi JBR, Yes, And as Nuggin correctly points out above, some of them succeed in this whereas others fail and die. Just as one would expect from an unguided system. Why does your touted designer pick only some to survive? On what basis do you think these decisions are made? Well there we are then. My only point was that mutations have been demonstrated to produce function, without direction. You have conceded this. I don't see what value exists in dragging this out. Which results were these again? How exactly do they suggest direction? Citation? How do we know how many mutations random mutation can produce? Citation? This is a non-statement. All mutation has to work with what is has, build upon what already exists. This is not news.In fact, this argues very much against a designer. If a designer were interfering with our DNA, she might just as easily wipe the slate clean and start from scratch, with brand new DNA all round. The fact that mutation can only build upon what is already there implies pretty strongly that the process is unguided.The fact that this designer appears to be invisible, intangible undetectable and seems to have a whole suite of unspecified magic powers also seems to argue against the whole business as well. Just how do you think the magic designer gets into those bacteria in order to diddle with their DNA anyhow?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi JBR,I eagerly await your reply, but I do just have to address this; I never said that. You are the one who dragged origins of life into this. I was talking about evolution, not abiogenesis; they're two separate topics. A study such as Lenski's Cit+ bacteria study has nothing to do with the origins of life, nor have I said that it does.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

HI JBR, No, not as you were applying it. I cited Lenski, you challenged my conclusions. Lenski did not create E. coli. There was already E. coli in existence, Lenski simply observed it evolving new traits.We are talking about the origins of those specific traits, not the origins of life itself. Why? I did not mention abiogenesis, I mentioned Lenski's E.coli experiments, which do not address origin of life. They address the origin of a specific trait; citrate metabolism.If, when I talk about the origin of a specific trait in an existing organism, you assume that I am talking about abiogenesis, I have to wonder if we are speaking the same language. The media? Screw the media. I'm not talking about the piss-poor representations of the ToE expounded in the popular press. I'm talking about the actual ToE, as defined, not by humanities-educated media know-nothings, but by actual biologists.Who do you think has a better grasp on the terminology? Journalists? Or biologists?I'm talking about the ongoing process of evolution, in the present day. The ability of E. coli to evolve new traits demonstrates the reality of evolution and its ability to originate new features. Nonsense. Not every discussion here is about abiogenesis, quite obviously. The site is called "Evolution vs Creation", not "Abiogenesis vs Creation". There is room here for discussions of both abiogenesis and evolution.The only imaginable reason to discuss Lenski is that his experiments demonstrate the ongoing process of new traits evolving. You seem to doubt this. I fail to see why. That you doubt that naturalistic abiogenesis could occur is completely irrelevant to this. Let me be clear. We can consider multiple first origin scenarios;1) Naturalistic Abiogenesis. After which life continues to evolve, develop new traits and diversify.2) Divine Fiat Creation. After which life continues to evolve, develop new traits and diversify.3) Creation by Unidentified Designer. After which life continues to evolve, develop new traits and diversify.Do you see what I'm getting at? Any of those origins could be true without it affecting Lenski's data at all. In all of those scenarios, evolution is capable of originating novel biology. Well it is, if only indirectly, but that wasn't what I was getting at (nor need universal common ancestry be incompatible with divine creation; UCA and naturalistic abiogenesis are very far from being the same thing). I was pointing out to you that it has been clearly demonstrated that life itself is capable of originating novel traits, completely unguided and unsupervised. That observation totally undermines your claim that a designer is necessary for new traits to emerge.Maybe I misunderstood you. Do you accept that already existing organisms can evolve new traits? Do you insist that a designer is needed for a new functional trait to emerge? Or are you merely claiming that a designer is needed for life itself to emerge?I have to say that the idea of a designer jump-starting the first origin of life is considerably more plausible than the idea of a magic designer sneaking in during the night and tinkering with the DNA of existing organisms. Well that would not be me, because that was never my point.I notice incidentally, that you have not expanded upon what you meant by "directed" evolution. Are you planning on clarifying this? You do realise that the term "directed" does not, in this context, mean what you would like it to mean?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Yes and I cited the Lenski studies, which demonstrate that random mutation is capable of producing new functional alleles. This is not an example of NS simply selecting from pre-existing alleles, it is a case of a new alleles emerging in the lab.None of this has a single thing to do with abiogenesis. Yes, because that's what happened. No-one guided the mutations in those E Coli , they simply arose by mutation. Nonsense. If you want to claim that the mutation rate was "too high" for NS, you need to demonstrate that. What does "too high" even mean; how many mutations do we need to consider it too many. This "too high" idea is something you have chosen to introduce.The Bacteria mutated. They then developed the ability to metabolise citrate. The germ lines developed the ability to metabolise citrate entirely under their own power. If you want to invoke some mysterious designer, perhaps you might like to explain how he snuck into the lab each night to work his DNA magic upon the E coli.I keep asking about this, but you keep deflecting; how exactly is this "designer" supposed to intervene with the bacteria, whilst they were sealed in a lab? I'm serious. How is this supposed to be accomplished?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Just Being Real claims that the case is closed. He claims that he has provided us with a number of papers that support Intelligent Design. I have no doubt that JBR sincerely believes this to be true, but he is sadly mistaken. The articles cited by JBR as being "ID experiments" are in fact nothing of the sort. Certainly all of them could be used to bolster an ID style argument (if one is willing to ignore the alternative explanations) and this is what authors such as Doug Axe have done. The problem however, is that none of these articles actually tests the proposition that there is a designer.Axe for example, claims that enzyme folding provides evidence of design. Naturally, this is disputed by many. Axe is entitled to his view on the matter, but what his paper does not do is to rigorously test for the existence of a designer. Axe makes no mention of any designer in his abstract. This is typical of ID papers; their authors claim that they support design, but in the actual papers themselves, they make little or no mention of any such possibility, at least not directly.JBR has provided us with papers that can be viewed as being consistent with ID but he has been entirely unable to provide us with any direct test for the presence of a designer, save for his own, self-created terminology, "APC", which is fundamentally flawed, amounting to little more than affirming the consequent and "I know it when I see it".It even seems that JBR feels the need to deny the results of experiments that plainly show random mutation and natural selection creating new functional alleles right in front of researchers' eyes. He seems to be insisting that no new allele can ever arise by mutation (even though we know that they can and do) and further, that direct interference by a "designer" (plainly a convenient pseudonym for JBR's deity of choice) is needed for any and all functional change. This is a startling claim. It would require that the designer uses invisible, undetectable, essentially magical means to interfere in the development of every single living thing, everywhere, all the time. Apart from the fact that this claim is clearly supernatural and wildly unparsimonious, it is also rather sinister; I would not wish to believe that all life is overseen by such a grotesque control freak. Frankly I am glad that there is no reason to believe in such a being.JBR would have us believe in a magical entity, which he refuses to identify and for which he has absolutely no evidence. He would have us believe this, whilst simultaneously denying the evidence of random mutation that is right in front of our eyes. It is clear to me that this is religion in action, not science.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod