Commenting to Rich and others. The Discovery Institute, as pointed out in the Deseret News article and more fully in the original New York Times article, does NOT advocate the teaching of intelligent design as proposed in Utah. They instead want to see criticism of Darwinism allowed in the classroom and not see teachers who bring up such criticism dismissed or reprimanded. True, many members of the Discovery Institute believe in intelligent design, but some like David Berlinski (as noted in the New York Times) are critics of Darwinism and believe another mechanism is involved not necessarily intelligent design. It is very difficult to be a critic of the popular theories of the day as Galileo and more recently Halton Arp found out. Halton Arp (who by the way believes in Darwinism and an old universe) was dismissed from Palomar Observatory because he presented observational evidence critical of the Big Bang Theory. He published numerous photographs showing possible quasar-galaxy interactions where the quasars and galaxies have different redshifts. He also, I think more compellingly, presented many examples of high redshift quasars aligned with the polar axis of "host" galaxies with much lower redshifts. Even though Arp was considered one of the most prominent observational astronomers, it still cost him his job to criticize the prevailing theories. Rich, I think you have observed some of the Arp galaxies with your 16-inch. Arp's book "Seeing Red" tells how graduate students who supported his ideas were afraid to go public. I think it is even more difficult for a biologist such as Michael Behe, who is a critic of Darwin on the cellular level, to get any of his papers published. Arp, because of his prominence, persistence and complaints to referees; has managed to publish some of his papers (often after several years of delay) in the major astronomy journals. I should next point out that I believe the earth is probably a few billions years old and that some form of life has been on the earth for over a billion years. There is also clear evidence of increasing complexity of life over that period of time. The question is what is the mechanism for the development of life on earth. It is interesting that 600 million years ago numerous complex life forms covering at least eight major phyla appeared suddenly without any significant intermediate predecessors. These life forms appeared in a very brief period of time (geologically speaking) and this fact was part of the evidence for Stephen J. Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. The Cambrian explosion is certainly contrary to Darwin's idea of slow progressive changes and I do not believe in can be explained by natural selection. My main point is that the scenarios and computer models that support the statistical theory of mutation and natural selection are flawed because they require a target phase or target objective but natural selection is just pure statistics. The target objective is introducing intelligent design into the models. Those organisms that reproduce the most viable offspring survive (rabbits in Australia comes to mind). There is no reason to expect them to become more complex and computer simulations that have no target objectives just produce gibberish. I think people need to give responsible critics of evolution a chance to be heard. In 15-20 years I hope we can address the question rigorously assuming proponents of Darwinism do not prevent reputable research. The human genome has been completely mapped and with supercomputer power developing, it should be possible in the relatively near future to produce simulations that utilize actual gene locations and mutation statistics to better simulate reality. More than 99 percent of all mutations are detrimental and it will be interesting to see if we can simulate the Cambrian explosion, for instance, starting with prior simple organisms, various mutation rates and the limited time spans allowed. It is critical that all such simulations be set up by mathematicians (utilizing input from genetists etc.) who carefully avoid target objectives and set it up based strictly on natural selection criteria (i.e. mutations and reproductive survivability). -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tenney Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Testing Irreducible Complexity Actually I'd like to take issue with the idea of statistical improbability. While I have admittedly not studied the mathematical details of the approach ID proponents have taken (or is it only one mathematician?), common sense tells me that mathematics alone could not possibly produce any more proof or accurate model of how mutation and natural selection could or could not progress from single cell to modern life forms in the current geologic time scales projected for the age of the earth and the span of life on it, any more than the most brilliant meteorolgist, using the most sophisticated instruments available to modern science, accurately forecast the weather next week, and for exactly the same reason: way too many variables to take into account (picture Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park musing on Chaos theory). I can't imagine we even know the tip of the iceberg concerning what might constitute all the variables and processes that could have an effect on cellular mutation and/or natural selection; climate, habitat, ecology, food supply, predators, the unpredictable forces of vulcanism, meteor impacts, drought, etc., etc. Furthermore, how much do we really understand about the life force itself? It's tenacity, variety, and unique qualities -- there's still so much we don't understand at all. Way too many factors to make any kind of positive statement regarding what is possible or not possible over billions of years from a statistical standpoint. Knowing too however that assumptions are dangerous, I'm hoping Don (or anyone else familiar with it) can distill the material in question to address some of these concerns...? ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com