There is a big difference between creationism and intelligent design. Many prominent scientists such as Roger Penrose, David Berlinski, Michael Behe and Frank Tippler support some aspects of intelligent design. They are not creationists and cover the spectrum of believing the universe is fine tuned to allow life to believing that blind evolution is mathematically and statistically impossible. Even small changes in physical constants would make life untenable. Some like the microbiologist Micheal Behe show that many small organisms and organs in animals have what is called irreducible complexity - they can't be created by blind natural selection. As David Berlinski has stated: Evolutionary thought is suffused in general with an unwholesome glow. "The belief that an organ so perfect as the eye," Darwin wrote, "could have been formed by natural selection is enough to stagger anyone." It is. The problem is obvious. "What good," Stephen Jay Gould asked dramatically, "is 5 percent of an eye?" He termed this question "excellent." The question, retorted the Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, the most prominent representative of ultra-Darwinians, "is not excellent at all": Vision that is 5 percent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. And 6 percent is better than 5, 7 percent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series. But Dawkins, replied Philip Johnson in turn, had carelessly assumed that 5 percent of an eye would see 5 percent as well as an eye, and that is an assumption for which there is little evidence. (A professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, Johnson has a gift for appealing to the evidence when his opponents invoke theory, and vice versa.) ... What is at work in sight is a visual system, one that involves not only the anatomical structures of the eye and forebrain, but the remarkably detailed and poorly understood algorithms required to make these structures work. "When we examine the visual mechanism closely," Karen K. de Valois remarked recently in Science, "although we understand much about its component parts, we fail to fathom the ways in which they fit together to produce the whole of our complex visual perception." These facts suggest a chastening reformulation of Gould's "excellent" question, one adapted to reality: could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by means of a process we cannot completely specify? The intellectually responsible answer to this question is that we do not know-we have no way of knowing. But that is not the answer evolutionary theorists accept. According to Daniel Dennett (in Darwin's Dangerous Idea), Dawkins is "almost certainly right" to uphold the incremental view, because "Darwinism is basically on the right track." In this, he echoes the philosopher Kim Sterenly, who is also persuaded that "something like Dawkins's stories have got to be right" (emphasis added). After all, she asserts, "natural selection is the only possible explanation of complex adaptation." Dawkins himself has maintained that those who do not believe a complex biological structure may be constructed in small steps are expressing merely their own sense of "personal incredulity." But in countering their animadversions he appeals to his own ability to believe almost anything. Commenting on the (very plausible) claim that spiders could not have acquired their web-spinning behavior by a Darwinian mechanism, Dawkins writes: "It is not impossible at all. That is what I firmly believe and I have some experience of spiders and their webs." It is painful to see this advanced as an argument. I repeat censorship of responsible ideas that oppose the current dogma of the day is attacked just as rigorously as it was in the days of Galileo. This is certainly true with both the Big Bang and evolution. I think it is the height of arrogance for scientists to dogmatically assert they have solved the major problems of the origins of the universe and man and seek to censor any opposition. A little history is in order. At the end of the 19th century physicists thought they had solved all the laws of the universe and all that awaited scientists was just collecting data and refining theories... and then came Albert Einstein. The history of science is full of dogmatic men such as Rutherford who held so much power they had to die before their frustrated subordinates could bring out new theories. -----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 Kim Hyatt Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:14 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Wow. I go away for a few hours and my computer is jammed with email about my earlier note. I know this is an emotional debate, but that's also part of the problem. I plan to get involved much more politically to defeat Representative Buttars and others who propose that creationism be taught in Utah public schools. Thanks, though, for all your thoughts on the topic. I enjoy a lively debate now and then, but this thing really set me off. I shouldn't be so naive, however. Politicians, by definition, haven't the sense to keep this issue out of public education. (Apologies to all rational politicians, whoever she may be.) Kim _______________________________________________ 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