007,
Thanks for making your position clear. You stated that extremely well. I think I can understand why you have some doubts about evolution from the statistical point of view. When you move the discussion to an area of statistics and credulity, the discussion gets more interesting. Thanks for bringing this up.
First of call, be careful not to conflate theories about the origin of the universe or the origin of life with the theory of evolution (ToE). ToE says nothing about either one of those.
Then, you should know that there are no serious challenges leveled against ToE from a statistical basis. There are a few popular books that attempt to do this, but they are so full of holes, that those books belong on the same shelf as The Da Vinci Code. The most notable ones are written by Wm. Dembski.
Here is a list of his publications.
Dembski is a Senior Fellow at The Discovery Institute. It is odd that the DI has Fellows, because they are nothing more than a lobbying firm disguised as a scientific institute. Dembski has never published an article about his statistical concerns in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The reason for that is that his conclusions are easily debunked by the average undergraduate student.
When the school board in Dover, PA was sued for attempting to introduce ID into the science classroom, the DI registered Dembski as one of the expert witnessess for the defense of the school board. He showed up for one of the depositions, but when he saw that the prosecution had real scientists, he beat feat out of there so fast that his clothes caught on fire. Dembski and the rest of the DI left the Dover school board hanging there by themselves with only one DI fellow, Michael Behe, as an expert witness. (
Behe's books) I think the only reason Behe didn't pull out is because someone forgot to tell him that ID is really a sham.
Behe's testimony during cross examination was so revaling of ID's vacuousness that the cross examination itself is now used as a model in law school as the perfect cross for a complex technical subject.
The longtime Republican, Bush appointed, church going, federal Judge Jones wrote a scathing 139 page decision in which he stated that Intelligent Design was "stunningly innane", and his best supporting documentation came mostly from Behe's statements. In other words, the expert witness for the defense, was the most compelling evidence for the prosecution.
Here is a gem from page 88 and 89 of Judge Jones' decision"
"...disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. (22:22-23 (Behe)).
Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behes argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex.17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)).
In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science.
Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents, as well as Defendants argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, IDs backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
The statistical argument is a straw man, 007. It purposely leaves out the most powerful factor in evolution, which is natural selection. Natural selection is an intelligent designer and it is working away designing like there is no tomorrow.
Thanks for hanging in here, though, 007. You have made the discussion very interesting and you certainly flushed a number of people's opinions out of the woodwork.
It is true that I have an unfair advantage in the discussion, though. I have a degree in Physics and have worked in engineering for almost 40 years. Also, ever since my state of Ohio flirted with introducing Intelligent Design into the public school science curriculum, I have spent a lot of time working to understand both sides of the right wing "war on science". There is a huge industry of science denialism out there, and it has gotten more vigorous now that they have a wealthy constituency to back them up.
You seem like a really bright and interesting guy. I invite you to read a few of the following book as an antidote to the stuff that seems to have influenced you on the subject of evolution.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
The Blind Watchmaker
The Ancestor's Tale
Climbing Mount Improbable
Finding Darwin's God
Only A Theory
(By the way, these books are written by real scientsts (not PR hacks) who have collectively published thousands of research papers in professional peer reviewed journals. One of them is also the author of the most popular biology textbook that is in use in most of the High Schools in the USA.)
