Albert Alschuler, "The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part II: Of Science and Religion" (2005)

Good post. Setting aside the question of whether courts should be making these kinds of decisions at all, we should consider to what extent the "science" of evolution is not nearly so well grounded as the experimental sciences.

Schools would be well served to use the debate on creationism and evolution to distinguish science from religion and philosophy, as well as to distinguish different branches of philosophy. The hardest of the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry, proceed through experimentation. X will or won't happen. And it will or won't happen regularly and predictably. Saying these things with greater clarity and precision does not strictly speaking answer the bigger questions of these events' significance. To use Aristotelian language, physics (and science generally) can explain efficient causes but not final causes.

In addition, the taxonomic or historical methods of biology are distinct from physics and chemistry. When the biologist finds fossils and tries to explain their significance and relationships, his methods are not so different from those of a historian or anthropologist. His activity is inductive and imaginitive. The presence of these historical and descriptive methods in what is ordinarily thought of as the experimental world of falsifiable hypothese would be a useful clarification of why such biological inquiry should not and cannot claim the same pedigree as, for example, formulae that show the effects of gravity or radiation. Competing, defensible explanations may emerge from the same facts. And those facts cannot be proven or disproven through experiments; they can merely be known as more or less supported by the evidence.

As it stands, not science but a rationalistic and near religious faith in science--scientism, if you will--makes unsupported claims about what science can reliably tell us regarding the origins of man and the universe that alienate religous people, who would otherwise be open to its message. Far from encouraging superstition and obscurantism, a science curriculum that acknowledged its well-known limitations--limitations essential to its circumscribed methods and subject matter--would find a more receptive audience and a happier coexistence with all Americans. Instead archaic religious views confronts an equally archaic and quaint scientism, which would be more at home among the encyclopedists than it would be with any thoughtful scientist. Perhaps a starting point for this discussion would be the frank acknowledgement that the scientific method finds its cultural origins in the Christian worldview, which describes an orderly universe created and set in motion predictably for our benefit by God.

I'm personally ambivalent about intelligent design; I think that the universe was set in motion by God according to natural laws and the interaction of those laws is itself miraculous and does not reqluire the postulation of some divine intervention at any particular point in the unfolding of those structures. But I'm certainly not willing to dismiss out of hand the arguments of those that say otherwise, so long as they're supported by evidence.

What is truly impoverished is any education in science that does not focus on the limitations of scientific knowledge and its own grounding in implicit and explicit foundations in philosophy and metaphysics, themselves areas highly intertwined with theology.

How do you know that our design is intelligent? Seeing ourselves as complex creatures doesn't mean we are intelligently designed. Evolutionary biologist have pointed out many evitable flaws which if our design was intelligent shouldn't be there (i.e. using the same conduct to breath and eat: placing the breathing device in the lower neck would easily prevent us from choking). Science must be rigorous while attempting to give explanations, intelligent design doesn't seem to pass that cut.

Don't adenoids and wisdom teeth provide amunition against ID?

Dennis -- we also used to think tonsils served no purpose. Just because we don't understand why something is there, doesn't mean it has no reason to be there.

Sergio:

If I create a computer program with some bugs in it will you reject the possibility that the program was designed?

Just because something has a flaw doesn't discount the possibility of it being the product of design. ID doesn't make a theological claim about the nature and talents of the design mechanism, it is the opponents of ID who do that. They insist that if the designer can indeed design and build life forms then any seeming flaws in the life forms precludes the possibility of a designer. That is a theological argument against the preceived "perfection" of the designer. ID makes no such theological argument.

That fact of the matter is that the opponents of ID come in two basic categories. Those that oppose it for personal and philosophical reasons and those who oppose it for scientific reasons.

Most people who oppose it do so because they believe it has no scientific credibility. They are the ones who have never studied in-depth the ID literature. If they had done so, then no intelligent person could argue against ID on the basis of it having no scientific credibility. The other type of person may or may not have studied in-depth the ID literature, either way it doesn't matter because they have a personal or philosophical agenda which is a stake in the debate. No amount of argument and reason will change their position because they have an agenda. It's like a lawyer who defends someone whom he knows is guilty. Nevetheless he will defend the client to the best of his ability because he has an agenda e.g his reputation as a good lawyer.

While the boundaries of science are hazy, some things are clearly not science. The problem with ID is that it conflates the following:

1. Criticism of Darwinism. Good-faith criticism of any theory should be welcome. The qualifier "good-faith" is significant, because we teach Newtonian physics in high school though we know it to be inexact. The ID crowd doesn't lobby to put stickers on physics books reminding everyone that Newtonian physics is "wrong." Nevertheless, no reasonable person thinks that any scientific theory should be taught dogmatically.

2. The retreat to supernatural explanations for observed phenomena. This, it seems to me, is the opposite of science. Not only is it unproductive (no predictive power), it casts attention in the wrong direction. It was when we abandoned "whim of the gods" as an explanation for everything around us that we began to make scientific progress. People feel strongly about this issue not only for 1st Amendment reasons, but because we fear that ID is a regression away from the scientific approach that has served us so well.

James; a rebuttal.

1. Evolution is presented in schools as de facto absolute truth. Any problems are explained away with the caveat "We know evolution is true, but we haven't been able to figure it out yet". Is that good faith science? I see a double standard. If the study of the question of the origin or mechanism which leads to the diversification of species leads us into the realm of mathematical probablity concepts which points towards the necessity of an intelligent design mechanism working in nature, then it would be bad faith to disallow that mathematical conclusion because it points towards a conclusion which some people feel uncomfortable with.

2. ID is not a supernatural explanation. It is a question of logic and probability. The intelligent design mechanism may be natural or it may be supernatural, what is unavoidable is the fact that some type of intelligent design mechanism is in fact needed to explain how biological systems have come to exist in the way in which they exist. It is the mathematical probability that ID is true i.e that evolution is based on mathematical probabilities which are so astronomical that they are not acceptable, and that the nature of biological systems is that they are based upon millions of cases of specified complexity which makes evolution completely untenable. Simply stated there is no mathematical support for any other argument other then ID when it comes to biology. Also the fossil record conclusively rejects any kind of evolutionary paradigm because there is absolutely no trace of evolution in the fossil record. Ultimately science must win, but evolution is not science, it is faith that no other solution is possible.

From Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability:

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."

From Professor Harold Morowitz:

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"

From: I.L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities , Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America

From http://www.geraldschroeder.com/evolution.html

"Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multipled by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times."

> &quot;Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science&quot; <p>

I made an error. The last quote was supposed to follow Professor Harold Morowitz's quote.

A bona fide scientific response to Darwinism wouldn't "implicate" religion in the relevant way.

Finding the precise criteria demarcating "science" from "nonscience" has proven devilishly difficult. But please let's not pretend ID is an intersticial case. Or if we need to pretend, at least let's stipulate (as Behe did) that astrology is also an intersticial case.

Indeed most life on earth is so complex as to suggest that it was designed. This isn't because it actually was designed, but because our definition of design - broadly, symmetry and function - does not allow life to be otherwise. Species poorly suited to their environments don't survive long enough there for us to find them and point to them as examples of really dumb, or random design. Everything seems perfectly designed for its niche because all the species that weren't are extinct.

The anthropic principle in physics is a good example of this same error. Isn't it miraculous that we live on a planet with an orbit that allows for liquid water, with a molten metal core whose magnetic field protects us from solar flares, far enough away from an asteroid belt that we aren't constantly being incinerated by impacting cosmic debris? Well, no - Earth's habitability in that sense is a prerequisite for our wondering how neat it is that everything seems to fit perfectly in place.

Why is it that people believe that an omnipotent invisible man wiggled his nose and brought us all into existence, but included only such mysteries as could easily be explained as the result of a process of fitness-guided mutations? If you really want me to believe in intelligent design, show me something amazingly improbably and completely orthogonal to an organism's evolutionary fitness. How about a bacterium that, when cultured, grows into an exact representation of the Torah? Or a reindeer that shits Hummel figurines? If your definition of design is merely that an organism functions well enough to have survived to be examined, I'm afraid that's a mite too circular for me, and I'm frankly embarrassed that the law faculty at such a prestigious institution would take a stance on such an issue without availing themselves of, say, any coursework about biology.

It is often said that a little knowledge is sometimes a dangerous thing. This post of Prof Altschuler's is an excellent demonstration of the truth in this saying.

Prof Altschuler states:
> &quot;The claim of a distinctive &ldquo;scientific method&rdquo; is as conceited as my own profession&rsquo;s claim of a distinctive method of &ldquo;legal&rdquo; reasoning.&quot;<p>

There is a distinct difference between the scientific method and the legal profession's methods of "legal reasoning". The scientific method is subject to experimental verification. In other words, the consequences of one's hypotheses can be quantitatively and experimentally measured to be true or not. This is not true of any legal reasoning. Two legal scholars can hold opposing views on a given topic and can never be proven right or wrong in either sense. If this statement were true for scientific work, Prof Altschuler would not have access to the technology which enables him to write these posts. This does not mean that every paper or scrap of research done is of this nature. Science proceeds by a process of trial and error, where ideas are proposed, conclusions are drawn from these ideas and the conclusions are compared with observation. If the conclusions are wrong, a new idea is proposed and so on, until a comprehensive understanding of existing evidence regarding phenomena is reached.

"New data never require the abandonment of a particular belief when we are willing to sacrifice other beliefs. In that sense, no scientific proposition is ever falsifiable."

This is plain wrong. Reasonable theoretical explanations make detailed and clear quantitative predictions about aspects of physical phenomena. Experimental work similarly generates data at similar or greater levels of detail-and these data typically reduce the number of possible explanations, until only one remains. This sort of postmodern reasoning (every point of view is correct if interpreted in the appropriate manner) has no place in scientific work. A statement of this kind can only be made by someone who has no real familiarity with how science is done.

"In practice, scientists do not abandon a paradigm whenever any contradictory evidence appears. Nowhere is the weakness of the Popperian model more evident than in evolutionary biology, the land of the “just so” story."

Umm, if the evidence completely contradicts the existing paradigm, scientists do move away from it. The fact is that oftentimes, the recognition that a particular paradigm is unsatisfactory precedes the creation of a new one by a gap in time. This is because new workable paradigms take time to be created. This is what happened with the creation of both quantum mechanics and relativity in Physics. The problems with existing paradigms began to be recognized in the 1880s' and were confirmed by *experimental* work of Michelson and Morley, until Einstein came up with relativity in 1905. With quantum theory, a recognition of the limitedness of the Newtonian paradigm began with Planck's work in 1900, and it was only in 1928-32 that quantum mechanics was created to solve these issues. Similar is the case with Darwin and Wallace's theory of Evolution which replaced previous Lamarckian and other ideas regarding evolution.

Finally, I must mentioned that no paradigm which successfully explains a certain set of phenomena is completely abandoned. It is rather subsumed into a more comprehensive theory. An example is Newtonian mechanics. For most everyday phenomena Newton's laws are correct and explain them very well. At the same time, they can be shown to be
> a special case (and an approximation) to more general quantum mechanical laws. <p>

"Nowhere is the weakness of the Popperian model more evident than in evolutionary biology, the land of the “just so” story.
> &amp;<br> "Show a Darwinist an anomaly, and he will devise a story that fits it to his theory. As long as he can do that, the theory of natural selection cannot be falsified. New bits of evidence can merely shift the plausibility of this theory in one direction or the other."

This is an extreme claim, with little backing. I am sure, Prof Altschuler being the distinguished lawyer that he is, is competent to judge the validity of a scientific theory without knowing very much about it. Perhaps he can make a similar judgement about the celebrated experiments of a certain monk named Gregor Mendel on these matters?

Science is not like law where one can afford to reject certain arguments based on one's beliefs (c.f Prof Altschuler's statements regarding legal methods of reasoning). One cannot reject the validity of Newton's laws because one does not like them. For example, if one believes that Gravity is really a make believe thing, one is free to jump off the top storey of the nearest multistorey building to verify this belief. Similarly, the laws of genetic and natural selection are independent of an individual's belief about how nature should be.

Finally, the most striking thing about these arguments is the sheer lack of humility on the part of the ID arguments. Science, at the end of the day, demands a certain humility wherein an individual is forced to subordinate their beliefs and opinions to what is observed in natural phenomena. To my mind, this is exactly the opposite sentiment on the part of advocates of ID.

"The academic role of the ID biologist is essentially negative – to challenge Darwinist explanations and look for phenomena that the Darwinists cannot explain or, more realistically, can explain only by stretching. This critical role (“look at all those epicycles”) cannot fairly be excluded from science."

But thats a false dichtomy. The set of explanations for the rise of life is much more than "Intelligent Design" or "Darwinism." Both could be false, and thus falsifying one does not prove the other.

I'd ask that you forward your summary of the case of evolution to some of your fellow U of Chicago Professors in the Biology department (or whichever relevent field you wish) and see if they agree with your analysis of the evidence and science in general. However, I do not think this will likely occur.

Would teaching Creationism be Constitutional if it was presented as an alternative to evolution in your view? The same logic that evidence against evolution is positive evidence for ID could be applied to Creationism with a deceptive God.

Also, is it really reasonable that an "Intelligent Designer" is not a God? Since "theism" constitutes a religion.....

I am always amazed at the way people can make arguments against things they have never studied in-depth. The repetition of the ignorant of their ignorance in their clamor to justify their views is remarkable. The egotism necessary to condemn concepts and theories about things you have never studied in-depth is surely the product of a child like resistance to self introspection.

How can anyone claim to be knowledgeable on a topic they have never studied? Yet we see it all of the time in people who attack ID and fanatically defend evolution. They know little to nothing of either, yet speak like they are pundits deeply educated on each. All the while not knowing that their ignorance is on full display for anyone who is actually educated on these topics.

Life is funny that way.

To know the limits of your knowledge is necessary in order to acquire more knowledge.

Dear Prof,

Where to start? Try par.3 of your Part II:

"The Dover court is wrong, however, when it says that anything that “implicates” religion also “endorses” it."

So as to not to discount the possiblility of decontextualizing - a useful skill for n advocate with a dud brief - I searched the judgment for "implicates". Thankfully, the search gives up just one hit (top of page 62) at the conclusion of the following paragraph:

"The 225 letters to the editor and sixty-two editorials from the York Daily Record and York Dispatch that Plaintiffs offered at trial and which we have admitted for consideration in our analysis of the endorsement test and Lemon’s effect prong, show that hundreds of individuals in this small community felt it necessary to publish their views on the issues presented in this case for the community to see. Moreover, a review of the letters and editorials at issue reveals that in letter after letter and editorial after editorial, community members postulated that ID is an inherently religious concept, that the writers viewed the decision of whether to incorporate it into the high school biology curriculum as one which implicated a religious concept, and therefore that the curriculum change has
> the effect of placing the government&rsquo;s imprimatur on the Board&rsquo;s preferred<br> religious viewpoint. (P-671-72, 674-75). These exhibits are thus probative of the
> fact that members of the Dover community perceived the Board as having acted to<br> promote religion, with many citizens lined up as either for the curriculum change,
> on religious grounds, or against the curriculum change, on the ground that religion should not play a role in public school science class. Accordingly, the letters and editorials are relevant to, and provide evidence of, the Dover community&rsquo;s<br> collective social judgment about the curriculum change because they demonstrate that “[r]egardless of the listener’s support for, or objection to,” the curriculum change, the community and hence the objective observer who personifies it, cannot help but see that the ID Policy implicates and thus endorses religion."

The judgment cites and discusses Epperson & Modrovich in support of the relevance of the newspaper letter and editorials.

Professor, please explain how you maintain that the judgment is flawed at this point.

More troublingly, the following sentence in par.3 of your post is this:

"The Constitution does not forbid all discussion of religion in the schools,"

Neither does the relevant order which is as follows:

"2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District."

I corrected you on this assertion of yours ina reply to Part I of your Kitzmiller review. Please acknowledge and correct.

vkrishna may not be aware of the irony of the claim that "a little knowledge is sometimes a dangerous thing." His or her representation of "the scientific method" is demonstrably oversimple, with consequences that would undermine his/her entire argument.

For example, s/he writes

"Reasonable theoretical explanations make detailed and clear quantitative predictions about aspects of physical phenomena. Experimental work similarly generates data at similar or greater levels of detail-and these data typically reduce the number of possible explanations, until only one remains."

Under this theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection itself is not a "reasonable theoretical explanation", since it makes no detailed and clear quantitative predications about aspects of physical phenomena.

Modern philosophy and sociology of science has made it fairly clear that there is no simple "demarcation" between science and non-science, and no unitary "scientific method." Science as we know it is an extraordinarily diverse and historically contingent set of practices, beliefs and institutions.

My conclusion from this is that ID *could* be a scientific theory, but that the judge was correct to interpret it in this context as simply a religiously-based attack on the teaching of evolution. The probability-based arguments cited by Soze represent an interesting approach that, if valid, would represent an interesting challenge to the theory of natural selection. But prima facie the argument that the combinatorics of proteins is an argument against natural selection is silly; the whole point of natural selection is that there is an extraordinarily non-random basis for survival of all the components of life as we know it.

Paul you wrote:

"My conclusion from this is that ID *could* be a scientific theory, but that the judge was correct to interpret it in this context as simply a religiously-based attack on the teaching of evolution."

I disagree. A religious attack would need some form of religious...attack. In the case of Dover all that was being done was telling the truth. Isn't that true? The truth is outlawed in Dover. All they were doing was having a message saying that there are problems with evolutionary theory (the truth), that there is another theory (the truth). Here is the whole thing.

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. (the truth)

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. (the truth) The Theory is not a fact. (the truth) Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. (the truth) A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. (the truth)

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. (the truth) The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. (the truth)

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

Where was the religion?

Then you said:

"But prima facie the argument that the combinatorics of proteins is an argument against natural selection is silly; the whole point of natural selection is that there is an extraordinarily non-random basis for survival of all the components of life as we know it."

I don't think you understand what Dr.Schroeder was saying. For a deeper explanation see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html

Natural selection doesn't do anything but thin the herd, supposedly leaving the "survival of the fittest". And it is by the elimination of the non mutated creatures within any species that the mutation becomes dominant in the species gene pool.

There are many problems with this theory. First off is that there are mutations all of the time within species. But we don't see beneficial mutations. (except for viruses, but thats a completely different circumstance then the types of mutations needed for larger species transformation into new species) The reason we don't see beneficial mutations in larger creatures is simple; let's say dogs are destined to grow wings and fly. In order to get to the finished stage of being able to fly there would first have to be a mutation, then another, then another, etc, one on top of another, all leading to the development of flight. Until the flight system is complete, the mutations will not be beneficial for survival. For instance in order for flight to occur many things have to change, for example bones have to hollow out, which will severaly weaken the animal. Because of that, natural selection will weed out the mutations leading toward flight because they harm a species survival.

So the problem is that natural selection is in self contradiction to the theory of evolution. Natural selection supposedly changes the gene pool of species by weeding out the old and leaving the new. The reality is that mutations are always weeded out by natural selection because mutations make a creature less able to survive. For mutations to enhance a creatures ability to survive it would take a very long time for enough mutations to take place and take place in the exact needed way for those mutations to be anything but harmful. Therefore natural selection works against evolution. In fact Darwin didn't put forth the idea of mutations. That idea (the one accepted today) wasn't put forth until the 1940's. Darwin believed that new species could come about simply and naturally. He observed that breeders could breed bigger cows that could give more milk, so he concluded that there was no limit to this kind of change within species. He believed that natural selection and survival of the fittest alone could produce new species. This was rejected when genes were discovered and it was found out that there is a limit to what the gene pool of species could produce from breeding. So a new evolutionary theory was created called "The synthetic theory" or more commonly "Neo-Darwinism". In order to get around the new knowledge of genetic homeostasis a new mechanism had to be thought of which could account for the change of species.

Mutation was the answer. But mutations are in contradiction to natural selection because they harm a species chance of survival.

Anyways this is like I said, just the tip of the iceberg.

Reply to AlanDownunder:

Yes, you've found the passage in which Judge Jones says that editorial and letter writers "viewed the decision of whether to incorporate [ID] into the high school biology curriculum as one which implicated a religious concept, and therefore that the curriculum change has the effect of placing the government’s imprimatur on the Board’s preferred religious viewpoint" and that "the community and hence the objective observer who personifies it, cannot help but see that the ID Policy implicates and thus endorses religion." The judge's argument looks like a flaming nonsequiture. Those letters to the editor are all about religion. The policy therefore "implicates" religion. And because the policy "implicates" religion, it "endorses" it. My point was that ID is indeed about religion, but you can still talk about it in the schools.

My statement that the Constitution does not forbid all discussion of religion in the schools was just a statement. It did not purport to be a description of the judge's order. It is true that although Judge Jones said on one page that he would issue an order forbidding the board from requiring teachers to refer to ID, the order he issued on the next page doesn't seem to do it. I don't know what would happen if the plaintiffs went to him and said, "Your Honor, we know that you were in a rush to issue your blockbuster, but your order doesn't seem to do what you said it would do. Would you please fix it?" If, as you say, teachers may still mention ID, what may they say about it? May they say that it criticizes natural selection? May they ask students whether they think that it's all nonsense or believe that there might be something to it? Wouldn't that be a great victory for the ID movement? Isn't that essentially what they're asking for?

William Blake's question:

Tyger Tyger. burning bright,
> In the forests of the night:<br> What immortal hand or eye,
> Could frame thy fearful symmetry?<p>

In what distant deeps or skies.
> Burnt the fire of thine eyes!<br> On what wings dare he aspire!
> What the hand, dare sieze the fire?<p>

And what shoulder, & what art,
> Could twist the sinews of thy heart?<br> And when thy heart began to beat,
> What dread hand? &amp; what dread feet?<br> What the hammer? what the chain,
> In what furnace was thy brain?<br> What the anvil? what dread grasp,
> Dare its deadly terrors clasp!<p>

When the stars threw down their spears
> And water'd heaven with their tears:<br> Did he smile his work to see?
> Did he who made the Lamb make thee?<br> Tyger, Tyger burning bright,
> In the forests of the night:<br> What immortal hand or eye,
> Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?<p>

> Might have at least a germ of a suggestion of a thoroughly unsatisfying answer in this: <p>

Creating First Synthetic Life Form

> Work on the world's first human-made species is well under way at a research complex in Rockville, Md., and scientists in Canada have been quietly conducting experiments to help bring such a creature to life.<p>

Robert Holt, head of sequencing for the Genome Science Centre at the University of British Columbia, is leading efforts at his Vancouver lab to play a key role in the production of the first synthetic life form -- a microbe made from scratch.

The project is being spearheaded by U.S. scientist Craig Venter, who gained fame in his former job as head of Celera Genomics, which completed a privately-owned map of the human genome in 2000.

Dr. Venter, 59, has since shifted his focus from determining the chemical sequences that encode life to trying to design and build it: "We're going from reading to writing the genetic code," he said in an interview.

***
> He insists the main goal of his project to build the first synthetic life form, however, is to understand the essence of life, how it evolved and the essential elements that sustain it.<p>

"Here we are trying to understand the human genome with 24,000 some odd genes and 100 trillion cells and we don't know how 300 or 400 genes work together to yield a simple living cell," he said.

"So if we ever have any hope of understanding our own genome, we need to start with something we can actually tear apart, break down and rebuild. So we're starting with a four-cylinder engine instead of a space shuttle."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/
> <p>

"My statement that the Constitution does not forbid all discussion of religion in the schools was just a statement."

Religion is discussed in the schools. It is discussed in social studies and history classes. ID can be discussed as well, in social studies and history classes. But not in biology.

The facts of this case are simple and unshakable.

1. Darwin's theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the appearance of new species.

2. There is no debate, much less a scientific controversy, in the field of biology.

3. Debate among contested and contesting theories takes place in the peer reviewed journals of the various scientific fields, not on school boards or high school classrooms.

4. ID has failed--utterly--in the scholarly marketplace of ideas, i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles, representation among tenured faculty, papers presented at conferences. The support for ID almost entirely comes from outside the field of biology.

ID is, at its core, a tautology. If natural selection does not explain something, it must be evidence of intelligent design. But, as another poster observed, this ignores the possibility of a third explanation, neither ID nor evolution, that accounts for the phenomenon.

While there are institutional barriers to entry for theories that overturn the prevailing theories, these barriers are not even remotely close to insurmountable. The potential rewards for the scientist who demonstrates that something other than natural selection accounts for the diversity of life, currently and over time, would be near-infinite. He or she would stand among the giants--alongside Galileo, Newton, and Einstein--in the history of science.

"Religion is discussed in the schools. It is discussed in social studies and history classes. ID can be discussed as well, in social studies and history classes. But not in biology."

This seems precisely right. Why should science teachers be coerced by school board members who lack scientific training to teach something virtually no one with such training supports as science? ID is much more akin to philosophy or social studies. If anything, schools should allow students to study the current debate for what it is - the clash between science qua science and religion.

"Why should science teachers be coerced by school board members who lack scientific training to teach something virtually no one with such training supports as science?"

Because school board members are elected by the people served by the schools to determine the curriculum. They are responsible and accountable. Biology teachers are not.

"My statement that the Constitution does not forbid all discussion of religion in the schools was just a statement. It did not purport to be a description of the judge's order."

judge jones's opinion is a serious blow to the ID movement. some judges are basically just scum sucking, lying, sleaze bags.

oh, that second sentence was just a statement. It did not purport to be a description of judge jones.

an earlier charge that prof alschuler's posts are disingenuous was way too generous.

Mike B:

You wrote:

"1. Darwin's theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the appearance of new species"

Accepted by whom? Poll after Poll shows that the makority of Americans do not accept evolution and want alternate theories to evolution taught in schools.

"2. There is no debate, much less a scientific controversy, in the field of biology."

That's ridiculous. see
> <a href="http:/www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207" rel="nofollow">http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

"3. Debate among contested and contesting theories takes place in the peer reviewed journals of the various scientific fields, not on school boards or high school classrooms."

Says who? Who died and made peer reveiwed journals King? How can a something be peer reviewed if by presenting something to be peer reviewed you jeopardize your career because of the fascism present amongst the academic community? see http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2402

"4. ID has failed--utterly--in the scholarly marketplace of ideas, i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles, representation among tenured faculty, papers presented at conferences. The support for ID almost entirely comes from outside the field of biology."

That's not true. The support from ID as already shown in a link is strong in the academic community especially amongst biologists.

Then you said:

"ID is, at its core, a tautology. If natural selection does not explain something, it must be evidence of intelligent design. But, as another poster observed, this ignores the possibility of a third explanation, neither ID nor evolution, that accounts for the phenomenon."

You may want to take the time to study the ID literature. Only people who are ignorant of ID and who get their information from second and third hand sources would say such a thing.

Then you wrote:

"While there are institutional barriers to entry for theories that overturn the prevailing theories, these barriers are not even remotely close to insurmountable. The potential rewards for the scientist who demonstrates that something other than natural selection accounts for the diversity of life, currently and over time, would be near-infinite. He or she would stand among the giants--alongside Galileo, Newton, and Einstein--in the history of science."

You would think that to be true, but you would be wrong. The essence of the fight against ID is because ID has indeed done exactly what you claim should and would be welcomed. And it is because it has done that that it is attacked. ID is attacked so venemously and in such crude and lying manner (see your attack) is because it has proved evolution wrong. It's just that the proof is something many so called intelligent people don't want to hear. I'ts bigotry, plain and simple, which drives the anti ID engine.

Professor Alschuler wrote: "My point was that ID is indeed about religion, but you can still talk about it in the schools."

To "talk about it in the schools" before it's been talked about in the science journals is putting the cart before the horse.

Highschool science textbooks summarize and report what's in the primary literature. If a biology book wanted to include some information about ID, where would it get such information? In someone's blog? In newspaper editorials? In popular books?

As Nick Matzke wrote at the Panda's Thumb, "If you don’t want damaging court decisions, don’t make the very first book systematically using the term “intelligent design” a 9th grade biology textbook!!! ... fact, if the ID movement were intellectually serious, they would withdraw completely from interfering with public education, realizing that introductory science classes simply have to educate students in the basics of accepted science, and are not the right places to try getting recruits for fringe science. They would stop trying to make their case in the media, and instead take the only legitimate route to academic respectability — winning the scientific battle, in the scientific community. IDists have made much of comparing ID to the Big Bang model — but did Big Bang proponents kick off their model in a high school textbook? Did they go around the country mucking with kiddies science standards to promote their view? Did they ever lobby legislators? I don’t think so."

Right on.

maurile your comments attack ID proponents when in fact it was a school board which attempted to do what they did. They called in ID proponents to help in their court case when they were sued.

I disagree that ID is "about religion". ID is strictly about science, if the science leads to some type of relgious connotation that doesn't make ID about religion. There is no theology being touted by ID.

I'm glad you brought up the Big Bang theory. The BB theory was created by a catholic priest on the order of the vatican to create a scientific sounding version of the Catholic Church's position of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing).

At first the BB theory didn't receive much support, but eventually it gained more and more support and in the 1950's-60's it became the mainstream view. Since then numerous problems with the BB theory have been scrutinized and now the BB theory is rejected by a large number of scientists even though you rarely hear about that (see plasma cosmology). Why? Because once a theory becomes ensconsed and mainstream there is a lot of reputations and positions of authority riding on the acceptance of that theory as a scientific truism. The academic establishment is loath to admit mistakes, theories which tear down sacred cows do not get support and are in fact blacklisted and fought against tooth and nail. The same thing is going on with evolution. It has many problems and it is discounted by many scientists, but many people don't hear about the many scientists who have a big problem with evolution and who support ID because the "evolution establishment" controls the academic world through intimidation.

Kaiser Soze wrote: "maurile your comments attack ID proponents when in fact it was a school board which attempted to do what they did. They called in ID proponents to help in their court case when they were sued."

That is somewhat backwards. The ID proponents, in this case the Thomas More Law Center, had looking for a test case for years. They convinced the Dover School Board to be the test case, promising to provide a free legal defense when it was inevitably sued.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's how it happaned. The Dover school board didn't act by itself and then turn to the TMLC for help afterwards.

In my Australian state's jurisdiction, lawyers must certify in any civil action that they have a tenable case and if it is found they didn't have one they are susceptible to an order that they pay their opponent's legal costs rather than their (misguided) clients.

Does PA have anything similar? I ask because there's no doubt that TMLC should be wearing the costs order in Kitzmiller rather than the Dover Area School Board or the misguided board members - even if their brethren at the Harmony Grove Community Church might be inveigled into passing the hat around.

Neveretheless serious ID proponents were not really part of it. The Dover school board was already looking for ways to introduce "creationism" into the curriculum for years. the two meeting and working together was a confluence of interests.

The TMLC is a Christian organization devoted to Christian causes. From Burt Humburg & Ed Brayton:

"The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), founded by conservative Catholic businessman Tom Monaghan and former Kevorkian prosecutor Richard Thompson, was itching for a fight with the ACLU from the time of its formation in 1999. Declaring themselves the “sword and shield for people of faith” and the “Christian Answer to the ACLU,” TMLC sought out confrontations with the ACLU on a number of fronts, from public nativity and Ten Commandment displays to gay marriage and pornography. But the fight they really wanted, it seems, was over evolution in public school science classrooms, a fight that would take five years to occur.

TMLC representatives traveled the country from at least early 2000, encouraging school boards to teach ID in science classrooms. From Virginia to Minnesota, TMLC recommended the textbook Of Pandas and People (Pandas) as a supplement to regular biology textbooks, promising to defend the schools free of charge when the ACLU filed the inevitable lawsuit. Finally, in summer 2004, they found a willing school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, a board known to have been searching for a way to get creationism inserted into its science classrooms for years."

The TMLC is not cognate with Intelligent Design proponents, in fact the leading ID propenents did not testify at the trial because they were at odds with the TMLC.

Just because the TMLC is looking to use ID as part of their overall strategy for their promotion of their religious agenda doesn't mean that they typify the ID movement or agenda.

In your post you blamed ID proponents for what went on in Dover as if there is a monolithic cabal of ID advocates who are all of the same mind as the TMLC and the other Christian organizations who have ID as a plank in their social/political platform.

Those people are easy targets and it is those people who the evolution activists like to point out as being representative ID proponents.

Still at the end of the day what went on in Dover says a lot about how the church and state issue is viewed by many people. Clearly the inclusion of a few paragraphs into a schools curriculum about evolution not being an infallible doctrine is not what was meant to be protected against in the constitution. In fact promoting evolution as an infallible doctrine is in essence promoting a single religious belief over all others. Even though some people claim that evolution is compatible with religious beliefs, that still doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory as presented does in fact make a theological argument. That argument is that "nature" is the supreme cause of our existence and it is "nature" which guides and shapes our existence as humans.

Evolution is essentially nature worship, nature is the pantheistic deity which can perfrom countless miracles, the impossible is made possible by the almighty nature, behold the glory of nature. All other concepts of the origins and diversifications of species are not allowed to be spoken of if they swerve away from nature worship.

Paul Baer,

You state: "under this theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection itself is not a "reasonable theoretical explanation", since it makes no detailed and clear quantitative predictions about aspects of physical phenomena."

Actually evolution (and natural selection) does very much make clear predictions. To take an example Mendel's experiments clarified the process of natural selection at a genetic level, which implies, for example, the ability to predict the chance of a particular genetic disorder appearing in a given community. For example doctors are able to explain the possibilities of occurrence of certain genetic disorder in potential offspring to couples.

Other predictions of Darwin's theory have been observed much after he proposed his theory, in terms of speciation or the development of new species. Your contention is wrong therefore, that evolution does not make any predictions.

Finally, you state:
> &quot;Modern philosophy and sociology of science has made it fairly clear that there is no simple &quot;demarcation&quot; between science and non-science, and no unitary &quot;scientific method.&quot; Science as we know it is an extraordinarily diverse and historically contingent set of practices, beliefs and institutions.&quot;<p>

I may be ignorant and naive, but I am not aware of such philosophical work. I also do not understand what you mean by science being a "diverse and historically contingent set of practices, beliefs and institutions." To my mind, scientific understanding which is accepted to be true is not a question of practices or beliefs, it is rather a statement of fact to the extent to which said facts have been verified. E.g Newton's laws are not a matter of belief-in the regime they are valid, they govern how objects move. If you throw an object into the air, it returns to the ground, and this return can be estimated pretty well given the knowledge of how it was thrown. And the object will always follow the same pattern *each* time if thrown in an identical fashion.

There is a difference between the process of science and a scientific consensus. When work is done on a scientific problem, it is usually with the implicit understanding that the work in question could be wrong. A consensus begins to be reached only when a verifiable (experimentally and theoretically) explanation which addditionally makes further predictions is provided. If the predictions are not borne out, the explanation is no longer regarded as viable. This does not mean that there are no people who may continue to believe in the (unviable) explanation. Such a belief usually is not taken seriously. A famous example is the refusal of Einstein to accept the validity of quantum theory. Quantum mechanics continued to gain acceptance inspite of his and many other prominent physicist's beliefs, because they could not come up with a better, testable explanation.

Professor Alschuler,

Please elaborate on your de minimus exemption to the establishment clause with particular reference to ID.

What percentage of ID is science, not religion?

What elements of ID does that percentage represent?

Is that a fair percentage for a Constitutional provision?

Is there really a de minimus percentage at all?

If so why?

If not, what is your advocacy?

Professor Alschuler,

My 03:09AM post (your time) should have quoted your advancement of a de minimis position. Here it is:
> &quot;The court and both parties in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District battled about whether intelligent design was science or religion. None of them showed any interest in the right answer &ndash; a little (or a lot) of both. &quot;<p>

I'm assuming you disagree with the stare decisis. If not, and it's about how a correct decision includes problematic obiter dicta, I agree with you that the dicta you quoted in Part I and in your reply to me in this Part II is too wide (unlike the Court's order). Certainly, ID can still be mentioned in schools any number of ways and I believe it should be.

Contrary to a respectable argument elsewhere in these replies, I believe 9th grade science teachers should be at pains to teach the difference between methodological naturalism (science) and philosophical naturalism (atheism) and the nature of scientific theory. A discussion of ID would illustrate and illuminate that distinction. Teachers of 9th grade should consider themselves grievously remiss if any of their students depart them believing that any science - including biology - is either atheistic or ultimate complete truth, or that ID is scientific.

This is judicial overreach. This issue belongs to th community. If they like or don't like, change the board. The courts do not belong here.

The original blog post states the problem clearly:
> &quot;As I see it, the most important issue posed by intelligent design is neither microevolution nor macroevolution but Darwin&rsquo;s explanation of how it happened. Is a mindless process driven by random mutation adequate to explain all life forms, or might the process of creation have a purpose? &quot;<p>

Science does not deal in purposes. If this is your problem with evolution, then you do not have a valid scientific issue with it.

And, incidentally, i'm a biologist, and i can look at complex life forms and not view them as the products of design.
> <p>

I'm in.

Jack00, I don't agree

"If a peacock’s tail were brown and blended nicely into the background, the tail’s colors would illustrate how random mutation allows genetically fortunate birds to elude predators.  The colors would show natural selection at work.  And when the male peacock’s tail is iridescent and multi-colored and stands out against the background, the tail’s bright colors signal the hen that the cock is resistant to parasites and desirable as a mate.  The bright colors thus show natural selection at work.  In other words, heads I win, tails you lose.  Show a Darwinist an anomaly, and he will devise a story that fits it to his theory.  As long as he can do that, the theory of natural selection cannot be falsified.  New bits of evidence can merely shift the plausibility of this theory in one direction or the other."

Sorry, but that's not how the theory works. In looking at the peacock, you have to consider a number of factors. 1.) How many things in the natural environment of the peacock are brown vs. multi-colored? How long have they been there? 2.) Who are the natural predators of the peacock? Can they differentiate colors? How long have they been in the environment with the peacocks?
> 3.) Can the peacocks differentiate colors? Can multi-color vs. brown feathers be proven to be a significant factor in the peacocks' reproduction?<p>

Once you have considered all of the above, you then compare the peacocks with other animals in similar circumstances. Natural selection could be easily disproven if you could find that with the same environmental factors, different species in different locations will repeatedly evolve completely different characteristics.

On the other hand, when you compare the peacocks' tails with the color patterns of north American seed birds (cardinals, orioles, etc.), you see many of the same environmental dynamics coming into play. Show a Darwinist an anomality, and he/she will look to similar life forms in similar environments and will choose the explanation based on observable and repeatable patterns, not just on whatever theory is easist to propose. ID, alas, does not do this.

Now for a change of train-of-thought. Prof. Alschuler: you reason that as ID is not an explicit violation of the establishment clause, the Dover judge ruling in the Kitzmiller case is wrong (am I correct with this assumption?) If so, does it follow then that the Dover school board would have had the right to insist that science faculty members "read from their scripts"? If so, what about the teachers' academic freedom rights? (I'm referencing Cary v. Board of Education, a Federal Appelate court ruling from a different circuit than the Dover case; Cary seems to be just following the lead of Tinker v. Des Moines and applying it to faculty members.)

Could a teacher then be removed from the school for refusing to mention ID and the Pandas book in class? If not, would you then argue that the judge's decision in Dover was wrong for lack of standing: a teacher should have been able to challenge the ruling, not parents of the students (despite the obvious parallels to Epperson v. Arkansas, which I assume you refute as per your post above)?

Finally, do you believe that it is only a matter of time before ID becomes significantly entrenched as a standard subject matter and thus allow its introduction on the basis of Justice Breyer's opinion in the Perry Ten Commandments case?

Andy you wrote:

"On the other hand, when you compare the peacocks' tails with the color patterns of north American seed birds (cardinals, orioles, etc.), you see many of the same environmental dynamics coming into play. Show a Darwinist an anomality, and he/she will look to similar life forms in similar environments and will choose the explanation based on observable and repeatable patterns, not just on whatever theory is easist to propose. ID, alas, does not do this."

Yes they feel that they are making a reasonable assumption, but when looking at it from a rational point of view what they are doing is nothing more then begging the question (circular reasoning).

The big problem with assuming that the way an animal (or plant) looks like, is based on the environment and other animals in the environment, is that evolution is based upon the idea of random mutations. Therefore the environment cannot influence the way an animal looks because mutations are random. Evolutionists say that "sure mutations are random and unguided, but natural selection leaves the mutations which benefit an animal (or plant) and weed out the mutations which harm an animal (or plant)".

In essence we are being asked to believe that random mutations produce the most amazing works of art, creating beautiful color coordinated designs of exquisite beauty. Not once, not twice, not 10 times, not 100 times, but millions upon millions of times. Mutations create magnificent designs of the peacocks tail, beautiful colorful birds like the macaw, butterflys, tropical fish, flowers, fruits, trees, animals etc. The whole panoply of color coordinated designs of beauty in the natural world is the product of random mutations? What are the odds of that?

Why is the natural world overwhelmingly beautiful? Why is symmetry and color coordination the rule instead of the exception? How can mutation change a single celled creature into a towering Sequoia or a T Rex, or a Parrot or a Whale, or a Mango tree or a Watermleon?

Let's see if I got this straight...umkay?

In the beginning there was some dirt and water and some sunlight. The dirt and water somehow or another built a cell with DNA and RNA and all of the amazingly complex systems which make up the simplest form of life. It's vastly more complex then a computer, yet by mixing dirt and water a cell somehow or another popped into existence.

Then that cell instead of dying, began to replicate. Eventually there were many of these cells. Occasionally there was a mutation to the DNA, and the cell occasionally kept a mutation because it aided it in it's survival.

Fast forward millions of years and we have apes and ants, bees and bananas, cows and cobwebs, deer and dandelions, dolphins and sharks, octopi and jellyfish, tigers and giraffes, boys and girls and ice cream and cake? and it's all due to one celled creatures mutating?

No one has ever seen such mutations but we are assurred that they happened enough times in the past to create the millions upon millions of species of life around us?

There is no trace in the fossil record of animals mutating from one species into the next, the evolutionists conveniently leave this simple fact out of their boorish explanations of how mutations turn amoebas into horses.

And they say ID is crazy.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Kaiser Soze-

Read up on Stickleback evolution - part of Science magazine's breakthrough of the year - to see how single mutations can aid a species' adaptation to a new environment.

Read up on mosasaur evolution to learn about a new transitional fossil discovered just this year.

I have no doubt that, reading a site called "darwinism refuted", you can "learn" that these situations have not been described. However, reading peer reviewed scientific literature will give you a very different picture.

Reply to Andy -

1. The peacock's tail has been a problem for Darwininan biology from the beginning. As one biology text puts it, "The peacock's tail almost certainly reduces the male's survival: the tail reduces maneuverability, powers of flight, and makes the bird more conspicuous; its growth must also impose an energetic cost." Similar problems are posed by the apparently disfunctional ornamentation found in many species.

Darwin was aware of the anomaly. His answer was "sexual selection." The attractiveness of the ornamental tail to the hen more than makes up for its heavy costs.

This answer was an obvious nonstarter. If even a few peahens had been attracted to peacocks with small brown tails, the principle of natural selection says that their offspring would have had higher survival rates. Over time, the superficial peahens who fell for the flashy guys would have died off (hooray, hooray). Peahens today would favor adaptive plain brown peacocks. The revenge of the bird nerds!

Enter Amotz Zahavi in 1975 with the "handicap principle." The peacock's tail is attractive to the peahen precisely because it is maladaptive. A male who can survive despite the fact that he's carrying around a maladaptive tail must be a helluva guy -- that peacock must be extraordinarily resistant to parasites or something. Other biologists have shown that, just as you look like hell when you're sick, peacocks infested with parasites are in fact less brightly colored, and peahens really do prefer brightly colored peacocks. Q.E.D. Evolutionary biologists believe that they have fully answered the problem of the peacock's tail. It is indeed heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.

2. The issue posed by the establishment clause is, as the Dover court said, what message teaching ID conveys to students or, perhaps, the larger community. Who's responsible for conveying that message -- the school board or the classroom teacher -- doesn't seem to matter. The question of the board's authority to tell teachers what to teach (or of the teachers' academic freedom) is a challenging first amendment issue, but it's distinct from the establishment clause issue.

To Vkrishna:

The example of Mendel's peas says nothing about Darwinian evolution.

You claim that "Other predictions of Darwin's theory have been observed much after he proposed his theory, in terms of speciation or the development of new species." I suspect that this can be backed up, but I'm interested in your examples. In particular, I suspect that none of the predictions of Darwinian evolution are "precise and quantitative"; but rather more have the shape that "more complex organisms will appear later in the fossil record than less complex ones."

On the other hand, I gave no examples for my claim about "Modern philosophy and sociology..." My favorite is Jerry Ravetz, "Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems," but the work of Imre Lakatos (I can't cite the precise books) is also well known in this genre.

The general point should be obvious, however. In anything more complex than physics or chemistry (e.g., biology), any but the simplest experiments are confounded by complexity, and what counts as evidence "for" or "against" a hypothesis has to do with social conventions regarding the interpretation of statistics in circumstances of multiple causation.

Similarly, the fact that the premises of, say, Freudian psychiatry have been treated as "scientific" and included inside the medical profession, while (say) astrology is not, is prima facie a matter of sociology, not science. And don't even get me started on economics!

By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm a whole-hearted supporter of evolutionary theory and an opponent of teaching ID as an opposing theory. But the reason is not because one can prima facie make an argument that ID is "not science" based on criteria of, for example, "non-falsifiability."
> <p>

John you wrote:

"Read up on mosasaur evolution to learn about a new transitional fossil discovered just this year."

You need to understand the problem before you can claim there are solutions. If I claim that a chimp is a transitional form between a gorilla and a human, then I am not understanding what is meant by saying there is a lack of transitional species (alive or in the fossil record). Claiming that the Dallasaurus you refer to is a transitional creature is no different then saying a a chimp is a transitional form between a human and a gorilla.

The theory of evolution tells us that mutations happening in existing species gradually transform those species into new species. What we should see everywhere amongst living things today and in the fossil record is this transformation going on. But we don't. Darwin was aware of this and called it a "fatal blow" to his theory. He believed that in the future as more discoveries of fossils were made that the process of species transformation would be found in new fossils. But he couldn't understand why the current situation of all species being static (we don't find species in the process of undergoing transformation from one species into another )is the way it is.

But after the discovery of well over a billion fossils no evidence has been discovered of actual transitional forms. So evolutionists like to pretend that they discover them.

What do we mean by transitional form?

Evolutionary theory tells us that mutations cause one species to transform into a new species. For this to occur there needs to be a growth or change in a species body plan. New organs and new limbs have to gradually develop through mutation or disappear through mutation.

The reason a chimp is not a transitional form between a gorilla and a human is because all 3 are distinct species. If we could find gorillas developing distinctly human organs and limbs, like a human hand or a human spine, or human skin, while still remaining a gorilla, then that would be a transitional form i.e a gorilla showing the process of mutation into a human.

Transitional forms are supposed to show the process of mutation of one species into another. If a creature or plant manifests mutations which are developments towards new organs and new limbs, etc, then that is a true transitional form. A gorilla mutating into a human by the gradual development of mutations is what evolution demands to be seen. Not only in the fossil record, but in living species. Not just a few, but everywhere and in huge quantities.

If evolution is an ongoing process then we should see all species undergoing evolution by gradual change through mutations. We should find living things in abundance with partially formed body parts, partial limbs, partial organs etc.

But we don't. We find just the opposite. There are no fossils nor living things which show this process of mutation, show the gradual mutating process from one species into a new one. Paleontologists have been aware of this problem for a long time. Stephen gould tried to solve this problem with his theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium". That theory states that small populations of animals or plants undergo a rapid change. This theory was an attempt to explain why we don't see transitional forms in the fossil record. The changes occur so quickly that the number of fossils showing the tranformation would be small. That's why we can't find those fossils. His theory was ridiculed by biologists and he later claimed it to be a theory which was full of problems.

If you want to become educated on this topic go to:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_01.html

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology.html

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/equilibrium.html

John you also mentioned the stickleback fish as "proof" of a single mutation giving a creature an advantage for survival. That is an erroneous example. It is an example of circular reasoning and tautology. What is seen is variations within the gene pool of stickleback fish. To claim that it is mutation which caused these variations is much easier to do then to actually prove that mutations caused these variations. The circular reasoning comes in when we see stickleback fish with variations and then we say it was mutations which caused these variations because evolutionary theory tells us that variations are caused by mutations. There is no proof that mutation caused the variation, it is taken as a given, it is therefore a tautology to claim that a single mutation helped a stickleback fish evolve an advantage.

RE: transitional forms.

Kaiser Soze repeats a creationist canard that's so old, it has a special section in the Talk Origins FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

It includes further reading for those genuinely interested in this topic. I'll assume Soze is not, and not bother further.

None of those examples are transitional forms. It is not I who say these things, it is the paleontologists, evolutionists. Mindless evolutionist activists want to claim that any species which appears to them to be similar to other species are transitional forms. But they are not. Transitional forms are supposed to be creatures or plants in between one known species and another. Since they cannot find any they want to make an argument based on homology, which is a discredited argument. This is not science for them, it's dogmatic religious faith. No amount of proof can dissuade them from their faith in the almighty power of evolution. This is what honest evolutionists have to say:

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Darwin, C. (1859)The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 163

"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Gould, S.J. (1977)"Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, vol. 86, May

"[T]he absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, S.J., 1982 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"Evolution Now: A Century After DarwinMaynard Smith, J. (editor)W. H. Freeman and Co. in association with Nature, p. 140

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

Mayr, E., 1991One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary ThoughtHarvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 138

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."

Mayr, E., 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and InheritanceThe Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 524

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith that gradual, progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks than any hard evidence."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)The Myths of Human EvolutionColumbia University Press, p. 57

"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that palaeontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny."

Paul, C. R. C., 1989 "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates"Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105

"[W]ell represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."

Gould, S.J., 1988"Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness"Natural History, Vol. 97, No. 12, December, p.14

"Well, 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. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information ...."

Raup, D. (1979)"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

Science July 17, 1981, p. 289

"The known fossil record is not, and has never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed."

Stanley, S. M., 1981The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of SpeciesBasic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 71

"Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored. This strange circumstance constitutes a remarkable chapter in the history of science, and one that gives students of the fossil record cause for concern."

Stanley, S. M., 1981 The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of SpeciesBasic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 101

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)Evolution of Living Organism Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103

"To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."

Cohen, I.L. (1984)Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen? ..."

S. Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth London: Croom Helm, p. 422

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties."

Mayr, Ernst (1970)Populations, Species, and EvolutionCambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, p. 235

" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."

Cohen, I.L. (1984)Darwin Was Wrong:A Study in ProbabilitiesNew York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolu-tionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

Gould, Stephen J. (1977)"The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History, Vol. 86, June/July, p. 28

"It is fair to say that Darwin simply assumed that gradual improvement was possible in general... Darwin's assumption, I will try to show, was almost certainly wrong. It does not appear to be the case that gradualism always hold. In some complex systems, any minor change causes catastrophic changes in the behavior of the system. In these cases ... selection cannot assemble complex systems. Here is one fundamental limit to selection."

Kauffman, StuartAt Home in the Universe, p.152

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."

Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology," Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis based cosmology which it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has-motivated all the cosmogenic myth makers of the past, from the shamans of primitive peoples to the ideologues of the medieval church. The truth is that despite the prestige of evolutionary theory and the tremendous intellectual effort directed towards reducing living systems to the confines of Darwinian thought, nature refuses to be imprisoned. In the final analysis we still know very little about how new forms of life arise. The "mystery of mysteries" - the origin of new beings on earth - is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle."

Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in CrisisBurnett Books, 1985, p.358

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard "Billions and Billions of Demons"New York Review of BooksJanuary 9, 1997, p. 28

Paul Baer

"Modern philosophy and sociology of science has made it fairly clear that there is no simple "demarcation" between science and non-science, and no unitary "scientific method."

If so, then modern philosphy and sociology of science is a pile of bullcrap.

Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't feel the way that you do. You see, Paul, in the real world people don't have twenty years to debate whether something is "really really really science" or not.

In the real world, people just ask simple questions like: "What does your theory predict? Can it be tested? Have you done any of those tests?"

And when all those questions come up "no" then the decision is straightforward: junk science.

By the way Paul, I have an infinitely diluted solution of sucrose that I mixed under the full moon last week when Saturn was in the 2nd house and the Sasquatch was mating.

I've tested it scientifically and it will cure any illness you suffer from including old age for the next 150 years.

Interested? Phone me at 1-800-GET-CLUE.

Paul

"Similarly, the fact that the premises of, say, Freudian psychiatry have been treated as "scientific" and included inside the medical profession, while (say) astrology is not, is prima facie a matter of sociology, not science. And don't even get me started on economics!"

Freudian psychiatry was practiced by the medical profession because doctors and patients believed that it worked.

Have you noticed that not even the ID peddlers believe that their "theory" can be proven by research?

Read Judge Jones' case and stop flapping your foul post-modern mouth. The stench is making me gag. Next thing you know you'll be citing Steve Fuller and praising the glories of yesteryear when white dudes were "inspired" to do great science by their devotion to the One True God.

Alschuler

Q.E.D. Evolutionary biologists believe that they have fully answered the problem of the peacock's tail.

This is an appalling misrepresentation of the facts. No biologist will claim that any such evolutionary question is "fully answered," just as no chemist will claim that all questions about the structure of carbon are "fully answered."

Perfesser, you are a lying sack of doo-doo.

Take your propagandist garbage back to the 1930s and shovel it on the German Jews.

That's where your kind of "discourse" belongs.

You don't care about the weight of facts or evidence or anything else as long as that spotlight shines on your diseased rictus. Like your cheerleader Kaiser Soze, you're content to just push your ideological garbage as far as it goes and damn the consequences.

Controversies sell books after all.

Some very serious issues were raised about your veracity in this thread and in your previous thread and I see no attempt to address those issues straight-on and in a forthright manner as one would expect a mature honest human being to do.

So what kind of human being are you, Perfesser?

Jeffersonranch

"This is judicial overreach. This issue belongs to th community. If they like or don't like, change the board. The courts do not belong here."

Ooo, big talkin' here. You'd change your tune if they voted in one of those uppity Negroes, though, wouldn't you?

You and Perfesser Alschuler can travel back to 1920 when everything was really simple and nobody blabbed if you beat the crap out of your daughter when she got pregnant.

Those were the days, weren't they?

I seem to remember that evolution was a hot topic with the fundie types back then, too.

Funny how that works.

Of course, in the meantime, science has accumulated a gigantic mountain of data that confirms the predictions of evolutionary theory.

And lo and behold, religious fanatics and preachers are still lying about science and telling us that their children are going to turn into doomed atheists unless we spoonfed them some garbage about "mysterious alien beings" and their "intelligent" designs.

Get a life, sickos. Judge Jones sat and smelled your garbage for a good long time and he wrote about this sham honestly.

He did the right thing. Try to follow his lead. Or is it more important to worry about pleasing one's preacher than writing an honest legal opinion?

I still can't work out whether Prof Alschuler believes Kitzmiller was either wrong or correct but with some dodgy obiter. Can anyone else, or the Professor himself?

AlanDownunder, see where the Professor writes

"The exclusion of ID from science “by definition and by convention” becomes particularly unfair when ID and natural selection provide competing explanations of the same phenomena. The court, however, insists that the perception of a conflict between natural selection and intelligent design is a “contrived dualism.”"

Contrived dualism = false dichotomy and this is certainly true. And this fact was pointed out in the previous thread and ignored by our pathetically dissembling Professer.

Let's spell it out for the Professor again, shall we?

Evolution is a scientific theory for explaining the mechanism by which the diverse organisms that have lived on our planet for the past 4 billion years evolved (only clueless idiots insist that life on earth has not changed over this time period).

Evolution doesn't invoke deity-like beings who have intervened continually for the past 4 billion years to "design" and create new species of animals for some unfathomable "purpose."

So-called "intelligent design" theory necessarily invokes such deity-like beings. Reasonable people know this to be the case because beings with the power to manipulate the DNA of every living thing that ever lived on earth for the past 4 billion years and not leave any detectable trace of themselves are deity-like.

But here's the rub and here's where the Perfesser gets his pants pulled down and we all laugh at his microscopically tiny wee-wee.

If we can invoke the existence of deity-like beings to explain "gaps" in our understanding of the mechanisms by which life on this earth evolved, why must these deities need to be acting "intelligently" to accomplish what they've done?

It's no less "scientific" or "valid" or "logical" to argue that these deities simply used the earth as a toilet for the past 4 billion years and, without any purpose or design whatsoever, defecated every species of living thing that ever lived on the earth.

This is Enterocraftic Theory and it is just as valid as ID theory but has at least two advantages: (1) it accounts for the seeming "unintelligence" of many "designs" that we observe in living things and (2) it accounts for why there is such a great diversity of microbial fauna.

And that reminds me, you can see up above the Perfesser demonstrating his remarkable ignorance and arrogance about biology when he writes

"“Macroevolution” or “speciation” is somewhat more problematic. Setting aside the strange world of microbes,"

Yo, Perfesser, the "strange world of microbes" represents beyond any doubt the most diverse and historically successful group of organisms from 4 billion years ago to the present.

Now that you can see how deeply imbedded your head is inside your butt, Perfesser, try pulling it out.

The magic words you're looking for begin with, "I'm sorry."

> <p>

-----------
> If you discovered the intelligent designer of every life form on the planet (including you), what would you call him? Probably not Uncle Zeke.<br> -----------
> Your comments are considered blasphemy to adherents of Uncle Zekism.<br>

-----------
> But nothing can be said for a convention that excludes intelligent design by fiat if that is where the evidence leads.<br> -----------
> Nothing can be said for a convention that excludes the explanation that monkeys are flying out of your **** if that is where the evidence leads. But is that where the evidence leads?<p>

Judge Jones heard six weeks of testimony in which IDC proponents had opportunity to establish the worth of their evidence. He concluded that it had no merit. He was correct in that assessment.
> <p>

1. The peacock's tail ..."

this is a reasonable (in the sense of being measured - I have no idea whether it's scientifically sound) comment. by itself, it shouldn't motivate disrespectful responses; adding snarks like "Show a Darwinist an anomaly, and he will devise a story that fits it to his theory" which suggest lack of integrity - does.

similarly, one may reasonably argue that judge jones is wrong in aspects of his opinion, but a fair reading doesn't support the lack of integrity suggested in the first post. perhaps a little humility is in order.

on a substantive issue, what is the argument against applicability of the estab clause? since judge jones appeared to jump through all the hoops, mere assertion is an inadequate objection.

If we agree that "intelligent design" is junk, why would anyone propose to discuss it in schools? What sort of hatred of children would drive someone to advocate that?

Oh, and Prof. Alschuler: The flip side of that argument is this: If ID has real science behind it, it's legal to teach it even if it has religious bias. Did you read the Dover decision?

Ed:

Intelligent Design does have real science behind it. The Design Inference was a peer-reviewed work. In addition, here are some fairly recent peer-reviewed work in the area of Intelligent Design:

http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-is-id-doing-in-scientific.html

Bartlett

Intelligent Design does have real science behind it.

No it doesn't, you stupid script-reciting idiot.

What next? Are you giong to show us all the peer-reviewed

The Design Inference was a peer-reviewed work.

Spare me, moron.

Go to www.pubmed.org and educate yourself instead of reading creationism blog sites.

In addition, here are some fairly recent peer-reviewed work in the area of Intelligent Design:

Hey, you got anything on Sasquatch or mental levitation?

Yeah, you ARE that stupid.

I tell you what: tell me what the scientific theory of "intelligent design" is and what prediction the theory makes that would allow us to distinguish between it and standard evolutionary theory?

And then explain to me why the overwhelming majority of professional scientists think the Discovery Insitute and its employees are disgusting anti-science liars.

Are all those other scientists deluded? Or is it a conspiracy?

And give me one example of another "scientific theory" that was first published in a 9th grade textbook and peddled to public school kids, or a scientific theory that for some strange reason appeals only to pathologically lying religious fanatics.

Go for it, fruitcake. Prove that you belong to the crowd of pathetic robes who look forward to the day when your preachers mix up a big batch of tasty kool-aid for you and your fellow sheep.

Prof. Alschuler: "Show a Darwinist an anomaly, and he will devise a story that fits it to his theory."

Actually, anomalies play a very important role in science because they sometimes indicate that unexpected influences are involved (take the photoelectric effect for example). So, actually, we scientists do take anomalies seriously and mine them for what information they can reveal. Prof. Alschuler's comment above only tells part of the story. I'd say: "Show a scientist an anomaly, and he will devise a story that fits it to his theory or another, and try to find a means of testing the story". That is good science.

Re: Peacock's tail -- The discussion of sexual selection & non-sexual environmental fitness helps illustrate the fact that multiple, overlapping selective factors will exist in any environment. These factors are often difficult to pull apart and consider separately. It is a problem that has be recognized for decades (if one cares to read the literature). It has nothing to do with 'tails I win, heads you lose' arguments. As correctly noted, the bright plumage does seem anomalous if we consider predation or physiological load alone. This is what leads one to consider other factors such as how external displays of fitness determine mate selection (a particular subset of intraspecies competition). But this is not all "pie in the sky theorizing" or post-hoc rationalization as Prof. Alschuler would suggest: Many of these competing influences can be analyzed. Hen preference for long feather trains in male peacocks has been shown. The case of mate selection is also being investigated with studies of guppie tail lengths and coloration in pools with different levels of predation. These effects are real and often quantifiable. Similarly, Fischer's sex ratio theorem helps researchers look for selective effects when the ratio of males to females in progeny deviates from 1:1. It is definitely not all post-hoc handwaving.

By comparison, I'd be very interested in learning what would pass for an anomaly in ID. Let's start with the peacock's tail...

Kaiser Soze: '"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."

Mayr, E., 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 524'

Kaiser, would you do me the favor of reporting the heading for that section of the book (listed on page 510) or what Mayr wrote in the first paragraph of page 525? I've found his overall assessment quite different from the quote you've thoughtfully provided.

This post is a great example of why scientists distrust lawyers, since its examplses of "gaps" in Darwin are outdated. Specifically, pre-Cambrian fossils are known, and speciation has been observed in the laboratory and in nature. In science one cannot deny data, but that's what's going on here. Ignorance is not an excuse. I am appalled that a faculty member at a distinguished university would lend his name to this nonsense.