Nate Koechley

Wired had an article about this issue of evolution v. ‘intelligent design’. It’s a good read:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

Choice quote:

“What these people want is for there to be a debate,” says Krauss. “People in the audience say, Hey, these people sound reasonable. They argue, ‘People have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.’ That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we don’t teach that in history.”

Josh: I hope you were suggesting that evolution shouldn’t be taught — it really has less quantifiable evidence than creationism…

-kb

I’ll bite, KB. Those that put creationism forward say that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago”. What, exactly, is the evidence? I gotta say, I’m not aware of any. Let alone any quantifiable evidence. Let alone *more* .

Remember please that it’s Thanksgiving Week, so please make this an example of a question I’m *thankful* I asked, not one that I want to take back.

Thanks,
nate

Hi Nate,

I’ll do my best to help you be thankful you asked.

The bottom line is that there is little evidence for *macro* evolution (that we evolved from apes), and a great deal for “intelligent design”.

For evolution to be a viable option, there must be a visible progression — all we have in the fossil record is some pretty big leaps between what are even classed as different species. The links in the chain are missing, hence there is no chain.

I will not argue *micro* evolution (that the species will adapt to their surroundings) because I believe it to be true. Look at humans — a few short century ago (if that) we all would have had an underbite (lower jaw sticks out) and our wisdom teeth (or “3rd molars” for the more technical term) would have fit in our mouths. Lo and behold, now that’s not true. We don’t typically eat raw-ish meat off the bone, so the underbite is not useful… we also don’t need the chomping power of the third molars, so most of us need to have them removed as there isn’t room on the jaw for them. Some of us have evolved one step further than are not even having them start growing.

Now, intelligent design on the other hand. Let’s use “proof by contradiction”. So, suppose the earth was not “designed” by a creator. It must hold that this all happened accidentally, then. Or, at least, it *started* accidentally. I do not recall the exact numbers, and for the reason of being brief, let’s just talk about the earth’s creation, let alone everything on it. For the Big Bang to have accidentally caused the earth to exist in the exact place it was needed to sustain life is nearly impossible. The distance from the sun could not have varied too much without significant issues for life on the planet. Additionally, the atmosphere had to be just right (primarily nitrogen and oxygen). There are a number of other variables that must be considered also… leading to a significant improbability that the world was not created by an intelligent designer. As that designer would have had to be outside the universe, it is commonly held that he/she/it would be akin to a god.

More food for thought: why is it that *only* humans seem to have advanced significantly, despite similar stresses having been placed on other creatures?

You begin by saying that there is a “great deal [of evidence] for ‘intelligent design’”, yet the only argument you put forth is that the complexity of “evolution” suggests a “significant improbability” of it’s existance.

I disagree. To me, the complexity of the system solidifies the concept.

In any event, I’d still be interested in learning more about your “evidence”.

Thanks for your well-written comment, and for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks, nate

Hi Nate,

As for the complexity of evolution suggesting a significant improbability, I’d say that we have to look even earlier than evolution to decide this one. We have to look to the process of creation (of the initial matter forming the earth) and determine its source before even considering whether humans evolved from the primordial soup or were created pretty much as-is.

Perhaps I didn’t articulate it well enough. Let’s use an analogy.

Suppose you have a ball of clay in your hand and are standing within throwing distance from a brick wall. If you were to throw that brick of clay against the wall, what is the likelihood of it forming a form resembling, say, a human? I would say near zero. Possible, yes. Probable? No.

Now, take that same ball of clay, sit down at a desk and mold it into a form resembling a human. Is this possible? Yes. Is it probable? Yes — that is, unless you’re completely inept with clay… :-)

If you’re truly interested in the scientific side that goes into great detail (which, I must admit, I don’t have committed to memory — read it once, convinced me beyond doubt, don’t remember exact details), I can find some references for you.

The bottom line is that an infinite number of factors come into play, all with extremely low probabilities of occurring unless someone/something controlling the process knows what they’re doing.

-kb

Hey KB,

Couple points:

1) You say that “Now, take the same pass of clay, sit down at a desk and mold it into a form resembling a human. Is this possible? Yes. Is it probably? Yes.”

Whoa. Wait a second.

This is where you loose me.

I don’t see this is “possible” let alone “probable”. I don’t see, have never seen — never even *heard* of a single piece of evidence for this… If I read your arguments correctly — which I’m trying my best to do — you haven’t presented any.

2) How long do you think humans have existed on the planet? How long do you think the planet has existed? Are you of the camp that thinks humans have only been around for 10,000 years? Is so, what’s your evidence, and how to you account for the [broad, physical, overwhelming] evidence to the contrary

Thanks,
nate