Man Down! In case you missed it, here’s a copy of the letter we sent: Dear Dr. Wiles and members of the ISC: We are very disappointed that the International Scientific Colloquium (ISC) has endorsed the proposal for “The Creation of Humans” as a scientific topic for 2011. We have already heard arguments about the dangers of scientific creationism at ISC meetings. A few years ago we attended an ISC meeting in Cambridge that included this speaker [Jerry Coyne], whom one attendee called “the scariest guy on the planet.” There are some very unscientific ways that creationists can be effective in their advocacy for a particular outcome. And there are also other, more scientific ways of defending certain principles. With the notable exception of Galileo, who faced trials by the Inquisition for his scientific beliefs, creationists have not faced effective scientific criticism for their work, although scientific evidence has always contradicted creationism. Creationism is a very small part of science, and creationists have not been able to get creationism taught in schools. The main argument for allowing creationism to be taught in public schools is on theological grounds—that is, that God’s fingerprints are on evolution. This is a flawed argument in several respects, as it is not only possible, but perhaps more likely, that evolution proceeds according to the laws of natural selection without any divine intervention. The scientific method stands in contrast to other modes of thought. It requires data. It requires data about how things work, and the natural world can tell us a lot about that, and whether God has anything to do with it. For example, it tells us that the Earth is billions of years old, that the age of the universe is almost 14 billion years old, that the odds of an animal like homo sapiens ever existing is a trillion to one, and so on. In the last paragraph, the Intelligent Design Institute says: Since the days of Charles Darwin, who used scientific literature to argue that life evolved, the design community has contributed to this field in a number of ways, including, but not limited to, the following: * A theory of evolution has yet to be empirically proven * A single example of macroevolution has yet to be observed * No clear mechanisms of evolution have been demonstrated * Evidence for design—particularly of the “irreducible complexity” variety—has been ignored by professional scientists (who claim that if something works, it is not the result of intelligent design) This final point about design is completely incorrect. There are innumerable examples of irreducible complexity. Take the flagella (sperm tails) of bacteria and spermatozoa. They are a wonder of design. I believe that I could hold my own against this guy in a debate on evolution. Even if I didn’t get all the answers right, I could easily come out with enough right to win the debate. The reason for that is because I am a creationist. I believe that I have a sound basis for my beliefs, and I know how to take the data from the evolutionary world and use it to my advantage. I read up on the subject as best I can, try to think of new data, and then come up with answers to questions that make sense. I know how to put the facts together and then reach a conclusion that fits the evidence. Creationists get the facts and the evidence, and we can put them together to reach some conclusions. We understand that you have a responsibility to promote the ideas of this group [the ISC], but we would really prefer to have you think of ways to promote the real scientific ideas. One part of real science is science literacy. We think that if the members of this conference were aware of the real science of evolution, creationism would never have been taught in the first place. So let us know if there is any part of evolution that they can add to, and in fact, how they can contribute to it. Also, the Intelligent Design Institute believes in the dignity of mankind, and has a deep respect for humans. The scientific method allows us to explore our origins. The data that goes into evolution is the same data we get from looking into astronomy and physics. We have more information on humans because of genetics, linguistics, anatomy, and so forth. We see ourselves as human just like we see monkeys and fish. I read an article recently about how there are still debates among modern biologists about how people are related to monkeys. Some propose that Homo sapiens evolved from monkeys, while others claim that chimpanzees and gorillas evolved from humans. We know that people are human because of evidence from the human genome and from human behavior. We can also compare ourselves to other primates. Do you think that primates could be the parents of humans? I really wish you would think about this question in our class, because I could give you some new ways to present the evidence from evolution that makes sense. Sincerely, Lance M. Garner, Ph.D. Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design What Do You Think? What do you think about the Intelligent Design Institute’s letter to the Intelligent Design Institute? Was the writer right in saying that the Intelligent Design Institute (IDI) didn’t seem to realize that his ideas were so far out of date? Would you talk to the IDI guy about Intelligent Design? What would you say? What do you think about the Intelligent Design Institute’s request for new information about evolution? What kind of evidence would make it more acceptable to the IDI? Would you talk to them about evolution? What would you say? For the last two questions, give an example of the kind of evidence that would make it easier for IDI members to accept evolution. If you talk about evolution, be sure to talk about the data you need to prove evolution. You’ve learned this from reading Darwin’s Doubt, and there’s more about how to do this in the text and in any of the many other resources we offer at Science Undistorted. We welcome your thoughts, comments, and opinions. Please take part in our discussion, but keep it clean, folks. We can't advertise with impunity. We reserve the right to ban commenters, but the rest of the commenters are quite nice and we won't ban anyone for being nice. Also, please refrain from posting links in your comments unless they are relevant. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. This is a pretty interesting article. However, I have a few things to correct first. First, creationists do not think evolution is all made up because it seems illogical. They believe that God created the earth and its life in 7 days, in the beginning as a physical object. However, he also created another physical universe where they did not exist at that point. So, we have two physical universes in one. We also have living fossils on earth, which is evidence against evolution. Some creationists also believe that humans are unique among animals, and that there are differences between all animals. (We have 7 billion people on earth, which make us unique). Also, many creationists believe that Darwin and his theory is one of the biggest hoaxes ever made. It was his idea and he put all his thoughts together, but was never able to prove anything with evidence. I agree with you mostly. The Intelligent Design Institute is on the right side. They really need to have an example on how evidence of design can be found in the nature. And in case of evolution they should find a model that explains all the steps. With all their scientific abilities they should be able to do it. I have read before that all the evolution is in fact the naturalistic explanation. Where is the evidence of design? I have heard the argument of “design” before, in the Intelligent Design Institute video, but I don’t think it was a very good example. It would be cool to have a real example of a complex object. And IDI’s argument was rather simplistic as well. The Creation “argument” is completely unscientific. IDI uses the Bible as a source of evidence (even though it denies the existence of all other sources). They use Genesis 1-3 as a “foundation” for evolution, rather than just saying there was always life on earth, and evolution happened, because then I can just assume that IDI thinks that is evidence for the creation theory. For IDI to say that they are really scientists, they really need to show some evidence to go with the theory they have, because only a logical, evidence-based argument will persuade someone. They can’t just say, “this is the Bible; it’s a scientific textbook, so it is good evidence.” Because they can’t prove that they believe in the Bible any more than anyone else can prove that they believe in God. IDI can’t