Albion

Yes, but it makes the point dear to the hearts of creationists that special creation by the Christian god is the only viable alternative to evolution. So they figure that all they have to do is demolish evolution, and bob's your uncle.

ps418

With apologies to Futuyma, this proposition is wrong. The hypothetical observation that life as we know it appeared "all at once" would not require the inference to an omnipotent intelligence.

For instance, the hypothetical intelligent agent may have been capable of designing and creating life as we know it, yet incapable of designing and creating a solar system, or a universe, or plastics.

Jerry Smith

Ok... Here's an example:
(emphasis added by me)

This is quoted all over the freakin' internet. Anyone here who can make sense of this seeming nonsense? (Its for a project - not just my personal fancy).

Albion

It'd be interesting to get hold of a copy and see that quote in its context.

Peez

Not all of them use "approve" instead of "prove", but like a lot of out of context quotes and missquotes there are plenty of creationists who will post it. Certainly it is nonsense. In science, nothing is ever "proved" in the sense of being established with absolute certainty. Theories are the framework of understanding that we use to generate hypotheses, which are tested against observations. Observations may disprove a hypothesis, but cannot prove one. Each time that a hypothesis passes a test, we have more ecidence that it is true. "Facts" are accepted because the evidence is overwhelming, but they remain tentative to some small degree. That living things on this planet have evolved by descent with modification from a common ancestor is a fact. The theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation for this fact.

Of course the quoted text is rather arrogant. Every biologist that I know is accutely aware of the basis of science, indeed as part of the scientific enterprise they have personal experience in it. Such quote mining is an attempt to convince people that there are problems with evolution in the absense of such problems. Of course, there are details that remain to be understood. This is why research continues. But the fact of evolution is essentially universally accepted by biologists.

Peez

Gary Harris

I strongly suspect that this quote of Futuyma has been taken out of context, which is not an uncommon practice by creationist quote-miners.

Motorcycle Mama

Peez said, in part:
This is a very good point. It was becoming more and more obvious that evolution of some sort had occurred, and Lamark published the first important work that proposed a pattern (linear evolution up the Scala Naturae) and an explanation (an inherent drive to evolve "up", plus the inheritance of acquired characteristics).
With apologies, I'm trying to figure out the system and am using this as a test. When I read Peez's comment above I was astounded, someone who had actually read, and understood, Lamarck.

Peez

I must admit that I have not read Philosophie Zoologique (1809) or any other work by Jean Baptiste Piere Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamark. I have, however, read a little about the development of evolutionary thought.

If I may suggest, it is easier to distinguish quoted text from your response if you format it differently. I like to use [ quote ] (without the spaces) followed by the quoted text, followed by [ /quote ] (again, without the spaces). You can also bold ([ b ] and [ /b ]) or italicize ([ I ] and [ /I ]) the text as you wish.

Typing in : D (without the space) gives you
Have fun!
Peez

Bubba

Good Post,MM and welcome to infidels!

Bubba

lpetrich

The first two are certainly possible, though the third is rather unlikely, since all Earth life uses various organic-molecule polymers, and since plastics are also organic-molecule polymers. In fact, some plastics have been inspired by biological polymers; nylon had been inspired by proteins, though nylon's monomers are a double amine and a double carboxyl acid rather than amino acids.

And there is the question of how many such creators or designers there have been. The various multiple inventions very naturally suggest multiple designers, something that advocates of "the design inference" prefer to avoid discussing.