Steven Carr

Ah yes, the Agassiz who was director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard itself (!) until his death, and who has a library named after him there.

<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html</a>

Steven Carr

Evidence? It was stolen by a one-armed man.

All ID answers will be revealed when the film with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones is released.

Oolon Colluphid

I’ll take 'intelligent design' seriously when it takes account of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the non-functional genes for bird teeth (ie all the examples of unintelligent design in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801&p=" target="_blank">my usual list</a>). Till then, it’s a pile of crap.

Oolon

MrDarwin

I see on Oolon's list that there's a question about fetal circulation. There are two problems. First, there is a very inefficient mixing of oxygenated blood coming into the fetal body with deoxygenated blood that has already circulated, providing much of the fetal body with partially oxygenated blood (in adults the deoxygenated blood goes directly to the lungs for oxygenation before circulation to the rest of the body). This mixing does not happen in adults because of the close connection between the heart and the lungs; in the fetus the lungs are nonfunctional (oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange take place in the placenta).

The second problem is that, to make this rather circuitous circulation possible, there is a hole between the chambers in the fetal heart (the foramen ovale) and there are fetal blood vessels (e.g., ductus arteriosus) which need to close at birth for the transition to adult circulation (but sometimes don't , two relatively common and sometimes fatal birth defects).

If the umbilical cord were inserted at the chest, rather than the belly, it would solve several of these problems because the umbilical vein and umbilical artery could connect to the pulmonary vein and pulmonary artery.

A synopsis of fetal circulation can be found <a href="http://www.cayuga-cc.edu/about/facultypages/greer/biol204/heart4/heart4.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Many thanks Mr D! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
I'd made a note of it and that site, but not what was poor about its design!

Further to my point in that list about avian respiration, according to <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vtaaz/aviance.html" target="_blank">this site</a> it is ten times more efficient than the mammalian system. It's a similar problem as with the foetal blood above: by being tidal, the fresh air is mixed with the ‘used’ air at each breath a mammal takes. In birds, fresh air reaches the diffusion membranes untainted. Funny how those well-known biblical fowl, bats, don’t have the bird system, but the mammalian one instead, no?

<a href="http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/multimedia/birdlungs/" target="_blank">Here</a> and <a href="http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curriculum/VM8054/Labs/Lab26/Notes/birdresp.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> is some good info on bird lungs. For mammals, try Google .

Oolon

bluefugue

I think this is disingenuous... Behe is trying to make ID look less threatening by suggesting Darwinism could be a "subset" of it as Newtonian physics are a subset of Einsteinian, etc. But how could this be? If we need to posit a Designer to explain any life, why bother with Darwinism at all? Unless Behe accepts Darwinism at the level above the single cell, and only wants his Designer to account for the bacterial flagellum and the clotting cascade? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

KC

Actually, as long as Behe, Wells and their ilk support their political agenda, the AIG crowd will gladly accept their help. Of course, once the Wedge's political objectives are achieved, Catholics like Behe and Moonies like Wells will be purged ruthlessly.

Cheers,

KC

Mageth

I just had to repeat this, because I think it has to be one of the most ridiculous statements about science I've ever seen.

science - (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world.

Name me one example where scientific progress has been impeded by "adhering to a materialistic explanation of the universe." Just one.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

ishalon

whats not good is how many of their lies i didnt know the truth about, it would be nice if hezekiahjones' reply got linked from the article

MOJO-JOJO

Thanks hezekiah, was finally able to get the link and read it....VERY interesting.

(copied here in part for relevant text)

by Bruce Gordon;
"Having said this much, let me make it clear that for those of us with a commitment to the
Christian faith, the questions that design theory addresses are in a certain sense natural, and recognition of this might even motivate its pursuit. Insofar as the results of such research have a place in broader scientific discussion, though, they must be presented and defended on the basis of reasons that are accessible to all. If design theory is to make a contribution to science, it must be worth pursuing on the basis of its own merits, not as an exercise in Christian 'cultural renewal,' the weight of which it cannot bear. And the reason it cannot bear this weight is that the technical work of design theory neither entails nor is entailed by a broadly theistic conception of the world, even though it does add some interesting wrinkles to a discussion of the
relationship between science and religion. Let me explain.

First of all, what has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found. Secondly, if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science. I have no
attachment one way or the other to methodological naturalism as a metascientific principle, but honesty demands the recognition that design-theoretic research does not logically entail its denial. Thirdly, design research is compatible with a realistic teleology
like that of the vitalism espoused by thinkers such as Henri Bergson and Hans Driesch. It is compatible with the suggestion that life on earth was purposely seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos (though this leaves another rather pressing question unanswered). It is compatible with a theistic- evolutionary perspective of continuous development in which the unfolding of the
universe and of life was implicit in finely-tuned. initial conditions. On a less sanguine note, it is logically compatible with "creationism' in, a variety of forms, though many of these can readily be dismissed on well-established scientific grounds. And there may be other metaphysical possibilities. Beyond this, adjudicating among these various metaphysical interpretations is a
task that falls to philosophers and theologians and forms no part of any contribution to science that design theory might make.

In conclusion, it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self- organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric. Intellectual honesty demands that the wide-range of flexibility as regards the interpretation and significance of design theory be made abundantly clear. The dutiful avoidance of dogmatism, an irenic attitude, and a healthy dose of humility will by themselves, I think, do much to dispel the controversy at Baylor and help open the doors for the acceptance of design theorists as dialogue partners in the wider academic community."


If only those folks at the Baptist Board could be as knowledgable and reasonable as Bruce here.....