Evolution vs Intelligent Design Flashback
I recently came across an old video from 1997 of a debate between proponents of Intelligent Design and proponents of the theory of evolution. It is interesting to see the kinds of issues that were in contention back then (almost 13 years ago), relative to the knowledge and scientific advancements that we have now.
Here is Part 7 of 8:
I’ve chosen the two parts that include an exchange between David Berlinski (supporting ID) and Kenneth Miller (supporting evolution) to highlight a few observations. One is that Miller articulately provides a good deal of evidence and solid reasoning (in these as well as previous videos in the series) that addresses Berlinski’s concerns, and subsequently the latter simply moves the goalpost, with the profound argument being, essentially, that he’s not convinced. Now, one must ask: how much evidence is enough to convince anyone of anything?
Obviously, absolutely nothing can be known with perfect certainty. Therefore the best we can do is to simply weigh all the evidence and data that has been gathered thus far and try to figure what is the most likely explanation. This approach will never, ever satisfy someone who demands perfect certainty, which is exactly what many proponents of ID demand vis-a-vis evolution, whilst nevertheless being exceedingly comfortable with less-than-perfect certainty in almost every other area of their life (including and especially their religious beliefs).
Another thing I noticed was that Miller says that there are roughly 100,000 genes in the human genome. Turns out that current estimates are significantly lower—mostly in the range of 20,000 to 70,000 genes that encode proteins, but nowhere near the 100,000 that was probably a reasonable estimate in 1997. (Some have recently put it at 150,000, but this is an outlier.) The importance of this is simply that if there are fewer genes that encode proteins, it necessarily takes fewer steps to get from a whale to a dog, or vice versa (especially given the abundant non-morphological similarities between these two vertebrate mammals), or from any given creature to any other, which was one of Berlinski’s issues.
Current Intelligent Design and creationist arguments have moved the goalposts once again, continuously demonstrating that it is their evidence-bereft religious beliefs that is really driving their agenda, not a true skepticism that questions ideas in the service of the quest for knowledge. Needless to say, they must be kept out of the schools.
MORE ARTICLES:
[...] why, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, Christians and Muslims continue to battle the theory of evolution. In the absence of any real rational system of knowledge, anything potentially goes. Yet at the [...]