About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« The Dover Decision | Main | University of Drug Discovery? »

November 7, 2005

Intelligent Design, Molecule By Molecule

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

[Update: reading this post, I can see that I was in a pretty testy mood when I wrote it last night. Intelligent Design does that to me. So if you're not in the mood to be ranted at, come on back tomorrow and I'll see what I can do for you. . .]

Further update: comments have now been turned off, to keep this one from rising from the grave. No doubt I'll post on ID again eventually, so everyone will have another opportunity to ventilate their opinions.

OK, one more on this topic, and then we'll try to give it a rest until the Dover school board decision comes down. (The comments to the yesterday's post are still rolling right along, though, as you'd expect from a debating ground like this one). The article by Jerry Coyne I linked to yesterday gives some good anatomical arguments against intelligent design. But I wanted to zoom down to the molecular level for a minute, since after all, I am a chemist.

DNA is a wonderful molecule, no doubt about it. And to someone like me, who believes that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it's also a fine illustration of how it works on a molecular level. Others, though, no doubt see in its intricacies the hand of a creator. What, I wonder, are we then to make of the degraded remnants of old viral DNA in our genome? Designed in there, or not? Or what about the long stretches that seem to do nothing but repeat the same few base-pair letters over and over - dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times? Doubtless the Designer would have his reasons, but perhaps some of these would have been better implemented with repeats that aren't so prone to breakage and mismatch. Hundreds of terrible diseases result. (That page is only the barest sample. It's an awful topic to research). It's almost as if these things persist as the residue of ancient random choices or something.

Moving on to what are supposed to be the normal genes, we find entire books can be written on the horrible consequences of tiny changes in the genetic code. Take the so-called Swedish and Dutch mutations in the amyloid precursor protein. Switch the DNA a bit, and you get a new amino acid in the protein. Get the wrong one, and you die, most terribly, from early and rampaging Alzheimer's disease with complications. Those particular mutations have been in families for hundreds of years now - we've tracked them through the generations. They're still with us because the people involved live long enough to have children - many of whom are destined to die the same terrible way - before the underlying disease finishes them off. It's almost as if the consequences of a mutation were more severe when it affects reproductive fitness.

Mysterious ways, mysterious ways. No doubt that accounts for why we (and guinea pigs, and Peruvian fruit bats) can't make our own vitamin C, the way the other mammals can. Or why our livers respond to the excess of free fatty acids in type II diabetes by. . .making more sugar, which is exactly what the body doesn't need. There must surely be a reason, too, a good well-designed one, for autoimmune diseases: having our bodies tear themselves to pieces on a cellular level; I can't wait to hear why that feature was built in. It's almost as if once we've had children, just about anything can happen to us.

I'll stop there. I could go on for pages. Suffice it to say that when I look at the biochemistry of living systems, I see an amazingly complex system, wonderful to behold. And it's held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and weathered pieces of wood - whatever was handy, and whatever worked. It's almost as if it's just been tinkering along for a billion years.

Comments (133) + TrackBacks (2) | Category: Current Events | Intelligent Design


1. peej on November 7, 2005 10:48 PM writes...

Derek- maybe you have hit on the "not so intelligent design" theory.

Personally, I think your observations just give credence to my explanation that all life is being designed by a bunch of competing 14 year old boys in some giant sim game. Multiple Not-So- Intelligent designers, as it were.

Now I just have to convice a school board to include this in the curriculum for fair balance.

Permalink to Comment

2. biohombre on November 8, 2005 12:02 AM writes...

Hmmmmm. Duct tape, chewing gum and pieces of wood? With over 100 genes ( involved in maintaining the fidelity of DNA, (or over 500 proteins involved in DNA replication & maintenance; Nature 409, 860-921 ) it strikes me as just a bit more elegant and just a bit less jury-rigged than you imply! I do not know if it has a failure rate to satisfy rigorous 'sigma six', or better self-maintenance than Mac OSX (10.4.3), but I suspect it may do better than some manufacturers of our commodity electronics!

Permalink to Comment

3. Clark on November 8, 2005 1:01 AM writes...

Friend of mine is a born-again microbiologist. Was a creationist for a long time. Is now an IDer of the flavor of God giving an occassional nudge. Is this so bad? It led him to 'predict' that all the junk DNA was not junk but actually useful in ways we hadn't yet determined. (And this is turning out to be a lot more true than was apparent 10 years ago. As an example, the viral fragments may be useful for jumping genes) It did NOT cause him to stop looking for the evolutionary things (remember he believes that only the occassional nudge is necessary). While I think it is a violation of Occam's Razor, it is largely a harmless bent that actually provides a different (and thus useful) perspective as long as not taken too far.

If what is bad about ID is the camel's nose, then we should be honest and say so.


Permalink to Comment

4. David on November 8, 2005 3:57 AM writes...

The ID movement, as articulated by the Discovery Institute and its associates, denigrates the hard work of scientists and makes a mockery of the process of scientific discovery. By actively attempting to defecate on evolutionary science for purposes of suplanting good science education with religious dogma, the "ID movement" of the Discovery Institute (DI) positions itself not at the nose, but in the heart of the camel's bowels. One wonders whether the ID proponent who favors "God's occassional nudge" can be left unscathed by the foul fumes of the DI approach. Where is the line between a "harmless bent providing a different perspective" and a religious zeal that would, through distortion and faulty reasoning, joyfully violate your freedom of religious choice and that of your children?

Permalink to Comment

5. daen on November 8, 2005 4:37 AM writes...

biohombre, DNA copying and repair mechanisms certainly do ensure remarkably high fidelity. Except when they don't. There are diseases which affect these repair mechanisms (for example, the XRCC and xeroderma pigmentosum disease genes), and certain DNA polymerases are lower fidelity than others.

If one in three copies of OSX spontaneously developed an electronic cancer, I wouldn't consider that a "six sigma" result.

If there is a Designer, then He is not entirely right in the head. Or He really doesn't like us very much.

Permalink to Comment

6. qetzal on November 8, 2005 8:00 AM writes...


I fail to see how ID adds anything useful. How does ID lead one to predict that most non-coding DNA has a function?

That said, I have no objection to anyone pursuing the scientific implications of ID as they perceive them. In fact, I wish more ID proponents would do exactly that.

The problem with ID is not the camel's nose. The problem is that most major ID proponents claim that there is significant evidence for ID, when there is not. Many ID proponents claim that evolution is a 'theory in crisis' or some such. Also untrue.

A great many ID proponents want high school instruction in evolution to be watered down or subject to special caveats (evolution is 'just a theory'). A significant subset want ID taught as an alternative 'theory.'

The reality, of course, is that there is virtually no scientific evidence that supports ID. There is certainly no scientific theory of ID. In most cases, ID isn't even formulated as a testable scientific hypothesis.

Despite all this, some people want to force the teaching of ID in public science classes. And it's quite clear that they want this because it furthers their religious goals. This is a perversion of science and a perversion of public schooling.

Adults who choose to believe in ID (despite lack of evidence) are not the problem. The problem is adults who want to teach kids that ID is well-suppported science, when it clearly isn't.

Permalink to Comment

7. Tom Bartlett on November 8, 2005 8:52 AM writes...

I wish we were intelligently designed. Except, I'd be out of a job. But, I guess I'd be able to throw away my eyeglasses.....

Permalink to Comment

8. SteveSC on November 8, 2005 9:13 AM writes...

The issue of a creator, whether a 'nudger', 'clockmaker', or raging Zeus, is properly the realm of religion. We don't have enough knowledge to know whether, in a probabilistic universe, there is some 'intelligence' who is loading the dice.

The problem in the public schools is that the religious zealots are rising up to battle the 'anti-religious' zealots. Intelligent design is a tactic used to oppose those who believe that freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion and teach kids that evolution 'proves' there is no god.

When zealots of one stripe want witchcraft, astrology, mysticism, and various "man is the source of all destruction to Gaia" tenets taught in the public schools, and oppose teaching the Bible as literature, or even Shakespeare, it is no wonder that zealots of another stripe rise to oppose them. To be credible, scientists that oppose ID should be just as energetic opposing ALL the pseudo-science in the public schools.

Permalink to Comment

9. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 9:32 AM writes...

Steve, I'm ready, willing, and able. Anyone who wants to point out organized efforts to teach voodoo or the like, please do. (As an amateur astronomer, you can imagine how much time I have for astrology, for example).

And I regard much current environmentalism as a religion. (I remember the first time I came across that idea, in a speech by Michael Crichton. It was disconcerting, because there are a lot of things about Crichton that I don't like, but when I read that, I thought "Yeah. . .of course. . .")

Fuzzy Gaia-ism is probably the biggest load of rubbish in the school system, measured by volume. But as far as I can see, Intelligent Design has the highest muzzle velocity these days.

Permalink to Comment

10. Tom Bartlett on November 8, 2005 10:04 AM writes...

I think "freedom FROM religion" is pretty much my most cherished aspect of the Bill of Rights. And it pisses me off every time I hear some demagog politican invoking the Deity to sell soap, or justify bombing civilians or any other Christian purpose.

I agree with Derek that fuzzy Gaia-ism is rubbish, but I would also argue that global warming, whatever your political leanings may be is THE most critical issue facing humanity this century.

Permalink to Comment

11. PandaFan on November 8, 2005 10:22 AM writes...

If we are designed, not only did the designer not let us synthesize vitamin C, said designer left a nearly functional gene for the process behind (which looks suspiciously like the functional ones in other mammals, save the function destroying mutation).

Permalink to Comment

12. fool on November 8, 2005 11:07 AM writes...


The underlining assumption of your critique of the "unitellegent design" is that the creator's intention was to let man live forever disease free.

It was, untill sin entered. Remember what the God of the bible said:"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. Genesis 2:17” And when Adam did, God said "“ Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”

Obviously, a dramatic change at the DNA level was brought about with that curse, whcih would explain the things you mentioned regarding DNA and just human pain and suffering in general.

Permalink to Comment

13. Timothy on November 8, 2005 11:16 AM writes...

Apparently that God fellow is a real jerk.

Permalink to Comment

14. fool on November 8, 2005 11:29 AM writes...

With all the voodoos out there in this world, it can be mighty confusing...well it actually is! You all are rigthfully skeptical and should be at anything that sounds like a fairy tale.

But I submit to you that the Bible and the God of Israel can hardly be compared to the other voodoos, with thousands of years of researchable history and countless scientists of all fields behind it. I have a humble suggestion to all of you skeptics. Assume the biblical account of origin to be true, and use ITS account (not your own version) to examine it against the facts and see if it makes sense beyond reasonable doubt.

Like I said before Kurt Wise and Ken Ham ( are excellent references.

Permalink to Comment

15. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 11:32 AM writes...

Fool, I can see why you recommend Kurt Wise, since you seem to be on the same wavelength. I really can see why, if you stipulate at the beginning that the bible is the inerrant word of God, why you come to the conclusions that you do. It's just that I don't (and can't) start from that premise.

But that leaves us no room, in the end, to discuss anything. Anything the scientists think that they can explain? They're wrong. God created it to look like that. And the things that the scientists can't yet explain? They can't, because God did them. How do we know that? Because it says so here in his book. And how do we know it's his book? Because it says that it is. We have God's word that it's the Word of God.

Case closed, for those with enough religious faith to take all that in. Case not closed, for those who align with the system of thought that has built the technology we're now using to argue these points.

Permalink to Comment

16. Jim on November 8, 2005 12:24 PM writes...

Here's an interesting question (at least I think). Do we know more about the universe than we do not know? Surely we know much more about the universe than we did 4000 years (or yesterday for that matter) ago but do we know more about it than we don't know? Likewise, do we know more about the simplist living organism on earth than we don't know? With every question we answer don't we create 3 more? I think we (as scientists) often have an extremely arrogant view of things. We act as if we have it all figured out (as compared to our ancestors thousands of years ago) when in fact we do not. To be sure, science constantly moves forward and it provides the basis for the advance of civilazation in many respects but we are not even close to having all the answers. Is ID science? That's a tough question. Is an archeologist or anthropologist sifting through a pile of rocks looking for primative tools practicing science? Is natural selection by random mutation truely random?

Should we teach our kids it is truely random and that this is an irrefutable fact?

Permalink to Comment

17. jim on November 8, 2005 12:29 PM writes...

Just so there's no confusion, the idiot "Jim" above me is not, well, me, the "jim" of yesterday's posts. I wouldn't want my rep soiled by this vegetable who can't tell that ID isn't science.

Permalink to Comment

18. RKN on November 8, 2005 12:55 PM writes...

  Suffice it to say that when I look at the biochemistry of living systems, I see an amazingly complex system, wonderful to behold.

Me too, but...

  And it's held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and weathered pieces of wood - whatever was handy, and whatever worked.

With all due respect to you, Derek (and I mean that), I loudly disagree.

I would invite inlookers to take a gander at this and then decide for themselves if it looks more like duct tape, gum, and driftwood, or rather more like a printed circuit board.

Does this provide evidence for the design[ER] or in any identify who it is? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Does it infer design? I think any intellectually honest person would have to say it does. Could it have self-assembled via the preferential selection of accumulated mistakes? That thought experiment is left to the reader.

Permalink to Comment

19. qetzal on November 8, 2005 1:10 PM writes...

Jim (not jim) asked:

Should we teach our kids it is truely random and that this is an irrefutable fact?

No. But we should teach our kids that evolution is the best and only scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. It is the only explanation that is well supported by scientific evidence. It's the only explanation that has repeatedly made successful predictions about what we should expect to observe in appropriate contexts.

Does that prove that it's correct? No. Does a lack of scientific evidence for a designer prove one doesn't exist? No!

If there really are public school teachers who routinely claim that science disproves God and that the universe is irrefutably undesigned, they should be firmly corrected or fired. However, I suspect this is largely a strawman argument. I don't know of any recent cases where parents felt compelled to sue schools for teaching atheism. Contrast that with the many recent controveries involving inappropriate attempts to slip religion into science class: Dover PA, Cobb County GA, Kansas State Board of Education (more than once now), ....

To be clear, I'm just as opposed to teaching atheism in public schools as any other religious tenets. But I'm also skeptical of SteveSC's implication that this is a major overt problem.

Permalink to Comment

20. Nathan on November 8, 2005 1:47 PM writes...

Listen people, it's all very simple:
Teaching that the universe was "created" (or designed) is a RELIGIOUS statement.
Teaching that the universe was "created" from nothing by chance is also a RELIGIOUS statement.

Either teach both or teach neither.

The vast majority of nonscientists understand the simplicity of this. Why do so few scientists?

Permalink to Comment

21. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 1:52 PM writes...

RKN, those metabolic pathway charts are always impressive-looking. (Until recently there was an older version taped to a wall downstairs from my office). But I can just as easily look at it and see two billion years of "whatever worked". Our imaginations seem to run in different ways.

Earlier generations of humans looked at the cathedral-like complexity of cave formations and clouds, the fine structures of snowflakes and crystalline outcrops, and the curved and carved patterns of eroded rocks, and decided that these things must have been built.

And built they could have been, if you believe in a God that set up the physical laws involved and sat back to see what they could do. I have no problem with such a Deity. I do have a problem with one that could faked everything to make it look as if such laws were in operation, though.

Permalink to Comment

22. jim on November 8, 2005 1:55 PM writes...

For something so "simple", you sure misunderstand it. The theories you think you have a problem with DON'T require that the universe was created from nothing by chance.

Permalink to Comment

23. fool on November 8, 2005 2:06 PM writes...


I find it perplexing that highly educated people would believe without such faith that, as complex as life is, there can simply be one explaination--evolution and a God cannot have designed all this.
Do you really have that big of a faith to believe billions of years plus NOTHING will give rise to one single cell, let alone humans?

I have to say you're among the most intellectually fair-minded persons on this board. No offense to anyone else.

Permalink to Comment

24. fool on November 8, 2005 2:10 PM writes...


"you sure misunderstand it. The theories you think you have a problem with DON'T require that the universe was created from nothing by chance."

Please give your insights on how the first atom (or whatever) came to exist without invoking God or something like God.

Permalink to Comment

25. jim on November 8, 2005 2:20 PM writes...

An interesting question, fool, and one currently being addressed through ACTUAL RESEARCH. While you may find it hard to get your head around, I also don't have a problem with the thought that "God" or whoever got the ball rolling. My point in this case was that this in no way invalidates Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian, really) evolution and natural selection, and vice versa.

Permalink to Comment

26. fool on November 8, 2005 2:22 PM writes...

"I do have a problem with one (God) that could faked everything to make it look as if such laws were in operation, though"

I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. But it'd certainly make sense to me that when God created Adam, he didn't make a baby Adam and allow the "physical laws" to make him a grown man just so that years later people like you and me can make sense of our carbon dating. He surely would've made a grown man to begin with. And the same goes for the rest of the creation.

Permalink to Comment

27. Nathan on November 8, 2005 2:28 PM writes...

Of course "God" doesn't invalidate Darwinian evolution. The two can be absolutely compatible. However, I don't want it to be taught that chance mutation (biological universe) or chance collisions (physical universe) created what we see and know. By saying this, scientists are essentially making "chance" thier creator. I choose to have "God" as the creator, not chance. Both are RELIGIOUS viewpoints and either both or niether should be taught in schools.

Permalink to Comment

28. David on November 8, 2005 2:33 PM writes...

This fear-mongering about school teachers using evolution to teach that “God doesn’t exist” – where does it come from? Have there been any published studies of this? How many public school teachers are stupid enough to think that science has an answer to the existence of God question, and how many live in a social context that would allow them to make such a bold public statement without being called on it? Really folks, kids do talk to their parents and real cases of “God-denial” would stand out like a fish out of water.

The problem rather is that many parents and “community leaders” PERCIEVE that evolutionary science threatens their beliefs about God – especially those who subscribe to biblical literalism. This of course is the reason behind the “ID movement” which effectively argues “my God doesn’t exist and my moral standards don’t mean anything, if evolution is a fact, and current evolutionary theory is an accurate representation of the history of life”. Never mind that evolutionary theory is not considered the “ultimate truth” but rather the best explanation consistent with the mountains of evidence. Never mind that it is tentative and revisable. People threatened by evolutionary science usually haven’t taken the time and energy to understand it, but there is also the complication that deep belief systems are often difficult to reconcile with reasoned and reasonable views of the evidence and the scientific processes that develop and support scientific theories.

Permalink to Comment

29. jim on November 8, 2005 2:49 PM writes...

I couldn't have said it much better than David. Can anyone provide evidence for this supposed concerted campaign by science teachers to impose atheism on their students?

Permalink to Comment

30. fool on November 8, 2005 2:54 PM writes...


"Never mind that evolutionary theory is not considered the “ultimate truth” but rather the best explanation consistent with the mountains of evidence. "

I'm not so sure about that. What you have is a mountain of evidence being interpreted as for evolution which is also consistant with creation. And there's also another mountain of evidence against evolution, such as the gaping gap in fossil records for transitional species.

Permalink to Comment

31. fool on November 8, 2005 2:57 PM writes...


"An interesting question, fool, and one currently being addressed through ACTUAL RESEARCH. While you may find it hard to get your head around.."

Indeed that's beyond what my mind can fathom how one can create energy/substance out of nothing. Not only will these researchers shut people like me up, they will also solve our energy crisis!

Permalink to Comment

32. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 2:57 PM writes...

Fool writes:

"I find it perplexing that highly educated people would believe without such faith that, as complex as life is, there can simply be one explaination--evolution and a God cannot have designed all this."

Science forces us to deal with the evidence we have in front of us, whether we find it comforting or not. The evidence I have in front of me is tha evolution occurs right now (as in bacteria, for example). The speciation found on isolated islands and such cases strongly suggests that it has occurred to produce a variety of other living species in the same manner. And the fossil record strongly suggests that it has occurred in the past, in the same manner. And the biochemical record (DNA analysis) strongly suggests that it occurred in the past, too, leaving thousands and thousands of clear traces and clear connections between species.

All of these lines of evidence agree with each other in degree, in kind, and in timing. They point the same way, and at the same thing. What I find perplexing is how all this can be ignored or brushed aside, and why I am supposed to do likewise.

Permalink to Comment

33. jim on November 8, 2005 3:12 PM writes...

It's amazing that you can even find ways to selectively quote a three-sentence paragraph. Is that stuff in the ID handbook?

Permalink to Comment

34. fool on November 8, 2005 3:17 PM writes...


As a scientist myself, I'm all for examining the facts. What I have been trying to get across is these facts could be interpreted differently according to one's onw world view.


I didn't quote your entire post to save space. And the quote was NOT out of context. Just answer my previous question if you want to.

Permalink to Comment

35. jim on November 8, 2005 3:30 PM writes...

Actually, grammar commander (fool), it WAS out of context. The part I thought you would have trouble understanding was my ability to allow for the existence of a god (even one that created existence itself) without rejecting well-established science.

Permalink to Comment

36. Timothy on November 8, 2005 3:36 PM writes...

Fool: it sounds like you've been reading too much Kuhn.

Permalink to Comment

37. David on November 8, 2005 3:40 PM writes...

fool: “What you have is a mountain of evidence being interpreted as for evolution which is also consistant (sic) with creation. And there's also another mountain of evidence against evolution, such as the gaping gap in fossil records for transitional species.”

My case substantiated by “fool”, who apparently knows little or nothing about 1) geological time; 2) the processes whereby fossils are produced 3) the probabilities for a full series of graded transitions to be preserved, 4) the probabilities for fossils to remain unchanged over geological time, 5) the probabilities that fossils would have been discovered given the effort to date and 6) the plethora of transitional forms so far discovered showing grades of evolution in such animals such as horses, whales, etc. Negative arguments from ignorance seem to be the fuel for the ID fire.

While on this tirade, I’d like to comment on the misconception so often pushed by ID proponents that feeds into the frenzied backlash against evolutionary science taught in schools. It speaks to the random origins issue so problematic for some in this discussion.

Jim (capital “J”) says “Is natural selection by random mutation truely (sic) random?”

Again, (J)im needs some further study, or to think more about ID pronouncements touting the idea that evolution is entirely random. Evolution is anything but random, although some random processes, such as mutation and natural disasters, factor into evolutionary change. Evolutionary change builds on existing organisms and the ecosystems they live in/create. Co-evolution, and convergent evolution point clearly to the interplay of random and non-random factors in evolution.

Permalink to Comment

38. fool on November 8, 2005 3:41 PM writes...

"Change over time" doesnot translate into "inorganic substance to life". Creation has no problem with change over time, but differs in degree and time frame.

Speaking of the fossil records, how does one explain the absence of transitional species, which would abound if evolution were true.
Point is evolution is full of more holes than it's proponents would like to admit.

Permalink to Comment

39. fool on November 8, 2005 3:47 PM writes...


"The part I thought you would have trouble understanding was my ability to allow for the existence of a god (even one that created existence itself) without rejecting well-established science."

Why would I have trouble. I agree with you on this one :) And you still haven't answered my question on creating energy from nothing.


Who's Kuhn?

Permalink to Comment

40. David on November 8, 2005 4:04 PM writes...

fool: Speaking of the fossil records, how does one explain the absence of transitional species, which would abound if evolution were true. Point is evolution is full of more holes than it's (sic) proponents would like to admit.

I guess you miss my point (in 37). You are either too stupid or too lazy to actually learn about how fossils are created, how they are affected by geological processes, and why we don’t have relatively full series of intermediates for all species, but do have pretty complete series for some.

Like all of the main ID “leaders” you have no scientific evidence to communicate for “design” but you seem to be well-versed in the fallacious negative critiques of evolution. Probably reading Wells (Icons of Evolution) rather than Kuhn. Next, will you drag out the “Cambrian Explosion” critique?

Permalink to Comment

41. fool on November 8, 2005 4:16 PM writes...


My training is in chemistry. So I admit my limited understanding in paleontology. Although I do know that some more-than-competent paleontologists seem to have different opinions with you.

I have no idea what “Cambrian Explosion” or who Well is. You seem to know more about these creationists than I do :)

Keep you temper down. We're just having fun here.

Permalink to Comment

42. jim on November 8, 2005 4:17 PM writes...

We have, to some extent, already covered the "origins of the universe" question, and anyways, it's one separate from the matter at hand. The main point related to this discussion is that there is nothing in evolutionary theory which is thermodynamically disallowed.
Of course, you put that damn smiley face in there, so it's hard to stay mad at you...

Permalink to Comment

43. fool on November 8, 2005 4:24 PM writes...


As I have said over and over, I have no issue with "change over time". My problem is with the change being "from nothing eventually to living things".

Permalink to Comment

44. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 4:33 PM writes...

Fool, you really have no issue with "change over time" in species? Even though, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't in the bible? I have to say, you've certainly had me fooled the last couple of days.

Permalink to Comment

45. Tom3 on November 8, 2005 4:49 PM writes...

I hope the intelligent designer isn't the Old Testament God.

He's a psycho.

Permalink to Comment

46. fool on November 8, 2005 4:58 PM writes...


Again, creation has no problem with change over time, but--differs in degree and time frame. And my "change over time" certainly doesnot translate into "inorganic substance to life".

Permalink to Comment

47. God Here on November 8, 2005 4:59 PM writes...

So if God created energy, then who created god? Do gods also have their own gods. Has anyone seen god. I'll also bet that if you question people of different religions around the world, they will insist that their god is better that your god and many will go further and insist that their god is the only god and your god is a piece of shit.

Permalink to Comment

48. fool on November 8, 2005 5:01 PM writes...

And I certainly don't believe in the kind of species-transforming change (e.g. monkey to man).

Permalink to Comment

49. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 5:05 PM writes...

Hmmm. Then can I ask what sort of "change over time" you're willing to accept? What are your cutoffs, in amount of change and in the time it takes to happen? (And while we're at it, what's your definition of a species?) I'm quite interested to see what you find acceptable.

Permalink to Comment

50. LNT on November 8, 2005 5:16 PM writes...

Wow -- 49 posts in less than 24 hours. This has to be a record of some sort!

I still just don't understand what is so threatening about letting kids know that, in fact, Darwinian theories simply can't account for all the diversity of life we see today. (nor for the evolution of the "first" life) That's it. End of story. Let the kids draw thier own conclusions about what happened.

Permalink to Comment

51. SteveSC on November 8, 2005 5:26 PM writes...

I wish I had as much time as you guys to comment in Derek's blog ;-)

Someone asked about the anti-religious teaching in the public schools. I am not aware of any 'published studies', and I doubt a study of this kind would be published anyway. My evidence is anecdotal, from personal reports by family and friends, to stories in the various educationally-related blogs. For example, see a case where a 6 year old's poster about environmentalism was not allowed to be 'contaminated' by a picture of Jesus. Other blogs that seem to be fairly neutral occasionally include similar stories, e.g., Educationwonk and Joanne Jacobs. (Disclosure--we homeschool, primarily for academic reasons rather than religious, but we hear all the stories...)

But the link between evolution and anti-religiousness is easily found. Just one example is the editor of Slate clearly proposing that evolution implies no God. "Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch" in his article Evolution vs. Religion--Quit pretending they are compatible.

And parents have a legitimate reason to worry about their kids' education. The recent court decision in California basically said the State can determine what information public school children are exposed to irrespective of the parents wishes.

"We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose." Fields, v Palmdale School District

As an aside, anyone who develops drugs should be worried by the lessons now imparted by schools, i.e., all drugs are bad. Many school systems treat Tylenol the same as heroin, and kids have been expelled for taking a Midol or sharing an asthma inhaler. When these kids grow up and serve on juries, just think of how well prepared they will be to make narrow distinctions about causality and side-effects.

Permalink to Comment

52. Vegetable AKA Jim on November 8, 2005 5:36 PM writes...

Jim (not me),

Sorry. Didn't mean to soil your rep-I didn't even know you had one (goes to show exactly how ignorant vegetables actually are). What is the experiment that tests the hypothosis: the force behind life and the universe is an intelligent designer? There are no experiments to test this hypothesis? Please share your thoughts on this with me. If there is an intelligent designer did IT (whatever it was) have to make it's design perfectly?

David: Is random mutation truely random? Something is random if we see no pattern to it but just because we see no pattern to it (yet) does not mean it is random. Granted, if we see no pattern (yet) it is not scientific to say well "god did it". I agree. But random is no argument at all. It is the lack of an argument. It is, "well, I can't make sense of it so its random". Some things may be truely random but not everything labeled as random is random.

I have only just seen this site today so you guys have covered all of this stuff before so just ignore if I am bringing up old uninteresting arguments. No matter what, in this argument, the boudaries of science and philosophy overlap-that is one of things that makes this argument so interesting to so many.

You are correct. Many Christians look at evolution as a threat. There is some reason for that, one of which is that some have used evolution improperly to "prove" there is no god (thus the Christian feels under siege). Another one of the reasons for their thinking is true ignorance. There is no reason for a Christian to be threatened by evolution at all. What threat does evolution pose to Christianity? If Christianity is the truth (and I say it is) then true science can pose no threat whatsoever.

Evolution (which is a broad term poorly defined in most of these arguments) itself is undeniable. Who can argue it? Seriously? We can watch bacteria mutate and become resistant to certain drugs, etc. Do parents really have a difficult time teaching that in our classrooms? Do Christian parents really have a difficult time with us teaching that the Earth is 6 billion years old based on certain radiodating techniques? There are exceptions but talk about a straw man. The question is, does evolution explain the origin of life? The question is, what of the Cambrian explosion (I'll take the bait Fool would not)? Punctuated equilibria? The question is what is the mechanism by which evolution occurs? Do we truely understand it or do we have a near complete grasp of it? My opinion is that we do not understand it as well as we think (scientific arrogance). There is plenty more work to be done.

Science teachers do not routinely use evolution to prove there is no god (there are always exceptions)-this is a strawman argument-I agree. That was not my point.

The best we can do is to teach the observations we have made with the theories we have developed to explain these observations (true objectivity is impossible though). Then let the student take it from there. The Truth will eventually win the day.

Permalink to Comment

53. David on November 8, 2005 6:20 PM writes...

Fool (41): My training is in chemistry. So I admit my limited understanding in paleontology. Although I do know that some more-than-competent paleontologists seem to have different opinions with you.

There you go. My degrees are in Chemistry, Biology and Science Education. I doubt that you would agree with someone who would deny that carbon single-bonding is tetrahedral, or would claim that lead can be transmuted into gold, especially if these claims are not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever.

So then I wonder why you would make pronouncements about the “gaping gaps” in the fossil record, without actually understanding a) whether there are gaps, b) whether there are any well-established graded series that have been discovered, and c) whether we can rationally expect to see abundant graded series as you claim (“how does one explain the absence of transitional species, which would abound if evolution were true.”). Whether or not you have a Paleontologist friend who might disagree with me, the scientific knowledge from fossils strongly supports the fundamental theories of evolution, even though we have found relatively few DETAILED graded series of intermediate fossil species (We have tons of broad scale (time-wise) series of graded fossil transitions). The fossil record captures only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have lived, so this is to be expected. But nothing from the fossil records discovered so far indicates that the evolution theory is an inaccurate description of the known evidence. I’m certain that you would discover this by doing the research.

Perhaps you do not support the ID proponents who would like to wedge their form of religious dogma into the school curriculum as a substitute for biological evolution theories (which threaten their religious views), but by not doing your homework, by supporting blatantly inaccurate accusations against the science of biological evolution, you offer less than a good role model for rational fact-based science education.

Permalink to Comment

54. God Here on November 8, 2005 6:44 PM writes...

The reason that "the fossil record captures only a fraction of the organisms that have lived" is that I converted most of it to coal, oil and gas for your consumption.

Permalink to Comment

55. David on November 8, 2005 6:50 PM writes...

God to the rescue, once again.

Permalink to Comment

56. fool on November 8, 2005 7:14 PM writes...


I'm not ready to concede yet :) I'm busy setting up reactions now. Spent WAY too much time typing here...

Permalink to Comment

57. David on November 8, 2005 7:23 PM writes...

Fair enough. And by the way - my apologies for stepping beyond the bounds of reasonable, rational discussion (40).

Permalink to Comment

58. vegetable Jim on November 8, 2005 7:26 PM writes...

The original rant started over intelligent design and how Derek just cannot see why it should be taught as science or in a public school in any way (the Dover case). As the post grew more and more bias (including my own) came into play. I think the argument here is really misunderstood. At issue is whether the mechanism for evolution is understood. Is it truly random mutation or intelligent design. You call it random and we call it design. You say its a crumby, lousy, poorly concieved design and we say it is brilliant and genious. Which is correct and which better aligns itself with the facts? We can each decide based on examination of the evidence we do have (without the spin from either side).

I think Christians misunderstand the importance of the ID argument. It is not an argument for converting chuckleheads like some of you. It is not a stand-alone argument to make sure our children hold to our values. It will fail nearly everytime when used by itself in these ways. If what we (Christians) believe is true there had better be better proof and evidence than the study of some old rocks and bones. The truth had better be stamped onto each of us so as to leave us without excuse (end sermon).

When we teach evolution we ought to be careful and not overstate the case though (there-David and I agree). It is a theory to explain facts that we can observe and measure-and it is an excellent theory at that. Like all theories it is a living thing in itself subject to revision and careful scrutiny. We ought to be able to ask (and we can) is this theory adequate to explain this or that. And we ought to be able to do so without be labeled a scientific heretic. Evolution is not a philosophy to do away with the idea of a god and when it becomes a philosophy it crosses the line. It does not explain the origin of life (something science will never be able to prove-no one, except of course, 'God here', was there-making the fossil fuels we use today no doubt). It has other holes too but both sides are polarizing it to the point where it pretty much cannot be taught or argued anymore with any kind of objectivity (including from me). Pandora's box is open now though-who can close it?

Permalink to Comment

59. Si on November 8, 2005 7:34 PM writes...

I don't understand why this has to be such an issue. There exist thousands of theories about thousands of subjects, but not all of them can be taught and not all of them are worth being taught. There is Atomic Theory, Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VESPR) Theory, Crystal Field Theory, String Theory, Hund's Theory of Maximum Multiplicity, and, of course, Si's It-Will-Never-Work-As-Well-As-It-Did-The-First-Time Theory. All of these are great theories that help us understand a myriad of problems all around us, yet I don't think they all need to be taught in our public elementary schools. Scientific theories need to be taught to our youth so they understand science and how ideas are generated (and proven wrong). Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still just a theory, but it is a darn good one used successfully every day in the laboratory (random mutagenesis, phage display etc). ID, on the other hand, is a (potentially) competing theory with very little scientific support and, consequently, shouldn't even be an alternative suggestion for something as well grounded as evolution. It can be taught by parents or churches or whomever, but like String Theory, isn't exactly ready for high-school classrooms.

Permalink to Comment

60. Eric on November 8, 2005 7:38 PM writes...

LNT (50)"I still just don't understand what is so threatening about letting kids know that, in fact, Darwinian theories simply can't account for all the diversity of life we see today."

I personally don't find it threatening if a teacher were to leave it at that statement and move on. I do find it a waste of valuable time to teach ID in a Science classroom. Why stop at ID? Why not any other "theory"? Do they all deserve equal time? The point is that we have more tangible evidence for evolution than any other theory available. Thus, why teach other theories in Science class until this ceases to be the case? In my opinion, ID would be a topic more constructively discussed in a class about Philosophy or Religion.

Permalink to Comment

61. kevin on November 8, 2005 7:42 PM writes...

Sure evolution can happen. But so can intelligent design. How else do you explain Round-up ready corn and Golden rice?

Permalink to Comment

62. Si on November 8, 2005 7:43 PM writes...

Eric makes a great point! ID would be a wonderful topic for a philosophy course!

Permalink to Comment

63. daen on November 8, 2005 8:19 PM writes...

Si, ID isn't even in the same taxonomical system as string theory.

String theory, in all its many forms, has mathematicians and physicists of the highest intellectual calibre working on it. Many hundreds of papers have been published in top rated journals.

ID has ... well, advocates of Intelligent Design working on it and they publish in the Journal of Creation and Creation Magazine (they have to : no other publisher will touch their stuff with a ten-foot olive branch).

Permalink to Comment

64. Si on November 8, 2005 8:33 PM writes...

Sorry. It was supposed to be a satirical juxtaposition illustrating the only thing the two have in common.

Permalink to Comment

65. CJ Croy on November 8, 2005 8:35 PM writes...


"I still just don't understand what is so threatening about letting kids know that, in fact, Darwinian theories simply can't account for all the diversity of life we see today."

I do because that is false, misleading and threatening. Darwinian theories can account for all the diversity of life we see today. All of it. I'd like to hear one specific example of diversity of life that Darwinian evolution not only doesn't, but is incapable of accounting for.

"nor for the evolution of the "first" life"
Evolution != Abiogenesis. Neither of them require each other. Evolution would still be true if the first cell spontaneously arose from abiogenesis or if God put it there. The various hypothesis's about abiogenesis could still possibly be true even if the various Theories of Evolution were all proven to be a total communist atheist lie that the overwhelming majority of living biologists were "In" on.

"Let the kids draw thier own conclusions about what happened."
Would you apply this same logic to the Holocaust? After all, there's a number of people that dispute that the Holocaust happened. Wouldn't it be fair to Teach the Controversy and just let the kids draw their own conclusions about whether it happened or not?

Permalink to Comment

66. Derek Lowe on November 8, 2005 8:56 PM writes...

CJ, although I agree with you, I feel obligated to point out that you're about as close as can be to violating Godwin's Law.

Permalink to Comment

67. David on November 8, 2005 8:57 PM writes...

Vegetable Jim (59), what really is your answer to Derek’s question: “Should ID be taught as science or in a public school in any way?”

Whether creating fossil fuels, or nudging evolutionary processes, God’s actions, being supernatural, are not amenable to science. ID, with its fundamental basis in supernatural causation, is not science – it is religion.

To pretend that ID is science is a huge disservice both to science and to religious thought . This is what the Discovery Institute is doing with its form of ID. It is pushing and wedging its version of ID into schools, churches, and communities with the goal to supplant science with a particular form of religious belief system (and this has come out clearly in the Dover Panda Trial). Make no doubt – the “intelligent designer” of ID is indeed a Christian God and not a Flying Spaghetti Monster or the god of any other religion. The Discovery Institute and those who follow its strategy are not interested in education, but indoctrination.

Biological evolution theories, like all scientific theories, are tentative and revisable. But not by ‘pretend science’ based on false negative arguments. Because ‘we cannot explain something’ or because ‘we don’t have a full understanding’ of something is not a valid argument for “God did it”. It is not valid science to believe God Here’s claim (55) that he (or she) purposefully turned organisms into oil for human use and consequently winnowed out the fossil record. It is equally invalid to claim that complex living systems prove “intelligent design” (thanks for that point, God Here).

My guess that most of the fears about “evolution theory being used to teach atheism” are being promoted by – you guessed it – ID proponents, although I have no empirical evidence for this. This is not to say that concerns about teachers subverting science for this are not legitimate, but rather that those concerns are blown far out of proportion by people who stand to benefit from heightened fear over it happening.

The plaintiffs in the Dover Panda Trial concluded that ID is NOT SCIENCE and has no place in science classes. They acknowledged ID as a religious idea and graciously suggested that it might have a place in philosophy classes, comparative religious classes or social studies classes. Given the underhanded and fundamentally corrupt tactics of the Discovery Institute (DI), I doubt whether there is any place for its form of ID in any of these non-science classes. For all of those who in this discussion have presented reasonable arguments for having a religious (not scientific) discussion about the role of a god in either creation or the turning of the evolutionary clock, then I would suggest working to get the DI out of ID.

Permalink to Comment