Yes, we read the article (and thanks for asking in such a mature and pleasant way).

""Schools censor from students the evidence against evolution."

The problem is that there IS no scientific evidence against evolution. Yes, there are questions that people like to ask about evolution, and if these are asked and answered using REAL science, that is great. But the above quote makes it clear that these people want to teach students that there IS scientific evidence against evolution, and if they can't find any REAL evidence they will use the lies and nonsense they pull off of creationist web sites. THAT is not intellectual honesty.

"they are just teaching students to ask questions and challenge the information that has been taught to them."

Such as... ?

If a teacher is incapable of understanding evolution then the solution is that they should not be able to teach it.

they are just teaching students to ask questions and challenge the information that has been taught to them.

Except there is no valid challenge or information against evolution. What should be challenged is any religious explanation in lieu of evolution.

It is a teachers job to open a student up to all the possibilities and provide information about all of them.

And those possibilities should be based on facts or empirical evidence. Not on dogma or simple minded belief.

It is up to the student to make his or her decision about what they believe.

Evolution is not based on "belief." It's based on actual, factual, and valid science with supporting empirical evidence. just because someone wants to "believe" differently, does not change the fact or validity surrounding evolution.

Plus, if you are dead set on evolution being the only possible explanation for the world today, I don't see why having a teacher present you facts about the other side of it would be a big deal.

By all means, provide a logical and empirically supported alternative explanation to evolution! As it is, there is none, nor is there an "other side" to evolution.

Aren't you glad Galalleo stood up to what he was taught through persecution and proved we revolve around the sun not vice versa?

And Galileo supported his claims with observational evidence, not "belief."

Don't always close out your mind to something just because everyone else has.

Sorry, but religious nonsense or dogma should be closed out because it's not science, much less an alternative explanation for anything. It's not bound by facts or any supporting evidence whatsoever!

Technically, there is no such thing as "half evolved," because it implies that evolution has a goal. All species are simply evolved to the place they are now, having had the same amount of time to do so as all the others.

Technically, my post was comprised of 100% sarcasm. You know, where you say something that you do not really mean? Yeah...

Yes, I was going to start with "all humor aside" or some such caveat, but I decided to just be an annoying busy-body and leave it at that.

Fair enough. Cheers mate!

How about we quit teaching anything at all? That will appease both camps and then society will rapidly become even more ignorant than it already is. In this way it'll be much easier to shove whatever bogus faith you wish down anyone's throat! Everyone wins!

"Evolution at its finest has so many holes it is rediculous"

That is simply false. There are unanswered questions, but there is NO evidence against evolution, and vast amounts of evidence for it. Anyone who tells you differently is simply lying. I have been studying evolution for 30 years, and arguing about it with anti-science creationists for almost as long. Nobody has ever been able to come up with any argument that somehow disproves evolution. Ever.

Like I said, you guys want to hang on to your evolution theory so badly it doesn't matter how much DATA is handed to you. It is your Belief! Evolution has not been proven, but stated and taught as if it were. If you want at least to be fair the schools should teach both.

"it doesn't matter how much DATA is handed to you."

Yes, it does. I am a scientist, and if anybody ever hands me data that refutes evolution, I will take notice. I'm still waiting. I have studied a great deal of data on evolution in the last 30 years, and so far it all fits quite elegantly into the evolutionary framework.

Burden of Destiny

The existence of God hasn't been proven either. Your belief in God relies upon faith and argue as much as you like, having faith in something is not the same as knowing something. I could list many examples but I don't have the rest of my life to spend doing so. Yes, the Bible states that such a being exists but then again the Bible (the Old Testament to be more precise) also paints God as a jealous and beligerent warmongerer with little to no regard for human life and yet people continue to cling to Him and proclaim Him to be a merciful, loving God. You are of course entitled to think whatever you wish and believe in whatever you choose to believe and I for one would never attempt to take that from you. However, if you wish your children or others to be taught about God and ID then they should receive such an education voluntarily and at Church not in a public school that is mandatory to attend until a certain age.

Tell you what, Burden Of Destiny: you name one of these "holes" and if it can be demonstrated that you are mistaken, you will openly admit to it and agree to never, ever use that same argument again.

Dear Burden --

Please ignore any information you might recieve about the effectiveness of vaccines or the increasing drug resistent strains of many bacteria, because it is only a theory that the vaccines might work or that the bacteria might kill you (and many of us) in the future.

This is not, and never was, an issue of "both sides" -- there are no sides. Faith is belief in the unseen, and science is belief in the observed.

Exactly, faith is the belief in the unseen. Just like my God hasn't been proven to you, because you do not wish to find him. Evolution is your faith and not proven. So, why is it so horrible to present both evolution and ID? Isn't it science where all ideas are taken into account. Is the idea of ID to scary for you to at least investigate it. Look into DNA, just a bit. The deeper you go the more there has to be an ID.

The more you look into DNA, and understand what replicators are and that imperfect replicators MUST evolve, the more it makes perfect sense that life is a bunch of machines built by DNA because they have been successful at making more copies of that DNA.

I notice you haven't presented a "hole" yet. Still waiting on that.

Evolution at its finest has so many holes it is rediculous.

Really? What "holes" would those be? By all means, provide evidence to support those "holes" or otherwise which discredits evolution in the slightest and you'll blow the whole theory out of the water.

If you go and do the science yourself and question what is being taught. You would be floored to see all the guessing and theories that are stated as fact.

Evolution is as "factual" as stating America is in the Northern Hemisphere. When a theory, such as evolution, has so much supporting and continuouis empirical evidence, with none to contradict it, it is generally regarded as "fact" by the scientific community. Of course, you seem to equate a guess with a theory. That might explain your apparent lack of knowledge or understanding of evolution.

If you follow the data there is intelligent design, but most of you guys want to hang on to your evolution theory so badly it doesn't matter how much data someone could hand you.. you simply won't look.

On the contrary, provide your "data" for ID up for scientific scrutiny and we'll see!

It is your Belief!

Evolution is not a belief. It's a theory either accepted or rejected based on the available evidence. Now, favoring ID is a belief, as it is just pseudo-religious dogma.

Evolution has not been proven

Yes it has. Certainly far more than ID or other such nonsense.

If you want at least to be fair the schools should teach both.

Sure: ID can go into a religious studies class. It certainly doesn't beloeng in a science class.

Just like my God hasn't been proven to you, because you do not wish to find him. Evolution is your faith and not proven.

Evolution is based on supporting objective empirical evidence. Your god is not. It's too bad you prefer to reject actual and valid science in favor of religious dogma.

So, why is it so horrible to present both evolution and ID? Isn't it science where all ideas are taken into account.

Because ID is not science! Not by a long shot. To even try to put it on the same playing field as evolution is intellectual dishonesty at best.

The deeper you go the more there has to be an ID.

Care to elaborate on that? If anything, DNA analysis only supports evolution.

Burden - I have read enough of your statements to conclude you know little to nothing of the scientific method. It's illogical to take a position against something you know little about.

Oh, that's right. Faith.

Good luck (sincerely)

" Isn't it science where all ideas are taken into account."

No. Only ideas with evidence are taken into account.

Since everyone is soo much smarter than me, tell me why are ocean fossils found on top of all mountains?

Oh, I am so glad you know about DNA, you must know how comlplex the most basic cells are. Sooo, you expect me to believe there was nothing, then BANG! We have a planet, then over millions of years a cell just came together out of primordial ooze. Who is the crazy one? Wait, I know what everyone will say.. it is me! I will happily stay the crazy one with the truth. You guys can keep your theories.

Since everyone is soo much smarter than me, tell me why are ocean fossils found on top of all mountains?

Perhaps you'd care to specify which fossils on which mountains, and at what elevations, as well as the source for your information? While you're at it, care to actually address the challenges made to you?

Sooo, you expect me to believe there was nothing, then BANG! We have a planet, then over millions of years a cell just came together out of primordial ooze.

You expect me to believe that 'BANG!,' "God did it (or a Designer)" All the while providing no evidence for such an assertion whatsoever?

Wait, I know what everyone will say.. it is me!

You got it!

I will happily stay the crazy one with the truth. You guys can keep your theories.

Enjoy your delusions! I'll stick with factual and supported science and actual credibility over your "beliefs" in fairy tales any day.

How about just looking up ocean fossils found on mountains... on the Rockies, Mt. Everest, Himalayas you name it. Do I have to go look up elevations for you too?

is just one of many resources

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

JOHN 1:1
1 ^¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
JOHN 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

GENESIS 1:1
1 ^¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

GENESIS 1:2
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

GENESIS 1:3
3 ^¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

GENESIS 1:4
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

GENESIS 1:5
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That's very simple to explain. The surface or the crust of the Earth are divided into these plates that slide along the mantle, which is a semi solid substance. When these plates collide with on another they some times bind. This action results in land mass being lifted and compressed. Ocean or Sea floors rises with the mass and that is why you see ocean fossils, usually on coastal mountain ranges. If you head away from the mountain range, usually inward the ocean, you will find the trench that runs about the length of the mountain range. This where the rock cycle completes itself as material is forced through due to intenses heat and pressures from below. GPS systems are tracking the progress of this conveyor belt effect of our surfaces in hopes of better understanding triggers to such things as earthquakes. It moves about the growth of finger nails. Very interesting indeed.

is just one of many resources

You're using the bible as the basis of your reference? Are you kidding me? How about something a little less biased and more credible? Because so far, you're sorely lacking in the credibility department. Now, did you see what Skepology did in his post above? He actually provided a logical and empirically objective explanation. You should try it, rather than quote bible verses, as if that somehow lends credibility for your argument. I'm still waiting for you to answer previous challenges put forth too.

As Skepology already pointed out, Burden of Destiny, your question is answered by plate tectonics. But it is also useful to point out that marine fossils found in one strata (even at a higher elevation), are replaced by terrestrial fossils elsewhere in the same strata. Not only that, but you don't find the two together - indicating that this was most certainly not due to a worldwide flood, which would have been a ridiculous assertion in the first place.

I suggest not getting your science from Creationist websites.

Thanks guys you just proved my point. The whole surface of the earth was underwater at some point.

How about this?

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

The Wollemi Pine - a very rare discovery ‘Dinosaur tree’ or ‘living fossil’, the Wollemi Pine is certainly one of the greatest botanical discoveries of our time.

A Jurassic 'shrimp' thought extinct 50 million years ago has been found in Australian waters, a census of marine life shows.

Thanks guys you just proved my point. The whole surface of the earth was underwater at some point

How the hell did you get that from what we just told you, exactly? Care to elaborate on your genius scientific insight?

And living fossils are not unusual. They are predicted by evolutionary theory, and were even predicted in The Origin of Species over 150 years ago.

If the tone of my post was a little harsh, I apologize. But it is a major pet peeve of mine when people who likely have never taken a course in biology act as armchair biologists and bastardize the science that I've devoted my life to.

W...T...F... Really? Really Burden? Which is it? Are you that shallow or ignorant or both? You point to me where I or Ericoo38 said the entire world was once under water. You should visit Japan. No, no they have enough problems. How about you go climb the Himalayas with a ruler and get back with us post a years stay.

I'd like to believe that, but the problem is that the children THINK they adults well give them the correct information. Look around you Doug. The children of the corn have grown up. And now they have some how acquired computers.

You should refrain from going further south then. In Alabama, there are as many churches as there are homes in some areas. Admitting in public that you are not the religious sort is about as uncomfortable an experience as any. Heck, I've been shot in the stomach (excruciatingly painful if you didn't know) before and given the choice between taking another bullet or dealing with the comments that are inevitably made when you make such a statement as being non-religious aloud, that bullet is looking really nice all of a sudden.

They should also make it a point to inform students that gods were created by ancient civilizations as a means of explaining natural phenomena for which they had no other explanation for. Natural disasters, weather, the sun in the sky and anything else that was unexplainable by any other means gave rise to a new god/goddess.

I know they teach Western Civilization courses that cover those points in college but I've never known it to be taught before that. Granted, I attended a very small school (by comparison to most) in Alabama so it is highly unlikely that they'd condone teaching something that defied beliefs that are traditionally held in that particular region. Despite the WC course I took in college dealing much more with Catholicism than I would have liked (though I admit that the Catholic church did play an enormous role within the timeline we were studying) it did help to modify my own beliefs somewhat. Definitely something I would recommend to anyone interested in taking a course for no other reason than simple leisure.

A gross generalization if nothing else. There is intelligent life to be found in "hillbilly" states. It is few and far between but it does in fact exist.

I use to work with a fellow from Tennessee who often said "Tennessee, 6.2 million people, 8 last names." Up until now I thought he was joking.

Yes, in science Laws and Theories are not even the same types of things. A Theory is NOT on its way to become a Law, because it serves a different purpose. The term "Law" is generally reserved for something that can be described by equations; something directly follows from something else. A scientific Theory is much bigger. It is a set of coherent principles that explain a large body of facts and observations (including laws). For example, E = m c-squared is a Law, within the Theory of Relativity.

Not exactly. E=mc^2 is a law because it is a fundamental aspect of the universe in the same way that "roundness" is a fundamental part of a circle. And laws can certainly be equations. The main difference between laws and theories is that laws are descriptions of the qualities of the universe, while theories are hypotheses of cause-effect relationships based on repeated observations.

Laws and facts construct the Theory. Theory is the wall, facts and laws are the bricks, hypotheses is the blueprint for further development of that wall. Theory is the title, facts and laws are the pages. A theory is as strong as its facts and laws. Just like the brick is to the wall. It doesn't even matter if it's used in common term. If there is no facts to support it than it's just a fancy empty container with no use. If someone told me "I have theory your wife is cheating on you." I would have ask "What facts support that theory."

There is NO evidence for ID, at all. Evidence is not just "something that is consistent with" an explanation, it is something which is consistent with only a limited number of explanations. Unfortunately for ID, all of the things it claims as "evidence" are consistent with an unlimited number of alternative explanations, therefore none of them actually narrow the choices toward ID.

I'm actually somewhat curious as to what kind of arguments John has for ID and against the Darwinian theory of evolution. Explain, John.

Promoting atheism in public schools is likewise controversial and inappropriate

Who's promoting atheism? Evolutionary theory has exactly nothing - I repeat - nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. Hell, the renowned geneticist and staunch supporter of evolutionary theory, Francis Collins, is likewise a devout Christian. Statements like "evolutionary theory promotes atheism" display the ignorance of the person that makes them.

Because all the evidence supports both ideologies, if each model is precisely and accurately integrated with the other

No, they don't. In fact, there are certain aspects of nature that are literally inexplicable by ID but explicitly predicted by evolutionary theory.

Find me one scientific paper, published in a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, that supports ID. A single one.

Not to mention Ken Miller, which is a catholic, that stood firm and strong against ID. That is a man I can respect. Even as an atheist. I can think he is silly by having a religious belief, but I'd gladly listen to him if he wanted to teach me. After all, Sir Isaac Newton was also an alchemist, but I would let him teach me about physics.

Briefly, in order to understand evolution, we need to understand speciation.

In order to exemplify how speciation works, consider a cellular 'phylogenetic' tree beginning with a zygote. As that zygote divides and differentiates, the 'potency' of the successive generations of cells diminishes as those cells specialize. Therefore, we infer the same natural law of loss of potency during speciation events at the level of populations of an organism. As populations divide, successive daughter populations lose 'potency' as they specialize. This model correlates quite well with the concept of created kinds (generalists), producing specialists through processes of what science calls evolution.

The simplification of vertebrate and invertebrate body plan evolution of the skeletal system provides additional evidence reinforcing the inference that speciation creates specialization which in turn results in gradual impotency of the genome, and all the while body plan organization remains within distinct boudaries and is invariant, likewise supporting top down mobility.

Cetaceans are a great example. It seems an insurmountable challenge to bring a single species of cetacean back on the shores as terrestrial beasts, as they have lost most of their skeletons in process of becoming fully aquatic. It is a universal pattern among vertebrates to cast away their limbs, fuse or eliminate bones to improve, or alter preexisting structures and systems, but we never find the addition of a novel structure to the ancestral skeletal ground plan.

Our presupposition in the ID/creation model is simply information first. "In the beginning was the word...." and that all the general biological information was created first with full potency. Then, the seeds (templates) were planted here and possibly everywhere in the universe, by an outside agency, and then we find evolution, decent with modification, the built-in mechanism of adaptation.

Eric, whether or not there are peer reviewed publications is not relevant to me, but nevertheless, if there are none now, there will likely be some soon, because to most people, design is self evident and not merely an apparent artifact of life. In fact, it seems a ridiculous challenge to produce evidence of intelligent design in life. We can not prove reality.

Insofar as an atheistic agenda goes......I will believe you when educators that want to teach intelligent design in science curriculum have no fear of losing their job because of it.

There is plenty of evidence of creation and ID, but if one is not willing to see or hear it, then there is no justice.

In fact, it seems a ridiculous challenge to produce evidence of intelligent design in life. We can not prove reality.

lol.

There is plenty of evidence of creation and ID

Just no scientific evidence. Which is why it isn't a scientific theory.

Insofar as an atheistic agenda goes......

Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. In fact, some of the most important biologists of the 20th century were devoutly religious. This is an absurd statement and I would be hard pressed to believe that you have ever sat through a biology course to witness this so-called "atheistic agenda".

In order to exemplify how speciation works, consider a cellular 'phylogenetic' tree beginning with a zygote. As that zygote divides and differentiates, the 'potency' of the successive generations of cells diminishes as those cells specialize. Therefore, we infer the same natural law of loss of potency during speciation events at the level of populations of an organism.

This is nonsensical. Epigenetic modifications that cause cell-fate determinancy are erased once a new zygote is formed. The two processes have nothing to do with each other, and certainly cannot be expanded to populations as a whole.

The simplification of vertebrate and invertebrate body plan evolution of the skeletal system provides additional evidence reinforcing the inference that speciation creates specialization which in turn results in gradual impotency of the genome, and all the while body plan organization remains within distinct boudaries and is invariant, likewise supporting top down mobility.

This is simply incorrect. However, that said, it would have been a reasonable objection 20 years ago. I recommend learning about the blossoming science of evolutionary developmental biology, to understand why this is an incorrect argument. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll is a good layman introduction to the science. I think you will find it quite fascinating, as you seem more open to learning science than most Creationists I've had the pleasure to discuss with.

Then, the seeds (templates) were planted here and possibly everywhere in the universe, by an outside agency, and then we find evolution, decent with modification, the built-in mechanism of adaptation.

My objection to this is a theological one, not a scientific one. It is technically possible, but this idea is contradictory to the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Therefore, if a God exists, I find it extraordinarily unlikely from a theological standpoint that anything resembling Creationism or ID is correct. If you like, I can expand upon that, but it would take this discussion away from science and towards theology.

Have a good Monday.

Hi Eric, Thanks for your objections as they are very helpful.

If there exists a reasonable probability that an intelligent force is the origin of biological information, and therefore could be the underlying mechanism responsible for evolutionary change by design, then why prohibit the scientific exploration of such a possibility out of hand?

Unfortunately, your objections lack substance. Perhaps you can point out a vertebrate species here on the planet today that demonstrates a skeletal system add-on, thereby increasing the complexity of its inherent body plan organization. For example, if you can show how birds evolved flight by adding another pair of limbs (a third pair), you would have definitive proof- however, as I understand it, even 'novel' structures such as feathers are produced by the modification of preexisting developmental pathways, systems, and structures...

Specialization (speciation) by definition is a process of elimination, is it not? The burden of proof to the contrary remains.

The most 'highly' evolved animals that remain on the planet today have done so by body plan simplification, and of course through processes of elaboration, reduction, elimination and modification of pre-existing information and structrues. These are the ingredients of evolution that can be proven by the direct evidence. Are not these observable results the antithesis of some of the predictions of the modern synthesis of evolution?

To state that a theory is nonsensical or simply not true is one thing, to prove it is an entirely different thing. The above facts are scientific evidence in support of a creation/id/evolutionary decent model. Therefore, until it is demonstrated that speciation events increase 'potency', there appears to be no material artifacts as a basis of refutation.

What is truly amazing is the endless forms generated from so few basic bauplans!!

then why prohibit the scientific exploration of such a possibility out of hand?

Nobody is prohibiting anything. If the evidence suggested the hand of an intelligent designer, we would be forced to accept it.

For example, in most situations there is absolutely nothing that says that the genes along a chromosome have to be in any particular order. Hell, we've observed complete inversions of half a chromosome and it works perfectly fine.

When we started sequencing the genomes of various species, and comparing the genes between them, and looking at karyotypes - we saw exactly what evolution would predict: structural and genetic conservation between closely related species, indicative of common descent.

However, if we instead found that no comparison whatsoever could be drawn between the degree of genetic similarity and proposed recent evolutionary divergence, then this would be profoundly strong evidence for design by an outside force. Why? Simple-

With Intelligent Design, no prediction about the structure of the genome can be made. God is God, and God can do whatever the hell he wants.

But with evolutionary theory, we have a very specific prediction that can be made. If we found that prediction to be wrong, it would be unexplainable by evolution. But we didn't. I can think of numerous examples like this, because evolutionary theory is falsifiable. Every single one has stood up to testing.

as I understand it, even 'novel' structures such as feathers are produced by the modification of preexisting developmental pathways, systems, and structures

Yes, you understand it correctly. However, what I'm not sure you understand is that those pre-existing developmental pathways exhibit plasticity, duplication of anatomical structures with subsequent modification, etc. Also, have we had this discussion before? I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu. If so, I believe that last time I likewise suggested to you that you misunderstand how structures arise via evolution. They never arise de novo - fully formed. They always come from pre-existing structures, which are typically duplicated initially. The most perfect example of this that I can think of is the origin of the maxillary, mandibular, and hyoid bones. A simple structure was initially duplicated (via structural developmental genes), and subsequently adapted for a secondary purpose. That has been the trend of vertebrate development, which you seem to understand well with your reference to the thoracic wings of birds and feather development.

Perhaps you can point out a vertebrate species here on the planet today that demonstrates a skeletal system add-on, thereby increasing the complexity of its inherent body plan organization.

As to your question itself, could you perhaps be more specific about what you are looking for? Because I'm sure you aren't simply looking for a "skeletal system add on", as developmental anomalies such as these are incredibly common. Thus, I can show you examples within a group - such as mammals - in which modifications to the genes responsible for development have caused increases in the numbers of vertebrae, modifications to the arrangement of musculature, nerves, etc. But I can also point to examples from comparative anatomy, such as comparing mammals to reptiles to birds, in which profound structural differences exist. Always, though, they are associated with modifications to pre-existing structures that had a very simple embryological origin.

Are not these observable results the antithesis of some of the predictions of the modern synthesis of evolution?

No, they are completely in line with it actually. But, I can totally see why you would think this. I can relate. If you asked me what I thought ten years ago with respect to this question, I probably would have answered that it was very troubling. But, as it were, I highly recommend Endless Forms Most Beautiful as it is an excellent introductory work to developmental evolutionary biology. When you learn about how development is controlled and how it differs between species, it becomes very easy to understand how drastic anatomical changes are introduced throughout the course of evolution. There is still much to learn, of course, but what we have learned already illuminates things greatly.

To state that a theory is nonsensical or simply not true is one thing, to prove it is an entirely different thing.

With respect, what I stated was "nonsensical" was your equating cell specialization to evolutionary specialization. Except as a pure analogy, the two cannot be compared - as I pointed out, because the epigenetic modifications that cause cell fate determinancy are erased every single time reproduction occurs.

The above facts are scientific evidence in support of a creation/id/evolutionary decent model.

They are not scientific evidence in support of it, but a hypothetical argument to support it. Intelligent Design can make no predictions about the natural world. But, I do differ from most other people whom are involved in fields related to biology in that I totally think that we could find circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests design. My genomic comparison example is the best one that I can think of right now. If we didn't find correlation there, it would have shattered evolutionary theory. There would have been no naturalistic explanation for it. We couldn't necessarily say "God did it", because that's not a scientific proposition - but we could sure say that evolution is inconsistent with it.

Hi Eric! Yes, we have discussed this before LOL!

So- "Nobody is prohibiting anything".

Really? Isn't the big controversy regarding whether or not ID should be included instruction within science curriculums? At the very least there must exist some concerted effort to prevent/prohibit. Nevertheless, ID/creationism is strongly discouraged by most secular science education, and allegedly through academic intimidation.

In my opinion, similarity of structure (or any scientific evidence for that matter) may be employed to construct valid predictions for any number of models, including ID. Why do you assume that there should be no comparison whatsoever in design models? Why can't the creator by systematic, organized, and conservative? Should'nt all the evidence be open for interpretation and not exclusively reserved for materialistic naturalism? By the way, recent evolutionary divergence is not necessarily a requirement as far as I am concerned.

"With ID, no prediction about the structure of the genome can be made", and, "ID can make no predictions about the natural world".

I respectfully disagree, and I believe the above misconception will eventually be corrected. The fact is, ID/creation models are obviously being falsified, because the general scientific consensus has rejected every one of them. If at first you fail- try, try again LOL !!

About 3 years ago I began formulating the hypothesis that we have been discussing. I don't read alot of ID literature, so honestly, I have no idea if this is recycled material, or not. Nevertheless, the prediction being as follows: if creation began with a fixed number of basic body plans, then subsequent decent with modification, for the most part, should occur by the simplification/reduction of the skeletal system resulting in a decrease in body plan organization. Such a trend would assure conservation of kinds within distinct boundaries, and the skeletal system is the most consistent window to the past.

Your example of increased or duplicated vertebrae in snakes lends support to this hypothesis. Notice that the duplicated vertebrae have not differentiated to take on a novel function, nor produced any novel skeletal structure. More than that, it is a widespread evolutionary trend among all vertebrates to modify the skeleton by rearranging , reducing, and/or eliminating skeletal elements, and in particular, by reducing or eliminating some or all of the apendicular skeleton- but virtually never add to it. Here we have confirmation of the prediction that the evolution of vertebrate body plan organization (the skeletal system) is by simplification. The sources of the research and findings consist solely of peer reviewed scientific publications.

Statistically, the less parts available in a system, the fewer combinations that system can generate. In vertebrates (and invertebrates for that matter) the skeletal system is not producing more parts, but eliminating them. This observation of simplification of body plan organization correlates quite nicely with another prediction- that speciation diminishes evolutionary potency or potential at the species level. The point being is that the most 'highly' evolved extant animals on the planet have sacrificed plasticity in the process of specializing for the purposes of occupying continuously more refined niches.

The irony is that as evolutionary potential diminishes at the species level, the total overall biodiversity of the ecosystem increases by the exploitation of more and more resources. I hope you see the parallel/analogy with the differentiation of cell populations within an organism. The individual cell types lose potency or plasticity, as the organism as a whole increases overall bodyplan diversification.

By the way, thanks for the book referral, as I am very interested, but for the time being I refer to Developmental Biology, Scott Gilbert's latest edition.

Regarding duplication and EvoDevo, much research has been done with whole genome duplications in Teleost fishes. As you probably know, these fishes represent roughly half of all extant vertebrate species. Predictably, the evolutionary pinnacle of their body plan organization is characterized by...... simplification. As such, I think the jury is still out concerning the impact and extent that duplication contributes to evolutionary potential.

In conclusion, I believe the notion that ID/creationism lacks scientific evidence is unfounded and unwarranted in at least a few cases. Sorting through the nonsense presents a challenge for this budding science, but I think it presents the opportunity to develop some useful contributions to humanity.

As always, I appreciate your gracious consideration.

Nevertheless, ID/creationism is strongly discouraged by most secular science education, and allegedly through academic intimidation.

It is only discouraged right now because there are exactly zero scientific studies that support ID or creationism. The day that I come across one, I will support it being taught in a science class. Until then, it's not science, it's not even a testable hypothesis, so it should only be taught in a comparative religion class or something of that sort.

But science prohibits nothing. It may very well be that someday we will find evidence for Intelligent Design that is undeniable. A scientific paper will be published on it, and it will be groundbreaking. That hasn't happened yet.

Why do you assume that there should be no comparison whatsoever in design models? Why can't the creator by systematic, organized, and conservative?

I don't assume. That's the point. With God, you can assume nothing. God could be systematic, organized, and conservative in the genome - or he could not be. There is no genetic reason why he would have to be. So it could be either way.

So the point was, evolution specifically predicts conservation in genome structure. ID does not - either way works just fine, God can do whatever God wants. But, since evolution predicts it, if we found the contrary to be true - it would refute evolutionary theory. But, it wouldn't outright support ID either, which is my answer to your next point:

The fact is, ID/creation models are obviously being falsified, because the general scientific consensus has rejected every one of them

Technically, no. In my genome example, if we did not find structural conservation evolutionary theory would be proven incorrect, because it makes the prediction that we would. But ID can make no such predictions. So, while that would disprove evolution, it wouldn't support ID either. However, it would sure as hell make every biologist on earth start to think, and in the absence of suitable scientific theories - an unscientific one may be the only thing of utility.

You didn't "hear" me just say that, by the way, so keep it on the DL.

if creation began with a fixed number of basic body plans, then subsequent decent with modification, for the most part, should occur by the simplification/reduction of the skeletal system resulting in a decrease in body plan organization. Such a trend would assure conservation of kinds within distinct boundaries, and the skeletal system is the most consistent window to the past.

This is, for the most part, similar to the hypothesis that Charles Darwin supported for sometime and expressed near the end of The Origin of Species. "Life breathed into a few forms or into one by the Creator, which subsequently underwent descent with modification to account for the bounty of life on Earth today" - to paraphrase him.

My problem with that is actually not a scientific one, but a theological one. If it turns out to be true, it is logically contradictory with the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God.

As you probably know, these fishes represent roughly half of all extant vertebrate species. Predictably, the evolutionary pinnacle of their body plan organization is characterized by...... simplification.

Indeed. However, this still makes sense from a purely evolutionary perspective as well. All of the simplest animals that are alive today, and the simplest fossil species that we have discovered, are literally nothing more than segmented creatures with radial or bilateral symmetry. The same anatomical structures, repeated over and over. We see simplification, fusion, and modification in the structures to create increased anatomical complexity - both phylogenetically speaking and embryologically speaking. From an bioengineering perspective, this makes sense. From an evolutionary and developmental perspective, it also makes sense.

So, in conclusion, I find nothing wrong with your reasoning (and if it turns out to be correct, that would be quite fascinating). But, I do not see how it makes any predictions that are different from evolutionary theory that can be tested right now.

That said, if you can think of a way to test this idea of yours either via genetics, comparative anatomy, or paleontology, I wholeheartedly encourage you to publish your ideas in a journal such as Hypotheses in the Life Sciences. It's not for research, but for an exchange of scientific ideas. I'm working on something right now related to contralaterality of the vertebrate forebrain that I will probably pursue submitting there first, to see if scientific support is such that research would be worthwhile.

Thanks for your insights, Eric- very valuable and helpful.

Best regards, and best of luck (or providence)!!!

John