---

http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=1474094:fid=7564/

Støtte til kristne skoler

Af LONE RYG OLSEN

Kristne skoler, der prioriterer Biblen højere end Darwin, skal have ros i stedet for kritik, mener den nye formand for Kristeligt Folkeparti

[...]

De kristne skoler og gymnasier skal have ros for at åbne elevernes øjne for manglerne ved de vedtagne teorier om menneskets oprindelse i stedet for skæld ud for at inddrage Biblen i biologiundervisningen.

Det siger den nye formand for Kristeligt Folkeparti, Marianne Karlsmose, på baggrund af sagen om to kristne gymnasier, der prioriterer Skabelsesberetningen højere end Darwins og andre forskeres udviklingsteorier.

[...]

---

---

http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=1474506:fid=7564/

Lærerformand: Vi skal ikke være kritiske over for Darwin

Lærerne i folkeskolen skal ikke være kritiske over for Charles Darwins udviklingslære, når de underviser eleverne i biologi. Teorierne er alment anerkendte, og det er alene lærernes ansvar at præsentere dem for eleverne, siger formanden for Danmarks Lærerforening, Anders Bondo Christensen.

[...]

- I faget biologi skal den naturvidenskabelige viden præsenteres, derunder Darwin, og i kristendomskundskab kristendommen og andre religioner. Vi skal præsentere de forskellige livsopfattelser for eleverne, men det er ikke lærernes opgave at være kritiske over for hverken kristendommen eller Darwin, siger Anders Bondo Christensen til Ritzau.

[...]

---

---

"In its mythological dimension, Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself. Lacking scientific knowledge, humans at first attribute natural events like weather and disease to supernatural beings. As they learn to predict or control natural forces they put aside the lesser spirits, but a more highly evolved religion retains the notion of a rational Creator who rules the universe.
At last the greatest scientific discovery of all is made, and modern humans learn that they are the products of a blind natural process that has no goal and cares nothing for them." (Johnson P.E., 1993, "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois, p. 133)

---

---

"Every scientific materialist who reads this will understandably want to ask: `Are you willing baloney detection to religion, as well as science?' The answer is (emphatically) yes! I can't think of a better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough questions. I'm also not particularly worried about how they answer those questions the first time through. Dealing with the tough questions is a lifelong business, and the most important education point is not to try to spoonfeed students with oversimplified answers that won't stand the tests of time and experience." (Johnson P.E., 1997, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp. 64-5, oprindelig fremhævelse)

---

---

"[B]ehind ever double standard lies a single hidden agenda." (Chesterton G.K., 1909, "Orthodoxy", John Lane: London, som citeret i Moreland J.P. (ed.), 1994, "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, p. 100)

---

---

Dette er ikke andet end en opfordring til at gøre darwinismen til statsstøttet dogma, immun over for enhver kritik. Min lillesøsters lærebog om geografi (på gymnasie-niveau) har et kapitel om atmosfæren, hvor teorien om drivhus-effekten som årsag til den globale opvarmning bliver diskuteret. Men bogen bruger også et afsnit om de tre danske forskere Friis-Christensen, Lassen og Svensmark og deres teori om, at den globale opvarmning i stedet skyldes øget sol-aktivitet. De er i en minoritet blandt miljøforskere, men bogens forfatter har åbenbart vurderet, at eleverne ikke tager skade af at blive præsenteret for en videnskabelig kontrovers. Men når det kommer til darwinismen, vort samfunds skabelseshistorie:

---

---

http://huizen.dds.nl/~fsteeman/europe/danmark.html

Denmark

[...]

Organisations Creationist activities started to take shape in the early eighties with the foundation of a number of societies and magazines. During 1984 and 1985, a fierce debate flared up in the media, which eventually died down again.

Kosmos In 1982 a small society called 'Kosmos' was founded. It is essentially a counterpart of the American Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

Origo Since 1983 a small group of Danish creationists have been publishing a magazine called 'Origo'. They present themselves as "... a group of Christians interested in the relation between faith and natural science." "The basis for Origo's work is the believe that the universe, nature and life were created, and the conviction that this view has many ethical and philosophical consequences." Origo is not associated with any particular religious community. It has a sister-organisation in Norway.

In Oktober of 1985 Origo organised a four day seminar at the Christian College of Ringkøbing, in association with the Union for the Establishment of Christian Free Schools. The seminar was directed to "...all Christians who feel uncomfortable with teaching evolution theory uncritically, but on the other hand lack sufficient knowledge and insight in creation teaching to dare deviate from or challenge the regular study-books." There were 70-100 participants, a mix of students from theology to natural sciences, and teachers. Prof. AE Wilder-Smith, who has doctor degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, and pharmacology, dominated the seminar. He used to be attached to NATO as narcotics-counsellor and got his degree(s) in Reading, UK. He has been research manager several places around Europe and the USA, has written a number of books about scientific creation, and is an ardent public speaker, making tours all over Europe.

Internet

ORIGO The website of the magazine 'Origo'. (In Danish)

---

---

http://www.geocities.com/fedor_steeman/WhoisFS.html

Who is Fedor Steeman ?

[...]

I can tell you that! I was born in 1973 in Haarlem, a medium-sized town in the Netherlands situated between Amsterdam and the coast. After my Secondary School (Scientific level) I studied Biology at the University of Amsterdam. During my study I met Mette Elstrup Rasmussen, a Danish beauty, and then moved to Denmark after I graduated. We are still living together here. We got married on the sixth of august, 1999, and recently had a beautiful daughter called Femke.

[...]

---

---

http://www.geocities.com/fedor_steeman/10main.html

[...]

I don't consider myself an atheist. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a God or gods, or any other kind of spiritual dimension beyond the material reality. My view is that one cannot establish with certainty whether there exists more 'between heaven and earth' or not. My standing point can therefore best be described as agnostic. I do not reject the idea of a divine or spiritual dimension to our reality, but also believe that we cannot obtain any certainty about Its nature, or whether It exists at all.

[...]

---

---

http://www.geocities.com/cgi-bin/geoplus_apps/ans_entry

[...]

Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

[...]

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=viden&Number=10184

Andreas
(bruger)
22/10/02 23:48
Kritik af Darwin

[...]

Min lillesøsters lærebog om geografi (på gymnasie-niveau) har et kapitel om atmosfæren, hvor teorien om drivhus-effekten som årsag til den globale opvarmning bliver diskuteret. Men bogen bruger også et afsnit om de tre danske forskere Friis-Christensen, Lassen og Svensmark og deres teori om, at den globale opvarmning i stedet skyldes øget sol-aktivitet. De er i en minoritet blandt miljøforskere, men bogens forfatter har åbenbart vurderet, at eleverne ikke tager skade af at blive præsenteret for en videnskabelig kontrovers.

[...]

---

---

"Science often reaches a point where further research and analysis seem unable to provide an answer without new concepts and paradigms. In biology, for example, though much has been learned about the role of sexual reproduction, we do not understand why sex exists or why such a scheme is so general in living nature. The fossil record is filled with minor and major enigmas that cannot be dismissed as due simply to lack of evidence. Countless traits of plants and animals defy the imaginative efforts of naturalists to devise plausible scenarios for their origination. To learn more is to confront more riddles. The enlargement of understanding is like making a bonfire in a forest at night: as the fire blazes up, more and more shapes loom in the darkness." (Wesson R., 1997, "Beyond Natural Selection", The MIT Press: Cambridge MA, p. 5)

---

---

"The Reformed church taught that the duty of glorifying God for all His works should be performed by all the faculties of man, not only by the eyes, but also by the intellect. Calvin expressed the view that those who neglected the study of nature was as guily as those who, when investigating God's work, forgot the Creator. He sharply reproved those `phantastic' opponents of science, who said that this study only made men proud, and who did not recognize that it led to `knowledge of God and the conduct of life'. Again and again he testified to his positive appreciation of scientific research as something which penetrated deeper into the wonders of nature than did mere contemplation. When he said this he was not referring to the speculative `physics' of his time, but to the solid empirical disciplines of that epoch: to astronomy and anatomy wich revealed, as he said, the secrets of the macrocosm and the microcosm." (Hooykaas R., 1972, "Religion and the Rise of Modern Science", Regent College Publishing: Vancouver Canada, p. 106)

---

---

"Alle teorier om Skabelsen er udelukkende metafysiske. De siger intet om Skaberens fremtidige aktivitet, men kun at livet, som vi kender det idag, er et resultat af hans plan. Eftersom vi ikke kender denne plan, kan ingen observation overhovedet være i overensstemmelse med den. I det ene yderpunkt har vi det synspunkt, at beviser på evolution, som f.eks. fossilerne, blev indbygget i de skabte klipper for at friste os til at prøve vor tro. I det andet yderpunkt har vi dem, hvor nye evolutionsbeviser blot skubber skaberens aktivitet længere og længere tilbage i fortiden." (Patterson C., 1979, "Evolution", Skarv, p. 158)

---

---

"In various key points in the Opinion [of the Court], Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertion whatever. That is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact. ... In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests. Unfortunately, the logic of the Opinion's analysis precludes saying any of the above. By arguing that the tenets of Creationism are neither testable of falsifiable, Judge Overton (like those scientists who similarly charge Creationism with being untestable) deprives science of its strongest argument against Creationism. Indeed, if any dotrine in the history of science has ever been falsified, it is the set of claims associated with `creation-science.' ... It is true, of course, that some tenets of Creationism are not testable in isolation (e.g. the claim that man emerged by a direct supernatural act of creation). But that scarcely makes Creationism `unscientific.' It is now widely acknowledged that many scientific claims are not testable in isolation, but only when embedded in a larger systems of statements, some of whose consequences can be submitted to test." (Laudan L., "Science at the Bar - Causes for Concern", i Ruse M. (ed.), 1996, "But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy", Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p. 352)

---

---

"Even agnostics who believe the universe is in some sense teleological have teamed up with the ID movement - figures like Michael Denton, author of the influential Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. His most recent book, Nature's Destiny, argues that purpose pervades the universe at all levels. `The power of ID is precisely its minimalism,' says Todd Moody, an agnostic and professor at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. `It travels light, with no theological baggage.'" (Pearcey N., "We're Not in Kansas Anymore", Christianity Today, 22/5 2000, p. 42)

---

---

http://www.geocities.com/evolutionsteori/recant.html

[...]

I løbet af det sidste halve år er jeg gradvist kommet til den konklusion, at neo-darwinismen, som den fremstilles i løbet af utallige uddannelser over hele verden, er mangelfuld til en sådan grad, at jeg ikke ser anden mulighed end at forkaste den.

[...]

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=viden&Number=11059

Andreas
(bruger)
04/11/02 18:27
Re: Kritik af Darwin [re: Fedor]

[...]

Jeg mener, at Bibelens skabelsesberetning er en religiøs tekst, og at den af denne grund ikke hører til i naturvidenskabelige timer. Dette betyder dog ikke, at jeg ikke støtter inklusionen af videnskabelige alternativer til darwinisme - som f.eks. ID - i biologitimernes pensum. Hvis der er noget galt med Marianne Karlsmoses forslag, er det, at det ikke går langt nok. Men det er dog et skridt i den rigtige retning, og derfor støtter jeg det.

[...]

---

---

[...]

Marianne Karlsmose er gymnasielærer med baggrund i samfundsfag og historie, og hendes forslags formål har blot været at åbne op for muligheden for kritik af darwinismen, ikke at udarbejde et helt ny pensum.

Personligt har jeg dog et par forslag til de problemer, som elever kan høre om - og diskutere - i biologitimerne:

- Den kambriske eksplosion.

- Hullerne i fossilrækken, hvor overgangene mellem de forskellige livsformer har fundet sted.

- De irreducérbart komplekse strukturer, der er beskrevet af biokemikeren Michael Behe.

- Problemerne med at forklare udviklingen af strukturer som den genetiske kode, kønnet formering og den menneskelige sprogmekanisme.

- Mangelen på intern struktur i darwinismen, såvel som problemerne med at teste den imod de empiriske observationer.

Det er klart, at der ikke er tid til alle punkterne, og at der er mere `sul' på nogle end på andre. Men dette er ikke desto mindre nogle af de emner, som man kan vælge imellem, når man sammensætter fremtidige biologiklassers pensum.

[...]

---

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science often reaches a point where further research and analysis seem unable to provide an answer without new concepts and paradigms. In biology, for example, though much has been learned about the role of sexual reproduction, we do not understand why sex exists or why such a scheme is so general in living nature. The fossil record is filled with minor and major enigmas that cannot be dismissed as due simply to lack of evidence. Countless traits of plants and animals defy the imaginative efforts of naturalists to devise plausible scenarios for their origination. To learn more is to confront more riddles. The enlargement of understanding is like making a bonfire in a forest at night: as the fire blazes up, more and more shapes loom in the darkness." (Wesson R., 1997, "Beyond Natural Selection", The MIT Press: Cambridge MA, p. 5)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

---

In a constant environment that exerts stabilizing selection on the trait under consideration, sexually reproducing populations have more genetic variance than mutationally and demographically equivalent asexual populations. This leads to a slightly higher equilibrium load of sexual populations. If, however, adaptation becomes necessary due to environmental change, then sexual populations can respond faster and gain a substantial selective advantage over asexuals. Bürger R., Genetics 1999 Oct;153(2):1055-69, http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/153/2/1055

---

---

Da skabelsesideer i princippet ikke kan falsificeres, er det svært at forestille sig noget empirisk støtte.

---

---

"... [T]he ad hominem charge of dogmatism against Creationism egregiously confuses doctrines with the proponents of those doctrines. Since no law mandates that creationists should be invited into the classroom, it is quite irrelevant whether they themselves are close-minded. ... What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the teses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in the fact on the merits of Creationism." (Laudan L., "Science at the Bar - Causes for Concern", i Ruse M. (ed.), 1996, "But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy", Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p. 353)

---

---

"Darwin, as some historians argue, may have structured parts of his theory as he did because of his commitment to various Victorian social values. But even if he did, that has no bearing on whether or not his theory was scientific, whether or not it was well supported or whether or not it is true. ... Newton's stated motive in constructing some of his theories was to promote belief in God. The stated motives of some Enlightenment thinkers in adopting Newtonian theories was to destroy religion. It seems perfectly clear that neither of those contradictory motivations had any bearing whatever on whether or not Newton's theories themselves were religious, antireligious or genuinely scientific. Similarily, there seems no good reason to think that creationists' allegedly religious motivations make the theories themselves religious or have any bearing whatever on whether or not their theories are legitimately scientific." (Ratzsch D., 1996, "The Battle of Begginings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp. 172-3)

---

---

"The 1998 NAS members perhaps provide a more immaculate sample of the elite than Leuba's starred entries did. Congress created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, and after naming its first members Congress empowered them and their successors to choose all later members. Its current membership of 1,800 remains the closest thing to peerage in American science. And their responses validate Leuba's prediction of the beliefs of topflight scientists generations from his time. Disbelief among NAS members responding to our survey exceeded 90 percent. The increase may simply reflect that they are more elite than Leuba's `greater' scientists, but this interpretation would also please Leuba. NAS biologists are the most skeptical, with 95 percent of our respondents evincing atheism and agnosticism." (Larson E.J. & Witham L., 1999, "Scientists and Religion in America", Scientific American 281(3):78-83, p. 80)

---

---

"The NAS is mindful of its obligation to serve the public, but it can be a delicate course to maneuver. Disbelief and belief have often become a major public relations issue for science in religious America. ... Yet, to its credit, in 1998 the NAS issued a report proudly promoting the teaching of evolution in public school. `Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral,' the report cautiously begins, before launching its broadside of scientific arguments against religious objections to teaching evolution. But the irony is remarkable: a group of specialists who are nearly all nonbelievers - and who believe that science compels such a conclusion - told the public that `science is neutral' on the God question." (Larson & Witham 1999, p.81)

---

---

"If there are designs that cannot be approached by a gradual, stepwise redesign process, in which each step is at least no worse for the gene's survival chances than its predecessor, then the existence of such a design in nature would seem to require, at some point in its ancestry, a helping hand from a foresightful designer - either a gene-splicer, or a breeder who somehow preserved the necessary succession of intermediate backsliders until they could yield their sought progeny." (Dennett D.C., 1995, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life", Simon & Schuster: NY, p. 317)

---

---

"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ... [W]hen claiming that the Second Law flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense ... What Morris and others mean to be claiming is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing overall order is in violation of the Second Law." (Ratzsch D., 1996, "The Battle of Begginings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp. 91-2)

---

---

"... Morris says that the natural development of such codes and mechanisms may, for all he knows, be possible, although it is unlikely. So although the Second Law does impose some additional constraints, at least in principle, according to Morris, all of those conditions and constraints can perhaps be met ..." (Ratzsch, 1996, p. 93)

---

---

"Without a doubt, the atoms and molecules which comprise living cells individually obey the laws of chemistry and physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. The enigma is the origin of so unlikely an organization of these atoms and molecules. The electronic computer provides a striking analogy to the living cell. Each component in a computer obeys the laws of electronics and mechanics. The key to the computer's marvel lies, however, in the highly unlikely organization of the parts which harness the laws of electronics and mechanics. In the computer, this organization was specially arranged by the designers and builders and continues to operate (with occasional frustrating lapses) through the periodic maintenance of service engineers. Living systems have even greater organization. The problem then, that molecular biologists and theoretical physicists are addressing, is how the organization of living systems could have arisen spontaneously." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., 1984, "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories", Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, kap. 8)

---

---

"It is frequently claimed that according to creationists, all species were directly created by special acts of God. Contemporary creationists do not hold that view, and some creationists had already abandoned it roughly half a century ago. Since creationists accept microevolutionary development within the boundaries of created kinds, and since kinds at least in some cases include multiple species, some creationists accept the view that descendants of some originally created organisms radiated out into different species, although all such species would still be within the same kind as the original parent organisms." (Ratzsch, 1996, pp. 88-9)

---

---

"The strict version, with its emphasis on copious, minute, random variation molded with excruciating but persistent slowness by natural selection, also implied that all events of large-scale evolution (macroevolution) were the gradual, accumulated product of innumerable steps, each a minute adaptation to changing conditions within a local population. This "extrapolationist" theory denied any independence to macroevolution and interpreted all large-scale evolutionary events (origin of basic designs, long-term trends, patterns of extinction and faunal turnover) as slowly accumulated microevolution (the study of small-scale changes within species)." (Gould S.J., 1994, "Prologue", i "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 13)

---

---

"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions in the history of life: by a long series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are linked to reptiles, fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors. Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended. If black moths can displace white moths in a century, then reptiles can become birds in a few million years by the smooth and sequential summation of countless changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so the current orthodoxy states." (Gould S.J., 1992, "Return of the Hopeful Monster", i "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 187)

---

---

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup D.M., "Geological and Paleontological Arguments", i Godfrey L.R. (ed.), 1984, "Scientists Confront Creationism", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 156)

---

---

"When we speak of `the' eye, by the way, we are not doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal kingdom. In some cases these eyes use radically different principles. Nine distinct principles have been recognized among the forty to sixty independently evolved eyes." (Dawkins R., 1996, "Climbing Mount Improbable", W. W. Norton: NY, pp. 139-40)

---

---

"The Drosophila gene eyeless (ey) encodes a transcription factor with both a paired domain and a homeodomain. It is homologous to the mouse Small eye (Pax-6) gene and to the Aniridia gene in humans. These genes share extensive sequence identity, the position of three intron splice sites is conserved, and these genes are expressed similarly in the developing nervous system and in the eye during morphogenesis. ... These results support the proposition that ey is the master control gene for eye morphogenesis. Because homologous genes are present in vertebrates, ascidians, insects, cephalopods, and nemerteans, ey may function as a master control gene throughout the metazoa." (Halder G., Callaerts P. & Gehring W.J., 1995, "Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila.", Science 267(5205):1788-92, p. 1788)

---

---

"We are invited by Dawkins and Darwin to believe that the evolution of the eye proceeded step-by-step through a series of plausible intermediates in infinitesimal increments. But are they infinitesimal? Remember that the "light-sensitive spot" that Dawkins takes as his starting point requires a cascade of factors, including 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin, to function. Dawkins doesn't mention them. And where did the "little cup" come from? A ball of cells - from which the cup must be made - will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple "cup" shape came to be. And although he reassures us that any "translucent material" would be an improvement (recall that Haeckel mistakenly thought it would be easy to produce cells since they were certainly just "simple lumps"), we are not told how difficult it is to produce a "simpe lens." In short, Dawkins's explanation is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy." (Behe M.J., 1998, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Touchstone: New York, p. 38, oprindelig fremhævelse)

---

---

"I et givet lokalt område opstår en art ikke gradvis i kræft af jævnt fortløbende forandringer i ophavet; arten opstår på én gang og `fuldt færdig'. ... En ny art kan fremkomme, når et lille udsnit af stampopulationen isoleres i periferien af artens oprindelige område. Store, stabile og centrale populationer udøver en stærkt homogeniserende påvirkning. Nye og gunstige mutationer udtyndes, når de skal udbredes i en stor population. Deres hyppighed kan opbygges langsomt, men ændringer i miljøet neutraliserer i reglen deres selektionsværdi, længe inden de fikseres. Fyletisk transformation i store populationer skulle derfor være uhyrlig sjælden - hviket bekræftes af det fossile materiale. ... Eldredge og jeg kalder denne model punktvise ligevægte." (Gould S.J., 1989, "De evolutionære forandringers episodiske karakter", i "Små fisk, store fisk: Naturhistoriske eftertanker", Munksgaard, pp. 120-2)

---

---

"... [M]olecular evidence suggests that a close alliance between molluscs and annelids, but it is hard to imagine how an animal like the most primitive known annelid (an archiannalid?) was transformed into a primitive mollusc (a chiton?). The morphological gaps that, by definition, separate phyla, remain inviolate. We remain uninformed both about the now-extinct intermediates and the evolutionary process that would have been responsible for the diversification of early multicellular animals into what we now perceive as distinct phyla, each with its own body plan." (Morris S.C., 1993, "The fossil record and the early evolution of the Metazoa", Nature 361:219-25, p. 219)

---

---

"Pangloss lærte dem metafysiko-teologo-cosmo-nigologi. Han førte strålende beviser for, at der ikke gives nogen virkning uden årsag, og at i denne den bedste af alle verdener var baronens slot det smukkeste af alle slotte og baronessen den bedste af alle baronesser.
`Det er bevist,' sagde han, `at det ikke kan være anderledes, thi da alt er skabt med et formål for øje, må det nødvendigvis være skabt med det allerbedste formål. Læg for eksempel mærke til, at næser er skabt til at bære briller, følgelig bærer vi briller. Benene er øjensynlig skabt til sko og strømper, og derfor går vi med sko og strømper. Sten er skabt, for at vi kan hugge dem til og bygge slotte af dem, følgelig har den nådige herre et meget smukt slot: den største baron i provinsen bør også være den, der bor smukkest! Og da svin er skabt til at spises, spiser vi svinekød året rundt. Altså er det dumt at sige, at alting er godt, vi bør sige, at alting er så godt som det kan være.'" (Voltaire F., 2000, "Candide", Dansklærerforeningen, p. 10)

---

---

"Levontin has presented the following hypothetical example: `A mutation which doubles the fecundity of individuals will sweep through a population rapidly. If there has been no change in efficiancy of resource utilization, the individuals will leave no more offspring than before, but simply lay twice as many eggs, the excess dying because of resource limitation. In what sense are the individuals or the poulation as whole better adapted than before? Indeed, if a predator on immature stages is led to switch to the species now that immatures are more plentiful, the population size may actually decrease as a consequence, yet natural selection at all times favor individuals with higher fecundity.'" (Gould S.J. & Lewontin R.C., "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme", i Ridley M. (ed.), 1997, "Evolution" (Oxford Readers), Oxford University Press: Oxford NY, p. 149)

---

---

Andreas skrev:
Under "Backgroundinformation" (tak for linket) skriver [Fedor], at han ikke mener, at man kan afgøre, om der findes noget `mellem himmel og jord':
Hvorfor mener Fedor, at vi ikke kan vide noget om dette? Hvad er det, han mener, der forhindrer os i det?

---

---

Andreas skrev:
Om dette er en kontrovers mellem to modstridende teorier eller over gyldigheden af en enkelt, ser jeg som irrelevant.

---

---

Andreas skrev:
Dette betyder dog ikke, at jeg ikke støtter inklusionen af videnskabelige alternativer til darwinisme - som f.eks. ID - i biologitimernes pensum. Hvis der er noget galt med Marianne Karlsmoses forslag, er det, at det ikke går langt nok. Men det er dog et skridt i den rigtige retning, og derfor støtter jeg det.

---

---

Andreas skrev:
Selvfølgelig vil kritik alene ikke være tilstrækkeligt til at fremme elevernes kritiske tænkning. Men ved at gennemgå argumenterne imod darwinismen vil eleverne lære noget om, hvordan videnskaben fungerer. I de naturvidenskabelige fag får eleverne ofte blot at vide, hvad en bestemt teori går ud på, uden at få at vide, hvilke tanker og eksperimenter, der gik forud for den. Ved også at blive undervist i problemerne med darwinismen, vil eleverne få lejlighed for at diskutere, om darwinismen stadig bør anses som en videnskabelig holdbar teori. Dette giver dem mulighed for at udforske sammenhængen mellem teori og data, i stedet for blot at lære teorier udenad.

---

---

Andreas skrev:
Hvorfor skulle der være tale om en "religiøs `agenda'"? Der er også mange ikke-religiøse kritikere af darwinismen, der nok godt kunne tænke sig at støtte Marianne Karlsmoses forslag.

---

---

>FS>I princippet kan man ikke for 100% afvise progressiv kreationisme på empiriske
>>grunde,
>Til forskel fra hvad? Har Fedor allerede glemt sin påstand, at alle "skabelsesideer i princippet ikke ... falsificeres"?

---

---

>FS>men jeg synes at det er sådan en mærkelig kompromis mellem kreationisme og
>rigtig videnskab. Hvis man accepterer så mange moderne videnskabelige opdagelser,
>hvorfor ikke gå hele vejen?
>Hvilke "moderne videnskabelige opdagelser" mener Fedor, at jeg ikke accepterer?

---

---

Andreas skrev:
Fedor påstår blot, at jeg har taget dette "for bogstaveligt", uden at forklare, hvor jeg har taget fejl, og argumentere for det.

---

---

"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate eyes. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wires sticking out on the side nearest to the light. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!)." (Dawkins R., 1996, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 93, oprindelige fremhævelser)

---

---

"Another consequence of evolutionary opportunism is the existence of apparent suboptimal function. As stated before, in evolving a new function, organisms must make do with what they already have. Thus, functions are likely to be performed by structures that would have been arranged differently (e.g. more efficiently) if the final function were known from the outset. ... anatomical example of suboptimal function is the inverted mammalian retina, with its blind spot. It is inverted because the retinal blood vessels and nerves are situated on top of the retina, and light must travel through them first before hitting the light sensitive cells below. The blind spot is caused by the hole where the nerves all meet and pierce through the retina to travel to the brain. In order to deal with the many problems inherent in an inverted retina, the vertebrate eye utilizes various complex compensatory structures and mechanisms (e.g. foveas and slower, more transparent unmyelinated nerves)." (Theobald D., 1999-2002, "29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 3", The Talk.Origins Archive)

---

---

"The oxygen consumption of the mammalian retina (per gram of tissue) is nearly 50% greater than that of the kidney, three times greater than the cerebral cortex and six times that of cardiac muscle. Moreover, because most of the metabolic activity of the retina is concentrated in the photoreceptor layer - comprising less than half of the total mass of the retina - it is clear that the oxygen demands (per gram of tissue) of the photoreceptors are comparatively greater than such whole retinal estimates imply. ... The oxygen and nutrients for the voracious metabolic appetite of the photoreceptors are provided by a unique capillary bed, called the choriocapillaris, which is an anastomosing network of large and flattened capillaries which form a rich vascular layer situated immediately external to the photoreceptors, separated from them only by the retinal cell epithelial cell layer (RPE) and a special membrane - Bruch’s membrane - which together form a highly selective barrier which only allows passage into the retina of metabolites and nutrients required for the function of the RPE and photoreceptor cells. These capillaries are much larger than standard capillaries being between 18–50 microns in diameter. This unique network of blood channels gives every impression of being specially adapted to provide the photoreceptor layer with copious quantities of blood. ... The remarkable capacity of the unique choriocapillaris system to deliver copious quantities of oxygen to the photoreceptors has an important consequence--it obligates the necessity for a capillary network within the photoreceptor layer and this in turn allows the photoreceptor cells to be packed tightly together, thus maximizing the resolving power of the eye. It is also hard to imagine how a standard-type capillary network to carry the necessary quantities of blood directly through the photoreceptor cell layer could be arranged without causing at least some decrease in the packing density of the photoreceptors and a consequent decrease in the resolving power of the eye." (Denton M.J., 1999, "The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?", Origins & Design 19(2))

---

---

"Why on any undirected model should such an unlikely, improbable arrangement - unique in the animal kingdom - have appeared in the first place some 600 million years ago in the earliest of vertebrates who had presumably no need for high acuity vision and in all probability possessed photoreceptors with metabolic rates perhaps one or two orders of magnitude less than those of higher warm-blooded vertebrates today? If the non-inverted retina works so well for the cold-blooded cephalopods why did evolution go to such trouble to invert the retina in cold-blooded vertebrates? And is it really just fortuity that this curious event resulted in an adaptation which turned out to be essential for high acuity vision in the most advanced terrestrial vertebrates that appeared on earth long after this remarkable choice was made." (Denton, 1999)

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=viden&Number=11059

Andreas
(bruger)
04/11/02 18:27
Re: Kritik af Darwin [re: Fedor]

[...]

- Den kambriske eksplosion.

- Hullerne i fossilrækken, hvor overgangene mellem de forskellige livsformer har fundet sted.

- De irreducérbart komplekse strukturer, der er beskrevet af biokemikeren Michael Behe.

- Problemerne med at forklare udviklingen af strukturer som den genetiske kode, kønnet formering og den menneskelige sprogmekanisme.

- Mangelen på intern struktur i darwinismen, såvel som problemerne med at teste den imod de empiriske observationer.

[...]

---

---

Undersøgelser har vist, at øjne fra så forskellige organismer som hvirveldyr, insekter og blæksprutter er styret af det samme gen, Pax-6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Drosophila gene eyeless (ey) encodes a transcription factor with both a paired domain and a homeodomain. It is homologous to the mouse Small eye (Pax-6) gene and to the Aniridia gene in humans. These genes share extensive sequence identity, the position of three intron splice sites is conserved, and these genes are expressed similarly in the developing nervous system and in the eye during morphogenesis. ... These results support the proposition that ey is the master control gene for eye morphogenesis. Because homologous genes are present in vertebrates, ascidians, insects, cephalopods, and nemerteans, ey may function as a master control gene throughout the metazoa." (Halder G., Callaerts P. & Gehring W.J., 1995, "Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila.", Science 267(5205):1788-92, p. 1788)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Så i stedet for det traditionelle billede af den blinde naturlige udvælgelse, der gradvist danner det ene øje efter det andet (det perfekte billede på naturens spild af resourcer), viser det sig, at alle øjnene er kodet for af et gen, som opstod én gang for alle, før nogle af de første adskillelser i dyreverdenen, og som alle dyr `down-stream' har arvet.

---

---

Pax genes and eye organogenesis.
Curr Opin Genet Dev 2002 Aug;12(4):430-4
Pichaud F, Desplan C.
Department of Biology, New York University, 1009 Main, 100 Washington Square East, 10003, New York, New York, USA

Pax6 is a highly conserved gene that controls eye development in all species where it has been tested. In spite of this common 'master control regulator', the eyes of different animals are morphologically very different and it is believed that they have evolved independently multiple times through evolution. Recent works looking at eye development in 'primitive' species offer some explanation as to the surprising amount of conservation in genetic and morphogenetic pathways involved in eye development. These studies not only implicate the Pax genes but also the So/Six gene family in playing a crucial ancestral role in visual system development.

---

---

The genetic control of eye development and its implications for the evolution of the various eye-types.
Int J Dev Biol 2002;46(1 Spec No):65-73
Gehring WJ.
Biozentrum, University of Basel, Switzerland. Walter.Gehring@unibas.ch

Mutations in the Pax 6 homologs of mammals and insects prevent eye development and targeted expression of both mammal and insect Pax 6 homologs is capable of inducing functional ectopic eyes. Supported by RNA interference experiments in planarians and nemerteans, these findings indicate that Pax 6is a universal master control gene for eye morphogenesis. Since all metazoan eyes use rhodopsin as a photoreceptor molecule and the same master control gene for eye development, we postulate a monophyletic origin of the various eye types. The finding of well developed eyes in jellyfish which essentially lack a brain, leads us to propose that the eye as a sensory organ evolved before the brain which is an information processing organ. The finding of highly developed eyes with a lens, vitreous body, stacked membranes like a retina and shielding pigment in unicellular dinoflagellates, raises the possibility that the prototypic eyes might have been acquired from symbionts.

---

---

Pax gene diversity in the basal cnidarian Acropora
millepora (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): Implications for
the evolution of the Pax gene family
David J. Miller, David C. Hayward, John S. Reece-Hoyes, Ingo Scholten, Julian Catmull, Walter J. Gehring,
Patrick Callaerts, Jill E. Larsen, and Eldon E. Ball
PNAS, April 25, 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, 4475-4480

---

---

Pax genes encode a family of transcription factors, many of which
play key roles in animal embryonic development but whose evolutionary
relationships and ancestral functions are unclear. To
address these issues, we are characterizing the Pax gene complement
of the coral Acropora millepora, an anthozoan cnidarian. As
the simplest animals at the tissue level of organization, cnidarians
occupy a key position in animal evolution, and the Anthozoa are
the basal class within this diverse phylum. We have identified four
Pax genes in Acropora: two (Pax-Aam and Pax-Bam) are orthologs
of genes identified in other cnidarians; the others (Pax-Cam and
Pax-Dam) are unique to Acropora. Pax-Aam may be orthologous
with Drosophila Pox neuro, and Pax-Bam clearly belongs to the
Pax-2y5y8 class. ...... Clearly,
substantial diversification of the Pax family occurred before the
Cnidaria/higher Metazoa split. ..... Together,
these data support the monophyly of the Pax family and indicate
ancient origins of several introns.

---

---

The approach that we are taking to understanding the evolution
of these genes is to characterize the Pax gene complement
of the staghorn coral, Acropora millepora, an anthozoan. The
Anthozoa are the basal class within the Cnidaria, the
simplest animals at the tissue level of organization - and are thus
likely to reflect ancestral character states more closely than
members of the other classes. The rationale behind this assumption
is that, in a representative basal animal, genes should be
performing more restricted functions, and hence, ancestral roles
may be more clearly seen. We previously identified two Pax genes in Acrophora.....

---

---

The identification of four distinct Pax genes in a basal cnidarian and the apparent relatedness of some of these to the classes
known from higher animals significantly refine our ideas about
the evolution of this complex family of genes. Whereas a degree
of uncertainty is involved in relating other cnidarian genes to the
established Pax classes, the identification of an unambiguous
Pax-3y7 ortholog in Acropora (Pax-Dam) clearly indicates that
substantial diversification of Pax genes had already occurred
before the Cnidariayhigher Metazoa split.
The Pax sequences reported herein and the structural data for
the Acropora genomic loci are consistent with the monophyly of
the Pax family. The possession of common splice sites has
frequently been used to support common ancestry, and two
intron positions are common in the Acropora Pax genes-that at
positions 46y47 in the HD and in the first codon of the PD. The
first of these is shared by a wide range of Pax and paired-like
genes...

---

---

… Dette betyder dog ikke, at jeg ikke støtter inklusionen af videnskabelige alternativer til darwinisme - som f.eks. ID - i biologitimernes pensum. Hvis der er noget galt med Marianne Karlsmoses forslag, er det, at det ikke går langt nok. Men det er dog et skridt i den rigtige retning, og derfor støtter jeg det.

---

---

>Men de to situationer, er væsensforskellige.
>I det første tilfælde er der tale om (som Fedor også skrev), at begge teorier pt er
>underbygget af empiriske data, og at der indenfor faget (klimatologi) er debat om,
>hvilken teori, der er den ”rigtige”, eller om de eventuelt begge skal indgå.
>
>Anderledes med evolutionsteorien. Den er, og har længe været den eneste mulige
>fortolkning af de empiriske data.

Det er ikke korrekt. Darwinismen er hverken den eneste eller den bedste "fortolkning af de empiriske data."

---

---

ID åbner mulighederne for andre fortolkninger, der i mine øjne er darwinismens overlegne.

---

---

F.eks. har Darwinister længe peget på den bagvendte retina i hvirveldyrenes øje som værende et eksempel på dårligt design:

---

---

...
Med andre ord vildleder det darwinistiske paradigme os ved at lade os forvente at finde dårligt designede strukturer,

---

---

hvorimod ID-teorien opfordrer os til at lede efter fordele ved de eksisterende strukturer.

---

---

Men det bliver værre (for darwinisterne ihvertfald): Den naturlige udvælgelse må have udvalgt et øjen-design, der først kom til sin fulde ret hos fugle og pattedyr, hundrede af millioner år senere:

[Denton-citat]

Darwinister kan forsøge at bortforklare dette ved at kalde det et heldigt tilfælde (den naturalistiske version af et mirakel), da forudtilpassede strukturer ikke er noget, der forventes produceret af den naturlige udvælgelse (eller nogen ande u-intelligent proces for den sags skyld). Under antagelsen, at hvirveldyrenes øje er resultatet af intelligent designers indgriben, er det derimod ganske naturligt, at designeren skulle være forudseende nok til at planlægge sit arbejde. Jeg mener, at dette er et eksempel på, hvordan det darwinistiske verdensbillede tvinger os til at ignorere visse observationer eller erklære dem for værende irrelevante, og hvor kun en teori som ID lader os anderkende observationerne for det de er, og drage de korrekte konklusioner fra dem.

---

---

...
- Den kambriske eksplosion.

- Hullerne i fossilrækken, hvor overgangene mellem de forskellige livsformer har fundet sted.

- De irreducérbart komplekse strukturer, der er beskrevet af biokemikeren Michael Behe.

- Problemerne med at forklare udviklingen af strukturer som den genetiske kode, kønnet formering og den menneskelige sprogmekanisme.

- Mangelen på intern struktur i darwinismen, såvel som problemerne med at teste den imod de empiriske observationer.

Måske Matthias kan forklare, hvorledes disse kritik-punkter er "ufaglige"?

---

---

...Evolutionsteorien er allerede en del af den offentlige mytologi.....

---

---

.....den allerede eksisterende marginalisation af kristne...

---

---

"We have seen why Darwinism was in 1859, and still is, the best explanation of why living things are as they are - not only, it turns out, on this planet, but in any world that resembles ours in several fundamental respects. Since 1859, the legacy of Darwin and Wallace has undergone a number of major transformations. The most recnet, and one of the most dramatic, has been the transformation from classical to modern Darwinism." (Cronin H., 1994, "The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, p. 52, min fremhævelse)

---

---

"Ved den ukønnede formering deler en celle sig i to; mens to celler smelter sammen og bliver til en i den kønnede formering. Det er rimeligt at spørge, hvorfor en så uøkonomisk og kompliceret proces er blevet udviklet? Hvilke fordele kan den have?
Man kan forsøge at svare ved at sammenligne nye fordelagtige mutationers opdukken hos arter med kønnet og ukønnet formering (fig. 54). Vi har en `ukønnet' koloni af parasitiske bakterier. Lad os antage, at der fremkommer mutanter, der er resistente over for streptomycin, og andre, der er det over for pencillin. Begge disse mutationer vil være værdifulde. Men en bekæmpelse med begge antibiotika vil alligevel udrydde populationen. Denne vil kun overleve, hvis begge mutation findes hos det samme individ. Det er ikke muligt med mindre den anden mutation opstod hos en efterkommer af den første mutant. Hos arter med kønnet formering vil kønsceller fra den ene mutant eller dens efterkommere kunne befrugte kønsceller fra en bærer af den anden mutation. Det betyder, at begge mutationer vil kunne optræde hos et eller flere medlemmer af populationen." (Patterson C., 1979, "Evolution", Skarv, pp. 177-8)

---

---

"Lad os vende tilbage til den kønnede formerings oprindelse. ... Den største teoretiske vanskelighed ved disse spekulationer er, at naturlig selektion sker på individer, hvorimod det er på populationsniveau at fordelene ved kønnet formering viser sig. Den kønnede formering øger populationens variationsmuligheder." (Patterson, 1979, p. 180)

---

---

"Blot for at den kønnede formering overhovedet kan ske, har organismerne udviklet helt specielle strategier og strukturer. Det er derfor ikke overraskende, at mange arter, som nedstammer fra forfædre med kønnet formering har opgivet denne strategi og er vendt tilbage til den ukønnede formering - ofte ved at fjerne hannerne!" (Patterson, 1979, p. 197)

---

---

"Fra begyndelsen har biparental sex været det væsentlige i dyre-eksistens. Men selve den biparentale sex blev aldrig bibeholdt ved naturlig selektion. Hvis det var muligt for evolutionsprocessen at komme uden om biparental sex - gennem jomfrufødsel hos biller, kloning på mennesker eller på nogen anden måde - og stadig bevare den sammensatte flercellethed, ville det uden tvivl ske. Fra et biologisk synspunkt, er sexuel forplantning spild af energi og tid." (Margulis L. & Sagan D., 1990, "Mikrokosmos: Fire milliarder års udvikling", Munksgaard, p. 127)

---

---

"[S]exual reproduction seems like a lot of excess baggage to carry along if it is functionless. Evolutionary conservatism perpetuates relics, but does it do so on such a grand scale a this? ... It is difficult to see how a process as elaborate, ubiquitous, and expensive as sexual reproduction has been maintained without serving some important purpose of its own." (Crow J.F., "The Importance of Recombination", i Michod R.E. & Levin B.R. (eds.), 1988, "The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas", Sinauer: Sunderland MA. p. 60, som citeret i ReMine W.J., 1993, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory", St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, p. 196, klammer og udeladelser er ReMines)

---

---

"There is no way in which a factor of necessity-for-survival could influence natural selection, as this process is currently formulated. Selection has nothing to do with what is necessary or unnecessary, or what is adequate or inadequate, for continued survival. It deals only with an immediate better-vs.-worse within a system of alternative, and therefore competing, entities. It will act to maximize the mean reproductive performance regardless of the effect on long-term population survival. It is not a mechanism that can anticipate possible extinction and take steps to avoid it." (Williams G.C., 1996, "Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought", Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, pp. 31-2)

---

---

"From 1909 onwards, too many biologists behaved as if `to imagine a use for an organ is ... equivalent to explaining its origin by natural selection without further enquiry'. Gould and Lewontin ridiculed this approach as adaptive `storytelling'. Indeed, some biologists seemed merely to substitute natural selection for God as an omnipotent agent of adaptation. D'Arcy Thompson observed that `To buttress the theory of natural selection, the same instances of "adaptation" (and many more) are used as in an earlier but not distant age testified to the wisdom of the Creator'." (Leigh Jr., E.G., 1999, "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism", Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(12):495-8, p. 496)

---

---

"Suppose that you and your spouse are hosting another couple one Sunday afternoon for a game of Scrabble. When the game ends, you leave the room for a break. You come back to find the Scrabble letters lying in the box, some face up and some face down. You think nothing of it until you notice that the letters facing up read, `take us out to dinner cheapskates.' In this instance you immediately infer design, not even bothering to consider that the wind or an earthquake or your pet cat might have fortuitously turned over the right letters. You infer design because a number of seperate components (the letters) are ordered to accomplish a purpose (the message) that none of the components could do by itself. Furthermore, the message is highly specific; changing several of the letters would make it unreadable. For the same reason, there is no gradual route to the message: one letter does not give you part of the message, a few more letters does not give a little more of the message, and so on." (Behe, 1998, p. 194)

---

---

"The connection between irreducible complexity and specified complexity is easily seen. The irreducibly complex systems Behe considers require numerous components specifically adapted to each other and each necessary for function. On any formal complexity-theoretic analysis, they are complex (see section 5.10). Moreover, in virtue of their function, these systems embody independently given patterns that can be identified without recourse to actual living systems. Hence these systems are also specified. Irreducible complexity is thus a special case of specified complexity." (Dembski W.A., 2002, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence", Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p. 115)

---

---

"As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages." (Gould S.J., 1992, "Return of the Hopeful Monster", i "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 188)

---

---

"The phrase intelligent design seems more urgent and quickly invites questions about who the designer might have been. Will persons with philosophical commitments against the supernatural be painted into a corner by the theory? No. The human imagination is too powerful. ... Francis Crick ... thinks that life on earth may have begun when aliens from another planet sent a rocket ship containing spores to seed the earth. ... It is not a very big leap, though, to say that a civilization capable of sending rocket ships to other planets is also likely to be capable of designing life. ... This scenario still leaves open the question of who designed the designer - how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical naturalist now trapped? Again, no. The question of the design of the designer can be put off in several ways. It could be deflected by invoking unobserved entities: perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of fluctuating electrical fields or gases; perhaps it does not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it. Another possibility is time travel, which has been seriously proposed by professional physicists in recent years. ... Perhaps then, biochemists in the future will send back cells to the early earth that contain the information for the irreducibly complex structures we observe today. ... Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." (Behe, 1996, pp. 248-9)

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=tro&Number=11660

Fedor
bruger
Reg.: 25/10/2002
Indlæg: 6
Re: Kritik af Darwin [re: Andreas]
16/11/2002 14:56

[...]

Ungjordskreationismen, som kommer med nogle specifikke påstande om hvad der fysiskt er sket, kan godt falsificeres, og dette er også sket for længst.

[...]

---

---

"From the actual experimental results of Sauer's group it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in 10 to the 65th power [Reidhaard-Olson J.F. & Sauer R.T., 1990, "Functionally Acceptable Substitutions in Two [alpha]-Helical Regions of [lambda] Repressor", Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7:306-316]. To put this fantastic number in perspective, imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny X, somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny X. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an X. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure. Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed." (Behe M.J., "Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to Be Highly Isolated from Each Other", i Buell J. & Hearn V. (eds.), 1994, "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, pp. 68-9)

---

---

"Readers of my article and the responses may have noticed that where I attacked Darwinism and the establishment of naturalism, Thomas Jukes and William Provine responded with a spirited defense of evolution. The choice of words is important, because "evolution" is a vague term with immense power to confuse." (Johnson P.E., 1990, "A Reply to My Critics", i "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", First Things, oprindelig fremhævelse)

---

---

http://www.geocities.com/evolutionsteori/recant.html

[...]

"I think it right ... to read my recantation."
Forfatter: Andreas
Dato: 01-07-02 14:55

[...]

Jeg er blevet overbevist om, at ID-bevægelsen, med så strålende forskere som Michael Behe og William Dembski i spidsen, er en avenue med stort videnskabeligt potentiale, som jeg (og mange andre) vil arbejde på at få til at bære frugt. Eksistensen af et alternativ til darwinismen har i høj grad været nødvendig for min evne til at se dennes mangelfuldhed.

[...]

---

---

"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution - paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense." (Gould S.J., 1992, "The Panda's Thumb", i "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History", W. W. Norton: NY, pp. 20-1)

---

---

"The second argument [for evolution] strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms - the chamber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen inn ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. ... Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent." (Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory", i Montagu A. (ed.), 1984, "Science and Creationism", Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 121-2, oprindelig fremhævelse)

---

---

"The case for evolution then has two sides: positive evidence - that evolution has occurred; and negative evidence - that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created." (Futuyma D.J., 1995, "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution", Sinauer: Sunderland MA, p. 198)

---

---

"Living organisms, ourself included, are loaded with what Stephen Jay Gould once called `the senseless signs of history.' Our bodies do not display intelligent design so much as they reveal the evidence of evolutionary ancestry. ... Because evolution can work only on the organisms, structures, and genes that already exist, it seldom finds the perfect solution for any problem. Instead, evolution tinkers, improvises, and cobbles together new organs out of old parts." (Miller K.R., 2000, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution", Harper Collins: NY, pp. 100-1)

---

---

"Hvad kan være mere mærkeligt, end at Menneskets Haand, der er dannet til at gribe med, Muldvarpens, der er dannet til at grave, Hestens Ben, Hvalens Luffer og Flagermusens Vinger, at alt dette er indrettet efter den samme Model og indeholder de samme Ben i de samme forskellige Stillinger? ... Intet kan være mere haabløst end at forsøge at forklare denne Lighed i Bygning hos Medlemmer af samme Klasse ved Hjælp af Nytteteorien eller Læren om de endelige Årsager." (Darwin C.R., 1981, "Arternes Oprindelse: ved naturlig selektion eller ved de heldigst stillede formers sejr i kampen for tilværelsen", bd. 2, Jørgen Paludans Forlag, pp. 465-6)

---

---

"appendix, vermiform Small diverticulum of human caecum, of many other primates, and of rodents, containing lymphoid tissue. Not a vestigial structure, contrary to common belief." ("appendix, vermiform", i Thain M. & Hickman M., 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology", Penguin Books: London, pp. 38-9, min fremhævelse)

---

---

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam

[...]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

[...]

---

---

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe M.J., 1998, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Simon & Schuster: NY, p. 39)

---

---

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer. ... Archeologists digging for a lost city might come across square stones, buried dozens of feet under the earth, with pictures of camels and cats, griffins and dragons. Even if that were all they found, they would conclude that the stones had been designed." (Behe, 1998, pp. 196-7)

---

---

"The central illusion of evolution lies in making a wide array of contradictory mechanisms look like a seamless whole. There is no single evolutionary mechanism - there are countless. Evolutionary theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of disjointed and conflicting mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the theorist. For any given question, the theorist invokes only those mechanisms that look most satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits a different response, with other mechanisms invoked and neglected.
Evolutionary theory has no coherent structure. It is amorphous. It is malleable and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of data. Evolution accommodates data like fog accommodates landscape." (ReMine W.J., 1993, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory", St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, p. 24)

---

---

"Diatrymiderne, som måske er fjerne slægtninge til tranerne men absolut ikke til strudsene og deres fæller, levede i Europa og Nordamerika i flere millioner år. De dominerende rovdyr kunne have været fugle, men i stedet triumferede pattedyrene, uden at vi kender årsagen. Vi kan opfinde forklaringer om at to ben, fuglehjerne og ingen tænder naturligvis er underlegne fire ben og skarpe hjørnetænder, men vi ved med os selv at hvis fuglene havde vundet, så havde vi kunne fortælle en lige så troværdig historie om deres fremgang." (Gould S.J., 1991, "Forunderlige liv: Om skabelsens tilfældighed og livets uforudsigelige udvikling", Gyldendal, p. 311)

---

---

"Lad os da antage, at kriser er en nødvendig betingelse for fremkomsten af nye teorier og derefter spørge, hvorledes videnskabsmænd reagerer på deres eksistens. Man kan få en del af svaret, som er lige så åbenbar som vigtig, ved først at lægge mærke til, hvad forskere aldrig gør, når de står over for alvorlige og langvarige uregelmæssigheder. Selv om de måske begynder at tabe troen på og derefter at overveje alternativer til det paradigme, der har ført dem ud i krisen, forkaster de det ikke. De behandler med andre ord ikke uregelmæssigheder som modeksempler, skønt det efter videnskabsfilosofiens ordbog er, hvad det er. ... De historiske studier har endnu ikke afsløret nogen videnskabelig udviklingsproces, som overhovedet ligner metodelærens stereotypi: falsifikation ved direkte sammenligning med naturen." (Kuhn T.S., 1995, "Videnskabens revolutioner", Forlaget Fremad: København, p. 121)

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=tro&Number=11424

matthias
bruger
Reg.: 23/10/2001
Indlæg: 28
Re: Kritik af Darwin [re: Andreas]
13/11/2002 21:29

[...]

Konsekvensen af Andreas’ indstilling ville være (som i tråden vistnok har gjort opmærksom på), at allehånde ufaglige spekulationer skulle afstedkomme ”kritik” i klasserne.

Og det vil være spild af kostbar undervisningstid.

---

---

"In the first place, contemporary design theory does not constitute an argument from ignorance or a God-of-the Gaps fallacy as Lamoureux claims. Design theorists infer design not merely because natural processes cannot explain such things as biological systems but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems - that is, they posses features that that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. ... Phillip Johnson (following Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley and me) has argued that the specified complexity or information content of DNA and proteins implies a prior intelligent cause, again because `specified complexity' and `high information content' constitute a distinctive hallmark (or signature) of intelligence. Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of high information content or specified complexity, experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role. Thus, when we encounter such information in the biomacromolexules necessary to life, we may infer - based on our knowledge of established cause-effect relationships - that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the information necessary to the origin of life. Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Inferring design this employs the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences. These inferences do not constitute arguments from ignorance any more than other well-grounded inferences in geology, archaeology, or paleontology - where provisional knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships derived from present experiences guides our inferences about the causal past." (Meyer S.C., "Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn't Make", i Johnson P.E. & Lamoureux D.O. et al., 1999, "Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins", Regent College Publishing: Vancouver Canada, pp. 92-3, oprindelig fremhævelse)

---

---

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., 1996, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 1)

---

---

"The [National] Academy [of Sciences] thus defined `science' in such a way that advocates of supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the scientific establishment. ... However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime." (Johnson P.E., 1993, "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois, p. 8)

---

---

"... [T]here are many effects that do not, based upon our present background knowledge of causal powers, suggest design as either a necessary or best explanation. An example may help to illustrate this. In the wooded neighborhood where I live near Whitworth College there are many pine trees. Every Friday morning I notice a group of pine cones piled neatly on a blue tarp next to my neighbor's curbside garbage cans. I know that Friday is trash day and that my elderly neighbor detests pine cones, pine needles, and other debris on his lawn. Given this background information, I infer that he has intentionally piled the pine cones on his tarp by design. ... Nevertheless, I do not always infer intelligent design as the cause of every phenomenon. My own lawn is usually covered with pine cones in a haphazard fashion. While it is possible that the pine cones in my yard assumed their configuration as the result of a personal agent, this seems quite unlikely to me. First, I doubt that anyone would waste his time placing pine cones in my yard in such a random arrangement. Second, I have witnessed pine cones falling and producing such random scatters many times. Thus the distribution of pine cones on my lawn seems best explained by a combination of natural factors: wind, rain, gravity, the position of the trees, the slope of the yard, the length of the grass, and so on." (Meyer, "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories", i Behe M.J., Dembski W.A. & Meyer S.C., 2000, "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute", Ignatio Press: San Francisco CA, pp. 187-8)

---

---

I mit indlæg til Matthias, "Darwinismen den eneste mulige fortolkning af data?", har jeg nævnt den observation, at pattedyr og fugles syn er afhængigt af en konstruktion af øjet, der opstod millioner af år før hverken pattedyr eller fugle opstod, såvel som en mulig ID-forklaring af denne observation. Måske Fedor kunne fortælle, hvilken "forklaring.." darwinismen har af denne observation, samt vise, at den er "bedre holdende videnskabelig[t]"

---

---

AP>Dette er understøttet af eksistensen af arter, der er vendt tilbage til ukønnet
>formering, når enkelte `ukønnede' individer har spredt deres gener i populationen:
>
>"Blot for at den kønnede formering overhovedet kan ske, har organismerne udviklet
>helt specielle strategier og strukturer. Det er derfor ikke overraskende, at mange
>arter, som nedstammer fra forfædre med kønnet formering har opgivet denne
>strategi og er vendt tilbage til den ukønnede formering - ofte ved at fjerne
>hannerne!" (Patterson, 1979, p. 197)

Og hvad så? At kønnet formering er en fordel under nogle betingelser er ikke det samme som at det er en fordel under alle betingelser. Evolutionen er ikke formålsbestemt, den bevæger sig ikke mod højere kompleksitet alene, så det er vel ikke så overraskende, at arter kan miste deres kønnethed, hvis de har kunnet antage den. Det er jo ikke kønnets eksistens, der er til diskussion. Men hvis du tror at ID er ansvarlig for kønnene, er det så også ID, der har fjernet dem igen? Det bliver til mange astronaut-besøg.

---

---

(p.137)
Several possible explanations have been proposed for the origin of sex by natural selection, as an adaptation. Two that are worth mentioning concern the load of deleterious mutations and the arms race between organisms and their parasites.

---

---

Parasites provide us with one of the most obvious exam-pies of the struggle for existence. In our own species the ravages of parasitic diseases — malaria, biiharzia, plague, smallpox, even influenza — are as obvious today as in history. Without drugs or immunization, defences against parasites depend on resistance, either developed through the immune system, during infection, or innate (genetic), as in the mechanisms that render us immune to most of the species that parasitize or infect our domestic animals (and vice versa). The ‘rate of evolution’ argument for the origin of sex is weak because it depends on future advantage, on generating variation to cope with changes in the environment that lie in the future. But parasites are an aspect of the environment, and can be thought of as an environment that is constantly changing as the defences of an organism are probed by a variety of different species or strains of parasite. In this light the success of sex in generating variation might be advantageous in the short term, in the next generation, by providing new combinations of genes conferring resistance or (from the parasite’s point of view) overcoming resistance. The argument works for both host and parasite, and computer modelling of simple genetic systems shows that it may work in practice.

---

---

Another possible explanation for sex is a version of the argument illustrated in Fig. 15.7, the advantage of sex in combining favourable or advantageous mutations. Deleterious mutations are eliminated by natural selection (just as favourable mutations are propagated by it), as described in Chapter 7, but at a cost the selective deaths necessary to eliminate their carriers. However, deleterious mutations are far more numerous than favourable mutations, and in asexual lineages they might accumulate faster than they can be eliminated. Imagine an asexual species that reproduces by binary fission (splitting into two daughters) in which each individual suffers, on average, one slightly deleterious mutation during its life. Both daughters inherit the parental mutation and if population numbers are to remain constant one (on average) must die before reproducing (see Fig 2. 1). The survivor acquires a further deleterious mutation, therefore passing two to its descendants, and so on through the generations (Fig. 15.8(a)). Obviously, such a species has no future, for before long the combined effects of the accumulated mutations, however slight their effects, will drive it to extinction. The mutation rate is too high for natural selection to cope. Contrast this situation with a sexually reproducing species suffering the same mutation rate. Because only half the chromosomes of each parent are passed on to any one descendant, only half the gametes will carry a harmful mutation. In the next generation the two parental mutations (one from each) will be distributed like one of Mendel’s factors in peas (see Fig. 4.1) with (on average) a ratio of 1:2:1 — one of four offspring carries both parental mutations, two carry one mutation, and one has none. In this situation, natural selection could cope, by the differential success in each generation of the lucky ones that start with undamaged genes (Fig. 15.8(b)).

---

---

(p. 139)
With the establishment of the sexual cycle in simple unicellular organisms, however it came about, the rate of evolution must have accelerated. Diverse unicellular organisms have experimented in colony formation, and from such experiments must have come different lines of multicellular organisms, represented today by fungi, plants and animals. The advantage of multicellular organization is that it allows division of labour. Different cells or groups of cells can become digesters, sensors, movers, conductors, and the reproductive function is left to a few cells — those that give rise to gametes. The ‘body’ of a unicellular organism is potentially immortal, because the reproductive function is not relegated to one part of it. It is only in multicellular organisms, in which reproductive potential is confined to the gametes, that there evolved the burden we all carry —the certainty of death.

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=tro&Number=11668 [...]

Men nu har det vist sig, at den bagvendte retina faktisk ikke er et eksempel på dårligt design, men snarere er nødvendigt for at understøtte de lysfølsomme cellers høje iltforbrug hos pattedyrene og fuglene: [...]

Den naturlige udvælgelse må have udvalgt et øjen-design, der først kom til sin fulde ret hos fugle og pattedyr, hundrede af millioner år senere: [...]

---

---

http://jesusnet.dk/cafethomas/forum/showthreaded.php?&Board=tro&Number=14410 [...]

For det andet mente jeg med "en konstruktion af øjet" den `bagvendte' retina hos hvirveldyrene, der tillader det store iltforbrug hos fugle og pattedyr. [...]

---

---

LB>Øje for øje? Dertil er vi forhåbentlig ikke nået!!!!!

Det var mest et ordspil over, at diskussionen drejede sig om øjne, hvilket jeg også forsøgte at vise med min lille smiley. Men, som jeg også selv bemærkede tidligere, er humor sværere at videregive over nettet, så måske jeg skulle have gjort bedre opmærksom på mine hensigter, eller helt have undgået ordspillet. Under alle omstændigheder kan jeg berolige Lars (og alle andre) med, at jeg bestemt ikke går ind for øje for øje (jf. Matt 5:38-9 ;-)), og heller ikke ønsker, at det bliver indført her i debatten.

---

---

"En population af `ukønnede' hunner kan i teorien producere dobbelt så mange efterkommere som en tilsvarende population opdelt i 2 køn. Den ukønnede formering kan ske gennem knopskydning, som vi især kender det hos mange planter og laverestående dyr.
Hunnerne kan også frembringe æg, som udvikler sig uden befrugtning, enten ved en ændring af meiosen, så vi alligevel får diploide æg, eller ved befrugtning af ægget med en anden af de haploide kerner, som hunnen danner ved meiosen. Denne form for `jomfrufødsel' findes hos mange insekter, f.eks. bladlus, og hos mange planter, som f.eks. brombær og mælkebøtte. Bladlus og mælkebøtter har dog ikke helt sløjfet kønnene. Hos bladlusene er sommergenerationerne alle hunner fremkommet ved jomfrufødsel. Men om efteråret udvikles der en generation hanner og hunner. De parrer sig og danner det næste forårs rent hunlige generation. Hos mælkebøtten er de vesteuropæiske racer triploide (s. 61), og de formerer sig ukønnet. De har helt og aldeles opgivet den kønnede formering. Men i Centraleuropa vokser der diploide racer med kønnet formering. De tjener som et lager for variation og for nye ukønnede, triploide racer." (Patterson C., 1979, "Evolution", Skarv, pp. 179-80)

---

---

"The mammalian photoreceptor is capable of generating a measurable electrical response to a single photon of light - the minimal bundle of light energy. This remarkable capacity is dependent on a complex catalytic cascade consisting of a series of enzymes in the photoreceptor cell which massively amplifies the initial signal--the absorption by a single rhodopsin molecule of a single photon. [Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, R., Raff, M., Roberts, K., Watson, J.D. (1989). "Molecular Biology of the Cell". New York: Garland Publishing, 1104-1108.] This amplification process requires vast quantities of metabolic energy and consequently the photoreceptor layer has one of the highest metabolic rates of any known tissue. [Futterman, S. (1975). "Metabolism and Photochemistry in the Retina", in Adler’s "Physiology of the Eye", 6th edition, ed. R.A. Moses. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company, pp. 406-419; p. 406] The oxygen consumption of the mammalian retina (per gram of tissue) is nearly 50% greater than that of the kidney, three times greater than the cerebral cortex and six times that of cardiac muscle. [Whikehart, D.R. (1994). Biochemistry of the Eye. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 73] Moreover, because most of the metabolic activity of the retina is concentrated in the photoreceptor layer [Futterman, op. cit., p. 407] - comprising less than half of the total mass of the retina - it is clear that the oxygen demands (per gram of tissue) of the photoreceptors are comparatively greater than such whole retinal estimates imply. Walls describes the photoreceptors in his classic The Vertebrate Eye as “greedy,” [Walls, G.L. (1963). "The Vertebrate Eye". New York: Hafner Publishing Company; p. 652] and greedy they are for both nutrients and oxygen (See Fig. 2). Indeed the high acuity and high sensitivity of the visual system in higher vertebrates is critically dependent on the very high metabolic rates of the photoreceptor cells." (Denton M.J., 1999, "The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?", Origins & Design 19(2))

---

---

Før livets opståen var der dog ikke tom intethed; der var mangfoldige kemiske reaktioner overalt på jordens overflade, nøjagtig som nu. I løbet af de første måske 3.000.000.000 (!) år opstod der et kemisk system, der kunne afgrænse, og kopiere sig selv -- livets forløber

---

---

"Since all metazoan eyes use rhodopsin as a photoreceptor molecule and the same master control gene for eye development, we postulate a monophyletic origin of the various eye types." (Gehring J.W., 2002, "The genetic control of eye development and its implications for the evolution of the various eye-types", Int J Dev Biol 46(1):65-73, p. 65)

---

---

"In raising the tautology issue I am not merely taking advantage of a few careless statements. When the critics are not watching, Darwinists continue to employ natural selection in its tautological form as the self-evident explanation for whatever change or lack of change happened to occur. The important point is that the Darwinists have been tempted continually by the thoght that their theory could be given the status of an a priori truth, or a logical inevitability, so that it could be known to be true without the need of empirical confirmation. Their suspectability to this temptation is understandable. When the theory is stated as a hypothesis requiring empirical confirmation, the supporting evidence is not impressive." (Johnson P.E., 1993, "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, p. 176)

---

---

"Aristotle had established a priori that the heavens must have an eternal circular motion, that the earth must exist, and that there must be four elements. Everything in his universe is connected with all other things by a law of logical necessity." (Hooykaas R., 1972, "Religion and the Rise of Modern Science", Regent College Publishing: Vancouver Canada, p. 31)

---

---

"Richard Dawkins calls the process of creation by mutation and selection "the blind watchmaker," by which label he means that a purposeless, materialistic designing force substitutes for the "watchmaker" deity of natural theology. The creative power of the blind watchmaker is supported only by very slight evidence, such as the famous example of a moth population in which the percentage of dark moths increased during a period when the birds were better able to see light moths against the smoke-darkened background trees. This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was not already in existence. Even such slight evidence is more than sufficient, however, because evidence is not really necessary to prove something that is practically self-evident. The existence of a potent blind watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence." (Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?", i Bauman (ed.), 1993, "Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology", Hillsdale College Press: Hillsdale MI)

---

---

"Perhaps we should not be surprised that vertebrate paleontologists did not support the prevailing view of slow, progressive evolution but tended to elaborate theories involving saltation, orthogenesis, or other vitalistic hypotheses. Most of the evidence provided by the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic interpretation, as pointed out by Eldredge and Gould (1972), Gould and Eldredge (1977), Gould (1985), and Stanley (1979, 1982)." (Caroll R.L., 1988, "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution", W.H. Freeman and Company: NY, p. 4, oprindelig fremhævelse)

---

---

"As far as we are ... concerned, a neutral mutation might as well not exist because neither we, nor natural selection can see it. A neutral mutation isn't a mutation at all, when we are thinking about legs and arms and wings and eyes and behaviour! To use the recipe analogy again, the dish will taste the same even if some words of the recipe have `mutated' to a different font. As far as those of us who are interested in the final dish are concerned, it is still the same recipe, whether printed like this or like this or like this. Molecular geneticists are like pernickety printers. They care about the actual form of the words in which recipes are written down. Natural selection doesn't care, and nor should we when talking about the evolution of adaptation." (Dawkins R., 1996, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design", W. W. Norton: NY, p. 304, oprindelige fremhævelser)

---

---

"Think of the signal that convinced the radio astronomers in the movie Contact that they had found an extraterrestrial intelligence. The signal was a long sequence of prime numbers. On account of its length the signal was complex and could not be assimilated to any natural regularity. And yet on account of its arithmetic properties it matched an objective, independently given pattern. The signal was thus both complex and specified. What's more, the combination of complexity and specification convincingly pointed those astronomers to an extraterrestrial intelligence. Design theorists contend that specified complexity is a reliable indicator of design, is instantiated in certain (though by no means all) biological structures, and lies beyond the remit of nature to generate it." (Dembski W.A., 2001, "Another Way to Detect Design?", Access Research Network)

---

---

"The huge stretches of genetic material dismissed in biology classrooms for generations as `junk DNA' actually contain instructions essential for the growth and survival of people and other organisms, and may hold keys to understanding complex diseases like cancer, strokes and heart attacks, researchers reported today.
That is the most striking finding of the first comprehensive comparison between the genetic instruction set, or genome, of human beings and that of laboratory mice, due for publication tomorrow in the journal Nature. The new results suggest that the genomes of both organisms contain at least twice as much critically important genetic material as previously believed, a finding that promises to upend decades of scientific dogma and rewrite the rule book for how nature builds complex creatures." (Gillis J., "`Junk DNA' Contains Essential Information", The Washington Post 4/12 2002)

---

---

"Someone like Richard Dawkins can present persuasive pictures of how the sifting and accumulation of small differences can produce large-scale developments, but, instinctively, a physical scientist would like to see an estimate, however rough, of how many small steps take us from a slightly light-sensitive cell to a fully formed insect eye, and of approximately the number of generations required for the necessary mutations to occur. One is only looking for an order of magnitude answer, comparable in crudity to the back-of-the-envelope calculations of early cosmologists, but our biological friends tell us, without any apparent anxiety, that it just can't be done." (Polkinghorne J., 1994, "The Faith of a Physicist", Princeton University Press, som citeret i Leigh Jr., E.G., 1999, "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism", Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(12):495-8, pp. 495-6)

---