The Continent Angel Theory Of Plate Tectonics

Update: I have discovered a couple more gems from Specialist & "Director Of Equipping", Lane Palmer, Super-Duper Evolution Fighter. The first is another rant against reality evolution called "From the Goo to the Zoo to You!" that simply must be read to be believed, and the second is "My Difficult Friend" which is a guide on how to witness to atheists, agnostics, and "evolutionists". Heh.

Christian Post columnist Lane Palmer is a "Youth Ministries Specialist" and the "Director Of Equipping" for Dare 2 Share Ministries in Arvada, Colorado, where he works with youth leaders and students, equipping them to be effective in sharing the gospel.

Hmnn. I don't see anything about him being a biologist, or holding any sort of scientific credentials... So, I am a little confused as to how he can make a statement like this in regards to the evolution/ID conflict.

[link] It seems to me that that the real issue here is less about the weight of evidence, and more about the weight of the implications. [...]

For example, if it is a core belief of mine that I exist because of a series of fortuitous desultory accidents (i.e. from the goo to the zoo to you and me too!), then I have set myself up for a serious identity crisis! In this scenario, on what exactly am I to base my value and worth? What kind of feeling does it give me knowing that if I go far enough back in my ancestral chain, I find a relative who was at the bottom of the food chain?

No, sorry, Lane old pal, it is not about the implications at all. It is all about the evidence. You see, evolution doesn't care about the implications. It just happens, regardless. Evolution - and indeed science in general - is wholly impersonal. It doesn't give a whit for your feelings, your emotions, your confusion, your religion, or your sincerely-held beliefs and desires.

It rolls on, heedless.

That being said, I find it amusing that Specialist Palmer (wow - talk about a cool title to give to yourself!) holds some seriously wrongheaded ideas about what evolution is - and is not.

[link] I suppose I could have sat down at my keyboard and randomly banged on letters until a page or two was filled up. I mean, given enough time and chance, don’t you think eventually I would have a coherent article that somehow evolved from a lower literary form to a more complex collection of words and phrases?

Nah- neither did I. But I guess I must be quite the simpleton to think that behind each reasoned and rational piece of writing was some form of intelligent design. Almost as if the thing that was created had a creator.

This is the old Fred Hoyle, 747-being-assembled-by-a-tornado "random chance" canard that has been thoroughly debunked for years.

[link] But could there be something else behind it? It just may be possible that there are some who see the scientific solidarity coming apart like a massive continental drift- and this move bringing another threat to the ever-shrinking evolutionary turf.

Nice. Bring in a scientific-sounding phrase to argue for ID. Heh. "Massive continental drift". Heheheh... Look, Specialist Palmer, it is called the science of plate tectonics, and it is not even as well-supported by the evidence as the science of biological evolution is. Don't get me wrong, it is still a very well-supported scientific theory, like much like the theory of gravity, but my point is that biological evolution is so much better supported by the evidence than even those two well-know and accepted theories.

Why the heck are you singling out evolution to oppose? Why not denounce plate tectonics as a "tool of the devil" or some other wacky thing like that? Why not offer an "alternate theory" about how plate tectonics work. One that postulates invisible "intelligent continent angels" who float around in the cracks between plates and move them on God's command maybe? Heck, man, that sounds great! Call the Kansas School Board standards committee quick!

There is no "ever-shrinking evolutionary turf". Wishful thinking by a Youth Ministries Specialist/columnist notwithstanding. Our understanding of the biological sciences, including evolution, grows every day as new discoveries are made, new evidences are collected, and new experiments are performed to help us place a few more pieces in the puzzle. Revisions and back steps happen, of course (after all this is science, not theology), but on the whole we are slowly, step by careful step, advancing our scientific understanding of biological evolution.

[link] Intelligent design has been called "Creationism in a tuxedo suit", but gee, could we not say that evolution is nothing more than atheism in a gorilla suit? It’s clear that we are talking about fundamentally opposing world views here, so why not get both in the ring and see who’s left standing?

Listen very carefully; You are not talking about "competing theories". The is no equality at all, in any way, shape, or form, between the scientific theory of biological evolution and the religious assertion of an intelligent designer for the entire universe.

Apple, meet orange.

There are no suits - tuxedo, or gorilla. There are no "opposing world views". Evolution is a science, it is not a "world view". There is no "ring". Science class is for science. A comparative religions class, or a sociology class would be the place to discuss ID.

[link] The fact is, Intelligent Design has some serious intelligent thought behind it.

Hmnn. Maybe it does. Serious thought into how they can sell it to the American public. Serious political thought, maybe.

Serious scientific thought though? Not at all. Unless you consider criticism of evolution and parroting bad creationists arguments to sell your product to the rubes to be "serious scientific thought". I don't. I call it what it is; snake-oil hucksterism and a bid for political power by a religious group.

[link] My suspicion about those who claim it has no basis in science have made little to no effort in researching their position. And, of course, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want to be taken seriously in the arena of public debate, we had better do our research as well.

Please, Specialist Palmer, point me to one, single, mainstream scientific journal in which an article approving of ID has been accepted for publication through the normal channels, and not through the "back door" via deception? If ID can stand on it's own as an "alternate theory" competing head to head with biological evolution, then where are the papers? Where are the evidences? Where the heck are the predictions?

What exactly is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? Can you state it for me?

Here's the scientific theory of evolution in one, concise sentence:

"Evolution is precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." (quoted from The Evolutionary Fact FAQ by Dr. M.R. Leipzig)

Of course, there is a little more to it than that, but this is the minimalist definition, the base definition, if you will. I'd love to see Specialist Palmer produce one for ID.

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' -but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." (Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 & 65.)

Kind of tough to do when it doesn't exist.