Creationists: Here's your chance

[ImmortalFlame]

again, the selection process happens after there is something to select from. I am interested in the process through which there is something to select from.

Please respond to the quotes in context.

In materials engineering, we deal with billions of atoms too. We've been able to figure it out though. We can predict things

But can you predict and demonstrate the effect on every single individual atom?

Are you aware that genetics is far more complicated than that?

 

[Gunfingers]

Are you seriously expecting to be able to look at a specific couple hooking up and predict the EXACT genetics of their offspring? There are so VERY many variables involved, most of which are not realistic to measure.

Vague predictions are more likely. Being able to predict, for example, that there WILL be mutations.

 

[idea]

sorry, getting kids to bed

But can you predict and demonstrate the effect on every single individual atom?

yes. We have MD simulations which do just that.

every single individual atom has definable potentials which control their interactions with one another.

Are you aware that genetics is far more complicated than that?

why? genetics are just a bunch of atoms interacting like any other right? What makes atomic motion in genetics different than atomic motion in anything else? They're just atoms right? Atoms are atoms with the same interaction potentials no matter if they are in a frog or a rock. They're just atoms.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s the thing – from my world. If you take, say a bunch of Iron atoms, let’s start with molten Iron, if you warm it up to the solidification temp at a given rate, you will get a specific crystalline structure. It’s predictable – you can repeat it over and over again, that’s how we make iron pipes / tools / etc. etc. These molecules have definable potentials which interact with one another in a specific way – it doesn’t matter how many billions of molecules there are, we have laws which describe how these molecules come together.

Now take DNA. Me, the frog, the monkey, rats – we’re all made out of pretty much the same molecules. Carbon, Oxygen, etc. etc. Now if these molecules are “dead” we know exactly how they will come together. You can go sit in an organic chemistry class, and use software packages to look at various combinations of molecules and use the atomic potentials to see the structures which evolve under various temperatures and pressures.

There is something very different which happens if you look at something that is alive though. The way these molecules combine together when they are in a living organism is totally different than the way they combine when they are dead. It’s the same molecules – same potentials - same atoms - totally different animals/DNA/structures.

Dead stuff: same molecules / same T,P = same crystalline structures.
Alive stuff: same molecules, T, P = completely different crystalline structures.

What is the driving force / interaction potentials / bonding physics / etc. etc. which differs between the living and the deceased?

In metallurgical and materials engineering, molecules don’t just “randomly” come together, they don’t just “randomly” break apart, they don’t just decide one day to change their crystalline structure. The Iron of yesterday is the same as the iron of today - iron molecules have not "evolved" over the years to form new metalic structures.

Not just the molecules – but the end result:
Take a dead rock with some initial KE/PE and add some force “F” to it – you can calculate exactly where that rock is going to land.

Now take a live cat with some initial KE/PE and add some force “F” to it – if the force is not strong enough to kill/maime the cat, you have no way of calculating where that cat will end up. (unless you confine the cat so it can only go one direction).

You can’t predict life…. There’s science, with predicable quantifiable solutions… and then there’s life – you can’t predict it, and so for now, science can only observe it… limited on what theoretical predictions it can create.

"it just randomly happens" or ID with life.

 

[painted wolf]

I predicted my child's eye color based on simple genetics.

My spouse has blue eyes... I have brown eyes. Blue eyes do not run in my family. The gene for blue eyes is recessive while the gene for brown eyes is dominant. Therefore my child will have brown eyes.

This was a terribly simple prediction to make... most features are controlled by multiple genes working in concert... making it all but impossible to account for every permutation possible.
Skin color for example is controlled by at least 9 genes, you would have to know all the variants of each of these genes the parents have... then figure out each possible combination of the genes that the child can inherit... then account for any possible mutations that may happen during Meiosis... then the possible mutations that may happen during recombination... then account for any eppigenetic factors that may influence the developing fetus.

It's a bit harder than simply saying that hydrogen will bond with oxygen or that stress on a particular solid will cause it to bend or break.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

idea... I suggest you study some biochemistry to answer your questions.

wa:do

 

[idea]

I predicted my child's eye color based on simple genetics.

My spouse has blue eyes... I have brown eyes. Blue eyes do not run in my family. The gene for blue eyes is recessive while the gene for brown eyes is dominant. Therefore my child will have brown eyes.

This was a terribly simple prediction to make... most features are controlled by multiple genes working in concert... making it all but impossible to account for every permutation possible.
Skin color for example is controlled by at least 9 genes, you would have to know all the variants of each of these genes the parents have... then figure out each possible combination of the genes that the child can inherit... then account for any possible mutations that may happen during Meiosis... then the possible mutations that may happen during recombination... then account for any eppigenetic factors that may influence the developing fetus.

It's a bit harder than simply saying that hydrogen will bond with oxygen or that stress on a particular solid will cause it to bend or break.

wa:do

We have 3 kids. All 3 kids have the same parents, raised in the same house, but they are all completely different.

The big nature vs. nurture debate will never be solved because part of them comes from neither nature nor nurture.

 

[idea]

PS - I'm not a creationist: see this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints-dir/100056-premortal-life.html

at least not in the traditional def of the word... I do cater to ID though.

 

[painted wolf]

We have 3 kids. All 3 kids have the same parents, raised in the same house, but they are all completely different.

The big nature vs. nurture debate will never be solved because part of them comes from neither nature nor nurture.

And yet there will be some things that can be predicted from genetics... predispositions to certain illnesses, eye color, hair color, height, the ability to roll their tongue or cross their eyes.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

Idea,

There are about 70 trillion possible genetic combinations that a child will have from two parents. Keep in mind, this doesn't include crossing over during meiosis, mutations, epigenetic factors, and any physical/chemical interactions that can change the phenotype of a child inside the womb. That is a ton of variety, and explains why you have 3 kids from the same parents and look different.

I hate to ask, but are you a Vitalist? Just reading your posts you seem to believe that life has some special property that can't be quantified. There is nothing 'special' about life in terms of how atoms and molecules interact with each other, they obey the same laws of chemistry and physics. Life at its most basic is simply chemical reactions taking place. If I'm not mistaken, how the organism is different structurally depends a lot of which genes are turned on and off at what time during fetal development. It really is just one insanely complex chemical machine.

 

[David M]

The entire point of a theory is to be able to predict what happens. You know - the scientific process.

So by this measure atomic theory can be thrown out of the window because although we know why certain atoms decay we cannot predict when a single atom will decay.

This objection is peurile, the physical laws that govern why DNA mutates are understood we just cannot predict which amino acids out of billions will change each time DNA copies itself.

Random events do exist, this does not mean that the mechanisms behind them are not understood just that they do not allow prediction beyond probability.

I'm a materials engineer. When we look at new alloys, we don't say they are imperfect, or they have errors, we look at the types of bonds / how the atoms interact, we know why the crystals form, what strength properties they will have etc. etc.

We can predict it - if you put these molecules together, you will get x in return. I have not yet seen anyone predict/explain using precise quantifiable experimentation what causes mutations. ie – if you introduce this new molecule under this circumstance, this specific mutation will happen due to this type of atomic bonding. No one can explain why DNA molecules come together.

Can you predict exactly which atoms will bind with which other atoms in your crystalline structure- no you can't. So your materials engineering is based on a lie, its all invalid.

The explanation of why DNA molecules come together is well known, it chemistry. The same chemistry that you use in materials engineering.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I think Jolly's right.

Right about what? You see i didn't see my question answered. What would that "supernatural" exactly be? Anyway let me perhaps answer a point of yours to illustrate my problem with the "rule out argument".

In stone age, there's no evidence for the presence of black holes, it's far from saying that black holes did not exist in stone age.

Sure you are correct. But the point is that during the stone age nobody declared black holes to exist without evidence and build a religion out of it that ruled the world. Or to say it differently..... not knowing something at a time is by no means a good justification to simply declare its existence. In the stone ages there also was no evidence for the ether either. And it actually doesn't exist.

Evidence is just for a human brain to recognise a truth (or rather for a belief system to believe that it is the truth). Something is evident to one may not be evident enough to someone else, because they possess a diffferent belief systems (brains).

I think this gets way to much into the relativistic and philosophical highways. We end up with a "what is truth" and "what means do we have at all to determine if or what truth exists?"

At most ToE is just to reflect one of the possibilities. Is it possible that God created everything in a way we don't know? Noone can rule out that possibility.

The flaw in that argument is that you are not consistent. You can't rule out that a pantheon of Gods created the universe or a different God than the one one believes in or chance or or or or or or. Yet when you look at most people that make such arguments they actually DO dismiss all "possibilities" except for their prefered one. In the case of Gods you have the problem that there is actually no enumerable possibility. With the toe you actually DO have evidence, facts and concrete models that explain things in a detail that it doesn't make much sense to deny it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

every single individual atom has definable potentials which control their interactions with one another.

And do you understand that genetic code is far more complex than that?

why? genetics are just a bunch of atoms interacting like any other right?

It's nowhere near that simple. A single gene is made up of thousands of base pairs of nucleotides. To be able to accurately predict the reaction of each and every nucleotide in the genome to the various degrees of radiation, imperfect replication and retroviruses they are affected by throughout a person's life would be like trying to draw an accurate diagram of each and every individual atom in a steel girder before and after melting it.

What makes atomic motion in genetics different than atomic motion in anything else? They're just atoms right? Atoms are atoms with the same interaction potentials no matter if they are in a frog or a rock. They're just atoms.

Basic chemistry and biology. Genes aren't atoms, they're vastly more complex and made up of thousands of atoms. That's like asking what's the difference between two atoms bouncing off each other and punching someone in the face.

Here’s the thing – from my world. If you take, say a bunch of Iron atoms, let’s start with molten Iron, if you warm it up to the solidification temp at a given rate, you will get a specific crystalline structure. It’s predictable – you can repeat it over and over again, that’s how we make iron pipes / tools / etc. etc. These molecules have definable potentials which interact with one another in a specific way – it doesn’t matter how many billions of molecules there are, we have laws which describe how these molecules come together.

Good for you, but that's got no bearing whatsoever on evolution, genetics or biology in general.

Now take DNA. Me, the frog, the monkey, rats – we’re all made out of pretty much the same molecules. Carbon, Oxygen, etc. etc. Now if these molecules are “dead” we know exactly how they will come together. You can go sit in an organic chemistry class, and use software packages to look at various combinations of molecules and use the atomic potentials to see the structures which evolve under various temperatures and pressures.

There is something very different which happens if you look at something that is alive though. The way these molecules combine together when they are in a living organism is totally different than the way they combine when they are dead. It’s the same molecules – same potentials - same atoms - totally different animals/DNA/structures.

Dead stuff: same molecules / same T,P = same crystalline structures.
Alive stuff: same molecules, T, P = completely different crystalline structures.

What is the driving force / interaction potentials / bonding physics / etc. etc. which differs between the living and the deceased?

In metallurgical and materials engineering, molecules don’t just “randomly” come together, they don’t just “randomly” break apart, they don’t just decide one day to change their crystalline structure. The Iron of yesterday is the same as the iron of today - iron molecules have not "evolved" over the years to form new metalic structures.

Once again, this is a false dichotomy. Genes do not "randomly" mutate, we know how and why they mutate, we just don't have any means of predicting what mutations will occur, when and in which genes. This shouldn't be surprising since there are so many millions of variables.

Not just the molecules – but the end result:
Take a dead rock with some initial KE/PE and add some force “F” to it – you can calculate exactly where that rock is going to land.

Now take a live cat with some initial KE/PE and add some force “F” to it – if the force is not strong enough to kill/maime the cat, you have no way of calculating where that cat will end up. (unless you confine the cat so it can only go one direction).

You can’t predict life…. There’s science, with predicable quantifiable solutions… and then there’s life – you can’t predict it, and so for now, science can only observe it… limited on what theoretical predictions it can create.

Nonsense. Evolutionary scientists, archeologists and geneticists make successful predictions all the time based on evolutionary theory. I've already given you three examples.

"it just randomly happens" or ID with life.

I wish you'd stop using that straw-man. I've already explained why it's fallacious.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's an article I wrote a little bit ago:



in short, I think evolutionists have "observations" but not a "theory". A theory explains why something happens. What I see are just a bunch of observations without a real theory to go along with it...

PS - natural selection comes after the "random" mutation. I agree with natural selection, I just don't agree with "random" mutations....

Thank you for demonstrating your utter ignorance and lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution. If you are ever interested in learning what it says, please let us know; we'll be happy to explain it.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree - natural selection is great - I agree with it. It comes after the fact though. What is there to select from if it does not first mutate? nothing. The mutation happens before the selection. I want to know why mutations happen.

Mutations happen because DNA replicates imperfectly. Occasionally a bit of DNA will get copied twice, or accidentally moved to a different spot.

Spontaneous mutations on the molecular level can be caused by:

• Tautomerism – A base is changed by the repositioning of a hydrogen atom, altering the hydrogen bonding pattern of that base resulting in incorrect base pairing during replication.
• Depurination – Loss of a purine base (A or G) to form an apurinic site (AP site).
• Deamination – Hydrolysis changes a normal base to an atypical base containing a keto group in place of the original amine group. Examples include C → U and A → HX (hypoxanthine), which can be corrected by DNA repair mechanisms; and 5MeC (5-methylcytosine) → T, which is less likely to be detected as a mutation because thymine is a normal DNA base.
• Slipped strand mispairing - Denaturation of the new strand from the template during replication, followed by renaturation in a different spot ("slipping"). This can lead to insertions or deletions.

[wiki]

It's kind of like Brownian motion. When we look closely, we can see the causes of mutations. The effect can nevertheless accurately be described as "random."

 

[Autodidact]

I agree - natural selection is great - I agree with it. It comes after the fact though. What is there to select from if it does not first mutate? nothing. The mutation happens before the selection. I want to know why mutations happen.



The entire point of a theory is to be able to predict what happens. You know - the scientific process:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


It's not a theory. Evolutionists have made it to #1, but not to 2,3,4.

You are mistaken. ToE has generated literally millions of predictions, and each and every one of them has been confirmed, both experimentally and in the field. Would you like to learn what a few of them are, or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

Oh, and your definition is correct. The prediction does not need to be of an experiment, it can include observations in the field.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm a materials engineer. When we look at new alloys, we don't say they are imperfect, or they have errors, we look at the types of bonds / how the atoms interact, we know why the crystals form, what strength properties they will have etc. etc.

We can predict it - if you put these molecules together, you will get x in return. I have not yet seen anyone predict/explain using precise quantifiable experimentation what causes mutations. ie – if you introduce this new molecule under this circumstance, this specific mutation will happen due to this type of atomic bonding. No one can explain why DNA molecules come together.

Well that explains it. ToE isn't engineering. It's science.

 

[painted wolf]

The entire point of a theory is to be able to predict what happens. You know - the scientific process:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


It's not a theory. Evolutionists have made it to #1, but not to 2,3,4.

You are joking right?
Please please tell me you are pulling a Poe here.

1) Observation: Species change over time.
2) Hypothesis: Those individuals that have a beneficial trait (mutation) that allows them to reproduce better than the rest of the population... will have that trait come to dominate in the population.
3) If bacteria are subjected to increasingly high temperatures then only those bacteria with a genetic mutation that allows them to function at those temperatures will survive. Eventually the whole population will share this mutant trait.
4) Evolution of Escherichia coli for growth at high temperatures — JBC
5)This sort of experiment has been done quite a lot... similar work has been done observationally in wild populations like the Himalayan Snow Lotus, Galapagos Finches and so on. You literally can't read a biology journal without tripping all over these sorts of experiments/studies.

I'm going to have to assume that the comment above was a joke.

wa:do

 

[mho123]

Everything that had a beginning had a cause. This is the law of causality and it is the fundamental principle of science.Without this law science would be impossible. Francis Bacon wrote:"True knowledge is knowledge by causes". To deny the law of causality is to deny rationality. David Hume wrote,"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause". Therefore, if all things are caused then behind every cause is a causer.

Before the big bang there was no time, or natural laws. There was nothing, yet the law of causality demands that this nothing caused the big bang. The problem is nothing can cause nothing. Therefore, something or someone caused the big bang. So who or what caused it?

ANswer is!!! WE DONT KNOW ,,, doesnt mean god exists,,wrong reasoning ,, wrong logic ,, we just havfe to be honest and admit that somethings we just dont know ,, nothing to do with god or any other force,,,

 

[Jollybear]

RedOne77

There is no 100% accurate definition of species. Classically speaking, any two populations that can't produce fertile offspring are considered separate species. Also, when talking about speciation within nature, a commonly accepted trait is when two populations overlap in territory and they simply do not mate with each other.

There are different ways that speciation can happen. The most common way is when a single population gets split in two so that the two populations cannot breed with each other. Over time mutations accumulate, and when the two populations will not mate with each other, or when they can't produce fertile offspring, a new specie(s) is born.

If you have time, this is a page about observed instances of speciation (new species arising)

Observed Instances of Speciation

I would highly recommend going through this site: Evolution 101: Speciation

The site, evolutionberkeley, is probably one of the best places to go to get accurate information about evolution that is easy to read and understand.

Ok so speciation is not a gain of information but a loss of it? Plus, these changes that are observed are SMALL changes, micro changes, not macro. Macro is not observed.

That is just the way science works. Facts, hypotheses, theories, laws, etc, all have specific purposes and definitions in science.

Actually I was reading in that online biology text book and it said a law has more certainty then a theory does. So the law of gravity has more certainty then the theory of evolution does in that case.

Also why is it “just the way science works”?

Also when you say a theory will never change into a fact, is that statement a hypothesis, theory or a fact?

Facts are subject to change as well when new evidence comes in. But perhaps the most important part, at least in terms of the philosophy of science, is that nothing can be 100% truth, not even facts.

I don’t think I understand what you’re telling me here. It is a FACT that my computer is in front of me and I am using it and it exists. That is a FACT. So how is that fact NOT 100% true?

Evolution can be talked about in two main ways. The first, is about the fact of evolution. That is, populations change over time, it's been observed and verified too many times to count.

I don’t doubt change over time; that is not what I doubt, yes I agree that is a fact.

So, evolution is a fact. Also, the theory of evolution explains why/how they change. IOW, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

MICRO (small changes over time) evolution happens and is a FACT, but macro (big changes over time) is not a proven fact. Do you think macro evolution is a proven fact, if so, why?

So the theory of evolution explains why they change, ok, why do they change?

We can see the attraction of masses, that is what gravity is.

So you SEE the masses, you don’t see the gravity, right? And gravity is NOT the masses themselves, right?

We can calculate its force, derive laws and equations from observations, make predictions and so on. What do you mean by "KNOW"? Is gravity proven? No. But nothing in science is. It would be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard to say that we don't "know" that masses attract each other in this day and age.

I’m not saying we don’t know that masses attract, but what is the cause of their attraction? You call it gravity, how do you “KNOW” that? You have not SEEN, heard, or touched, or smelt gravity, have you? So my point is, why doesn’t science come up with a means to try to DETECT the ACTUAL gravity itself? And if it is trying to do that, why not then stop being selective and come up with a means to try to detect the spirit world as well?

It all depends on what your 'limit' of change is. At what point is something a different "kind of species"? This shows the basic progression from a land mammal (Mesonychid) to a whale via the transitional species Ambulocetus.

How do you know those five bone specimens are transitions of one another? And not just separate species of themselves? Just because people found the bones and lined them up together does not make them transitions, right?

Plus just looking at them they don’t even look like the same kind of creatures.

Of course, science ain't about democracy, it is about tangible evidence and developing theories based on that evidence. Not only is ID a failed idea, IMO, but it isn't science.

I don’t see how intelligent design is a failed idea and I also don’t see how it’s not a scientific theory.

The 'champion' of ID, Dr. Behe, stated that in order to make ID a science, you would have to change the modern definition of science to include astrology.

Ok, but who cares about astrology at the moment, I’m not interested in that, nor what Behe says about it. I can’t understand how intelligent design is a failed idea, nor a scientific theory. Let’s stick to one thing here, that way we can make our discussion very specific and focused in order to not be confused.

 

[Jollybear]

And he said this under oath in court, mind you, while defending ID.

Ok, but I am not defending a man, I am defending an idea and asking questions about your views. I don’t care about Behe, intelligent design does not stand or fall based on a representative, nor does it stand or fall based on the motive of that representative.

Just to give you a little taste of the obsurdidies of astrology, they claim that the combined gravity of the stars (in the right position) can have effects on you, never mind that the chair you are sitting on has more of a gravitational influence on you than the nearest star (proxima centauri).

Ok, that’s fine, and nice to know, but it’s not what I am interested in at the moment.

ID is a religious idea trying to mask itself as science to force religion into schools. This is clearly seen in such things as the Wedge document/strategy:

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As well as the Dover Trial. Judge Jones, a conservative judge appointed by President Bush of all people, has made it clear that ID is grounded in religion and is not an applicable science. I suggest you look over this page to understand what I'm talking about: NOVA | The Judge Speaks

First off, I remember Stephen c meyer a strong intelligent design advocate say his motives were NOT to bring religion into the schools, but to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design alone. Now, to assume he is lying is just that, an assumption. Just because a judge says this is the MOTIVES of intelligent designers to get religion in the door, does not make it so. A judge can judge wrong too you know.
Secondly, even if that was there motive, again, intelligent design does not stand or fall based on the motives of it’s representatives.
Thirdly intelligent design is NOT religion wearing a mask of science, it’s NOT religion, it’s observations on nature and the world and then it makes the inference that there is design and that it is not just an appearance of design. So, this makes it science since it deals with the physical world, nature.

An excerpts from the site: "ntelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

First, why is that the RULE of science to rule out or ignore what COULD be the ACTUAL CAUSE of the making of this universe?
Secondly, intelligent design is not perse invoking a supernatural causation, it is simply invoking an intelligent causation. This is how it should be represented.

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and

What is wrong with the irreducible complexity argument?

(3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community....

What are those refutations? I don’t just take the judges word for it, I am going to question everything.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

Whether this trial had evidence for certain motivations from the representatives of intelligent design or not, I don’t care about, because the fact is, there is a difference between intelligent design and young earth creationism or just the biblical creationism. Intelligent design does not stand or fall based on it’s representatives or their motives.

What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization.... Intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science....

Oh my gosh, now I am getting frustrated again, I was hoping this would not happen. Just because Christians believe and push for intelligent design does not make intelligent design religion. Intelligent design does not stand or fall based on it’s representatives or their motives or religious affiliation. So when they say “intelligent design is grounded in theology, not science” this is false, they should have said “intelligent design is grounded in science and people of theology are happening to push for it.” Stephen c Meyer up front will admit he is a Christian and then says who cares, that is not what matters for intelligent design. And I agree, he is LOGICALLY right about that.

Moreover, intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."

What is the scientific scrutiny that they avoided?

There is no proof in science, nothing can be proved. All evidence suggests that mutations are random,

Yea and some things that are called evidence are not really truly evidence either.