ASA - November 2007: RE: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drun

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Nov 23 2007 - 09:29:48 EST

Wow. Where did I say ID = uncommon descent? In fact, I thought I have made
it clear that I accept the evidence for common descent. My use of ID was in
reference to Gould's hallway that constrains the staggering drunk and
facilitates forward progress. Whatever this mysterious mechanism is, it
loosely qualifies for a weak ID definition.

Just like Dick's response, I think there is a lot of emotional reaction on
this list to the concept of ID. That is what I tried to clarify earlier in
this thread whether the specific objection to ID was based on science or
this emotion. I think the answer is both.

I think George's contribution of the distinction between micro and
macrostates of molecules in a container is very helpful. I think this same
analysis needs to be applied to the concept of design in life and this
distinction needs to be factored into the use of the term, otherwise we are
just a tower of Babel and speaking different languages.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 9:14 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: 'Randy Isaac'; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20

So, what's the forensic evidence in favor of ID? The example below is where
the "gut feel" is overturned by detailed forensic evidence. This kind of
evidence actually goes against the "uncommon descent" variety of ID. If you
look at human chromosome number 2 you see detailed forensic evidence that it
is fused chromosomes 2a and 2b of chimpanzees and other great apes. If you
want to do your own CSI work go here:

Shows the matched chromosome:

http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?hgsid=100027956
<http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?hgsid=100027956&clade=vertebrate&or
g=Chimp&db=panTro2&position=chr2a%3A11%2C250%2C001-12%2C250%2C000&pix=&Submi
t=submit&hgsid=100027956>
&clade=vertebrate&org=Chimp&db=panTro2&position=chr2a%3A11%2C250%2C001-12%2C
250%2C000&pix=&Submit=submit&hgsid=100027956

Shows the matched telomere:

User Guide to the Genome Browser:

http://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/help/hgTracksHelp.html

This is not some vague analogy to forensics but applies the very DNA
techniques used to reverse convictions. Namely, the forensic DNA evidence is
extraordinarily strong for common descent of humans from a common ancestral
great ape. I hope your friend has a chapter on human chromosome 2.

On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:44 AM, John Walley wrote:

> The absence of being "fully" random is not the sign of divine guidance.

I have this one last niggling ID doubt. I have trouble accepting the above.
This is where the ID forensic argument comes in and I have to admit it is
somewhat convincing.

For instance, in our RTB Chapter in Atlanta, one of our scientists is a
Forensic Toxicologist that works for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. He
analyzes tissue samples for the presence of certain drugs and testifies as
an expert witness for the state in court cases. His work involves mostly
DUI, cocaine and methamphetamine, but occasionally he gets the bizarre and
recently got some local black widow type woman that had a penchant for
poisoning her husbands and he had to find the trace evidence of whatever it
was that she used in order for the state to prosecute her. Since a couple of
her previous husbands had died as well now they suspect she poisoned them
too.

This is the real CSI stuff. He took me down to the GBI lab one time and gave
me a tour of all the departments and I met all the people and it was really
fascinating. In addition to his toxicology lab they have a ballistics dept
where they analyze all the different types of guns and bullets and a
document and forgery dept that analyzes all the different kinds of document
fraud several other depts and a DNA lab. In fact I met the two girls that
run the DNA lab and their work was recently in the news that you may have
seen since the GBI just did a paternity test on Atlanta megachurch pastor
Earl Paulk and determined that his 34 year old nephew who had replaced him
as pastor was really his son through an illicit affair with his brother's
wife. Talk about bizarre.

They also have a synthetic fiber analysis dept and I met the guy that was
one of the ones that actually analyzed the carpet fibers in the famed Wayne
Williams serial murder case in Atlanta back in the 70's. The guy I met was
retiring that week and he had come on as an intern almost 30 years ago when
the GBI was conducting that investigation.

Anyway my friend is a strong ID advocate and he uses his knowledge and
experience of forensics in his presentation on ID and last I heard he was
even writing a book about it. One example he uses is the Wayne Williams case
mentioned above. In fact Wayne Williams was the first capital murder case
conviction ever won on the basis of forensic evidence. They basically
identified carpet fibers found on several of the bodies to the carpet in
Wayne Williams' house and car and it turns out the particular carpet found
in his home was a certain type from a certain small manufacturer of a
certain odd color that was made in a certain small lot size and only sold in
the Atlanta area be a few retailers for a certain small period of time. The
prosecution's case was basically massive circumstantial evidence and came
down to what are the chances that all these victims would have that carpet
fiber on them if they hadn't all been in Wayne Williams house before they
were murdered?

This is far from being an airtight case but they won the conviction. It has
been contested though from the beginning because Atlanta was sharply
polarized along racial lines at the time (Wayne Williams is African
American) and his defense attorney at the time (who happened to be my scout
master) released a famous quote that "Wayne Williams was convicted on the
law of averages instead of the law of the land". And still today there are
efforts underway to get his conviction overturned and prominent local
politicians continually call for that.

My friends point in his presentation is that here is an example of how the
govt uses science and probability arguments to convict a man of a capital
murder charge for which he could have been executed, so it is therefore
disingenuous for Dawkins and others in academia to deny design in the
universe in the face of the same massive amounts of circumstantial evidence.
Granted neither case is totally airtight and they both come down to whether
or not we can rationally infer a cause beyond a reasonable doubt but we seem
to have different criteria in play here. It seems like Dawkins gets away
with what Wayne Williams couldn't.

To me this has always seemed like a very reasonable argument. So Dawkins
want to make the metaphysical claim that evolution has no distant targets so
therefore he gets to throw out all the complexity and probability evidence
against him. How is this different than Wayne Williams attempting to come up
with some claim to get all the carpet evidence against him thrown out that
we would never buy? Why do we seem to allow this theoretical scientific
ideal in academia but in the real world of the courts where people's lives
are on the line, we don't?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 23 09:30:50 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 23 2007 - 09:30:50 EST

RE: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20