Florida Rep. D. Alan Hays, who filed creationism bill (“academic freedom”) HB 1483, has invited his fellow lawmakers out to a movie. Let’s see here … what’s good playing right now that Florida’s legislator’s might like to see. Oh! I know! How about a film where good ol’ fashioned creationism is re-branded as persecuted “academic freedom.” That should be right up everyone’s alley.
That’s right, Ben Stein and the Discovery Institute’s Expelled is coming to a theater near … no, not you … near your in-session legislature, which just so happens to have two bills before it expounding the virtues of so-called “academic freedom.” Here’s the e-mail invite:
From: Rousseau, Tiffany
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 3:18 PM
To: !HSE All House Members & LAs
Subject: Special Invitation from Representative HaysAn exclusive invitation to members of the Florida Legislature:
Representative Alan Hays Invites you to attend an exclusive pre-screening to be held by Motive Entertainment of the New Major Picture Documentary:
Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed
Starring Ben SteinWhat:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, follows Ben Stein on his journey around the globe where he discovers that scientists, educators and philosophers are being persecuted because they dare to go against the theory of evolution.Where:
IMAX Theater
Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee
200 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301When:
Wednesday, March 12th 2008
7:30 p.m.RSVP Online at
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/rsvp/MGgr7KeAs a member of the Legislature, you are invited to attend this screening with 1 guest.
For questions, please contact Tiffany at: Tiffany.Rousseau@myfloridahouse.gov
850-488-0348***This event has been approved by House General Counsel and is not paid for by a lobbyist/principal.
Florida Citizens for Science has some questions here:
This is not paid for a lobbyist/principal. But would the benefactor possibly be crossing any lines here seeing as how this movie has direct relations to HB 1483 and SB 2692? I have no knowledge of such things, so please enlighten me in the comments, folks.
What in the world is the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee doing allowing this to happen at their facility? Take a look at their mission statement.
Our missions include the provision to K-12 students of standards-aligned, high-quality “hands-on†educational experiences in science and engineering through the use of high-fidelity aerospace simulators.
Expelled and the related bills filed in the legislature are the complete opposite of standards-aligned. Florida Citizens for Science is definitely going to be asking some questions. I encourage you to do so, too. At the very least, they should do as the Smithsonian Institution did in issuing a statement removing their co-sponsorship of the movie The Privileged Planet.
[edited to add: It is important to highlight two posts from the comments thread: “I am told by Norman Thagard, MD, the director of the Challenger Center, that anyone not showing pornography is allowed to rent the CC and they cannot discriminate among those to whom they rent. Evidently this legislator has arranged this showing and rented the facility.” And: “The IMAX theater that is being rented has nothing to do with the Challenger Center. The IMAX theater is rented out by an organization that has no organizational or fiscal ties to the Challenger Center.”]
What is Expelled? You can start here at the official website. But more revealing is this movie review and PZ Myers’ experiences.
Hey… did anybody notice that not a single person on the staff at Challenger has a science degree? How the heck did that happen? The center’s director has an English degree and the planetarium director got his degree in physical education. Ummmm…
More stuff here.
Weird… had a response disappear.
I’d mentioned earlier that Challenger is actually an outreach program sponsored by the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering. That Florida State or FAMU should essentially be allowing facilities they’ve created to be used by Creationists in order to push propaganda in an effort to influence legislators to vote against improved education is outrageous. I’m an alumnus of FSU myself and have written to a number of people in administration at the school about this as well as leaving a message for Challenger’s business office.
Again, a list of contacts can be found at the link in my response above.
I’m absolutely disgusted by this.
I am told by Norman Thagard, MD, the director of the Challenger Center, that anyone not showing pornography is allowed to rent the CC and they cannot discriminate among those to whom they rent. Evidently this legislator has arranged this showing and rented the facility.
If they are going to see this film … I think we need to make sure that they have a look at this first!
(Hat tip to Karen at PT )
It’s about the funniest thing I have seen in a year ! 🙂
Enjoy!!
Dr. Dembski at the ID Debate at the American Museum of Natural History
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=15
Part 3 is where it really starts getting funny (and embarrassing for Dumbski)
Maybe PZ can get in as a guest.
Well, now would be a good opportunity to write our legislators, and let them know of the deceptive tactics that this “documentary” used to get interviews with the experts. That way, when they watch the film, they won’t be deceived by its fake controversy.
This might be a dirty trickster’s delight. A television station has a film crew outside the theater, documenting the attendees. That should be embarrassing. The St. Petersburg Times does post show interviews about it’s “merits”.
Thanks for that link S.Scott.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about, the film has real credentials…it’s narrated by noted Alaska sea food authority Ben Stein. An why exactly is this not pornography?
I honestly don’t see how evolution is so hard to understand.
Con artists try to muddle it, but when you look at facts, it’s simple.
The IMAX theater that is being rented has nothing to do with the Challenger Center. The IMAX theater is rented out by an organization that has no organizational or fiscal ties to the Challenger Center.
Heh. IMAX — even on the big screen the movie will be just as lousy and just as ridiculous.
Oh, come on. Evolution is nothing but a theory. Teachers should be allowed to tell students about alternative explanations of creation, just as they now teach both the “scientific” theory of electricity, with all of its confusing sub-atomic particles, and about the tiny creatures call Electricules that *really* create the phenomenon called “electricity.”
Electricules and Protonamins are best represented by interpretative dance moves, which I notice that Florida “science” educators shy away from using in their classrooms. This is both unjust and unfair.
I am glad my children didn’t go to school in Florida. Imagine their heads being filled with twaddle about stars being bigger than the (visibly larger) moon, “germs” instead of witchcraft causing diseases, and the obviously false idea that the Earth wobbling in its rotation, not the Easter Bunny, causes spring to come after winter.
Let’s teach the TRUTH, not silly theories!
Here! Here! Robin,
As the parent of 3 school aged children I second your thoughts! I use a bag of old animal bones to cure them of their infections. I just shake it over ’em and poof! they’re healed!
Can’t wait to see this movie.
I can’t wait to sneak into the movie, after paying for a more deserving movie, just so I can heckle it.
Thanks for the information here about the coming Bills before the legislature and the contact information. I am emialing all over the state for others to ask their representatives to support the Bills and see the movie. Thanks again for the information guys ! 🙂
Hopefully, you fill the e-mails with the same incoherent logic you have used here on other posts here, Bam Bam.
Lol typical evolutionist. Sneak in to heckle. Another words steal a seat and don’t let anyone think through what is being presented by causing a distraction. Who is being the muddler here ? 🙂
You are fun PC .Isnt it a great day today – a beautiful day – can you breathe all the fresh air. You should try and get out more often. Enjoy life to the fullest and sing a melodious song in your heart. God puts joy in our hearts – what does evolution put in yours ?
Hey. I just plan on laughing at the parts that I think are funny, and pointing out the bullshit tactics used in the movie. For instance, Ben Stein’s “interview” with Dawkins was actually conducted by a different interviewer. They spliced together parts of this other interview, to make it look like Ben Stein was interviewing Dawkins. They left half of the interview on the cutting room floor, because it made Dawkins look too smart and made their position look too inane.
If you think this movie will present any facts, then you are sorely deceived. The whole purpose of this movie is to “preach to the choir”, quite literally. Every evolutionist they interviewed they did so under false pretenses, and edited the interview down in such a way as to put words in the evolutionists’ mouths. In twenty years, this movie will be considered just as hokey as Reefer Madness.
Yes, I plan to go to see this movie to laugh at it, not laugh with it.
Hey if the splice works for the facts in evolution why not for Stein ? Your too seay. 🙂
God puts joy in our hearts – what does evolution put in yours ?
Blood and oxygen, which are far more important. 😛
Actually, I have a much better quality of life than most people who have religion. I look up at the stars with great wonder, because I do not know how they got there. You look up at the stars, and say, “Oh… my god did that.”
When I see nature around me, I look at it in great wonder and I see the beauty of it all. I understand how it evolved into a complex ecosystem, and this fills me with more awe than looking at the same scene and saying “Oh… my god did that.”
Hey if the splice works for the facts in evolution why not for Stein ? Your too seay.
What is sad is that even after all of the splicing, it only appears that Stein is able to keep up toe-to-toe with Dawkins. It is done solely to make Stein look smarter than he actually is.
At any point, you can reproduce any of the experiments, or verify any of the evidence used by evolutionists and other scientists to validate their statements. That is impossible with creationism. The best you have to offer is “Oh… my god did that.”
Propagandists for eugenics have failed before.
God is the author of blood and oxygen too. You mock him – you harden your heart to true joy which can be yours if you once just asked God to show you who He is. He will show you.
…and then Bam Bam writes this gem:
Propagandists for eugenics have failed before.
Evolutionists are not supporters for eugenics. Yes, those who support eugenics have used evolution incorrectly to justify their claims. But, as was stated on a previous thread, Hitler used your bible to justify his insane policies as well. Just because someone uses something to justify something else, doesn’t imply that the two are related.
God is the author of blood and oxygen too.
He created such a flawed system. I thought he was infallible?
God puts joy in our hearts
Hey, and if you were an ancient Caananite, Midianite, or a host of other non-Isrealites, God put a sword or spear in your heart. Then His people took your land.
That’s your “Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy” God.
Yuck.
I wonder if “Adam, Eve and Other” did his/her homework? – It was a nice quiet weekend though, wasn’t it? 🙂
Well, he’s probably only getting paid hourly on the weekdays to astroturf his blog on these sites. 😉
LOL!
Suuuuuhhhhhhweeeeaaaattttt! Thank you so much Bam Bam. Now I see the light. i asked god to show me the way and I looked forth upon thine moon that is the creators gift to us so that his children may see, yea and verily, their way in the darkness. As I looked upon the moon, and searched for sings of our most beloved creator from upon high in the firmament, I saw clearly “This Space for Rent, Inquire Within!”
Interesting – the same way your forefathers treated the King of the universe – a chorus of mockery.
you guys are a barrel of fun.
It always amazes me that the proponents of Evolution (Dawkins included) NEVER address the actual arguments and evidence against ID. They only see fit to resort to ad hominem attacks on the person citing the evidence. I have always been taught that those who are confident in their position are very comfortable with engaging the best arguments of their opponents. Unfortunately, I never see that from the Darwinists or from folks like Bam Bam. Avoiding the actual arguments on either side of the debate seems to me to be a frustrating waste of time … as displayed in the comments (on both sides) above …
Bob Perry –
Please provide me with the empirical evidence for ID, before you get ahead of yourself and ask someone to discover evidence against it.
Some people troll for attention, and others troll due to inability in taking criticism/differences in opinion and other petty emotional issues. Still others troll just for the sake of stirring shit up. Just what do you hope to gain from spouting your religious bullshit in a science blog, Bam Bam? One thing for sure is that you certainly aren’t looking to win over converts for your cult of Christ with your style of posting. You are deluding yourself if you think that this is your purpose. In fact, I find your arrogant demeanor and out-of-context biblical references to be quite a parody of the stereotypical ignorant/bigoted fundie extremist who’s first reaction is to attack anything that has the remote possibility of contradicting biblical assertions. Which one of these categories do you fall under?
Heh.. I’m glad I’m not the only one who caught that little context slip-up. I’m sure you meant to claim that evolution proponents have done little to address the evidence and arguments FOR ID right, Bob?
Assuming that this is what you really meant, let’s talk about what has already been said by biologists about the “evidence” and “arguments” for ID: Namely, there isn’t any evidence to support ID besides hearsay(Bible stories about how all creatures were created instantaneously with modern-day features), and a whole bunch of shit-talking by non-scientists about how fossil records, geology, and radiometric dating are bunk/work of the devil. And this is in addition to the fact that naming a (unnamed) metaphysical intelligence as the cause for ANY natural phenomenon is or mechanism is not scientific. Evolution supporters HAVE addressed these issues, but the creationists/ID’ers just plain ignore it literally with fingers in ears and mouths open screaming accusations of godlessness, devil worshiping, and other personal attacks (which YOU, BOB, were just accusing us pro-evolutionists of doing). The leakage of the Wedge document from the Discovery Institute proved that the pro-ID/creationists never intended to listen to the empirical arguments against ID since their agenda all along was all about the eventual replacing of “materialistic” science with religious dogma. In fact, the pro-ID’ers themselves were the ones who refused to address empirical evidence for evolution and resort to personal attacks. Pot, kettle, black, you know the rest.
Well PC-Bash & Karl,
You are correct — I mis-typed — I did indeed mean FOR ID. My mistake.
My point is that you should engage the best arguments of your opponents. I believe that, unlike folks like Bam Bam, the ID side should do the same. Part of your mistaken logic (Karl) is that you equate those who blather on about “fossil records, geology and radiometric dating” with those of us who do actually respect science, and do not hold to the assumed young-earth view you attach to the word “creationist.”
Let’s look at the actual evidence. Please cite papers and/or experiments that show how complex, specified information (like that in DNA) can be produced through unguided, random processes. Just because Dawkins proclaims that he knows how to “climb mount improbable” does not mean he has offered an explanation beyond, “it must be that way” or “we’ll figure it out in the future.” Both those answers sound an awful lot like the “God did it” answers you accuse creationists of giving.
Karl says:
“The leakage of the Wedge document from the Discovery Institute proved that the pro-ID/creationists never intended to listen to the empirical arguments against ID since their agenda all along was all about the eventual replacing of “materialistic†science with religious dogma.”
Surely, Karl, you are smart enough to know that the “leakage” of the document (as if it were some kind “gotcha”) proves NOTHING. You act as if the fact that the ID movement has an agenda automatically discredits their arguments.
Really?! How about this agenda: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” (Dawkins, “The God Delusion,” p. 5). Does Dawkins’ agenda also discredit HIS arguments?
Just wondering.
… By the way …
Making statements like this one:
“there isn’t any evidence to support ID besides hearsay(Bible stories about how all creatures were created instantaneously with modern-day features), and a whole bunch of shit-talking by non-scientists about how fossil records, geology, and radiometric dating are bunk/work of the devil.”
… is proof positive that you have NEVER read anything the ID movement has actually published. The fact is that none of that is an argument ID folks are making. Though people like Bam Bam (and unfortunately many more) do so, you cannot dismiss all of us because of a few who do not represent our position.
Like I said, engage the BEST arguments — not the idiotic arguments you have cherry-picked.
Bob –
Let’s look at the actual evidence. Please cite papers and/or experiments that show how complex, specified information (like that in DNA) can be produced through unguided, random processes.
Start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org
Everything on that site cites actual papers published in accredited peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Likewise, please cite papers published in accredited peer-reviewed scientific journals for evidence and/or experiments regarding ID.
Really?! How about this agenda: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.†(Dawkins, “The God Delusion,†p. 5). Does Dawkins’ agenda also discredit HIS arguments?
You are linking two different efforts by Dawkins. His earlier works (e.g. “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker” address evolution). His latest works addresses atheism.
latest work, I meant.
… is proof positive that you have NEVER read anything the ID movement has actually published.
Do you have a citation from a paper published in an accredited peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports ID specifically?
Ho ho, we got a live one here, and someone who won’t just mindlessly quote scripture and condemn us all to damnation and hellfire. Didn’t take the flame bait eh? I’m assuming the “scientific” evidence for ID you wish to see challenged are the assertions over the limitations in the magnitude of genetic change that can occur through evolution mechanisms such as mutations and environmental pressures being insufficient in creating the amount of observable variations we see now? Specifically, you are referring to irreducible complexity right? Other arguments such as the watchmaker analogy are more philosophical and reliant on individual perceptions based on their own theological/scientific convictions and thus have no place in this discussion. Might as well talk about looking for shapes in clouds if you want to use this.
“Classic” intelligent design asserts that “various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.” (Of Pandas and People) Fossil records (if you can actually respect radiometric dating and geological dating of sedimentation enough to not call it the work of the devil) pretty much disproves this claim, in addition to the fact that fossils of organisms supposedly with all those modern features are never found in layers where they would be expected to have existed under ID.
I’d like to think that the present incarnation of ID is the irreducible complexity theory being peddled by Behe et al. We now have this focus on biochemical pathways and protein micro-cellular structures as being overly complex beyond what is possible with limits in evolutionary mechanisms as calculated by Behe and others. I’ll admit… I haven’t looked at the math used in calculating these limits. But there is proof of simpler versions of these supposedly irreducible complex examples of biochemical system examples mentioned by Behe (simple yet functional clotting systems missing key factors, proteins in bacterial flagellum being homologous to other cellular structures, and primitive versions of the eye). The leap from irreducible complexity to intelligent design is where the whole theory fails because at it’s core, there is simply no proof or method in determining whether an intelligence was responsible in designing these complex systems or not, and Behe tries to “prove” it with his own spiritual beliefs and supernatural assertions, much akin to the tried and failed watchmaker’s analogy.
Even regarding Behe’s papers, I have yet to see a conclusive example of “irreducible complexity”. Everything he has presented so far is only evidence that we don’t completely understand every aspect of the complexity of life. Likewise, we do not understand how gravity waves interact with matter at a quantum scale, yet gravity is accepted as a natural law, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity is not in question.
It is good to point out that there are areas that need attention. However, calling this complexity that we see “irreducible” or even leaping to the conclusion that it is “evidence” for an theistic intelligent designer is bad science. The best argument that Behe can raise is that we don’t fully understand all aspects of life. When he attempts to use this logic to explain that this is evidence against evolution, or for ID, his position becomes laughable. It is for this radical jump, which isn’t at all supported by the evidence, that the university that holds his tenure makes him put disclaimers on his website, and is quick to point out that his inane opinions and leaps of faith are not their own.
PC_Bash says:
“Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org Everything on that site cites actual papers published in accredited peer-reviewed scientific journals.”
OK — lots of papers — none of which offer any experimental evidence or mechanism to explain the origination of complex, specified information in DNA. Not one. It’s easy to cite lots of papers. I asked for specific papers. Still waiting. While you’re at it, please also direct me to all the in-depth experimentation and explanations for:
Origin of Life issues: Specifically, evidence for the proper conditions and mechanisms for abiogenesis.
The Cambrian Explosion and the sudden appearance of complex, integrated organisms, many of which appear with neurological systems fully intact.
I could go on but it gets boring … But to continue to respond to your comment …
You also said: “Likewise, please cite papers published in accredited peer-reviewed scientific journals for evidence and/or experiments regarding ID”
I assume this is an attempt at humor since this is how folks like you have rigged the system as follows:
1) Demand an arbitrary definition of what constitutes “science” that disallows non-naturalistic causes (Note: this criteria only applies in the specific instances we deem appropriate — i.e. it does not apply to SETI research or forensics)
2) Reject the submissions, to any scientific journal, of anyone who does not fully endorse 1) with consideration.
3) Ridicule those who hold any kind of alternate view because they have not been published in scientific journals
This is defined as circular reasoning … assuming possible explanations without regard to (or, more accurately, in spite of) the actual scientific evidence BEFORE YOU EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE.
Pretty self-serving wouldn’t you say?
I think this was the same reasoning the Catholic church used to punish Galileo for questioning the geocentric assumptions of his time. In other words, you Darwinists resort to the same tactics as the religious folks you so despise.
The reasons your reject ID a priori are NOT scientific — they are philosophical or, one might say, religious. You will not question your faith in Darwinism.
Touche…
“You are linking two different efforts by Dawkins. His earlier works (e.g. “The Selfish Gene†and “The Blind Watchmaker†address evolution). His latest works addresses atheism.”
No, “Climbing Mount Improbable” is not something Dawkins offered in “The God Delusion.” It is his lame attempt to explain something for which he has absolutely NO evidence. He asks us to accept it on … ahem … faith. “We’ll figure it out later” sounds an awful lot like “God did it” to me. Show me the evidence to support the claim.
And while you’re at it, please don’t insult my intelligence by offering Dawkins’ sophomoric example of monkeys typing ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
For starters, he knows the target sentence, then matches outcomes until he achieves the desired result — the very opposite of the claim he makes for natural selection and his “blind watchmaker.”
Secondly, proposing that complex information arises by pure chemical reaction is like proposing that the words in Dawkns’ book could be explained by the chemical reactions between ink and paper.
Talk about laughable.
You asked: “I’m assuming the “scientific†evidence for ID you wish to see challenged are the assertions over the limitations in the magnitude of genetic change that can occur through evolution mechanisms such as mutations and environmental pressures being insufficient in creating the amount of observable variations we see now? Specifically, you are referring to irreducible complexity right?”
You were with me until the last sentence. Yes, I want evidence that micro-evolution (i.e. adaptation) — something any thinking person would accept, BTW — leads to macro-evolution (i.e. speciation). I have seen NONE.
But, linking that to irreducible complexity doesn’t follow. They have nothing to do with one another. Maybe you just don’t understand irreducible complexity. Most don’t, so don’t feel bad …
Bob Perry –
I asked for specific papers.
Which specific papers? I can provide you proof of speciation, proof of new genetic material (really, just to counter the dubious creationist claim that this does not exist…), proof of natural selection pressure. Which of these, which encompasses the complete proof of evolution and natural selection, do you desire?
While you’re at it, please also direct me to all the in-depth experimentation and explanations for: Origin of Life issues: Specifically, evidence for the proper conditions and mechanisms for abiogenesis.
Evolution says nothing about how life originated. It explains how species developed into what we see today. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Period.
1) Demand an arbitrary definition of what constitutes “science†that disallows non-naturalistic causes (Note: this criteria only applies in the specific instances we deem appropriate — i.e. it does not apply to SETI research or forensics)
For one thing, SETI is not claiming that life exists on other planets. SETI is looking for life on other planets. They are not jamming aliens down our throats, like the ID faithful are trying to jam a theistic creator down our throats. You are putting the cart before the horse, claiming that ID is a valid “theory”, when it is not even a valid hypothesis. You are claiming that this non-hypothesis is valid, without evidence. That’s a far cry from SETI. Sorry.
2) Reject the submissions, to any scientific journal, of anyone who does not fully endorse 1) with consideration.
If you presented empirical evidence in support of a valid scientific hypothesis, I guarantee that you would get published. This whole “oppression” argument that creationists are trying is total bullshit. “We’re being oppressed, because we have no evidence. Why should we have to present evidence? Our faith should exempt us from following the scientific method.” That is all I hear here.
3) Ridicule those who hold any kind of alternate view because they have not been published in scientific journals
No. I am riduculing creationists because they are trying to claim that something is scientific which:
1. Cannot be presented as a valid scientific hypothesis, as it cannot be verified or falsified.
2. Refuse to present any evidence for their dubious claims, yet
3. Want to force children to be taught their junk science.
This is defined as circular reasoning … assuming possible explanations without regard to (or, more accurately, in spite of) the actual scientific evidence BEFORE YOU EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE.
What evidence, precisely?
The reasons your reject ID a priori are NOT scientific — they are philosophical or, one might say, religious. You will not question your faith in Darwinism.
As per my points above, this is totally not true. True science, such as evolution does not require faith. It has evidence.
No, “Climbing Mount Improbable†is not something Dawkins offered in “The God Delusion.â€
You are being intellectually dishonest here. You tried to claim that Dawkins was pushing an atheist agenda in his works on evolution, as if everything he has ever written is part of an agenda to discredit religion. You imply that this agenda is the reason why evolution exists. This is nothing more than a typical creationist strawman. Yes, Dawkins is an outspoken atheist. No, this does not mean that evolution has an agenda to commit deicide. It is your fear of facts that challenge your literalist biblical interpretation that makes you believe this.
For starters, he knows the target sentence, then matches outcomes until he achieves the desired result — the very opposite of the claim he makes for natural selection and his “blind watchmaker.â€
Apparently, you don’t understand the purpose of analogy, which Dawkins painfully explains in this chapter of “The Blind Watchmaker”. As such, you are arguing from personal incredulity. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work.
Yes, genetic algorithms can evolve to solve problems — the solution of which is unknown to the author of the genetic system. I happen to be a CS expert, and I am quite familiar with genetic algorithms. I would be more than happy to take the discussion in this direction, as I know for certain that GAs work (I have been paid handsomely for writing GA problem solvers).
Secondly, proposing that complex information arises by pure chemical reaction is like proposing that the words in Dawkns’ book could be explained by the chemical reactions between ink and paper.
Once again, you are arguing from personal incredulity. If a simulation of genetic information being created through simple rules (such as a GA) works, then there is no reason why this is infeasible in chemistry. You don’t understand either GAs or biochemistry, yet you are going to make an expert claim based on your feelings? Laughable indeed.
You were with me until the last sentence. Yes, I want evidence that micro-evolution (i.e. adaptation) — something any thinking person would accept, BTW — leads to macro-evolution (i.e. speciation). I have seen NONE.
Ask, and you shall receive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Maybe you just don’t understand irreducible complexity. Most don’t, so don’t feel bad …
Most, including Behe et al. Care to explain it to us, your personal incredulity already makes it look like you are claiming to be an expert here. Please, enlighten us to your definition of IC, so we can tear it apart for you.
Ah, but they DO follow, as Behe attempts to elaborate in his latest book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. Did you read this? He (again) makes the assertion that given these calculated limits of evolutionary mechanisms, the complexity of biological microstructures can only be created by non-random mutations, and as such (Here is the stretch that he gets mocked about) implies that an intelligent designer is responsible.
Regarding your contentions between micro and macro evolution, the bulk of the evidence relies on calculating the degree of changes by microevolution over time to produce distinct species and the existence of transitional fossils. And this is where the creationists and ID’ers attack as being open to interpretation. But by now, you yourself are just cherry picking the arguments and attacking definition. We’ve shown how speciation can occur with natural selection through physical observations and confirmation genetic analysis, but the creationist argument for this and every other piece of empirical evidence is that it only shows microevolution and not macro. Do you even have a definition of what macroevolution is, cuz it seems to change with every argument… Perhaps you would want to re-classify how taxonomy is conducted as well…
Well, given the sampling rate of the creationists here so far, he will probably come up with some inane excuse that evolution does not cross genera. Of course, he will fail to see that genus is part of taxonomy, which is largely arbitrary and, while genetics and evolution play a part in shaping taxonomy, evolution is not defined by the lines in taxonomy. If he believes that evolution follows taxonomy and not the other way around, then I wonder if he looks for the lines that divide states and countries, since these exist on a map.
Bob Perry –
As for “circular reasoning”, I find it funny that creationists spend all of their time trying to discredit evolution instead of spending time looking for evidence for their gods, or their creationist beliefs. I think they believe that if they can somehow magically discredit evolution (which would win them a Nobel Prize for sure), then magically their own inane beliefs will be scientifically proven. In reality, they will be no closer to proving something outside of the realm of science than they were before they started.
Whatever you decide to call it, creationism or ID, gods or designers, your “theory” falls outside of the realm of science, and will never be taught in a science classroom.
PC-Bash,
Let’s lower the bar so you can offer an actual response to my question.
You asked: “Which specific papers? I can provide you proof of speciation, proof of new genetic material (really, just to counter the dubious creationist claim that this does not exist…), proof of natural selection pressure. Which of these, which encompasses the complete proof of evolution and natural selection, do you desire?”
Let’s see “proof of speciation.” We’ll limit it to that since “proof of natural selection pressure” does absolutely NOTHING to support the extravagant claims of Darwinism. Show me proof of speciation.
The actual fossil record shows nothing but repeated patterns of sudden appearance, stasis, and extinction. 70 phyla appeared at the Cambrian Explosion and now we have 30-40. So where’s the speciation? I’m waiting with great anticipation for your brilliant citation of the data that supports your claim.
You also said: “Evolution says nothing about how life originated. It explains how species developed into what we see today. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Period.”
Correct. But that doesn’t let Naturalistic explanations off the hook. You’re avoiding the actual question. So what’s your answer to abiogenesis? Did first life just *poof* appear? (sounds kind of like another “God did it” assertion). What’s the specific mechanism that allowed life to emerge from non-life?
Please address just these two issues. No baseless assertions. No promises for the future. Just show me the evidence. I’m seriously looking for evidence that supports either and look forward to you providing it.
“You imply that this agenda is the reason why evolution exists.”
Now seriously, PC-Bash. That is about the most ridiculous thing you’ve said. Who’s being intellectually dishonest? You cited the “wedge document” as the secret proof that ID has an agenda. I said that both sides (astonishingly, this includes you AND me) have an agenda.
To say otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Do you claim that you have no agenda? That Dawkins doesn’t? Apparently, only those sneaky, goofy ID folks have an agenda. Give me a break.
Ask, and you shall receive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Nice try. Unlike you, I actually took the time to read the paper you cited. In it I found the following:
“First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely.”
Sounds like I could have written that, but then, if I had, you would have dismissed me as a closed-minded religious nut. But it continues …
“To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I’m a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.”
Everyone was sure … but no one could provide any evidence that this was true. Much like you.
The rest of the article gave instance after instance of two things:
1) intra-species mutations that stopped at genetic limits but left the species with an altered phenotype that is a far cry from a new species.
2) full blown evidence that each of these could never have occurred to the extent it did WITHOUT THE INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION OF THE RESEARCHERS who were conducting the research.
If you consider this paper you cited as “proof” of speciation, you might want to be intellectually honest with yourself and at least consider that I am correct in claiming the evidence does NOT support the claim.
Finally, in the ultimate closed-minded example, you go so far as to say…
” …he will probably come up with some inane excuse that evolution does not cross genera … he will fail to see … If he believes …”
So now you can attribute to me arguments that I never made through some kind of extra-sensory perception — mind-reading from a distance.
Very interesting. It’s one thing to avoid my actual arguments. It is quite another to make them up for me. I have done nothing but request evidence for your claims. You have provided none. I have not questioned your agenda, only your conclusions — and I have done so because I don’t think the evidence supports them. You have questioned my agenda and have tried to dismiss me for religious reasons even though I have not made a single religious assertion here.
To be honest, I think they should teach MORE evolution in schools, not less. I think they should allow ALL the speculation and baseless claims that Darwinism makes to be aired … because the more I learn about it, the more I realize how vacuous it is.
Look at the evidence. That’s all I ask. Your ad hominem arguments, empty assertions and lack of supporting evidence are really not worth my time.
Let’s see “proof of speciation.†We’ll limit it to that since “proof of natural selection pressure†does absolutely NOTHING to support the extravagant claims of Darwinism. Show me proof of speciation.
and
The rest of the article gave instance after instance of two things:
1) intra-species mutations that stopped at genetic limits but left the species with an altered phenotype that is a far cry from a new species.
By definition of species, which is a biology term, this is evidence of a new species. A group of organisms that can interbreed, but cannot breed with other organisms. This is precisely what the evidence from the experiment shows. You can repeat each of these experiments on their own. I recommend the hybridization experiments, personally. I went to a middle school where a hybridization experiment was conducted. I have seen it repeated with my own eyes.
2) full blown evidence that each of these could never have occurred to the extent it did WITHOUT THE INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION OF THE RESEARCHERS who were conducting the research.
So… did these researchers tap into their theistic powers to build this life from scratch? If so, your inane comment would have a leg to stand on. However, they simply provided an environment in which the organisms speciated on their own. The researchers did not splice genes, they did not engineer these results. They engineered the environment, sure, but that is not intelligent design. The researchers had to apply selection pressure to force the organisms to adapt, which is the same force at work in nature. If you cannot see this, then you need to read the actual papers on the subject.
But that doesn’t let Naturalistic explanations off the hook. You’re avoiding the actual question. So what’s your answer to abiogenesis? Did first life just *poof* appear? (sounds kind of like another “God did it†assertion). What’s the specific mechanism that allowed life to emerge from non-life?
You are right. I am avoiding your question, because it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, although you imply that it does. It has as much to do with evolution as quantum physics has to do with Ohm’s Law. Ohm’s Law exists outside of quantum physics, it can be measured and confirmed without understanding up quarks, down quarks, charm quarks, ad nauseum. However, Ohm’s Law is meaningless without subatomic particles. Likewise, evolution can be studied and measured without understanding how life began. Likewise, evolution (as it pertains to biology) is meaningless without life. Likewise, you do not need to explain how life was created for evolution to work, any more than you need to explain the properties of quarks, muons, or gluons to understand how Ohm’s Law works. If this sort of creationist sophistry is the best you can come up with, you will lose this debate quickly.
You cited the “wedge document†as the secret proof that ID has an agenda.
Really? Where, specifically, did I cite this? Also, this is no secret. The Discovery Institute was caught red-handed doing this. It is less of a secret than cdesign proponentsists. Don’t take my word for it. Read up on the Dover case.
Do you claim that you have no agenda?
My only agenda is to ensure that science gets taught in the science classroom. ID and creationism have no place in the science classroom, at least until three things happen:
1. Creationists figure out how to word creationism as a valid scientific hypothesis (good luck!).
2. Creationists discover evidence for their beliefs, and have this independently verified by real scientists.
3. After 1 and 2, creationists explain how their theory ties in with evolution.
Alas, there is no deception to what I want, I only want science.
I have done nothing but request evidence for your claims. You have provided none.
Then you are not looking hard enough. Re-read what I gave you.
I think they should allow ALL the speculation and baseless claims that Darwinism makes to be aired …
…such as?
Look at the evidence. That’s all I ask.
I have. I am just not so quick to dismiss it when it doesn’t follow my beliefs, because I had an open mind when I looked at the evidence. Your mind has been made up. Nothing I can say, and no objective facts are going to sway your faith in your literalist creationist beliefs.
The actual fossil record shows nothing but repeated patterns of sudden appearance, stasis, and extinction. 70 phyla appeared at the Cambrian Explosion and now we have 30-40. So where’s the speciation? I’m waiting with great anticipation for your brilliant citation of the data that supports your claim.
Just because our current information does not explain gaps in the fossil record doesn’t mean that evolution is invalid. Of course there are going to be gaps in the fossil record! Fossils are very special. A minuscule portion of all life is fossilized.
As for “events” in the fossil record, such as “explosions” and “die-offs”, there are much simpler possible explanations for these than a mystic fairy that created all life. Migration events cause “explosions” in the fossil record. For instance, a heating or cooling period in geological history could have shifted life that existed somewhere else to where the fossils were discovered. It is funny that creationists like to have it both ways. They like to whine about holes in the fossil record, and then they like to talk about fossil “explosions” which are just exposures of additional holes as some sort of evidence for creation. Correlation does not equate causation. As usual, creationists like to jump to conclusions any time they think they can inject their god into a gap.
So now you can attribute to me arguments that I never made through some kind of extra-sensory perception — mind-reading from a distance.
You must suffer from selective reading dyslexia or you are purposefully quote mining me to make it appear that I said something I didn’t. Let me add back the first part of my statement that you omitted: “Well, given the sampling rate of the creationists here so far,”
So far, every creationist who has started with the same talking points that you have has gone down the micro-evolution versus macro-evolution talking point route. I know you creationists hate it when I get you off-script. Apparently, this seems to be working.
I’m still waiting on your “expert” definition of irreducible complexity.
I’m still waiting on your definition of macroevolution.
Your ad hominem arguments, empty assertions and lack of supporting evidence are really not worth my time.
Apparently, reading is also beneath you.
Hi Bob,
I’d be curious to know what you think of this article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
It describes the chimpanzee genome and compares it to the human genome. The result? Over 98% identical – the same genes, in the same order, over and over again spanning the WHOLE GENOME. How do you suppose that came to be?
We even share genetic errors with chimps – for example, non-functional genes (that clearly once were functional) – again, in the same places in both genomes.
Even more interesting is that we have certain non-functional genes that are functional in the chimp – for example an enzyme required for making vitamin C. Chimps have it, and thus do not need vitamin C in their diet. Our version of this enzyme (in the same relative location in our genome) is almost identical – except for a few mutations that remove its function (and thus making us dependent on dietary vitamin C).
The clear conclusion is that we share a common ancestor with chimps – or, that the “designer/God” created these errors in us deliberately and independently of chimps. In other words, clear evidence of a speciation event in the past (to say nothing of the other lines of evidence that neatly line up with the molecular evidence presented here).
As an aside, many Christians, myself included, have no problem with the notion that God used evolution as a creative mechanism – and that evolution continues to this day.
PC-Bash:
“Really? Where, specifically, did I cite this? Also, this is no secret. The Discovery Institute was caught red-handed doing this.”
“Apparently, reading is also beneath you.”
You apparently didn’t read the earlier comment about DI’s wedge document. If you had, you would realize (then again, maybe that’s giving too much credit) that I was being sarcastic in calling it “secret.” I read your so-called proof of speciation and gave specific examples of how it was flawed. You have never read any material by ID proponents (as evidenced by your attributing arguments that they never make), but you have the audacity to accuse me of being the one for whom reading is not a requirement.
And then, as if trying to prove MY point, you say: “Just because our current information does not explain gaps in the fossil record doesn’t mean that evolution is invalid.”
Right. Just because the actual evidence completely contradicts Darwinism doesn’t mean it’s not true. Nice defense. And you accuse me of wish-thinking and blind faith.
Here’s what I got from you PC-Bash:
Darwinism is not falsifiable …
1) No Naturalistic explanation for the origin of life so … avoid the question and act as if it doesn’t apply
2) No explanation for the Cambrian Explosion … while Gould at least TRIED to explain it with Punctuated Equilibrium (which is the exact OPPOSITE of gradualistic Darwinism), you (PC-Bash) simply ignore it and don’t even attempt to respond to my bringing it up earlier
3) Speciation … offer microevolutionary change and hybridization under manipulated conditions by intelligent agents and claim that offers ample evidence for the appearance of new species
Talking points?! You do them well. It’s actually kind of sad and pathetic really …
Gabriel,
Thanks for asking a thoughtful, respectful question and offering a real argument for common descent. I admit that this is a tough question but I do not believe it either proves Darwinism or refutes ID. What I do want to point out is that ID proponents debate this issue among themselves vigorously. Behe, I should point out, totally accepts the notion of common descent — much to the chagrin of many ID proponents. But this kind of proves the point that other folks on this thread can’t seem to get through their blinders — real scientists examine ALL evidence and do not rule out explanations (because of their implications) before they examine the data.
I would say this. That chimps and humans share 98% of the same DNA is extremely interesting but the real question is this: Why, if we share 98% of our DNA, are chimps and humans so different?
I don’t accept that: “The clear conclusion is that we share a common ancestor with chimps – or, that the “designer/God†created these errors in us deliberately and independently of chimps. In other words, clear evidence of a speciation event in the past (to say nothing of the other lines of evidence that neatly line up with the molecular evidence presented here).”
How is that “clear?” It is one possible explanation, obviously. But who says our need for vitamin C is a deficiency or that the designer/God “created these errors”?
My GMC conversion van shares many of the same components as the AMC Hornet I drove in high school. But does that mean the van and the Hornet share a common ancestor or that neither is designed? It seems to me that a good designer would re-use components that work and alter them for reasons we may not understand.
Again, I’m not denying common ancestry. I’m still waiting for the evidence. But what I do know is that, even if the DNA similarity means we share a common ancestor, Darwinian Evolution has NO mechanism that can account for the existence of, and information content in, DNA in the first place.
Having said that, you make an excellent point. I just don’t see how the answer would help or refute either side of this debate.
Right. Just because the actual evidence completely contradicts Darwinism doesn’t mean it’s not true. Nice defense. And you accuse me of wish-thinking and blind faith.
No. The evidence no more contradicts evolution than quantum theories on probability contradict Ohm’s Law. I see that you do not understand evolution, I would be happy to explain it to you.
Darwinism is not falsifiable …
Find me a fossil of an ape in the Cambrian period, or evidence that man walked alongside dinosaurs, and you would have falsified evolution. Evolution is certainly falsifiable. It is your ignorance of evolution that leads you to this dubious conclusion.
1) No Naturalistic explanation for the origin of life so … avoid the question and act as if it doesn’t apply
As before, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it deals with the origin of species. Likewise, Ohm’s Law does not deal with quarks. Einstein’s General Relativity does not deal with Quantum Mechanics. This creationist talking point is completely asinine. You are hoping to snare someone who is just as ignorant about evolution as you, by making them argue for something that evolution does not deal with.
Your point here holds no water with those who understand the claims of evolution.
No explanation for the Cambrian Explosion … while Gould at least TRIED to explain it with Punctuated Equilibrium (which is the exact OPPOSITE of gradualistic Darwinism), you (PC-Bash) simply ignore it and don’t even attempt to respond to my bringing it up earlier
I’m not going to give conjecture about something that I know little about. That’s where we differ, I’m afraid. We don’t have enough information to explain what happened in the Cambrian period. Gould did not either, his conjecture was just that, a conjecture. Also, your claim that punctuated equilibrium is the exact opposite of Darwinian evolution shows your ignorance of both concepts. I highly recommend reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, as his explanation of PE and the common creationist arguments that erroneously invoke it is far better than what I can paraphrase here.
Speciation … offer microevolutionary change and hybridization under manipulated conditions by intelligent agents and claim that offers ample evidence for the appearance of new species
If that is what you got from my comments, then you really can’t read.
My GMC conversion van shares many of the same components as the AMC Hornet I drove in high school. But does that mean the van and the Hornet share a common ancestor or that neither is designed? It seems to me that a good designer would re-use components that work and alter them for reasons we may not understand.
Wow. That’s a terrible analogy. Where are the factories that build animals, precisely?
Again, I’m not denying common ancestry. I’m still waiting for the evidence. But what I do know is that, even if the DNA similarity means we share a common ancestor, Darwinian Evolution has NO mechanism that can account for the existence of, and information content in, DNA in the first place.
Well, other than those pesky concept of copy mutations, splicing, etc… each of which have been proven in the lab. If you discount the mathematical simulations of GAs, which prove that information can arise through mutation and sexual selection when put under the pressure of a fitness function (i.e. natural selection), then maybe your ignorant conjecture here might hold some merit.
“Where are the factories that build animals, precisely?”
They are in the nucleus of the newly fertilized, pluripotent cell.
“If you discount the mathematical simulations of GAs, which prove that information can arise through mutation and sexual selection when put under the pressure of a fitness function (i.e. natural selection), then maybe your ignorant conjecture here might hold some merit.”
Now that’s a bold claim. Please refer me to these “mathematical simulations which prove that information can arise through mutation.†Unlike you, I won’t discount them before I see them but you just scooted yourself way out on a limb with that claim. Let’s see the reference … and let’s see if the simulation is anything like Dawkins’ monkeys-typing-sentences nonsense. Somehow, I bet the two are related.
Show me the simulation PC-Bash …
Bob, Don’t waste your time arguing with these guys. You will just frustrate yourself. They are not intellectually honest. They have an agenda. My argument was at the foundational motive not the so called science. It’s all gibberish to me. As an attorney you go to the motive and let the arguments fall off like dead leaves.
They are in the nucleus of the newly fertilized, pluripotent cell.
That is not the same as a factory assembly line, like where your conversion van was built. Your analogy sucks.
Now that’s a bold claim. Please refer me to these “mathematical simulations which prove that information can arise through mutation.â€
A bold claim to someone who is ignorant about computer science. I recommend you start here to read all of the claims on the subject:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=genetic+algorithm&cs=1
There’s about 7000 published papers that talk about genetic algorithms.
If you want a more introductory book on the subject, I’d recommend this one. Its audience is that of a CS graduate with a lot of exposure to mathematics, but it certainly explains the topic in depth.
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Programming-Introduction-Applications-Intelligence/dp/155860510X/
Unlike you, I won’t discount them before I see them but you just scooted yourself way out on a limb with that claim.
Really? This must be a pretty sturdy limb, because I get paid to do this for a living. My employers wouldn’t pay me if GAs didn’t work. What do you do for a living?
and let’s see if the simulation is anything like Dawkins’ monkeys-typing-sentences nonsense. Somehow, I bet the two are related.
You would be incorrect. Dawkins concept of GAs was meant only to be illustrative examples in his book, which you have completely misunderstood. He even claims that his examples are contrived, and explains how actual evolution differs. My simulations, however, solve specific problems in Computer Science, in which the solution is completely unknown ahead of time.
Bam Bam says, about science:
It’s all gibberish to me.
Thanks for clarifying. We know that you don’t get science, otherwise you wouldn’t use your inane arguments.
No your science is gibbeish
Bam Bam –
You argue like a three-year-old.
Its like watching a ship sink and two guys are arguing over if the ship will list to the right or left then forget about getting into the life raft.
Go troll somewhere else, Bam Bam. The adults are trying to talk here.
Bam Bam —
I agree that arguing with intellectually dishonest folks (like PC-Bash) is futile. My aim is more to offer others who may ACTUALLY be reading this some food for thought for not accepting ANYTHING blindly.
I disagree that an agenda undermines the argument. We all have agendas. An agenda has no bearing on whether or not we are seeking the truth by analyzing facts and by allowing for all possible explanations for those facts. The agenda isn’t the problem. The presupposition that only certain possible explanations that can be accepted is the problem.
Ah, I see the old Cambrian “Explosion” argument shows up again. Of course it’s an “explosion” if paint drying on the wall were to be described as “incendiary”. After all, this explosion lasted from 5-10 million years.
Oddly, this “explosion” coincided with a rapid diversification of animals with hardened body parts (calcium-carbonate, chitin), leaving open the possibility that they were rather new in the evolution of animals. And low and behold, the discovery of Vendian (or Ediacaran) fossils backed up Darwin’s predictions about pre-Cambrian life. Low and behold, a possible precusor to the famed Trilobite shows up here as well.
Anyway,those who wave around this “spectacular explosion” always avoid pointing out some rather glaring problems with this alleged “creation” event. In the Cambrian fossils, there are no spiders. There are no insects. There are no amphibians. There are no reptiles. There are no birds. There are no mammals. There are no plants.
Maybe an illustration would help.
Bob and PC-Bash, you will find this interesting re the myth of Human/Chimp DNA. Warning PC, it’s in Science magazine so you’ll have to do some work for the ad hominem attacks.
Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,†Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.
Here’s a quote from the article to pique your interest:
But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,†says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.â€
I agree that arguing with intellectually dishonest folks (like PC-Bash)
So, you have nothing to say about GAs then?
Rich A.
I don’t have a subscription to that magazine, so I cannot comment on the article. I did find this, which is relevant to the discussion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html
As far as I’m concerned, the 98.5% figure is a layman’s argument. When we examine the genetic similarities between humans and other primates, we can see that the most plausible explanation for these is that humans and primates are related. Even if the percentage was closer to 96% (note, that if we just look at full proteins that are exactly the same, the number is closer to 29%), it doesn’t discount that humans and chimps are related. Of anything, it shows how a small difference in genotype results in a large difference in the phenotype. I highly doubt that you will find a biologist that disagrees.
Bob,
There’s a certain irony to you claiming that your purpose is to help people “not accept anything blindly” since the truehorizon link in your user name is a Christian website that seeks to promote a “Christian worldview” and the importance of appreciating the unexplained and untouchable. Isn’t the definition of faith mean blind acceptance? In addition, it goes on to give the false definition of science as being only limited to what can be seen and touched, which isn’t true by any means, since that would mean most theoretical physics would be classified as non-science.
I think your inability to accept the empirical evidence behind evolution stems from this twisted definition of science you hold. Yes, I realize this is starting to sound like a personal attack, but your illogical actions seems to fit the pattern.
Let’s settle this: What is your criteria for speciation to occur? Genetic changes? Phenotypical changes? Inability to create fertile offspring? Inability to create offspring period? (Here’s a hint: all these conditions have been observed, most of which are included in the human-chimp example) And more importantly, what is your definition of macroevolution? Given your “appreciation for the unexplained and untouchable,” I don’t think you yourself even know. You probably don’t wanna know despite the actual definitions being available. If that’s the case, there is no point arguing with someone who doesn’t want to acknowledge what the other side has to say. The religious types have always accused the scientific community of the same, but these are empty. While the bible teaches that the earth was created as immovable and fixed (Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5) Galileo proved this to be wrong with his works in astronomy and physics. We took your explanation into consideration, did some tests, and proved it to be false. It’s the same with your creationism and intelligent design theories, and our continuing research on evolution. So far, no evidence has been found for
A)intelligent designer
B)the existence of organisms with fully-formed modern phenotypical features along side their primitive counterparts
Regarding your question on the magnitude of differences between chimps and humans over 2% of DNA, are you familiar with genetics? Do you realize that a significant number of human genes have been “deactivated” and are removed during transcription to mRNA and never translated into proteins? The point is, some research indicated that while 98% identical, the types of proteins expressed from these differences may account for the phenotypical differences. Wanna know how even less than 2% change in DNA produces drastic phenotypical changes between humans? Look up harlequin type ichthyosis and the ABCA12 gene. One lousy mutation and you got a human that looks like a patchwork of bloody and flesh-colored tiles. Better yet, look at the variations of height, body hair, and arm/leg lengths in human populations. The genetic variation between humans is ~3 million nucleotides out of 3 billion nucleotide genome, which is an overall ~0.1% difference.
Your right Bob, we all have an agenda but I was just pointing out that in legal cases the motive comes into play when determining the underlying thrust of an argument. They preconceive their conclussions then “fit” the “facts” to prove their point.
From the peanut section:
They preconceive their conclussions then “fit†the “facts†to prove their point.
Care to provide a specific example?
Bob knows what Im talking about.
Proverbs 26:3 explains what gets a fools attention.
Scripture quotes do not count as evidence, any more than any other unverifiable hearsay.
PC-Blast challenges: “… A bold claim to someone who is ignorant about computer science. I recommend you start here to read all of the claims on the subject … There’s about 7000 published papers that talk about genetic algorithms … If you want a more introductory book on the subject, I’d recommend this one … Its audience is that of a CS graduate with a lot of exposure to mathematics, but it certainly explains the topic in depth … I get paid to do this for a living. My employers wouldn’t pay me if GAs didn’t work. What do you do for a living?â€
Thanks for taking the bait. No, I am not a computer scientist but it doesn’t take one to see the inherent flaws in this idea. Do you not see that a GA is a computer coded algorithm based on “genetic representations†of behavior/appearance WITH INFORMATION ALREADY INHERENT TO IT BEFORE IT RUNS? Where did first life get the pre-loaded information to kick off the process? When you can generate your GAs from a blank operating system I’ll start to listen.
Since we’re recommending books, you might want to try Dembski’s “No Free Lunch.†He IS a mathematician and he addresses this idea directly. But then, reading anything that might challenge your preconceived belief system is beneath you.
Here’s the deal PC-Blast. You (obviously) are not even minimally trained in philosophy. I lack your science training. Granted. But what you don’t realize is that your objections to ID are not scientific, they are philosophical – maybe even emotional. I don’t pretend to know and I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to guess.
The bottom line is that you do not (knowingly) accept metaphysical reality when you evaluate scientific data. I do. Unless you agree to acknowledge metaphysical reality, or I agree to deny it, we are both wasting our time. The irony is that you have to rely on metaphysical reality to do your science and live your life. Hopefully you will realize that some day. Until then, I only ask that you don’t lump all us creationists into the same mold, presume that we are all opposed to science, or that we all hold to the nonsensical views commonly associated with the word “creationist.†The least you could do is acknowledge that.
Thanks for the dialogue …
Karl said: “There’s a certain irony to you claiming that your purpose is to help people “not accept anything blindly†since the truehorizon link in your user name is a Christian website that seeks to promote a “Christian worldview†and the importance of appreciating the unexplained and untouchable. Isn’t the definition of faith mean blind acceptance? In addition, it goes on to give the false definition of science as being only limited to what can be seen and touched, which isn’t true by any means, since that would mean most theoretical physics would be classified as non-science.â€
I have deliberately left religion and Christianity out of this. But, since you inserted it I will offer one response. Sorry, but you (and also like most Christians I am sorry to say) misunderstand the true nature of Biblical faith. There is not a single Biblical example of anyone whose faith does not rest on some sort of evidence. “Blind Faith†is an oxymoron foisted on religious folks and, unfortunately, accepted by most Christians – as you point out.
Not me. Faith MUST be based on evidence or it is nothing but wish thinking. I just happen to believe that modern science has done nothing but support the claims of theists and that the more we learn, the more it continues to do so. The references you cite here were meant to address the movement, or lack of movement, of the Earth. The references are metaphorical and were never meant to be scientific.
Also, I did NOT say that science is only limited to what can be seen and touched. I said Naturalism only accepts the existence of the physical world as being real. Those are two very different claims. You’re confusing the claims of science with philosophical claims – which is precisely the problem I am trying to point out here. Darwinism is nothing but a methodological support system for a Naturalistic worldview that denies metaphysical reality. Confusing the two leads to tail chasing and unproductive debates.
Like this one …
Where did first life get the pre-loaded information to kick off the process?
A random number generator, in terms of GA. Random works best. “Engineering” sequences actually hinder the GA.
When you can generate your GAs from a blank operating system I’ll start to listen.
Once again, evolution has nothing to do with how life began. How you fail to grasp this simple concept, I have no clue. Your response is inane.
Since we’re recommending books, you might want to try Dembski’s “No Free Lunch.†He IS a mathematician and he addresses this idea directly. But then, reading anything that might challenge your preconceived belief system is beneath you.
Considering that I have done plenty of my own published research and experimentation on the subject, proving the feasibility of genetic algorithms, I can tell you that I don’t need to read other works by other mathematicians. The math works, or I wouldn’t get my paycheck. They don’t generally pay people for building things that don’t work. Sorry.
You (obviously) are not even minimally trained in philosophy.
Philosophy? I think you might mean theology. Unfortunately, you are incorrect on both parts. However, theology and philosophy are outside of the bounds of this conversation This is about science, and what should be taught in the science classroom. I won’t dictate to you what to teach in philosophy, as long as you don’t dictate to me what to teach in science.
But what you don’t realize is that your objections to ID are not scientific
Bzzt! Wrong. ID is not even a valid scientific hypothesis. I’d call that a blaring objection to it being taught in a science classroom. Please rephrase ID in a manner that makes it a consistent scientific hypothesis, and get back to me.
The bottom line is that you do not (knowingly) accept metaphysical reality when you evaluate scientific data.
By definition, that wouldn’t be science, now would it?
I do.
Which is why you could never be considered a scientist, and have no business dictating what should be taught in a science classroom.
Unless you agree to acknowledge metaphysical reality, or I agree to deny it, we are both wasting our time.
I agree, you are wasting my time. Science, by definition is silent on metaphysics. Period. You cannot shoehorn metaphysics into science, without destroying science. Sorry.
The irony is that you have to rely on metaphysical reality to do your science and live your life.
Care to provide an example?
Until then, I only ask that you don’t lump all us creationists into the same mold
By using terms “us creationists”, you are doing that yourself.
presume that we are all opposed to science
Umm… you want to make science answer questions about metaphysics. That is anti-science, by the definition of science. Yes, creationists are anti-science, mostly out of ignorance of how science works.
or that we all hold to the nonsensical views commonly associated with the word “creationist.â€
No, you all have different crack-pot views. However, there is one view that you all share: that science should be destroyed to validate your beliefs. I think this is based on a fear that your children will reject your beliefs when they learn science. If that is a problem for you, then you need to take a good hard look at your beliefs. If you cannot convince a child of what you believe, you can hardly convince yourself.
Whoops! Here’s the second half of that comment. I had a bad italics tag.
But what you don’t realize is that your objections to ID are not scientific
Bzzt! Wrong. ID is not even a valid scientific hypothesis. I’d call that a blaring objection to it being taught in a science classroom. Please rephrase ID in a manner that makes it a consistent scientific hypothesis, and get back to me.
The bottom line is that you do not (knowingly) accept metaphysical reality when you evaluate scientific data.
By definition, that wouldn’t be science, now would it?
I do.
Which is why you could never be considered a scientist, and have no business dictating what should be taught in a science classroom.
Unless you agree to acknowledge metaphysical reality, or I agree to deny it, we are both wasting our time.
I agree, you are wasting my time. Science, by definition is silent on metaphysics. Period. You cannot shoehorn metaphysics into science, without destroying science. Sorry.
The irony is that you have to rely on metaphysical reality to do your science and live your life.
Care to provide an example?
Until then, I only ask that you don’t lump all us creationists into the same mold
By using terms like “us creationistsâ€, you are doing that yourself.
presume that we are all opposed to science
Umm… you want to make science answer questions about metaphysics. That is anti-science, by the definition of science. Yes, creationists are anti-science, mostly out of ignorance of how science works.
or that we all hold to the nonsensical views commonly associated with the word “creationist.â€
No, you all have different crack-pot views. However, there is one view that you all share: that science should be destroyed to validate your beliefs. I think this is based on a fear that your children will reject your beliefs when they learn science. If that is a problem for you, then you need to take a good hard look at your beliefs. If you cannot convince a child of what you believe, you can hardly convince yourself.
Also, I did NOT say that science is only limited to what can be seen and touched.
If by this, you mean what can be observed, then you are sadly mistaken. Science requires verification to be science. You, like most creationists, want scientists to accept some claims on faith, which is not science.
Restate your ID hypothesis in a manner that can be verified or falsified.
Bob,
You are confusing evidence and faith, also a common aspect among most fundamentalist Christians. A strong personal belief in the existence of something despite the absence of physical evidence does classify this belief as evidence of its existence. If so, then most 7 yr olds can will Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny into existence.
Your “metaphysical reality” is only supported by your own beliefs. Beliefs can be many things: hunches, intuition, and of course, faith, BUT NOT ANY ONE OF THESE CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE. The objections to ID are VERY MUCH scientific in that the main objection against ID is that it is mostly supported by belief, whereas evolution is supported by evidence. From the scientific process, let us compare the two:
The Question:
How do species develop?
Hypothesis:
Evolution: Speciation occurred through natural selection, mutations, environmental pressures, etc that make up evolution.
Intelligent design: Each “species” was designed and created with fully formed modern features by a metaphysical intelligence.
Experimental Methods:
Evolution: Observe previously connected and now isolated populations of organisms in different environments for phenotypical differences, genetic mapping of closely related species, dig up fossils, blah blah blah
Intelligent design: What the hell can I use to find evidence of this intelligent designer? Really big transmitter pointed at space? No one responds. Time machine? Not invented yet. Look for historical material and ask random people I guess.
Results:
Evolution: Significant phenotypical differences between isolated populations observed specialized for their respective environments, genetic mapping shows the difference between closely related species, transitional fossils found, etc
Intelligent design: Oh hey, this dude at church totally believes me, says that this God fellow did it all… says so in this Bible book and everything. Maybe it is possible since it’s mentioned in a bunch of stories written by people with limited perception of the world due to lack of technology. Better take the God part out due to the Establishment clause and all (due to what happened with Creationism and Creation Science in the school system.)
Conclusion:
Evolution: Speciation occurs through all the previously mentioned mechanisms. Theory of evolution developed
Intelligent design: Hmm… a lot of people really really believe me, especially when I mentioned that it was possible for God to be this intelligent designer. I guess we can make it a theory right?
Again, no matter how “scientific” you claim to be arguing against evolution, it all ends up being philosophical when you start attaching supernatural and metaphysical aspects to the physical evidence in an attempt to marginalize it.
Incidentally, I love how you bring up Dembski like his mathematical degree is entitles him to expertise in biology. Like saying a bus driver can give advice on the finer points of piloting a fighter jet.
Well, I doubt Dembski knows much about mathematics (I bet I could school him on the subject), but I know that he doesn’t know the first thing about copyright law:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/diexpelled-for.html
Wow, PC-Bash, your arrogance is exceeded only by your complete inability to grasp simple concepts. You said: “Once again, evolution has nothing to do with how life began. How you fail to grasp this simple concept, I have no clue. Your response is inane.â€
What is inane is your insistence that “starting the system†is irrelevant to
making the Naturalistic claim that Darwinism tries (and fails) to make. Talk about being in denial and accepting things on blind faith. That is EXACTLY what you are doing when you make idiotic statements like that one.
“Considering that I have done plenty of my own published research and experimentation on the subject, proving the feasibility of genetic algorithms, I can tell you that I don’t need to read other works by other mathematicians.â€
Did I mention arrogance or did I just think it? You need to let the rest of the world know you are omniscient when it comes to mathematics. I don’t think anyone else realizes it yet.
“Philosophy? I think you might mean theology. Unfortunately, you are incorrect on both parts. However, theology and philosophy are outside of the bounds of this conversation. This is about science, and what should be taught in the science classroom. I won’t dictate to you what to teach in philosophy, as long as you don’t dictate to me what to teach in science.â€
Wrong again. If I meant theology I would have said t-h-e-o-l-o-g-y. It’s a different word and – get this – it means a different thing. The fact that you intellectually incapable of grasping that fact is astonishing, considering the delusions of intellectual grandeur you assume for yourself. Apparently this deficiency does not allow you to understand that when you offer non-sequiturs like this one …
“Umm… you want to make science answer questions about metaphysics. That is anti-science, by the definition of science. Yes, creationists are anti-science, mostly out of ignorance of how science works … Which is why you could never be considered a scientist, and have no business dictating what should be taught in a science classroom.â€
I NEVER said that science answers metaphysical questions. And I never said I should be considered a scientist. What I said (read slowly) is that you deny the very existence of metaphysics. I don’t. Your denial does not make your position true – it simply attempts to avoid the implications. By holding that position you, in your crusade to define science only on your terms, are imposing YOUR metaphysical view on my kid – which is why you have no business dictating what should be taught in ANY CLASSROOM.
“Care to provide an example?[of metaphysical reality]â€
Sure – Numbers. They are conceptual (and therefore not physical) things without which you could not practice your math, write your GAs, or do your science. If you believe numbers are real things, Naturalism (the philosophy of Darwinism) is falsified – and metaphysical reality is proved valid. Or do you deny that numbers are real?
Karl: “You are confusing evidence and faith, also a common aspect among most fundamentalist Christians. A strong personal belief in the existence of something despite the absence of physical evidence does classify this belief as evidence of its existence.”
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you’re talking about. I never said “evidence is faith.” I wouldn’t because it makes absolutely no sense. I said evidence is required BEFORE one can have faith. You can’t have real faith without any evidence to support your belief. Belief is NOT faith. Belief is intellectual assent. Faith is an act of trust that follows belief — a belief based on evidence. If you want to lecture me on faith, you picked the wrong forum and the wrong topic.
“Your “metaphysical reality†is only supported by your own beliefs.”
Nonsense. See my last post and get a dictionary if you don’t know what words mean.
What is inane is your insistence that “starting the system†…
Evolution is a theory about life, not life’s origins. Period. This is not avoiding questions, this is defending the claims of evolution. As before, I am a skeptic. I will not attribute things to evolution that evolution does not claim. Your insistence in linking the two is either born of intellectual dishonesty, or total ignorance. Take your pick.
Did I mention arrogance or did I just think it? You need to let the rest of the world know you are omniscient when it comes to mathematics. I don’t think anyone else realizes it yet.
I never claimed to be omniscient. But, I know bullshit when I smell it. I am familiar with Dembski and his dubious claims, and I can tell you that he has no clue about what he is talking about.
Wrong again. If I meant theology I would have said t-h-e-o-l-o-g-y. It’s a different word and – get this – it means a different thing.
Yes… and both are outside of the scope of science. Period.
Your metaphysical beliefs are theological, not philosophical. A true philosopher would laugh at your logically inconsistent belief system, and your desperate attempts to link it to a epistemological study with an incompatible philosophical statement.
What I said (read slowly) is that you deny the very existence of metaphysics.
When I put on my scientist hat, this is one hundred percent true.
Your denial does not make your position true – it simply attempts to avoid the implications.
No, just like any good statement of epistemology, my position simply separates what science can answer (that which is naturalistic, verifiable, or falsifiable), from that which cannot be answered by science (metaphysics, your god, etc.). The two systems are mutually incompatible, yet you want us to teach ID as science.
By holding that position you, in your crusade to define science only on your terms
There are no other terms in which to define science. You claim to be a philosopher. Try looking up the term epistemology. I’ll spell it for you e-p-i-s-t-e-m-o-l-o-g-y.
are imposing YOUR metaphysical view on my kid
In the science classroom, there are no metaphysical views. We neither try to support or deny that which is metaphysical. Let me draw out a Venn diagram for you. This circle represents science: O. This circle represents metaphysics, crystal healing, and your religious ideas: O. Notice the lack of overlap. Science teachers may teach your kid a lot of things, but they aren’t going to teach your kid a single thing about religion. They may show where certain religious ideas are wrong (e.g. the literal creation myth), but they do not have a position on the existence of your god. Any attempt to claim they do is once again either intellectual dishonesty, or complete ignorance of science. Take your pick.
I said evidence is required BEFORE one can have faith. You can’t have real faith without any evidence to support your belief.
Really? Where is your empirical evidence of the existence of your god? This ought to be good.
As for metaphysics, I am purposefully exposing the double-entendre between the philosophical definition of metaphysics and your inane beliefs (e.g. a theistic being created life on this planet).
I am well aware of what the word means.
The second definition, of course, being the common definition of “subjects that are beyond the physical world”, specifically the cruft in the “metaphysics” section of your favorite book store.
I fear that you cannot separate the two definitions though, much like most creationists cannot separate the two definitions of “theory”: scientific theory and the common usage of the word.
“The two systems are mutually incompatible,”
Your opinion, which you hold in a complete vacuum for no good reason.
“… yet you want us to teach ID as science.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said this. ID is not ready to be taught in classrooms. I already said I want more Darwinism taught — complete with all the glaring holes, inconsistencies and dishonest promises that “we’ll figure it out later.” Let the kids see ALL the evidence.
You are afraid to do that. And please don’t lecture me on epistemology, which you obviously don’t understand. This is a science forum.
“In the science classroom, there are no metaphysical views. We neither try to support or deny that which is metaphysical.”
Bingo! That is the problem. Your claim to be neutral is wrong. Every view takes a metaphysical position. You are just ignorant as to why that is.
PC — you are very good at answering questions I don’t ask and avoiding points that you can’t answer. The mark of a good Darwinist.
You are afraid to do that. And please don’t lecture me on epistemology, which you obviously don’t understand. This is a science forum.
From your inane position, I understand it much better than you do. You want to inject religion and unsubstantiated belief into a system built on skepticism. Yet, I’m the one who doesn’t understand epistemology. Funny.
Also, it’s quite funny that you would use “This is a science forum” to dismiss epistemology, as science is defined in epistemological terms. Perhaps you didn’t know that, even though you are a self-proclaimed philosopher?
Your claim to be neutral is wrong.… You are just ignorant as to why that is.
Oh, really? Care to elaborate, or are you just going to assume that you’re right?
you are very good at answering questions I don’t ask and avoiding points that you can’t answer.
I’m just trying to keep your inanity within the scope of science. It’s irritating when someone won’t follow you down the rabbit hole of faith, isn’t it?
Once again, PC, you paste a definition for metaphysics on an idea that you don’t understand and that I did not propose. I am referring to the philosophical definition of metaphysics, not some notion that “a theistic being created this planet” and you know it. I have never once inserted God into this debate. You just wish I would.
It’s irritating when someone won’t head for the normal rabbit holes you’re used to chasing them down, isn’t it?
BTW, you never answered me … do you believe numbers are real things or not?
Simple question, simple answer.
BTW, you never answered me … do you believe numbers are real things or not?
Mathematics represents logic. This logic is self-referential and consistent, relying on a handful of axioms. Numbers are a constructed concept, yes, but not the same by any means as a belief in a theistic designer. ID and mathematics have little, if anything, in common. The former relies on the belief in a theistic designer, which is a far far cry from a few axioms.
I am referring to the philosophical definition of metaphysics, not some notion that “a theistic being created this planet†and you know it.
Well, you seem to be getting these two concepts confused. You simultaneously claim to be a creationist, and claim that your metaphysical beliefs do not include religious beliefs. Which is it, or are you getting lost in your own sophistry?
You claim that science does not address the metaphysical, and imply that science should address it. However, the only example you provide is ID, which identifies the intelligent designer, as defined by the Discovery Institute in many different places, and has been further found through the Dover case, as being “the Christian God”
To further explain exactly which intelligent designer ID meant, your hero Dembski (remember, the lousy statician and Harvard movie pirate), had this to say. “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.” There can be little doubt as to the identity of this “intelligent” designer, when the founders of the ID movement, and their biggest proponents all call it the same as your god.
Yet, you want to corrupt science to blindly accept this. You wave your hands, and ask us to ignore the man behind the curtain. You say that by focusing on your theistic designer, we are missing the “science” behind ID. You say, “The fact is that none of that is an argument ID folks are making,” apparently ignorant to what the founders of this ID cult are saying.
Of course, you then go on with this inane gem:
The reasons your reject ID a priori are NOT scientific — they are philosophical or, one might say, religious. You will not question your faith in Darwinism.
So, rejecting ID because it is founded on faith in a mystic theistic being, called out specifically by the creators of ID as “the Christian god”, is not scientific? Even more interestingly, you try to divide the concept of something being scientific away from its epistemological roots, by claiming that there is a dichotomy between science and its philosophical foundation. Yet, you are the self-proclaimed expert on philosophy.
Your position on this matter is completely irrational. I’d say that you are talking in circles, but you keep contradicting yourself.
Did you just let me bait you into a contradiction?
Bob posted:
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you’re talking about. I never said “evidence is faith.â€
Oh but to you it is. You, like many others arguing against evolution, believe in a metaphysical reality. Given that you support ID, we kinda all know specifically which metaphysical reality you believe in, and it is one largely supported by your faith. Which, to you, acts as the evidence you need to support it. Ta-da, faith is your “evidence.”
Bob goes on to post:
What I said (read slowly) is that you deny the very existence of metaphysics. I don’t.
And what metaphysical reality do you believe in? The one being denied by evolution? Seems to be thoroughly implied. Evolution (or science overall) does not deny the existence of metaphysical reality, given that you included the concept of numbers as an example (I suppose quantum states can be another example). It does, however, deny the existence of one specific example of a metaphysical reality which just happens to be so cherished by the more religious folks like yourself, that they are willing to get all up in arms about it. At this point, it’s beyond all empirical science to debate this since it gets extremely philosophical when you try to categorize metaphysical realities between religious and scientific criteria.
Hi Bob,
It seems like you’re willing to listen to new ideas that may appear to contradict your views. That’s good. I prefer debaters of the Berean variety, if you take my drift.
I can tell from your response to my comments above (far, far above – my how this thread has expanded!) that certain biological details of what I was getting at were not clear to you. This is not a criticism, for I see from your web page that you are not a biologist. Fair enough. I’d like to try point out why I see the human / chimp genome data as such strong evidence for common ancestry. Hopefully you’ll bear with me.
I agree that our dependancy on vitamin C is not necessarily a bad thing, and one might even be able to make some sort of theological or teleological case for why God might have desired us to depend on dietary vitamin C (if one was so inclined). The issue is that the gene for making vitamin C is in our genome – in the corresponding location to the chimp version. Ours is inactive; the chimp one works. If one accepts the notion that humans were created ex nihilo, why would God place this non-functional sequence into our genomes in the same place as the functional chimp sequence?
It also may have appeared from my post that this was an isolated case, an exception. It is not. There are many, many examples of this type of thing. Some concern non-functional sequences (such as left -over remnants of viruses that inserted themselves into our genome). In the case of these virus leftovers (and other examples I haven’t gone in to), there was never any human function associated with them at all. Yet one can look into the chimp genome, and even into the mouse genome, and these sequences are present at the same location in all three genomes. There are many hundreds of such correspondences. How one explains that except by common descent I do not know – and I say that as a research biologist and as a committed Christian.
I see from your web page you’ve read a number of ID books. At the risk of answering questions you haven’t asked, here’s my two cents: ID isn’t worth your time. I was initially intrigued by the ID camp, and I took the time to read their stuff. It doesn’t hold water, but it is written in a manner that requires expertise to debunk. It will easily deceive non-specialists (and that is, I believe, its intent). You would do well to look elsewhere for apologetics support. ID, though of certain popular appeal among Christians, really is scientifically vacuous.
“Mathematics represents logic. This logic is self-referential and consistent, relying on a handful of axioms. Numbers are a constructed concept, yes, but not the same by any means as a belief in a theistic designer. ID and mathematics have little, if anything, in common. The former relies on the belief in a theistic designer, which is a far far cry from a few axioms.”
Will you quit with the theistic designer?! It amazes me that YOU are the one who keeps trying to inject God into this discussion. Why are you so obsessed with that PC-Bash? ME THINKS YOU PROTESTETH TOO MUCH!
And quit trying to change the subject. I didn’t ask you what mathematics was. I asked you if numbers are real things … and you have admitted that numbers are concepts that show the existence of non-physical reality. That wasn’t so hard was it?
The point is that numbers are metaphysical things that science CANNOT DO WITHOUT. You can’t prove or disprove metaphysical reality with science, but that doesn’t mean that science and metaphysics don’t implicate one another.
Logic (and therefore math) are also metaphysically real and needed to do science. These alone show that Naturalism as a philosophy is false. And no, I am NOT saying this somehow “proves God” so don’t even go there.
What I am saying is that if Naturalism is false, it is not unreasonable to propose that there could be causes other than natural causes
Karl said: “Oh but to you it is. You, like many others arguing against evolution, believe in a metaphysical reality. Given that you support ID, we kinda all know specifically which metaphysical reality you believe in, and it is one largely supported by your faith. Which, to you, acts as the evidence you need to support it. Ta-da, faith is your “evidence.—
Listen, I don’t mean to be rude, but this is incoherent. I tell you my definition of faith specifically, and you reply that I don’t know what my definition of faith is. If you don’t want to engage what I ACTUALLY believe, please don’t bother. It’s really very childish.
You either engage the best arguments of your opponents (a concept I began this discussion with) or you prove yourself to be intellectually dishonest. You’ve chosen the latter so I have no reason to continue with you.
Thanks…
PC-Bash said: “So, rejecting ID because it is founded on faith in a mystic theistic being, called out specifically by the creators of ID as “the Christian godâ€, is not scientific? Even more interestingly, you try to divide the concept of something being scientific away from its epistemological roots, by claiming that there is a dichotomy between science and its philosophical foundation. Yet, you are the self-proclaimed expert on philosophy.
Your position on this matter is completely irrational. I’d say that you are talking in circles, but you keep contradicting yourself.”
Your insecurities are showing PC. I never said I was “an expert in philosophy.” I said YOU were (obviously) not trained in philosophy. Your lame attempts to define and critique philosophy have only proven that to be true.
Talking in circles? You refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions and attribute beliefs to me that I don’t hold. Then, when I try to clarify that I don’t hold those beliefs, you attack me for being irrational. You sir, are a walking icon of sophistry.
You have no interest in addressing the best arguments of your opponents and you reject ID based on its implications, not evidence. And you call being afraid of implications “science.”
I have specifically said (above) that I don’t think ID should be taught in classrooms yet you completely ignored that comment and went on to attack me for trying to force it into classrooms.
I also said that what I do want taught in classrooms is MORE Evolution — all the gaping holes and inconsistencies you try to sweep under the carpet with sarcasm, profanity and self-proclaimed intellectual superiority which, I might add, you have grossly failed to demonstrate.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn’t need to resort to tactics like that. But you have and you will continue.
But I won’t.
Talking in circles? You refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions and attribute beliefs to me that I don’t hold.
You came out in defense of ID, claiming that rejection of ID is not scientific, which I have shown to be ridiculous. Even the creators of ID consider the “designer” to be your god.
You refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions…
That were clearly out of scope. You were trying to get me to say that evolution has something to do with the origin of life, which is patently false. You attempted to show that evolution is meaningless unless it explains the origin of life, which is dubious at best. It would be like saying that unless Ohm’s law says something about quantum physics, it is worthless. One does not need to understand the complete underlying mechanisms of reality in order to propose hypotheses and prove them scientifically. Otherwise, we would be in an interesting chicken-and-egg problem, since no one (not even you) knows how the universe came to be. This evolutionary bootstrapping idea that you keep coming back to is completely unworthy of an answer.
You have no interest in addressing the best arguments of your opponents and you reject ID based on its implications, not evidence. And you call being afraid of implications “science.â€
That’s because the arguments of the ID camp are outside of the bounds of science. If we are going to have a conversation about science, then it does no good to discuss something that is in a circle that does not even touch science. As for “best” arguments, I’d say it is definitely a relative term. ID is a steaming pile of semantic excrement, and that’s about as polite as I can get about it.
Also, there is no “fear of implications here”. There is only the concept of what science is, and what science is not. A theistic designer, which is part of ID whether if you want to deny it or not, is clearly outside of the bounds of science. Any pseudo-scientific babble that includes this theistic designer is also outside of the bounds of science. Period.
I have specifically said (above) that I don’t think ID should be taught in classrooms…
I am in agreement with you on this point. Of course, you claimed that ID is not “ready” for being taught in classrooms. I’m waiting for you to admit based on your later statements that ID will never be ready to be taught in science classrooms, since it is clearly not science.
I also said that what I do want taught in classrooms is MORE Evolution — all the gaping holes and inconsistencies…
There are holes in the fossil record. I wouldn’t call these holes gaping, nor would I say that they disprove or even discredit evolution. Evolution is testable and has been verified. We can show that species evolve. We can show that organisms speciate. We can show common descent. All of these are predicted by evolution. All of these are fact.
The only thing that the fossil record could do is discredit evolution. For instance, if we found a fossilized modern homo sapien in a dinosaur’s stomach, that would be the end of evolution. Gaps in the fossil record, “explosions” and die-offs, ad naueum; these are all interesting things, but not “gaps” in evolution. Creationists like you love to blow these things out of proportion, mainly due to your ignorance of evolutionary science, and your own personal incredulity. You want to believe so badly that your god created life, that you are willing to bastardize your creation myth and cling desperately onto any gap you can find so you can inject your god into it. Unfortunately, science will be silent on gaps as it should be.
Of course, creationists like Behe will continue looking for examples of “irreducible complexity” and other nonsense. Sadly, every example he provides is throughly debunked by actual experts on the subject.
I am well aware of the common descent issue and that vitamin C is not an isolated case. I am involved with another discussion group with some folks who sincerely respect science (most are practicing PhD research scientists) but are also theists. These folks are also open to evaluating the actual evidence before drawing their conclusions. As such, common descent is a topic that has, to be honest, caused some heated debate. But this is because, unlike the picture of ID that has been painted here, they are not just seeking to uphold their pet view – they are seeking the truth.
“I see from your web page you’ve read a number of ID books. At the risk of answering questions you haven’t asked, here’s my two cents: ID isn’t worth your time. I was initially intrigued by the ID camp, and I took the time to read their stuff. It doesn’t hold water, but it is written in a manner that requires expertise to debunk. It will easily deceive non-specialists (and that is, I believe, its intent). You would do well to look elsewhere for apologetics support. ID, though of certain popular appeal among Christians, really is scientifically vacuous.â€
Not surprisingly, I disagree with you here. ID is nothing more than the attempt to detect the actions of an intelligent agent. Science uses it already in forensics and SETI for example. It makes no attempt to identify the “designer.†Yes, some of the ID folks are Christian theists and have offered their personal opinion on the identity of the designer, but why does their religion automatically discount their method for detecting intelligent action? Look at Dembski’s “explanatory filter.†Is there anything “religious†in that?
If religious beliefs disqualify scientific credentials, Francis Collins is in trouble (as are you!). On top of that, not all ID folks are Christian theists. Behe fully accepts common descent. There is plenty of diversity and challenging the status quo is ENCOURAGED, not stifled. That is all I’m saying about ID. And none of that contradicts an acceptance of common descent.
Finally, as I said to those less willing to listen, I DO NOT believe that ID is ready to be taught in a classroom. I shudder with embarrassment at what the folks in Dover, PA did, for example. But I really think it is hypocritical and evasive to disallow any criticism of Darwinism and then claim to be conducting free and open inquiry in the science classroom. There are gaping holes in evolutionary theory – holes that have been identified by Darwinists – but that are NEVER allowed to be spoken of in the science curricula. I just think that is disingenuous and coercive.
And thanks for the civil tone of your comment. I appreciate it.
Gabriel
When I cut and pasted, I accidentally chopped this off the top of my last post. My apologies for it coming after the above …
Hey Gabriel, you said: “It seems like you’re willing to listen to new ideas that may appear to contradict your views. That’s good. I prefer debaters of the Berean variety, if you take my drift.â€
Yes, I get your drift and yes I am willing to listen to ideas that contradict my views. Thanks for noticing.
There are gaping holes in evolutionary theory…
Care to elaborate? Hopefully, you have something more than gaps and explosions here.
PC-Bash —
Since you don’t actually read what I write you probably missed it the first time so I’ll keep it short …
“If you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn’t need to resort to tactics like that. But you have and you will continue.
But I won’t. “
ID is nothing more than the attempt to detect the actions of an intelligent agent.
Well, come back to me when it actually does detect this theistic designer. You might want to consider that we don’t teach children about aliens in science class either, even though SETI is looking for them. We also don’t “teach the controversy” of aerodynamics since flying saucers could exist, if SETI finds aliens.
Bob –
Go ahead, ignore me. It is certainly safer to your fragile beliefs than to pay attention to me.
GABRIEL —
A couple more points. This is part of an earlier comment:
“We took your explanation into consideration, did some tests, and proved it to be false. It’s the same with your creationism and intelligent design theories, and our continuing research on evolution.”
These guys claim ID is not science because it is not testable. Then they claim to have tested it and found it defective. They can’t have it both ways. How did they “test it” if it’s not testable? Do you not see a logical inconsistency in this assertion?
To follow on that, you said:
“As an aside, many Christians, myself included, have no problem with the notion that God used evolution as a creative mechanism – and that evolution continues to this day.”
Why would you, claiming to be a theist, presume that “God used evolution” but that His action in doing so would never be detectable? (which is the only claim of ID)
Notice, I am not saying that you are wrong in saying God could use evolution. For the sake of debate, I will concede that to you. The question becomes — what is so inherently untenable about asserting that we would be able to detect that action?
Hi Bob,
I have no problem with ID as an attempt to detect design. My problem with ID is that it has come up empty – no evidence for design found – and yet it is pushed as a program. In the world of science, only verifiable results count. ID, some 15 years in, has nothing to show. All we have are popular and semi-technical books riddled with errors.
You also seem to imply that I reject ID because I view it as inherently religious – an odd position for a Christian to take! No, I reject ID because it has not produced anything of scientific value. It also attempts to change the rules of science to suit its own ends (see the testimony of Behe in Kitzmiller, for example).
There is no blockade for ID research. There is even plenty of money for it, from the Discovery Institute (I have a colleague at my institution who is funded by them even as we speak). I too have heated, but friendly debates with this colleague. If ID actually come up with evidence, it would be allowed a place at the table. ID has come up with nothing thus far, and has contented itself with trying to pick holes in what it styles as “Darwinism” – like the various flavors of creationism before it. When you claim that “Darwinism” has gaping holes this is what you are doing. I too would be curious to know what you consider the key flaws of evolutionary theory.
We may have to agree to disagree. In my view, ID is a sinking ship. You’d best jump while you can. The Vatican had its defenders of geocentricism too, but to no avail in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Hi Bob,
your post appeared while I was writing the last one above.
It is true that certain predictions based on ID have been falsified. ID as an overarching view is immune to falsification in that it only specifies that “some features are best explained by the action of an intelligent designer.” The trouble is, whenever the ID camp has identified a specific case of design, it has been tested and found wanting. So I don’t see a logical problem here. Whenever ID sticks its neck out with an actual prediction it can be tested.
I agree that God’s action through evolution might be detectable. ID hasn’t found it though. FWIW I don’t think it would be, but it is possible. I have no problem with ID trying to find it, but so far it has produced no results.
Here’s a question for you: if, for the sake of argument, you accept the notion that God uses evolution as a mechanism, why do you suppose that his actions will be evident?
Gabriel —
“I have no problem with ID as an attempt to detect design. My problem with ID is that it has come up empty – no evidence for design found – and yet it is pushed as a program. In the world of science, only verifiable results count.”
I agree that, “in the world of science, only verifiable results count.” I just find it implausible that an undirected process is a more credible explanation for the vast amount of information we find in DNA than a directed cause. That conclusion would not be acceptable anywhere else in the real world. This is not based on my own personal incredulity. It is based in empirical observation about how the world works. The ONLY examples we have of information arising are directly dependent on some kind of intelligent action. It seems to me to be an arbitrary constraint to see the same kind of information content (actually more) right before our eyes but claim it CANNOT be the result of intelligent action in the case of biological life. IMHO, the only way you can demand that kind of conclusion is to disallow certain conclusions before you analyze the evidence.
“You also seem to imply that I reject ID because I view it as inherently religious – an odd position for a Christian to take!”
I’m not sure why you say this. That was not my intent.
“Here’s a question for you: if, for the sake of argument, you accept the notion that God uses evolution as a mechanism, why do you suppose that his actions will be evident?”
Because the definition of theism is that the divine can, and does, interact with the physical world. To deny that is deism, not theism. If you claim to hold to theism, there is no logical reason why those actions would be hidden or undetectable. I’m not saying those actions HAVE TO BE detectable, I’m saying it is not inconsistent to say that they COULD be detectable.
Good questions …
Gabriel —
Here’s a question for you … You said:
“I agree that God’s action through evolution might be detectable. ID hasn’t found it though. FWIW I don’t think it would be, but it is possible. I have no problem with ID trying to find it, but so far it has produced no results.”
What criteria would you hold to qualify results as “acceptable”?
I ask because others insist that NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE would be acceptable — thereby proving that their position is not intellectual, it is emotional or volitional.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the ongoing give-and-take.
I agree that God interacts with the world. I am not a deist. However, I don’t think he has had to tinker with evolution along the way (which, in essence, is the ID argument). The evidence strongly supports the notion that natural processes account for current biodiversity.
I have no problem with those who wish to assert that there may be evidence for direct “tinkering” by God. No one in the scientific community is attempting to restrict such investigation, either. The question is, what is the evidence for it? So far, nothing. Yet ID is pushed as a “theory” into classrooms, popularized with a misleading film (which apparently doesn’t even explain what ID is), all the while by individuals who appear deceptive, hiding a theistic agenda. For example, have you read the wedge document? This was all planned in advance. Everything in the Wedge has been accomplished, with the one glaring exception of the research part.
In terms of acceptable evidence, there would have to be evidence for a break in natural evolutionary mechanisms – failure of common descent, for example. Behe has tried to argue that certain subcellular features cannot be produced through natural mechanisms. I have read his latest attempt to argue his case (EoE) as well as his previous one (DBB) and his arguments don’t hold up. I even restricted myself to not looking at published reviews before reading either, to make up my own mind. Reading EoE was painful. Honestly, there are errors in there that I would expect my undergraduate students to catch. If Behe had submitted this to me as an assignment, it would have deserved an F.
This is why ID has no peer reviewed stuff (in scientific journals – I am aware of claims of peer review of Dembski’s work, but that is not true scientific review). Here is one of ID’s leading lights, but that is all Behe has to offer? It may convince those who don’t know any better, but biologists see through it, and rightly conclude that it’s a smokescreen for the Wedge agenda.
ID, as a position, is also amorphic – it has no coherent form. For example, ID theorists cannot agree on things such as the age of the earth, the extent of common descent, which macromolecular complexes are designed, which are not, et cetera. The only common denominator with ID folks is that they doubt evolution in some way. Why do they have this alone in common when they can’t agree on anything else? I would posit that they have one thing in common- an a priori commitment to a theological position. Ergo, ID is a variant of creationism.
Put another way, if I were to become an ID proponent, what should I believe? I have yet to see a consistent answer.
Honestly, I fail to see why a God who tinkers with evolution is a more theologically fulfilling proposition than the position that God’s setting up of the whole process was sufficient to let it run on its own.
More grist for the mill,
gabriel
I agree that, “in the world of science, only verifiable results count.†I just find it implausible that an undirected process is a more credible explanation for the vast amount of information we find in DNA than a directed cause. That conclusion would not be acceptable anywhere else in the real world.
…only that it works in Genetic Algorithms, as I explained previously, and you ignored.
This is not based on my own personal incredulity. It is based in empirical observation about how the world works.
For every example you can find, I can produce numerous counter-examples. It is based on your own personal incredulity. You are just ignorant of how the world actually works.
Yet ID is pushed as a “theory†into classrooms
Which is interesting, because in order to even be called a theory it has to be verified through a rigorous process. Perhaps IDists think they are exempt from this? 😉
Something else I find interesting is that a good scientific theory allows us to make predictions about natural processes. ID, or claiming “my god dun’ it” does not at all help to progress science.
GABRIEL —
“I agree that God interacts with the world. I am not a deist. However, I don’t think he has had to tinker with evolution along the way (which, in essence, is the ID argument).”
I suppose some are proposing ongoing “tinkering” but that’s not my view. I won’t get into my view here because it doesn’t matter but, if one accepts something like the “fully gifted creation” idea, there is no need for “tinkering.” But there would still be evidence for design. The two are not mutually exclusive.
“In terms of acceptable evidence, there would have to be evidence for a break in natural evolutionary mechanisms – failure of common descent, for example.”
Fair enough. I am reading as much as I can on the common descent issue. I have to admit the case you make for human/chimp commonality is compelling. However, I think the case for Universal common ancestry is a whole separate story. Again, neither of these prohibits the possibility of design or our ability to detect it.
Also, something dramatic caused the jump from hominids to modern humans. From what I’ve read (not in ID literature BTW), genetic disimilarities have eliminated the possibility of our being related to australopithecenes, neanderthal etc. This combined with the rapid and dramatic rise of art, religious ritual, language etc. seems to be evidence that requires a dramatic answer.
“ID, as a position, is also amorphic – it has no coherent form. For example, ID theorists cannot agree on things such as the age of the earth, the extent of common descent, which macromolecular complexes are designed, which are not, et cetera. The only common denominator with ID folks is that they doubt evolution in some way. Why do they have this alone in common when they can’t agree on anything else? I would posit that they have one thing in common- an a priori commitment to a theological position. Ergo, ID is a variant of creationism.”
This is not an argument against design. It is an argument against the inconsistencies among those who promote it. I cringe when I hear the age of the Earth nonsense, for instance. It is simply ridiculous. And please don’t try to convince me that there are no divergences of opinion within Darwinism. I know that is not true. But the reverse is also true. I could (and do) argue that Darwinists hold an a priori commitment to Naturalism as a philosophical position that they will defend in spite of any amount of evidence.
Question for you … It seems that scientific types are so specialized in their field that they fail to see the relationships between their field and others that could have dramatic consequences for their data analysis. For instance, astronomers and geologists discover evidence for huge changes in the planet that could bear directly on the evolutionary models. Would you not agree that this is a weakness in a holistic view toward what you claim to observe as an evolutionist?
Thanks Gabriel …
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
And please don’t try to convince me that there are no divergences of opinion within Darwinism. I know that is not true. But the reverse is also true. I could (and do) argue that Darwinists hold an a priori commitment to Naturalism as a philosophical position that they will defend in spite of any amount of evidence.
Of course there is debate with evolutionary theory (as in any real scientific enterprise), but it orders of magnitude less than the variance one sees in ID. Details such as punctuated equilibrium and the contributions from the emerging field of evo-devo come to mind. These issues are discussions about how evolution works in the finer details, not if evolution works. These discussions are often misrepresented and quote-mined to death by creationists. Seriously, it’s a tempest in a teapot.
By contrast, the ID community has almost no consensus on anything, and they actively suppress discussions of certain issues, like the age of the earth. The age of the earth is not one of the finer points of any scientific position, to be honest. Why does the ID community fear discussing this? Simple: they know they will lose a large part of their natural audience if they bring it up. So, they sacrifice science to preserve their political clout.
One would think that if ID was actually interested in scientific validation of its hypotheses that it would make concrete predictions and offer them up to science for testing if they don’t want to do the bench work themselves. Yet all I see is rhetoric coming from the ID side.
For instance, astronomers and geologists discover evidence for huge changes in the planet that could bear directly on the evolutionary models. Would you not agree that this is a weakness in a holistic view toward what you claim to observe as an evolutionist?
Ironically you are speaking to a point of contention I have with ID. Evolutionary theory is integrated with geology, etc. ID is not. Do you have specific issues from geology and astronomy that you think challenge evolutionary theory? I’d be happy to discuss them if I can.
The beauty of any scientific model is its power of prediction. ID can explain everything, but it predicts nothing. Evolution, on the other hand, has astonishing predictive power. The Tiktaalik example comes to mind, among others.
thanks,
gabriel
here’s a link to follow if you’re interested in the Tiktaalik story: this species was found based on predictions based on known fossils that flank it in the geological record.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
here’s an example of Behe on Christian talk radio. He deliberately avoids the earth age issue.
http://www.kkms.com/11565100/
Gabriel —
“here’s an example of Behe on Christian talk radio. He deliberately avoids the earth age issue.”
Not applicable for two reasons:
1) He was not asked about the age of the Earth. He was asked specifically “when time began.” As you know these are two very different questions. Behe is a biochemist, not a physicist, so he said he didn’t want to speculate about what physicists study.
2) He is on a Christian radio station for a limited time. When the caller (who was obviously not “educated” in these matters) asks a question like that, if you give the OE answer, you will spend the rest of your air time listening to YE zealots telling you why you’re going to hell for not believing the Earth is 6000 years old.
I don’t blame him.
The question about Behe is the other issue he addressed here about protein-protein binding sites and the construction of complex biological structures. I’d like to see the counter argument to that one.
Gabriel —
“this species was found based on predictions based on known fossils that flank it in the geological record.”
C’mon. The verbiage on the site says, “At first glance, it has features associated with most of the fish we see today and are familiar with: fins, scales and gills.”
Sorry, but there are not any gills or scales on the skelatal remains of the actual find, yet this is presented as fact. Additionally, the rear end of the skeleton is cut off in every single picture EXCEPT the artist’s speculative rendition of what it looked like. I especially like the video link, 5th picture down, which shows the tail (which we don’t have) still not having emerged from the water. Voila — we get a picture that makes us believe they know what it actually looks like combined with the implication that it is half land animal, half fish. Evolution is true!
The “fins” are described as “suggest[ing] it could support much of its weight on these fins.” Uh huh. Or they could actually be the the partial bones of a leg/foot — another version of which could be missing from the aft end of the skeleton we don’t have.
Anyone who was not predisposed to trying to find a transitional proof would look at this as some kind of crocodile. Don’t you see that this is the kind of blatant propaganda that people find so off-putting about Darwinism’s “just so” stories? Especially when creationists are accused of doing THE EXACT SAME THING.
Sorry, Gabriel, but that croc won’t hunt.
Bob –
Wow. That rant was breathtakingly inane. You obviously have read little about this transitional fossil.
Gabriel —
You said: “Of course there is debate with evolutionary theory (as in any real scientific enterprise), but it orders of magnitude less than the variance one sees in ID. Details such as punctuated equilibrium and the contributions from the emerging field of evo-devo come to mind. These issues are discussions about how evolution works in the finer details, not if evolution works.”
Well, Gabriel I respectfully disagree. Punc-eq wasn’t a tempest in a teapot. While you say that the ID camp is amorphous, this is a perfect example of how the Darwinist camp is also. Theories change as more information is obtained. I realize that. But the problems with Darwinism are much greater than minor disagreements. They go to the very heart of the theory in question — and I’m talking about Darwinists I’ve read, not ID proponents.
Classic Darwinism was touted as slow and gradualistic. Punc-eq is the exact opposite. And the fossil record? Rapid appearance — stasis — extinction.
Darwinism posits a fossil record full of transitional elements. Even Darwin admitted that. And what do we find? The labored attempt to find ANY transitional elements beyond examples like the one above.
And the biggest one of all — I understand the attempt to disconnect Evolution from the Origin of Life but doing so is an evasion. Both support a Naturalistic worldview so if both don’t hold water, the worldview falls apart. Refusing to admit that (and I’m not saying you do Gabriel — but others do) is cowardly and makes the whole enterprise suspect. It’s utterly ridiculous to defend Darwinism when you can’t even come up with a way it could have started.
Darwin’s “warm little pond” didn’t work because of the initial conditions.
Panspermia is a joke that only pushes the origin of life question back to another location but doesn’t actually change a thing about it.
The jury’s still out on extremophiles but doesn’t look promising. Just because they exist, doesn’t mean they had to originate where they are. In fact, from what I’ve read, support for the notion that they could have originated there gets weaker and weaker.
I won’t keep droning … but
I don’t want the fact that this whole thread began because of the debate about science standards. As I said, I want to be clear that I don’t think ID should be taught in schools. Notwithstanding those who, in local school districts, try to invoke things without knowing what they’re doing, the “real” ID people don’t want to have it taught in schools either. Changing the wording of the Florida standards is an exercise in trivialities. The real question is what gets taught as unquestionable fact.
I say teach all the Evolution you want — but also have the intellectual honesty and courage to talk about the weaknesses and unanswered questions that cannot be ignored.
If Evolution is true, you have nothing to fear. If it’s not true, you shouldn’t be defending it.
Anyway, I’ve had some time off work this week that has allowed me to keep this going but the party’s over now. I just want to thank you, Gabriel, for being civil in your discussion and for giving me some things to consider and dig into more deeply. I sincerely appreciate it. I know we will have to agree to disagree and that’s OK.
For me, this is not about winning arguments, it’s about finding Truth.
Take care …
And the biggest one of all — I understand the attempt to disconnect Evolution from the Origin of Life but doing so is an evasion. Both support a Naturalistic worldview so if both don’t hold water, the worldview falls apart. Refusing to admit that (and I’m not saying you do Gabriel — but others do) is cowardly and makes the whole enterprise suspect. It’s utterly ridiculous to defend Darwinism when you can’t even come up with a way it could have started.
So, every theory in science should explain everything? Ohm’s law is garbage because it doesn’t explain the quantum interactions of electrons? Eintsein’s theory of Relativity is garbage because it doesn’t explain the origin of the universe?
If your statement held up, then there would be no science, because people would spend all of their time chasing their own tails. The only reason why theories work is because they have scope. You want to extend the scope of evolution to discredit it, because you cannot discredit it by any means. Then, you turn around and cry foul because no one will take your nonsense seriously.
Thanks Bob. I hope you’ve found the exchange helpful. I also hope that someday, perhaps, you’ll come to see how evolution is not a philosophically naturalistic conspiracy.
Tiktaalik is a wonderful critter that fills in a gap in the fossil record – a gap between fish and tetrapods (like us, much later on). I hope it’s ok that I found your criticism that it “looks like a crocodile” a little amusing – that’s kind of the whole point. In geological strata before Tiktaalik there are no tetrapods; after Tiktaalik there are early amphibians (like Acanthostega) and Tiktaalik neatly fits in the middle. So, here was a test of the hypothesis of common descent – and lo and behold, this critter is in the right place, at the right geological time, and with intermediate features. Wonderful stuff. If ID ever pulled off something half as impressive they would shout it from the rooftops.
I had a few more things to share that might be helpful. Behe evading the young-earth issue was not an isolated case. Here is a transcript of a debate between Dembski / Behe and Pennock / Miller – a scholarly debate. This would be the place to clearly present your ideas and answer your critics. Part three is especially revealing – Demsbki won’t come clean on anything as far as I can tell, though Pennock presses him pretty hard:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=15
Again, punk-eek is an interesting issue, but not one fatal to “Darwinism>” Miller’s book (Finding Darwin’s God) has a good discussion of the punk-eek issue and how it has been misrepresented. Again, we are talking about finer details here – it’s a question of resolution – things that occur over tens of thousands of years appear instantaneous in the fossil record.
I hope you’ve enjoyed your rest. All the best in your search for answers.
gabriel
An amendment to my previous comment, Bob. You claim to have a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, so I’ll boil down your analogy to something you can understand.
Claiming that evolution is invalid because it does not answer the question as to how life came to exist in the first place is a lot like claiming that L/D is completely invalid because it does not explain how the plane got to flying in the first place.
“Eintsein’s theory of Relativity is garbage because it doesn’t explain the origin of the universe?”
Not a good example to use. Einstein’s General Relativity theory first posited an expanding universe — which implied a beginning to space and time. Because the reigning scientific paradigm at the time was that the universe was static and eternal, Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into his equations to cancel out the expansion.
When Hubble later confirmed the expanding universe, Einstein removed the constant and later referred to his including it as the “biggest mistake of his life.”
The point: Einstein’s motivation to include the constant was not scientific, it was philosophical. The data told him something that he couldn’t accept. The universe having a beginning created theological implications he didn’t like.
Sound familiar?
“Tiktaalik is a wonderful critter that fills in a gap in the fossil record – a gap between fish and tetrapods (like us, much later on). I hope it’s ok that I found your criticism that it “looks like a crocodile†a little amusing – that’s kind of the whole point.”
Homology does not entail relatedness because, “99% of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil … at the molecular level there is not trace of the evolutionary transition from fish ->amphibian -> reptile -> mammal. So amphibia, always traditionally considered intermediate between fish and the other terrestrial vertebrates, are in molecular terms as far from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals.”
Michael Denton
Not a good example to use. Einstein’s General Relativity theory first posited an expanding universe — which implied a beginning to space and time. Because the reigning scientific paradigm at the time was that the universe was static and eternal, Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into his equations to cancel out the expansion.
Yes… and evolution also implies an increase of species over time, and a relation between all species. So, it does imply that life began on Earth at some time. However, evolution does not explain how life began any more than General Relativity explains how the universe began.
So, in fact, it is a great example.
Einstein later recanted that inserting the Cosmological Constant was a mistake. Here’s where your analogy breaks down. There is no equivalent to a Cosmological Constant in evolution.
Uhhh … you missed the point. It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of scientists dismissing scientific data because they don’t like the implications.
“Einstein later recanted that inserting the Cosmological Constant was a mistake”
Have a reference for this claim?
Have a reference for this claim?
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
So, Einstein realized his mistake, and took Lambda out of the equation.
Uhhh … you missed the point. It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of scientists dismissing scientific data because they don’t like the implications.
…and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China, exactly? Please show me where evolution was adapted using something like a Cosmological Constant.
…and before you go into a typical creationist “Punctuated Equilibrium” wank, I’m talking about the original theory, as defined by Darwin.
The point of my analogy was to show that the typical creationist argument of building a strawman version of evolution that includes the origin of life within its scope is ridiculous.
The natural retort by a creationist is to posit that evolution is worthless without defining the origin of life, which is also ridiculous. General Relativity does not answer the origin of the universe, and it is currently the best theory we have on gravity so far. It isn’t instantly invalidated simply because it has scope, and some things fall outside of its scope. Likewise, evolution has scope. The origin of life is outside of its scope.
You’re not very good at cutting and pasting from Wikipedia are you.
“Since it no longer seemed to be needed, Einstein abandoned the cosmological constant and called it the “biggest blunder” of his life.”
“However, the discovery of cosmic acceleration in the 1990s has renewed interest in a cosmological constant.”
So Einstein “recanted” in the 1990s?
HA! HA! Do you believe in reincarnation? Resurrection?
“… typical creationist “Punctuated Equilibrium†wank” ????
“Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology. It states that most sexually reproducing populations will show little change for most of their geological history, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation … In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea.”
From your hallowed source: Wikipedia
My original comment was typed in haste.
I meant to say that “Einstein later recanted, and said that inserting the Cosmological Constant was a mistake”
“… typical creationist “Punctuated Equilibrium†wank†????
Yes. The typical wank from creationists is to claim that PE and evolution are somehow at odds, and that the evolution camp itself is divided, which is not true. I was simply trying to head you off from moving into that direction.
“I meant to say that ‘Einstein later recanted, and said that inserting the Cosmological Constant was a mistake’â€
No you didn’t. I’m the one who said that Einstein called it a mistake (at 5:57 am)
Then you said he recanted from that position (at 9:32).
Then I asked for a reference for that claim (at 2:35).
Then you gave me your Wiki reference (at 2:40).
So confusing
“…and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China, exactly? Please show me where evolution was adapted using something like a Cosmological Constant.”
I didn’t say there was a Cosmological Constant in Evolution. I said EINSTEIN PUT ONE IN to eliminate the implications of a beginning. The point was that the reason he put it in in the first place WAS NOT SCIENTIFIC.
Similar to the reason you refuse to talk about the origin of life.
No you didn’t.
Wow. I didn’t realize that you were a mind reader. Brilliant. What number am I thinking of in my head right now?
Similar to the reason you refuse to talk about the origin of life.
How is this similar, by any stretch of the imagination?
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, but rather the origin of species. Period.
Wow, dude. You’re pretty easy to get wound up. What’s your big beef with ID anyway?
What’s your big beef with ID anyway?
You mean, besides it being pseudo-scientific quackery, and not even a valid scientific theory?
right, because you can’t recreate and test it can’t be science.
So are archeology and forensics (the study of things that happened in the past for which we can discover intelligent causes) not science either?
right, because you can’t recreate and test it can’t be science.
No, because it deals with supernatural elements, such as a theistic creator. These supernatural elements can neither be verified nor falsified, they just must be taken as fact with no further evidence to back them up. That is not science.
So are archeology and forensics… not science either?
Ah, if only the analogy you are about to spring on me when I answer this bait question were at all accurate.
If I answer that these are certainly science, then your next response will include some Dembski sophism “Well, ID is about finding the forensics of an intelligent designer…”
Here’s the problem. Just about every supporter of ID claim that the intelligent designer is a god, an intelligence that is not bound by the rules of this universe. Furthermore, they wish to exempt having to explain this god, they just want us to take this god, from which there is no evidence at all to support, on faith.
Your next response in this canned talking-point debate will be to posit how this is different than evolution, which presupposes life. The answer is simple. Life exists. Life is fact. We can verify life. We can measure it, observe it, experiment on it, etc. We cannot do that with your god. ID presents a construct that cannot be falsified or verified (we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of your god), and wishes to take this construct on faith alone. Then, ID uses pseudo-scientific methods to attempt to find examples of “irreducible complexity” — which do not actually exist — in order to validate the claims that a god which cannot be observed or measured in reality, somehow exists.
Does that about sum it up?
If so, we can move onto the end game. ID is not science, it is not even a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis must be able to be verified or falsified. It is for this reason that the Discovery Institute is back-pedaling away from ID and towards their other propaganda campaigns: “teach the (fake) controversy” and “academic freedom (to ignore science)”.
“Just about every supporter of ID …”
so we’ll just ignore them all because “just about every” other one does this.
Very courageous.
Snoopy –
Do you believe your intelligent designer is the same as your god or not?
Both Dembski and Behe have said that their designer is none other than the Christian god. The only ones who seem not to have this opinion are the minority who believe their designer is an alien race… strangely the Discovery Institute tries to distance themselves from this alien “theory”.
but not you. the source of panspermia could be an alien race using us as their zoo!
… oh wait, we don’t have to explain the origin of life, I forgot. We just pretend it doesn’t matter.
but not you. the source of panspermia could be an alien race using us as their zoo!
Now, you’re just putting words in my mouth.
… oh wait, we don’t have to explain the origin of life, I forgot. We just pretend it doesn’t matter.
I didn’t say that it did not matter. I said that it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution requires life, but evolution does not deal with how life began. This is a typical bullshit creationist tactic, to attempt to claim that evolution explains the origin of life, the origin of the earth, the origin of the universe, etc. Then, when someone kindly points out that evolution does none of these, then the intellectually dishonest creationist attempts to claim that this is a flaw in evolution, or an oversight by the scientists.
There are other works attempting to figure out the origin of life, origin of the universe, etc. However, you would only consider this evolution if you were ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Which are you, Snoopy?
… and we don’t practice “just so” stories or believe things on blind “faith.” That wouldn’t be “scientific.”
“This is a typical bullshit creationist tactic, to attempt to claim that evolution explains the origin of life, the origin of the earth, the origin of the universe, etc.
Then, when someone kindly points out …”
I like “kindly.” Nice touch.
So how about you PC-Bash, since you didn’t say it doesn’t matter … what’s your theory on the origin of life?
So how about you PC-Bash, since you didn’t say it doesn’t matter … what’s your theory on the origin of life?
Besides not being germane to the discussion of whether evolution should be taught in the classroom, you mean?
just answer the question
Scientifically speaking, there are some hypotheses on the subject. As of yet, there is no definitive evidence as to how life began. As far as I am concerned, none of the current scientific conjectures have met enough rigorous testing to be considered worthy of teaching. This is different than evolution, which we have plenty of evidence.
It is okay not to have an answer for everything. I’d rather have a scientist say “I don’t know” instead of claiming “my god dun’ it” and not providing any actual evidence to back this up.
That’s what I thought. The most important question anyone could ask and you take a pass.
Cowardly.
Oh. I’m a coward for claiming that I don’t have an answer? If that makes me a coward, well, I’d rather be a coward than ignorantly claiming something of which there is no proof, such as ID / creationism or something equally inane like panspermia, ad nauseum.
Do you feel like a big man hiding behind the skirts of your god?
A good scientist does not just blindly guess at things when there is no evidence to support it. I understand that you don’t know much about science, and that’s okay. However, one is not a coward for answering a question with “I don’t know”. One is a coward who hides behind unverifiable beliefs because it makes it easier for him to sleep at night. I don’t do that.
For starters, who says I’m a man?
It wasn’t creationists who came up with panspermia (duh)
And, since you brought up origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe the Big Bang had a cause that had to transcend it, or that it “just happened” without a cause?
Ha!
No, no one claims they “know,” but which theory takes more “faith” to believe and which is more supported by the evidence?
For starters, who says I’m a man?
Honestly, I could care less what gender you are.
It wasn’t creationists who came up with panspermia (duh)
No, but there is just as much evidence to support panspermia as there is for creationism: none.
And, since you brought up origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe the Big Bang had a cause that had to transcend it, or that it “just happened†without a cause?
Science isn’t about what is easier to believe. As I said before, you don’t understand science, and that’s okay. But, this is the very reason why people who don’t understand science shouldn’t be dictating what to teach in the science classroom.
There is no answer yet to how the universe begins. There are conjectures, but as of yet there is little verified evidence to support any of these conjectures. To treat any of these conjectures as an actual answer would be disingenuous.
Your statement here rings of Thomas Aquinas, a god in the gaps argument. I don’t believe in a transcendental event, any more than I believe in anything without evidence. To a true scientist, one does not pick a belief system based on it being easier or “more reasonable” to believe. For instance, believing in a mythical sky fairy as a basis of a scientific axiom is about as anti-scientific as things can get.
No, no one claims they “know,†but which theory takes more “faith†to believe and which is more supported by the evidence?
Your statement is inane. A scientific theory does not rely on faith. Only pseudo-science like ID relies on faith.
I don’t care either but you asked if I thought that made me more of a man…
Well, unless one claims omniscience, whatever you claim to believe is based on some level of reasonability. You can’t know anything absolutely. So, yes you do “pick a belief system based on it being easier or “more reasonable†to believe.” You can’t help it.
You think your system is more believable — a belief system that says the universe is here but it doesn’t matter how it got here. Life is here but it doesn’t matter how it got here.
Yours is a “science of the gaps” and you live in denial of the blatant facts that are right before your (closed) eyes.
Yours is a “science of the gaps†and you live in denial of the blatant facts that are right before your (closed) eyes.
Haha! That’s a rather pathetic turn around of the Aquinas argument. Unfortunately, it makes little sense. What facts am I denying, precisely?
You think your system is more believable — a belief system that says the universe is here but it doesn’t matter how it got here. Life is here but it doesn’t matter how it got here.
I didn’t say that it “doesn’t matter”. I said “I don’t know”. There’s a big difference there. You want to claim that these are very important questions, yet you want to quickly jump to conclusions as to the answer. You want to claim “my god dun’ it”, instead of saying “I don’t know”, because you are afraid of the implication of not knowing. You’d rather believe something that is unverifiable and probably false instead of examining all of the evidence, and reserving judgment until you can arrive at a hypothesis that can be verified through the scientific method. That is your choice, but if you do this, it isn’t science by any stretch of the imagination. Likewise, ID is not science.
I’d say that you are the one saying “It doesn’t matter”, because you are relegating these questions to mythological explanations, which means that you really don’t care about finding a real answer. Your mind is made up, based on faith, and “it doesn’t matter” if you are wrong because you don’t have any desire to seek the truth. Your faith is good enough, and you laugh at those who honestly say “I don’t know”. Obviously, epistemology is not your strong point, and that’s okay too.
“you are afraid of the implication of not knowing.”
… you are afraid of the implication of knowing … that you might actually be accountable to something other than yourself.
I was reading back through this thread and found this gem:
“Yes, genetic algorithms can evolve to solve problems — the solution of which is unknown to the author of the genetic system. I happen to be a CS expert, and I am quite familiar with genetic algorithms. I would be more than happy to take the discussion in this direction, as I know for certain that GAs work (I have been paid handsomely for writing GA problem solvers).”
So we’re supposed to accept that that information in DNA came about in the same way your pre-programmed, computer-coded algorithms “solved problems.” What problem is it that DNA “solved”?
Did it know the problem beforehand? I thought it was “blind”?
Elsewhere, you crowed about how you get paid for your GA work and that “you wouldn’t get paid if it didn’t work.”
Ha! Are you suggesting that organizations don’t pay people unless they provide useful output? Are you suggesting that no organization will pay just to justify its existence, even if what it is paying for is a ruse?
Now that’s funny.
Have you ever heard of Congress, the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts? (Should I go on?)
… you are afraid of the implication of knowing … that you might actually be accountable to something other than yourself.
Ah. Here we have yet another inane creationist argument… that evolution means that there is no accountability, that only creationism yields morality. This is not even worth responding to.
So we’re supposed to accept that that information in DNA came about in the same way your pre-programmed, computer-coded algorithms “solved problems.â€
I understand that you are ignorant of genetic algorithms and most likely of computer science. That GAs work utterly destroys the pseudo-mathematical rants of Dembski et al, who claim that evolution is somehow mathematically infeasible.
What problem is it that DNA “solved�
Well, you seem to be able to type, arrange symbols, and (arguably) exchange information with me. I’d say evolution has solved many problems.
Did it know the problem beforehand? I thought it was “blind�
No, neither the GA, the programmer, or anyone else knows the solution beforehand. Furthermore, the GA itself does not even know the problem, much like an evolving lifeform.
Ha! Are you suggesting that organizations don’t pay people unless they provide useful output? Are you suggesting that no organization will pay just to justify its existence, even if what it is paying for is a ruse?
A company certainly wouldn’t pay me for a non-working GA. I’m not in the research business. I solve problems for companies. They don’t pay me unless the solutions work. Period. Maybe you’re lucky, and get paid for doing nothing, but most people have to produce something at the end of the day.
The rest of your statement here is inane. Essentially, you are comparing what I get paid to do with things that have absolutely nothing to do with me. If you think there is a connection here, then you should be checked out for brain damage.
“only creationism yields morality.” ??????????
Meaningless, nonsensical drivel. Please show me someone who thinks this. And please show me how morality can even possibly be grounded by evolution. Before you attempt (which you won’t) this is NOT the same as saying that evolutionists cannot be moral. You probably don’t understand the difference (and that’s ok) but you have to steal from theism to ground your morality.
“This is not even worth responding to.”
Because you can’t.
“They don’t pay me unless the solutions work. Period. Maybe you’re lucky, and get paid for doing nothing, but most people have to produce something at the end of the day.”
It’s been fun screwing with you for the last couple of days but, looking back, I see that you have been on here pretty much continuously for the entire week. How is that possible? Apparently your company DOES pay you for doing nothing — nothing productive anyway.
You really need to get a life.
And please show me how morality can even possibly be grounded by evolution.
Evolution and morality have nothing to do with each other.
…but you have to steal from theism to ground your morality.
Bzzt! Wrong. There are plenty of philosophies that have atheistic morality. For instance, I recommend that you read up on Objectivism. While I may not be a big fan of Objectivism, Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist.
Because you can’t.
I just did. 😛
It’s been fun screwing with you for the last couple of days but, looking back, I see that you have been on here pretty much continuously for the entire week. How is that possible? Apparently your company DOES pay you for doing nothing — nothing productive anyway.
I own my own company. I make my own hours. I probably work twice as many hours as you do, if you want to make it personal.
You really need to get a life.
Just because I spend some time during my day feeding trolls like you doesn’t mean that I don’t have a life.
“There are plenty of philosophies that have atheistic morality. For instance, I recommend that you read up on Objectivism. While I may not be a big fan of Objectivism, Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist.”
How clueless are you? Having an atheistic philosophy and being an atheist says nothing about how the morality is grounded. You think you’re a genius because you’ve heard about (but obviously know nothing about) objectivism and Ayn Rand?
“Ayn Rand is an atheist, therefore, I answered your question.” Wow, nice logic. Very impressive.
Now if you only knew what any of those things meant.
“I own my own company. I make my own hours. I probably work twice as many hours as you do …”
Key word, “probably.”
Correspondence to reality, probably not.
How clueless are you? Having an atheistic philosophy and being an atheist says nothing about how the morality is grounded. You think you’re a genius because you’ve heard about (but obviously know nothing about) objectivism and Ayn Rand?
Perhaps you should try reading up on it before you ask something so inane.
That clears it up. Now I’m positive you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Let me know when you are finished looking it up on Wikipedia so you’ll be able to parrot that in the same way you parrot your Evolution talking points.
Better yet, why don’t you try to look up what grounding morality actually means.
That clears it up. Now I’m positive you have no clue what you’re talking about.
I wouldn’t have brought it up if I knew nothing about it. I don’t argue from ignorance, like you.
Better yet, why don’t you try to look up what grounding morality actually means.
Morality does not require theology. Sorry, you are wrong. You should try reading a little philosophy, you might be surprised at how many of the so-called “truths” you believe as a Christian are wrong. Even the Greek philosophers developed systems of morals not based on religion. If you took a introduction to philosophy class, you might learn a thing or two, and maybe you’ll stop wasting my time here with your inanity.
Still, morality has nothing to do with evolution. You can’t attack evolution, so you have to try this route. Baybe if you read up a bit on evolution, you might actually have something useful to say…
Ack. That should read Maybe, not Baybe.
So listen, PC-Bash … I owe you an apology. I have let myself get caught up in the negativity of this thing and I have gone too far. Make no mistake. I think you are dead wrong and I hope you will keep an open mind about these things because right now your mind is closed. I know my example here has not been what it should be and therefore has hurt more than helped. I also know that you have no use for Scripture, but I will share one anyway.
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
That is the standard I try to set for myself. In this case I have failed. Please don’t dismiss the message because of those of us who corrupt it.
Peace …
As I have said numerous times, you are free to believe what you want. However, your opinion does not belong in the science classroom, which has a much stricter set of rules by which knowledge is acquired. ID does not follow these rules, which is why it does not belong in the science classroom.
My mind is not closed. Science provides certain constraints which must be followed to ensure that knowledge is verifiable. These constraints provide a scope of what can be addressed by science and what cannot be addressed by science. Religious beliefs, especially those that require a belief in the supernatural, are outside of the bounds of science. As such, they do not belong in the science classroom. By arguing for science, I am also subject to the same constraints in my arguments.
Just as some of your beliefs fall outside of science, so do some of mine. I am an atheist. I cannot use science to show my (lack of) belief is valid. Science is silent on the existence of gods, or the lack thereof. It simply falls outside of the bounds of science. That’s why I laugh any time I hear evangelicals whine that evolution is about atheism, a justification for loose morals, etc.
If I have been abrasive with my comments, it is only because I am passionate about this issue. It is nothing personal.
So I’ve read this whole thread. This has been thoroughly entertaining. I’ve seen plenty of ID discussions at sites like Fark but they are usually populated by pro-evolution folk, and the ID folk are just uninformed morons who quickly run off with their tails between their legs. I’ve never seen one like “Bob” though. Never seen a creationist spin responses like that, sounding very intelligent while still holding their ground to the very end. Hey Bob, if you’re reading this.. visit fark.com and participate in the forums, we need someone other than Bevets to play with.
Heh. I’d love to see that… Fark + ID == entertainment.
Snoopy makes a good point about “CS SIMULATIONS” trying to approximate genetic “Reality”. Uninteresting claims that a computer simulation “can be constructed to present results that atheist darwinists “NEED” to prop up their dogma” — are a dime a dozen.
I have no doubt that the atheist darwinist group needs to go down those rabbit trails in their blind effort to ignore the topic of “Expelled the Movie” which is the subject of rank censorhip blind pogroms etc against anyone willing to examine data “not complimentary” to atheist darwinist dogma.
“Data” that in fact would be favorable to Intelligent Design.
Data about the encoding, decoding, translation, error-correction etc for the DNA code itself.
Data that shows the result of genetic recombination within a species with NO way for us to watch “mamals come into existence” for example.
The untestable, unprovable, unreliable methods of atheist darwinism are legend. In fact the certifiable junk-science that has gone into atheist darwinism is staggering —
Simpson’s horse series showing smooth transitional form sequences.
Neanderthal hoax attaching a 26000 year dating scheme to them.
Archaeoraptor –
Piltdown man — a 40 year hoax propping up atheist darwinism.
Nebraska man — used in the scopes trial – a pig making a monkey out of an evolutionist.
The list is almost endless.
Haeckle’s contrived “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.
In all cases above EVEN the highly esteemed atheist darwinists themselves were eventually forced to admit to the junk-science methods in these frauds.
How sad that the same group so infested with junk-science frauds is also so reluctant to entertain objective critical review by an opposing solution.
Bob
Hopefully we can all agree that the junk-sciende hoaxes and frauds listed above AND freelly admitted to by atheist darwinists today should never have been foisted onto public shool children much less adults.
If those who chose to engage in the religious ferver of atheist darwinism were simply content to practice their religion outside of the classroom I doubt that these frauds and hoaxes would have been so harshly criticized by those of us who appreciate the difference between actual science and junk science.
I know I would never have complained about atheists practicing their religion with “Stories easy enough to tell — but they are NOT science” (quote from Colin Patterson — senior paleontologist British Museum of Natural Hist — regarding the stories told about how “one thing came from another”) — if those stories were simply confined to their own atheist darwinist meeting halls and temples.
But why degrade the science classroom with it??
Bob
Back to the OP — it is amazing that the mere fact that the Florida legislature was “willing to SEE the argument” on the side of exposing rank darwinist censorship — is enough to get the witch-hunt pogrom mobs foaming.
Why is it that “the open marketplace of ideas” and “independant thought” is so “threatening” to atheist darwinism? It appears that nothing riles the atheist darwinist like the existence of someone capable of indepent thought. Notice that in Dawkins 11 second blunderment on the video exposing “The Dawkins Delusion” his main complaint in his own self-written response online is that the video crew were not robotic CHEERLEADERS and yes-men! Dawkins claims that as soon as he figured out they were not simple yes-men he wanted to shut down the interview.
How “instructive” for the objective unbiased reader.
How devastating for atheist darwinism.
Bob
If you say so, Cliverty, then it all must be true. Right? But you have a significant problem to deal with. If you want to strip evolution from the schools, as I assume you do, then what do you replace it with? Or do we just cancel all Biology courses until further notice?
Oh, and you need to do some reading: http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Relplace the endless story telling of Darwinism with Microbiology, Chemistry, Calculus, Physics, Trig — you know “actual science”.
Bob