A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute. Here’s what they wrote.
Dear Professor Gotelli,
I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support
of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to
finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary
science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I
work, has a
local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this
happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology
department, then
perhaps you can suggest an alternative.Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID
side. As you’re aware, he’s known mainly as an entertainer. A more
appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David
Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher
of science. I’ll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in
the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students
to be exposed to different views–in precisely the spirit of inviting
controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.I’m hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an
event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable
with.A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer’s book that
comes out in June from HarperCollins, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the
Evidence for Intelligent Design.”On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a
critic of
both ID and Darwinian theory.Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?
With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute
You’ll enjoy Dr Gotelli’s response.
Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:
Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a
debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more
recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the
Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the
sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you
yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific
community has come to expect from the creationists.Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics
need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist
to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite
an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a
Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and
that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars.
Creationism is in the same category.Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of
your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed
journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by
scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.
Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas
that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly
explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying
to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or
scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel
Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the
prominent mainstream journals.“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the
frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke,
because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and
on new empirical studies that overturn previously established
principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its
proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books,
blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain
scientific standards.Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded
institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation
at a little university in northern New England? Practicing
scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science
departments around the world, often on controversial and novel
topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science,
they would receive such invitations as well.So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will
wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages
of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science
and doesn’t merit an invitation.In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation
and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an
evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this
is. My colleagues will be envious.Sincerely yours,
Nick Gotelli
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further
e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been
entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Can you cite some peer-reviewed original research published in established journals that these folks have done?
John, #468: Gotelli’s response is, simply put, ARROGANT, DEMEANING, VENOMOUS and VULGAR to an otherwise very courteous letter from a representative of an institution that HAS produced peer-reviewed papers and books.
subrosa, #479: As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic’s ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.
Interesting. So the cdesign proponentsists are producing peer reviewed work while their work is being censored and suppressed.
Cdesign proponentistsists might be taken a tad more seriously if they would at least get their story straight before they bother the rest of us with it.
My, my. Have I struck a nerve? I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.
But you know, it doesn’t really matter what any of us think–the truth will eventually prevail. (I give the neo-Darwinian synthesis about 20 more years.)
And by the way, there do exist peer reviewed papers and other publications written by critics of Darwinism, which is a near miracle given the extremely repressive intellectual climate that exists in the biological sciences at the current time. You can find a detailed list at the Discovery Institute web site.
@mover: Stop obfuscating.
You mentioned evidence. Please show the evidence for ID. Your “side” has had decades to provide some, and you haven’t. That is why “little Nicholas” (hypocrisy alert!) doesn’t want to discuss the matter, because there’s nothing to discuss.
Until you provide some evidence, that is. Please do so. Once you do, we can happily “get together with these people and go over the evidence to get at the truth”
Mover, if ID/creationism is science, prove it. Or shut up. We will wait for your 10 citations of the peer reviewed primary scientific literature from the last five years showing creationism/ID is scientific. We will also require evidence in the guise of submitted papers to the same journals with editors/referees comments about the rejection of those papers. Until then, creationism and ID have been declared religious ideas by the US courts. Religion has no place in science class. As you well know.
MOver, #499: An exchange that seems to fly in the face of the whole collaborative environment thingy.
No, the exchange concerns an activity that has little to do with scientists getting together to discuss the evidence and try to arrive at the truth. The exchange concerns an antagonistic contest to try to sway as many members of a lay audience to their point of view regardless of the truth, and audience, by the way, which may be deliberately packed with the supporters of one view over the other.
Such an enterprise is not collaborative science. Now it may be a good way to educate the lay public on the issues and controversies of an issue, but, then again, not if one side or the other cannot be trusted to be objective or honest in the matter.
Fucktard, the fact is that Myers and others who are more than happy to attack have answered ID over and over again. So have much more polite scientists.
Once ID has been thoroughly fisked, and the same mindless shit is spouted again, we just call it a shit geyser.
If you have any arguments that haven’t been properly answered, bring them up. I’m sure we’d discuss them. The old “your Nazis” line won’t cut it, any more than it will for the rest of the hackneyed lying pseudoscientific world.
The fact is that the more intelligent, if insultingly wrong accusatory bastards, like Behe, want to redefine science because they know that they lack the evidence. Oh yeah, and they keep claiming that design is obvious, that it should be be the default, and other risibly moronic statements.
We don’t collaborate with dishonest assholes who want to destroy science. That would make us as culpable as all of you idiotic, repetitious bigots. We call you dishonest assholes what you are, name-calling swine who can’t do anything but whine when you’ve been answered well.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
@passerby
Who needs “Ten Commandments”?
One is enough!
Still, it seems a tough one for some… :-)
Exdarwinian, you just showed us you are a liar and bullshitter. Now, either show us the evidence or shut up. Welcome to real science. Your bluff is called, show us your cards.
But you know, it doesn’t really matter what any of us think
Fine. I will continue to operate on the justified and now confirmed belief that it doesn’t really matter what you think. One question, though: why is it you feel compelled to keep offering your completely worthless opinion here?
@passerby
Who needs “Ten Commandments”?
One is enough!
Still, it seems a tough one for some… :-)
(oops!)
Your libel of honest science, when you haven’t a shred of evidence either for your pseudoscience or for your lies against your betters, calls for at least as much venom as you have received.
Until you’re something other than a liar who attempts to demean those who have answered all of your lies, you’re totally entitled to as much venom as we can put out.
Still, I’ve had enough of you vapid tards, so it’ll have to come from others if you are to get what you deserve.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
@ExDarwinian: I didn’t ask for you to mention a laughably-biased website, nor for “other publications.” I asked for academic articles, and failing that I asked for rejected manuscripts, and failing THAT I asked for raw data. Still waiting, by the way.
Also, please get over the persecution complex. It’s pathetic. Welcome to the internet, people might swear at you. Boo fucking hoo.
To all the people whinging about the big bad scientists and us suppressing “views”: Spill your views already. We’ve heard all the content-free whining before. Nobody is banned from Pharyngula for their “views”. Check out the Titanoboa thread, we’ve let one particularly deranged creationist babble on for hundreds of comments now.
John:
“Gotelli isn’t a scientist.”
Speaking of arrogant…
“I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.”
Proving you to be a very shallow thinker, and thus perfectly representative of ID.
I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.
Good. Enjoy. Now fuck off.
The Discovery Institute was not asking to work together. They were not offering to conduct research. They were looking for a podium to grandstand from.
I would bet your atheist friend never made the assertion that evolution has all the answers. I would agree that it is ok to insult, marginalize, reject and/or shun people who are dishonest and arrogant.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”— Thomas Jefferson
If you bother to look at the invention of the Discovery Institute (Intelligent Design), you will see, as we have already covered here today, that it is creationism plain and simple. It is not science, it is not backed up by anything credible.
Bingo.
Evolution != religion. If you find something new, by all means document it and let us know about it.
P.S. It is said brevity is the soul of wit. You can say much more with much less.
ExDarwinian, #502: I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.
That’s nice. Now if ID was a real science, they would use evidence as confirmation of their thesis.
John #468
First, those associated with the DI have produced no data in support of ID (or refuting evolution) in peer-reviewed scientific research papers, so there is no body of research to back up their arguments. Second, popular books don’t count as a body of research. Books can certainly influence peer-reviewed scientific research (see, for example, The Selfish Gene) but thus far nothing produced by the DI has done so.
This is very instructive – don’t fall into a trap when people say that the DI has produced peer-reviewed papers, since they’ve produced a handful of dreadful data-free pieces in places like Chaos, Solitons and Fractals and Rivista di Biologia, plus Stephen Meyer’s review paper that got published through academic misconduct and was formally repudiated. Insist that they show papers presenting data in support of ID or refuting evolution, because such things don’t exist.
I’m sure some people consider us uncivil since we don’t accept what they say. We do the uncivil act of questioning their testimony. You want us to back up our beliefs with real evidence? LAWD o’ Mercy, that is RUDE. But, welcome to science.
So, our requests to put up or shut up have been met with nothing but the occasional spattering of ID talking points. I’d say I’m surprised, but (unlike the ID proponents) I’m not a fucking liar.
Ex-Darwinian #502 wrote:
What thesis would that be? That people who get rude and angry are never right?
That’s almost certainly too broad, because it leads to contradictions. For one thing, it would allow evolutionists to point to angry creationists as showing evidence that “they must know they’re wrong, or they wouldn’t be so hostile.” You’d end up with a situation where every side of a heated debate comes out the “winner.” Not a very useful thesis.
When dealing with scientific issues, style is not as important as substance. Being kind and polite is absolutely necessary for self-esteem support groups, of course. I don’t think anyone has ever accused the science community in general — or Pharyngula in particular — of being a self-esteem support group. It’s not our area.
I respect the fact that you give a deadline. Of course, 20 years ago creationists were also predicting that evolution has “another 20 years” — and 20 years before that, too. But I’m going to assume you’re not planning on playing the memory-hole game, so I’ll ask a question:
If, in 20 years, evolutionary theory is still supported by the majority of experts, still generating testable predictions, and still considered the underlying theory in biology — what would you do then? I mean, what would this do to your religious beliefs?
Would you become a theistic evolutionist — and come up with some means to reconcile your current beliefs with a God who “works through” evolution in some vague and purely background capacity?
Or would you renounce God, and become an atheist?
Exactly what is riding for you, with this “test” and “deadline” you’ve given for the Designer hypothesis?
New logical fallacy? Argument from concern.
I’ve counted over 4500 words in this thread devoted to complaining about censorship of ID by mainstream scientists, claiming that the latter are “afraid” of debating ID, and repeating mantras about how ID has real evidence from real scientists.
So far, no evidence, though.
Think about it – the ID proponents here have been given more than enough space on this thread to publish a full-length journal article layout out newly discovered evidence for intelligent design. Instead they use it all to complain that no one will let them be heard.
Just like Nesbitt’s recent Op-Ed.
Just like Expelled.
Does anyone notice a pattern?
I try not to get into intellectual discussions with people whose minds are closed, and particularly with people who are also rude. And arrogant.
It is unnecessary for me to give evidence or arguments critical of Darwinism, because there is abundant material already out there, written by the authors I mentioned in my first post (Denton, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyers, Sewell, Spetner, and others). All that is required is to read any of their works with an open mind (something I fear is sadly lacking around here).
You make me laugh. Really. All I have to do is push your little buttons and you go all rabid and frothy in the mouth.
bob@#503
You missed the point. My post did not attempt to provide evidence that is for or against evolution or ID.
I’m merely pointing out that the lack of civility that you self described “scientists” lack. And seem to be proud of it.
ExDarwinian, Either show the evidence or shut up. Welcome to science. Science is a put up or shut up endeavor. If you can’t or won’t put up, you need to shut up. Evidence is required to put up. Do one or the other.
That’s because your a troll.
We know all bout your favorite creationists. And we’re also familiar with how they’ve been taken down with science. Try looking up Ken Miller or the Dover trial.
They haven’t published one paper that calls into question the fact of evolution.
We are far from closed minded, unlike you, we are not ignorant.
“I try not to get into intellectual discussions with people whose minds are closed, and particularly with people who are also rude. And arrogant.”
You’re welcome to go home and cry to Mama then.
ExDarwinian #524,
Please see my post at #518.
I’m not a scientist Mover, does that mean I get to call you an asshole without my motives being questioned?
Stop concern trolling. Our incivility doesn’t mean we’ve lost the argument, just our patience.
I think that it is about time to classify Atheism as a religion. I guarantee that almost every one who has posted in support of this forum takes their opinions on faith. This faith is not entirely unwarranted but it is faith since many of the cornerstones of Atheism are untestable.
I find the manner with which most Atheist evangelize to be particularly telling that it is indeed a religion.
For what it is worth the common form of pseduo hate speech against organized religion does nothing but polarize the two sides. It would help your atheism evangelism if you could control your emotions.
The “holier than though” attitude that the scholarly evolutionists/atheists maintain is as repulsive as the falsely propagated attempts to mislead the public into believing that the separation of church and state exists in the US constitution.. The church of Atheism is not objective when it comes to history, only remembering the tragedies of religion.
The church of Atheism considers only immediately quantifiable data as guidance toward truth. Should one consider the fact that our nation has given birth to one of the greatest freedoms known to man? Where did we come from as a nation? Why is the historical aspect of Judeo-Christian influence ignored or presented from a one-sided point of view?
The doctrine of religion is purpose for our lives… Is the antithesis of religion a simple purposelessness? How does one prove that we came from nothing for absolutely no reason?
People bash America but often regress, knowing that it is the best system of government. Our nation is founded upon the notion that people must rule themselves. Not a single one you can honestly say that religion hasn’t shaped your moral compass. Regardless of your level of moral relativism, we could probably all find a few guiding points to agree upon. Why do we find ourselves in this place? Similar to the American system or government, the judeo-Christian system lacks perfection but may serve as the most viable system of ethics.
The godbots never get more interesting do they.
I must say that though the responses I received were not surprising, and indeed proved many of my points rather than discredited them, it grieves me that almost none of you wish to debate the topic in civility. I am certainly capable of distinguishing tone from argument, but know all to well the powerful blinding force behind anger, sarcasm, cynicism, mockery and bitterness, and I have seen these traits in abundance on this site as well as hundreds of others related to this topic.
Before I go further, I wish to say that one reason I wonder whether any have actually done research on this debate is because your own words tell me you have not done it very well, or simply wish to ignore certain facts.
Perhaps I should restate my concern. Have any of you looked at the Discovery Institutes website or read any of their books and articles?
This leads me to a matter that has come up numerous times on this site.
If I may please clear up the issue of peer-reviewed articles and books, which also may answer some of your other questions about what scientific (please read them, they are scientific) arguments have been brought up by Intelligent Design theorists:
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
COMPLETE LIST:
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
In this book Behe develops a critique of the mechanism of natural selection and a positive case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the presence of “irreducibly complex molecular machines” and circuits inside cells. Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).
In this book Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen develop a seminal critique of origin of life studies and develop a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems.
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
This is a collection of interdisciplinary essays that addresses the scientific and educational controversy concerning the theory of intelligent design. Accordingly, it was peer-reviewed by a philosopher of science, a rhetorician of science, and a professor in the biological sciences from an Ivy League university. The book contains five scientific articles advancing the case for the theory of intelligent design, the contents of which are summarized below.
Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).
Gonzalez and Richards develop a novel case for the theory of intelligent design based on developments in astronomy and planetary science. They show that the conditions necessary to produce a habitable planet are extremely rare and improbable. In addition, they show that the one planet we are aware of that possesses these characteristics is also a planet that has characteristics uniquely adapted to scientific exploration, thus suggesting not simply that the earth is the recipient of the fortunate conditions necessary for life, but that it appears to be uniquely designed for scientific discovery.
William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).
Dembski refines his scientific method of design detection, responds to critics of his previous book (The Design Inference) and shows how his method of design detection applies to the kind of molecular machines analyzed by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985).
Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, provides a comprehensive critique of neo- Darwinian evolutionary theory. In a penultimate chapter, entitled “The Molecular Labyrinth,” he also develops a strong positive case for the design hypothesis based on the integrated complexity of molecular biological systems. As a religiously agnostic scientist, Denton emphasizes that this case for design is based upon scientific evidence and the application of standard forms of scientific reasoning. As Denton explains, while the case for design may have religious implications, “it does not depend upon religious premises.”
Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses
Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).
Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals
Ø. A. Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition’s) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”
John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.
Otto Schindewolf once wrote that evolution postulates “a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.” In this peer-reviewed article from a prestigious Italian biology journal, John A. Davison agrees with Schindewolf. Since “[o]ne can hardly expect to demonstrate a mechanism that simply does not and did not exist,” Davison attempts to find new explanations for the origin of convergence among biological forms. Davison contends that “[t]he so-called phenomenon of convergent evolution may not be that at all, but simply the expression of the same preformed ‘blueprints’ by unrelated organisms.” While discussing many remarkable examples of “convergent evolution,” particularly the marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats, Davison’s meaning is unmistakable: This evidence “bears, not only on the questions raised here, but also, on the whole issue of Intelligent Design.” Davison clearly implies that this evidence is expected under an intelligent design model, but not under a Neo-Darwinian one.
S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
This article argues for intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the Cambrian fauna. Not surprisingly, it created an international firestorm within the scientific community when it was published. (See Klinghoffer, The Branding of a Heretic, WALL STREET JOURNAL, Jan. 28, 2005, as well as the following website by the editor who oversaw the article’s peer-review process: http://www.rsternberg.net.) The treatment of the editor who sent Meyer’s article out for peer-review is a striking illustration of the sociological obstacles that proponents of intelligent design encounter in publishing articles that explicitly defend the theory of intelligent design.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: “In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.” See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology “Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design”.
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach is non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably the work of design theorists Michael Behe and William Dembski.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.
This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and teleological. It looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit.
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
This study published by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute, challenges the widespread idea that high species-to-species variation in the amino-acid sequence of an enzyme implies modest functional constraints. Darwinists commonly assume that such variation indicates low selection pressure at the variable amino acid sites, allowing many mutations with little effect. Axe’s research shows that even when mutations are restricted to these sites, they are severely disruptive, implying that proteins are highly specified even at variable sites. According to this work, sequences diverge not because substantial regions are free from functional constraints, but because selection filters most mutations, leaving only the harmless minority. By showing functional constraints to be the rule rather than the exception, it raises the question of whether chance can ever produce sequences that meet these constraints in the first place. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: “I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails ‘severe sequence constraints’. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design.” See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology “Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design”.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants — aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.
Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985). (HTML)
In this article appearing in a 1985 technical reference book, mathematician Granville Sewell compares the complexity found in the genetic code of life to that of a computer program. He recognizes that the fundamental problem for evolution is the “problem of novelties” which raises the question “How can natural selection cause new organs to arise and guide their development through the initial stages during which they present no selective advantage”? Sewell then explains how a Darwinist will try to bridge both functional and fossil gaps between biological structures through “a long chain of tiny improvements in his imagination,” but notes that “the analogy with software puts his ideas into perspective.” Major changes to a species require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Natural selection, a process which is “unable to plan beyond the next tiny mutation” could never produce the complexity of life.
Five science articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE):
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, DDPE Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines. DDPE Pp. 287-302
Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.
Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells reexamine the phenomenon of homology, the structural identity of parts in distinct species such as the pentadactyl plan of the human hand, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a seal, on which Darwin was willing to rest his entire argument. Nelson and Wells contend that natural selection explains some of the facts of homology but leaves important anomalies (including many so-called molecular sequence homologies) unexplained. They argue that intelligent design explains the origin of homology better than the mechanisms cited by advocates of neo-Darwinism.
Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. & P. Chien, The Cambrian explosion: biology’s big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402. (PDF, 2.33MB)
Meyer, Ross, Nelson, and Chien show that the pattern of fossil appearance in the Cambrian period contradicts the predictions or empirical expectations of neo-Darwinian (and punctuationalist) evolutionary theory. They argue that the fossil record displays several features–a hierarchical top-down pattern of appearance, the morphological isolation of disparate body plans, and a discontinuous increase in information content–that are strongly reminiscent of the pattern of evidence found in the history of human technology. Thus, they conclude that intelligent design provides a better, more causally adequate, explanation of the origin of the novel animal forms present in the Cambrian explosion.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp. 403-418.
Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe’s arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are “a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who …are appalled that Darwin’s explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences.” Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program–a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason “[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself.” Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
The list continues….but I think, or at least hope, this gets the point across sufficiently.
I am willing to read what you have to say, but again I do plead with all to leave ridicule and hatred behind. It is a disgrace to all involved. History has proved that such violent outbursts through words leads to violent actions later; so yes it is an important matter to address despite the labels you wish to put on it. Thank you.
Q: How do you decide between two competing theories of “Intelligent Design”?
A: Religious war.
@SomeGuy: Thanks for the non sequitur. Back to what the rest of us are talking about …
@ExDarwinian: Pretend I’m ignorant of this abundance of evidence you mentioned. Please give me just a single link to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific article that supports ID. Note however that “criticism of Darwinism” is not the same as “support for ID,” lest you invoke a false dichotomy.
@Mover: Indeed I did miss your point. I thought you had something of consequence to say. Before you criticize people for being rude, perhaps you shouldn’t be rude yourself. Why the scare-quotes around and the modifier before the word scientist? You’re accusing me of not being a scientist (or at least not a “real” one), and perhaps making scientist out to be something bad.
@All: Still waiting for ID evidence …
Some Guy,
Atheists
deity – none
Church – none
Preachers – none
Regular meetings – none
Tithes – none
Not a religion. What an asshole.
Hey Christina, we’re familiar with the DI webiste… you don’t need to repost a whole damn page from it. just a link.
And with in all that there’s not one shred of data that puts evolution on shaky ground.
NONE.
Well when you have no empirical proof or research, your peers are other people with no proof or research so in that sense, I suppose they get in “peer-reviewed literature”.
Now Christina, all books are removed from your list. They aren’t peer reviewed. Also removed are all papers that have been refuted. For example, Behe’s irreproducible complexity has been refuted. His paper all all supporting papers are dead. And once refuted, the article disappears from the literature. We will look at the remainder and see if anything is present that also can’t be explained by evolution.
Christina #534,
Please see my post at #518.
I used to respond to creationists back when I was a homeless rodeo clown but not any more. Now I am a world class magician !
Do you really fantasize that we don’t study what the opposition says?
Just because your sort almost never even reads, let alone understands, those you demonize does not mean that we are equally dishonest.
Apparently you don’t know that all of the IDiotic shit has been fisked. To be redundant (and because I know what ignorant people most on your side are), it has been “thoroughly fisked”.
Even more to the point, if you weren’t a lazy, intellectually dishonest git, you’d know that we’ve heard all of your rot beforehand. That’s how we know that you are the one who hasn’t bothered to read what the opposition has written.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
[]”Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 3:17 PM
Some Guy,
Atheists
deity – none
Church – none
Preachers – none
Regular meetings – none
Tithes – none
Not a religion. What an asshole.”[]
Deity – the endless pursuit of science solely for the sake of science. (The giant sign in the sky that will prove that God doesn’t exist.)
Followers – All of the trolls on this board including you. DO you have any peer reviewed articles?
Preachers — Author of this blog.
Church — Anywhere where members like you choose to be at any given moment. A church is not defined by its building but by its people.
Regular meetings — Why wait when you can post now
Tithes — Commercialism
Religion – A religion usually encompasses a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.”–Wikipedia.
Your faith in natural selection and the interpretation thereof is the founding principle for your decision to join the church. You feel reasonably confident but in no way can post the giant sign in the sky to prove absolutely that God does not exist. Consequently your ultimate reality is based upon a premise that stands only to prove that there is no premise. Life is ultimately an act of random chance.
While we’re trimming Christina’s list, let’s remove the conference paper(s) as well. To call those peer-reviewed is stretching the definition to breaking point. Have we forgotten the paper of computer-generated gibberish that some MIT students got through “conference peer-review” as a prank?
So, Christina (or anyone), please update your list. Also, please don’t bitch and moan that we’re being too hard on you … welcome to science, get used to it being difficult. Moreover, you’re the one making the extraordinary claim, so a little list of LEGIT articles shouldn’t be too extraordinary of “evidence” for you to present.
SomeGuy: I doubt it’s worth responding to you, but can you provide an example of a worldview that you wouldn’t classify as a religion? If not, doesn’t the word lose any relevant meaning? More importantly, what does this have to do with debating creationists?
I haven’t had time to read beyond comment 461 yet.
———————————————
Wow. Comment 293 is such a Gish gallop… even I can’t steal the time to properly deal with that. Though, actually, I could just insert “show me” about twice into every sentence and be done with it.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Oh, man. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!!!
Science requires repeated and repeatable observation. Data. Facts. An experiment, where possible, is a convenient way to arrange observations whenever you want, and a convenient way to keep confounding factors under control, but none of that is necessary for science. That’s why astrophysics and geology, for example, are sciences.
Way to destroy your grandiose claim of knowing the scientific method, dude.
LOL!
You misunderstand. We congratulate Gotelli for calling the cdesign proponentsists what they are — dishonest, for example.
No science involved here. Social text is not, and never was, a scientific journal.
I’m not familiar with this bizarre American debate; all I know is there are much more recent papers that come to similar conclusions. Several people here are very familiar with this issue, however.
Are you crazy? That’s (at most) philosophy, not science! It makes value judgments, for crying out loud!
I’ve published in three of them…
Really, Gotelli is right. Evidence against the theory of evolution, let alone for creationism, would be sensational, and that’s what science journals — especially the most prestigious ones, like Nature and Science — are after.
SomeGuy, still the fool. Atheists have no holy book, no theology (how can one have theology without a god), and no dogma. They have nothing in common except disbelief in all gods.
Not all atheists are scientists.
Not all regulars at Pharyngula are atheists.
Not all scientists are atheists.
Atheists moral essential come from application of the “golden rule”, which Xians appear to have lost use of.
Still, there is no atheist religion except between your ears, where your god exists.
Blockquote failure. “Yes, do check it out” and everything below it should be one position to the left of where it is.
One thing that IDers and Creationists can’t seem to understand is that Evolutionists are not saying that there is no God. Yes, there are a multitude who have taken the atheist position, but Evolution does not say there is no God. There may well be. However, belief in a higher power is not a SCIENTIFIC issue, it is a philosophical one. A higher power may very well have created the earth and all things on it, but there is nothing to say that Evolution is not a tool used by it. But there is also no evidence that a Higher Power exists. That is a matter of faith. Believing in God (in whatever form it takes) is not antithetical to Evolution or vice versa. The problem IDer’s have is they have no real evidence to present or even a theory. They have an anti-thory (if Evolution is wrong then ID is correct) That is to say that if 2+2 does not equal 5 thn it must equal 3.
Shoveling the crazy:
“I find the manner with which most Atheist evangelize to be particularly telling that it is indeed a religion.”
Another shallow thinker. Big surprise.
“For what it is worth the common form of pseduo hate speech against organized religion does nothing but polarize the two sides. It would help your atheism evangelism if you could control your emotions.”
Your concern is noted.
“The “holier than though” attitude”
‘Scuse me?
“that the scholarly evolutionists/atheists maintain is as repulsive as the falsely propagated attempts to mislead the public into believing that the separation of church and state exists in the US constitution.”
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” do you not understand?
“Should one consider the fact that our nation has given birth to one of the greatest freedoms known to man? Where did we come from as a nation? Why is the historical aspect of Judeo-Christian influence ignored or presented from a one-sided point of view?”
America was built on the backs of slaves, should we consider slavery vitally important too?
“The doctrine of religion is purpose for our lives… Is the antithesis of religion a simple purposelessness? How does one prove that we came from nothing for absolutely no reason?”
Who says your religion can provide purpose? What IS your purpose anyway?
“Deity – the endless pursuit of science solely for the sake of science. (The giant sign in the sky that will prove that God doesn’t exist.)
Followers – All of the trolls on this board including you. DO you have any peer reviewed articles?
Preachers — Author of this blog.
Church — Anywhere where members like you choose to be at any given moment. A church is not defined by its building but by its people. ”
More from the Humpty Dumpty school of word definitions, I see.
“Regular meetings — Why wait when you can post now”
In other words, NOT regular. Sheesh, try to keep up.
“Tithes — Commercialism”
So am I to assume that you completely live on growing your own food and barter? Or do you feed the Beast too? Either way, what the hell does this have to do with atheism?
“Religion – A religion usually encompasses a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices,”
We have none, but please, feel free to make another post where you completely mangle the definitions of these words in order to shoehorn them into your crazy street preacher views.
“often with a supernatural quality”
We deny the existence of the supernatural, wouldn’t even YOU say that?
“that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.”
And yet you’re going on and on about how we deny life’s purpose. Well, which one is it?
“You feel reasonably confident but in no way can post the giant sign in the sky to prove absolutely that God does not exist.”
I find the complete lack of evidence in any god to be enough. No need to prove a negative.
Exactly. What the theory of evolution does is that it shows that the hypothesis that the diversity of life is due to creation is unnecessary. That’s all.
Except Ockham’s Razor of course.
Wow. Accepting scientific explanations for the world in which we live is a religion?
I guess your a member then SomeDork. Because I wager you accept that science is responsible for the computer you type on, the car you drive, the medicine you take, the planes you fly on, the satellites that send signals to you tv, the food you eat, the electricity that powers your home and the clothes you wear.
Your a walking breathing member of the Cult of Science. Welcome aboard.
you’re… I know. I know!
Must have used a spellchecker.
Must have used a spellchecker.
Never! Spell-checkers are produced by the Cult of Science!
It’s funny, from that list of poseur-intellectual pseudo-scientific garbage you posted, a shining example is Wells’s so called paper. In all of the scientific literature published since then, of all the work that’s been done, it’s been cited exactly once. And that citation is:
“The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology”
Author(s): Cornish-Bowden A, Cardenas ML
Source: BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
whomp whooooommmmp
Some Guy #532 wrote:
“Atheism” is too broad a category; it can’t be a religion for the same reason ‘theism’ can’t be a religion. I think you would do better trying to classify the more specific science-oriented “secular humanism” as a religion. Unfortunately, if you do that, then you’ll end up redefining religion as “a life philosophy,” since you’d have to cut ‘belief in God or the supernatural’ out of the definition.
You’re not going to find any argument over saying secular humanism is a life philosophy.
The ideas which underlie Constitutional Democracy came from the rational ideals of the Enlightenment, which can be shared by Christian and non-Christian alike, since they rest on reason and common consent. I don’t think there’s anything about self-governance, human rights, and god-given liberty in the Bible. It’s ideal model of government is that of King(God) and Subjects who Submit to His Authority. Christian theology didn’t directly influence Enlightenment principles.
No, answering “what purpose in life should we pursue?” — like “how ought we to live?” — falls under the mantle of Philosophy. Religion asks the question “what purpose did God make us for?” (or something similar)
The antithesis of religion, then, would be seeking to answer the first question. That’s not “purposelessness.”
“I find the complete lack of evidence in any god to be enough. No need to prove a negative.” — Rey Fox.
Such a scientific approach, don’t you think? The whole crux of your conversation proves my reasoning for why this is a religion for you. I am sorry that you had a bad childhood. There is help for you…
Posted by: Griz | February 20, 2009 3:44 PM
That is a matter of faith. Believing in God (in whatever form it takes) is not antithetical to Evolution or vice versa. The problem IDer’s have is they have no real evidence to present or even a theory. They have an anti-thory (if Evolution is wrong then ID is correct) That is to say that if 2+2 does not equal 5 thn it must equal 3.
Please see the previously quoted inflamatory post…. Somehow this antitheory is only valid when athiests uphold it…
Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 3:51 PM
Wow. Accepting scientific explanations for the world in which we live is a religion?
I guess your a member then SomeDork. Because I wager you accept that science is responsible for the computer you type on, the car you drive, the medicine you take, the planes you fly on, the satellites that send signals to you tv, the food you eat, the electricity that powers your home and the clothes you wear.
Your a walking breathing member of the Cult of Science. Welcome aboard.
I love the way you jump to conclusions just to placate your troll gang. I certainly never said anything regarding the validity of scientific laws. I only poked at your scientific theory.
I would be willing to bet that you are also the kind of generous person that women adore (:. It is clear that you are the most open minded, friendly, well educated member of the board.
Take a hint from some of the more intelligent members (Sastra, etc..) and try to at least entertain the possibility that the other side has a point. After that, debate can genuinely flow.
Sastra… Do you think that the morale law of the land was strongly influenced by Judaism? It seems that much of the world follows a large portion of the 10 commandments.
I’m still waiting for the cdesign proponentsists to read far enough to get to the one regarding bearing false witness.
Are you trying to say that the Judeo-Christian god is real because different people have cribbed off some of their values? You do realize that the concept of the Judeo-Christian god was strongly influenced by all the other regions at the beginning of the first century BCE, right? Are those ancient religions more correct? If so, which ones?
SomeGuy, science has nothing to do with god and/or religion. Science cannot disprove god/religion, nor can religion disprove science. Science cannot use god as an explanation. So science ignores god. Now, religion can look silly if its beliefs don’t match those of science. That is the whole problem with the creationist/ID movement. Their beliefs make them look silly. And then they throw tempertantrums and blame science rather than changing their religion to fit the facts. Science follows the evidence, and changes to adapt to the evidence. Religion is mental masturbation that never varies, because the fictional book they follow never varies or is updated. Religion can upgrade its theology to match the facts, and it needs to do so or it will become even sillier.
Some Guy #558 wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean by the “morale law of the land.” If you mean Constitutional Democracy then no. Only 3 of the commandments — against murder, theft, and perjury — are actually against the law, and those are not crimes that are unique to Judaism. The Commandments which have to do with worshipping God are clearly unconstitutional, and those that have to do with honoring one’s parents, adultery, and not “coveting” may or may not be good ideas, but aren’t illegal.
If you mean to ask whether the 10 Commandments reflect basic principles that everyone shares — some do, some don’t. I think that you’ve got a problem when you try to use the Bible to show a non-Christian (or non-Jew) that this is where their morality “comes from.”
If the moral precept makes good sense to them, then there are probably good reasons why it makes sense to them even though they’re not Christian. In which case, you wouldn’t need a book (or a special revelation from God) to come up with something so workable and reasonable. If it is fair, kind, and just, a rule or precept will stand on its own value.
But if the moral precept doesn’t make good sense to an outsider, then you’re not able to use it to show them that this is where their morality comes from. Obviously, it doesn’t.
It seems that much of the world follows a large portion of the 10 commandments.
Probably for the same reason that the ancient Israelites chose to codify them. If the common thread were in fact older than Judaism, what would that mean for the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition? i.e. Why aren’t we talking about influences on the Judeo-Christian tradition?
And where do you get off riding on Judaism anyway? The first two centuries of Christianity were all about distancing Christianity from its Jewish roots while co-opting the Jewish scriptures for prophetic proof-texts and the veneer of antiquity for a new-fangled superstition, and the centuries since have been dedicated to reviling, persecuting, and occasionally massacring Jews for killing the messiah. Why not talk about the sermon on the mount, rather than the ten commandments? Oh, that’s right, because Christians repudiate all of that “blessed are the poor” bleeding-heart stuff these days, don’t they?
Oh your god. You have got to be kidding, right? So, before they were exposed to Judaism, no other society had ever had laws against killing and stealing? It must have been an atheist’s paradise, all the lack of moral responsibility. Just like we see in secular countries today.
I mean, I know I’d be spending a whole lot more time coveting things and bowing to false gods if it weren’t for the ten commandments.
SomeGuy, you’re effing up correlation for causation so hard that it’s a little sad. Besides, does “the world” really follow that many of the commandments? By my count, the nopes (monotheism, blasphemy, sabbath, covet 1, covet 2) equal the yeps (honor parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness). We can argue here and there on a few, but your language is squishy enough (seems, much, large portion) that your statement is meaningless anyways.
ID proponents, still waiting for that evidence …
SomeGuy, “not playing sports” is not a sport. Not believing in gods is not a religion. And no, nobody has to prove that gods don’t exist. Ho hum.
ID is a concept that an intelligent life form created life. Call it “God” or whatever you will. To what extent “God” nurtured it until it evolved to what it is today might never be known. If life was created at a foundational state by “God” and left to evolve, we might end up where we are today. Supposedly, this “God” is all-knowing and can see all possible futures, is in total control of the known universe, and be everywhere at once: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent respectively. This being merely possesses technology more sophisticated, but similar, to what we are building today.
Omniscience is simply a prediction science- the breaking down of each possible tree of outcomes into a probablility. Many more variables would need to be tracked, but it could easily be done with a vast, quantum computer and something a little more sophisticated than SAS9.3.
Omnipotence is the direct application of omniscience whereby adjustments are made to environmental variables on the fly. Control is the predictable influence on an outcome.
Omnipresence is to exist outside of the normal space/time continuum. This is quite a difficult hurdle to get over since we have a limited understanding of physics at the moment.
Creation or evolution for us, the creation of life is about to become an arrow in humankind’s quiver.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
@566: wuh?
Jesse, that’s just a vague theistic evolution position a la the views of Ken Miller et al, not ID, which blasphemously asserts that faith is unnecessary and that god has been challenged to show herself in creation, successfully.
It’s utterly unfalsifiable, of course, and so useless to science and unparsimonious. But if you like to believe it, and you keep it out of public education, very few here will take much issue with it, other than to point out that no evidence justifies the claim.
Evolution is a fact. So is gravity.
Are you really walking down the “Evolution is only a theory path?”
Thanks, I’m very opened minded and friendly. “The ladies love me, the girls adore me.”
I’m a great guy. I just have a low tolerance for ignorance. And I’ve heard the “atheism is a religion and evolution is your scripture” so many times that I don’t really feel the need to “debate” the idea because it it so completely lacking in thought.
http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/RobBase/It-Takes-Two–2139200
Omniscience is simply a prediction science- the breaking down of each possible tree of outcomes into a probablility. Many more variables would need to be tracked, but it could easily be done with a vast, quantum computer and something a little more sophisticated than SAS9.3.
Sadly, no. Thank you for playing.
Stu, that’s hilarious. I had not seen “let me Google that for you”
Will the snarky wonders of the Web never cease?
I had seen it and forgot about it. It’s great to do to your parents when they bug you to look something up and send them the link.
This was a great response. But I don’t think this will affect any of the thumpers. They just don’t get it. I was speaking to a friend who was telling me which churches her children were attending and asked with a smile, “What? No atheists?” She laughed when I pointed to myself. But a couple passing by, two little gnomes about 4’high, turned and told me they’d seen miracles. I asked which ones and the man said, “Me. I’m a living miracle.” He gave me a smile which I believe was some moral superiority and walked on. See? You go on smacking them in the head with reality, but they only see rainbows. What morons. Maybe stupidity is bliss.
This is the first time I’ve read the comments and I have to say GOD DAMN! Do you people deal with this much creationist blathering in the comments of every single post? Seriously, I’m getting an actual headache listening to their conspiracy theories and whining about how rude the evil scientists are with them mocking crackpot theories and demanding evidence. *I’ve seen a ‘creationist scientist’ brag about a 15 year old not finding one hole in their argument, brag constantly about how he knows better as a Phd in chemistry and call homosexuals evil perverts who dont deserve rights all on the same page, but god forbid we do the standard internet mockery* Also why bother going through personally debunking the discovery institutes list? This took two seconds on google:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
notice how I didnt copy and paste the whole page.
Christina #450 SAID: “Logically, I hope everyone does realize that any science done to try and prove the existence of an intelligent being/creator would have Christians supporting it because Christians believe in God. I have never understood why people act like this is proof of anything. If Christians weren’t supporting it, I would frankly be a little worried. If you are a Christian and believe in God, why wouldn’t you want to support science that sought to prove an intelligent being’s existence. It doesn’t make the science the same as creationism, it just means that Christians are being Christians. I just don’t understand why any of this is hard to grasp.”
Well, Christina, it isn’t surprising you “just don’t understand why any of this is so hard to grasp.”
So, when did you acquire the odd notion that science is all about TRYING to prove something, that scientists are people who SEEK to prove something?
Where did you get that idea from? It’s completely wrong, you know.
Science does in fact manage to demonstrate the viability of a great many conceptual models of the world, to very high degree of confidence, the vast majority of which had absolutely no coaching from preconceived belief.
Believe it or not, as you wish.
If you want “proof”, go and consult competent mathematicians. They’ll introduce you to the concept by going over a little Euclidean geometry.
Logically? Okay. Let me point out how “logical” YOU are: you make statements equating the scientific method as consisting of ATTEMPTS to prove something: “TRYING” to prove anything. “SEEKING” (=”sought”) to prove anything.
Then you say, “I have never understood why people act like this is proof of anything.”
Are you kidding? What is it you don’t understand? That people should “act” as if seeking or trying isn’t, in point of actual fact, a “PROOF”?
Is THAT what you think is so hard for us to “grasp”? That we can’t grasp that you seem incapable of grasping elemtary logic? Are we to presume that your incapacity in this regard is a valid justification for accepting what you say elsewhere? Just because you can’t grasp why anybody should think that “trying” isn’t what science DOES? That science isn’t at all like religion, which always TRIES to find proof?
As the illustrious little wrinkled bat-eared foam-rubber Jedi sage Yoda once so profoundly intoned on a great big screen somewhere: “Do or do not. There is no try.”
If you really want us to “grasp” whatever conviction you hold? Fine! Good! We’ll make it easy for you. You don’t have to supply any “proofs” at all. Just show us one little tiny scrap of actual and potentially verifiable evidence to support your convictions. I promise it will get our attention.
It shouldn’t be too hard for even you to understand – graced as you are with the “logic” you have so abundantly exhibited – that’s all it would take.
Everyone here needs to get outside and enjoy life.
Jeff, why don’t you start with yourself?
Aw hell no. NPR is featuring the “mind-brain problem.” On the side of science, Steve Novella (yes, they’re using the term “Darwinist brain scientists”). On the other side…Michael Egnor. Have at it, Pharyngulites.
I’m just trying to offer a point of view that brings both sides of the coin to the same side.
Do I believe “God” is an alien being from another dimension that created physical laws that govern this universe and thereby influenced the evolution of life as we know it? No, but as a scientist, I leave room in my mind for it.
Religious people don’t know what “God” is nor are they interested in learning for fear they would be disappointed. Atheists, apparently, know what “God” is and are already disappointed and are trying to share. Neither side truly wants to understand “God.” What if “God” is an alien? Ask the question! Generate ideas! Leave room for the unexplained. Be at peace with the unknown.
(Again, I’m not a Raelian.)
My passion is to get people past the debate and back to fertilizing and expanding their minds with my own special brand of BS.
Egnor??? Oh for fuck’s sake.
It is interesting how Darwinists are keep saying this is the way it is and so and stop asking any questions – JUST BELIEVE. Hmmm, who is the one preaching faith? Let’s take Mendel for example. Pick up college biology textbooks read a passage on Mendel and his contributions to genetics and you will come away say, he was just like us man – lived and breathed Darwinism. Well, that is really not so. In Mendel’s Pisum paper, published in 1866 (and yes that was peer reviewed), and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, published in 1859. I just find it curious how authors of textbooks skew science to one way of thinking, even though Mendel’s work specifically refuted Darwin. I guess they don’t want any students to ask any questions? Thou shall not think different from the collective. I guess they will hold on to everything like the Haeckel’s drawings in text books until we have every last student brainwashed.
Penguinsaur… you have discovered one of the joys and curses of being a Pharyngulite.
The joy: yes they really are that ignorant.
The curse: they’re that ignorant and have no idea and will repeat ad nauseam.
Psst. Subrosa. Check your watch, it’s the 21st century now.
Two questions:
1. Does anybody understand what the hell Jesse is talking about? I’d ask him myself, but I don’t speak whatever langauge it is that he’s using.
2. Does anybody seriously believe that Jesse is a scientist, as he claims?
Be at peace with the unknown.
Personally I can deal with doubt, uncertainty, not knowing. But the problem, as you may be aware, is that the creationists are not at peace with the unknown; they keep trying to stuff their god in everywhere they find it, and they like to pretend that the unknown is a bigger cubby-hole than it is.
So, in principle, great. You’re an open-minded guy. But there is a point at which the craven tactics, shady motivations, and outright dishonest arguments of the opposition need to be fought, not capitulated to with the rhetoric of even-handedness. In the realm of facts, there is simply no contest. In the realm of public perception, well, let’s just say nobody ever went broke overestimating people’s appetite for magical thinking.
Subrosa7, Mendel’s intent is irrelevant. His work was added to the growing evidence for evolution, as it should be. That evidence is still growing 150 years later. That is science at work. I don’t know why you think Mendel’s intent has anything to do with the result. Unless, of course, you have no idea of the bigger picture that is science.
Jesse #579 wrote:
Sure. So does Richard Dawkins, Creationist Arch-Enemy and Militant Atheist.
Apparently, in the movie Expelled, creationists asked him if life on earth “could” have been created by an alien being. His response was yes, it ‘could’ have. There’s no evidence for it, but, as a scientist, he couldn’t rule it out and it was fine to speculate about it. He then went on to make the point that it was still likely that this alien being would have had to evolve from simpler forms.
Creationists were not pleased to see that Dawkins “left room in his mind” for the possibility that there was an “alien being” from this or any other dimension which was responsible for life on earth. Oh no. They professed to be shocked and horrified — and gleeful — that Dawkins had “let slip” that he was willing to consider the space alien hypothesis — but not God!!!! Look at how the atheist gropes for straws! See! The space alien idea is STUPID — and yet Dawkins will “entertain” it as an idea before he accepts the Bible! We win! We win! We win!
So I think your point that scientists should “leave room in their minds” for implausible but possible scenarios involving aliens and beings in other dimensions is already non-controversial among scientists, including atheist scientists. But the fine issues involved here may be a bit beyond some of the creationists.
“The whole crux of your conversation proves my reasoning for why this is a religion for you.”
Translation: I have no response to the way you completely dismantled my poor excuses for arguments, so I’ll just assert again.
“I’m just trying to offer a point of view that brings both sides of the coin to the same side. ”
What coin, and why do we need both sides?
“Neither side truly wants to understand “God.””
That doesn’t matter, since you’re just handwaving about “God” anyway.
I truly weep for my generation. Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git. I’m sorry, yes, science is hard and should be, but it should never be about beating down opposition on an impulse produced by anger. If you really believe me to be misinformed or ignorant, don’t call me names as this is childish, but seek to inform me of what you believe in a civil, adult manner. I enjoy nothing better than a good discussion and debate with others as long as we can all be respectful. (yes, I will continue to mention this until it is heeded, thank you to those who are showing respect)
As to the list I previously posted of peer-reviewed articles and books, sorry , but it doesn’t really make a difference if you like them or not. You asked if there were any, and I gave them to you. The fact is they were articles written by scientists, about scientific research, reviewed by scientists, and published in science journals, or published as scientific books. Why ask about them, if you’ve already made your decision about them? IDers can’t help if you don’t like their peer-reviewed materials, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
As to throwing out all the books, this is frankly very illogical. Forgive me, but that would also mean we must throw out every scientific book ever written throughout the history of the world including Darwin’s “Origin of Species”.
This entire concept of peer-reviewed seems somewhat of a game to me anyhow, considering it hasn’t meant much when looking at the bigger picture of the entire course of scientific history. For my part, it doesn’t mean a thing to me whether something has been peer-reviewed or not. It is not as though it is impossible for someone to write something perfectly legitimate and scientific without getting it peer-reviewed.
On a much lower level, it would be the same as saying that a person cannot actually write real poetry unless it is published. With that logic, all of you who draw, or write poetry or prose, or play music, you aren’t an artist if your things have not been published, displayed or recorded, and especially if they have not been reviewed by others and liked. This would mean the term artist is reserved only for the rich and famous. It is also the same as saying a language is not a real language until an accredited well-liked linguist has done linguistic research on it and approved it.
With that said, I would like to hear what people have to say about some of the scientific and mathematical studies done.
It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?
What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?
What about stasis in the fossil records?
What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?
What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?
What about irreducible complexity? Don’t just call it dumb, why don’t you believe it makes sense? Many believe it makes perfect logical and scientific sense, just as many of you believe evolution makes perfect logical and scientific sense.
Perhaps if we shifted to these topics it would make a difference. Here’s hoping anyway.
Christina and subrosa…
Try starting here.
http://textbooksheaven.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=3098488
What I don’t get about the ID movement is that they trumpet Darwin’s Black Box and the contents within as a triumph that has passed peer review. Firstly the book was sent to 4 people before publishing, the majority told him not to publish and one told him that he found it wrong but he should publish anyway. In 13 years following, Behe hasn’t submitted any of the ideas contained within the book for peer review in an academic journal.
The funniest thing is how much they cling to irreducible complexity. A scientist worked out how such systems would evolve and predicted they would evolved all the way back in 1918. Only back then it was called interlocking complexity. And the icons of ID have now been consistently shown to have gradually evolved. Going on about the flagellum is quite pathetic really. Did God make the flagellum in his own image?
One more thing that ID is lacking is a mechanism. Just what did the designer do? Did the designer cause mutations? If so, how do we test that? Where are the tests that show a designer’s hand in our nature? Better yet, where is the designer? This is what ID rests on, showing that there’s a designer and the designer is tinkering with our DNA at some stage along the way. So for all those preaching ID, 2 questions: Just what exactly did the designer do, and how can we test for that? Answer both of those and put it in a scientific paper and you might have something.
Uhg. Christina. Try reading every book Dawkins has written about evolution first. Then read Gould. Then read Dennet.
All the things you quoted are boring “arguments” that we’ve seen before. Go to talkorigins to read a disassembling of every one of those questions.
ID makes no sense, it’s answer to scientific questions is “designer did it *wink*”
What form of theist are you anyway? And how old do you think the earth is?
Christina, flaws in the fossil record. Depends on what you mean by flaws. If you mean gaps, these are slowly being filled as people look in the proper strata and find the expected mingling of characteristics. For example Neil Shubin discovered Tiktaalik roseae, a fish/tetrapod gap filler by looking in the proper sediments in far northern Canada. So the gaps are being filled, and so far nothing anomalous like a Cambrian rabbit has been found. Science moves forward. Religious thought stands still.
Christina #589 wrote:
No, it would not be the same: this is a poor analogy.
Poetry, art, music and literature are aesthetic matters of taste. They’re not trying to be factual, and thus don’t need to be vetted through any rigorous peer review process to check for errors and mistakes. The analogy might work better if you’re talking about history or archaeology books. If so, then creationist literature might be comparable to the works of Eric Von Daniken (the amateur historian who traveled around the world looking at ancient artifacts and structures and subsequently ‘figured out’ that they contained evidence that earth had been visited by space aliens.)
His work became temporarily popular with the public, but was mostly ignored by serious archaeologists. A few wrote some rebuttals, pointing out that a background in the relevant fields was useful in understanding where the errors had been made.
Christina,
Some commenters here have already directed you to good sources for the basics of evolutionary biology. Please read them before you post any more of these worn-out ID/Creationist inanities.
It’s your job to educate yourself. Not anyone else’s.
Christina @589:
Apparently, you think this comment thread is supposed to be a “scientific debate”, and posting comments is doing science.
This thread is social intercourse, and we are all engaged in it.
You could start here.
It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?
Improbability doesn’t equal impossibility, so I say so what? Also, that’s an awfully vague question. Characterize, in your own words, “the way evolutionists say it must have been.”
What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?
Vague, again. Pick a “gap.” And do you figure there’s been some paleontology done since the 1870’s? Perhaps you’d like to discuss some of it? Like Tiktaalik, for instance.
What about stasis in the fossil records?
What about it? That successful, widespread species remain largely morphologically unchanged for long periods of time does not contradict evolutionary theory in the least.
What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?
Speciation has been observed, and no magic appeared to be involved. Your “fact” is not.
What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?
I’m not aware of this “statistical research.” Are you alluding to a ‘fine-tuning’ argument? I need only refer you to the vastness of the universe and the anthropic principle.
What about irreducible complexity? Don’t just call it dumb, why don’t you believe it makes sense?
What’s dumb is not to recognize that such structures are a prediction of evolutionary theory. It’s nothing new; Behe likes to pretend he invented the concept and that it makes the case for ID. Neither is true.
Anything else?
Christina wrote:
It never has and it still doesn’t. Being called a git is contingent upon acting in such a way that people identify and and correctly label you as such.
Don’t want to be called a git? Stop acting like one.
John Morales wrote:
Heh heh heh – intercourse.
On Behe’s work:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
H Allen Orr (if you don’t know his name, you should) reviewing Darwin’s Black Box
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
“For my part, it doesn’t mean a thing to me whether something has been peer-reviewed or not.”
Yeah, intellectual rigor, error-checking, who needs it? Go with what feels right, man!
Save your histrionics for yourself. Polls show that the majority of the US population is sick and tired of fundies and their hate, lies, violence, destruction, and general kookiness.
50% – More Conservatives Now Say Churches Should Stay Out of Politics Wed Sep 24, 12:00 AM ET
Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues. The survey also finds that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. As a result, conservatives’ views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared. There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are — from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.
Looks like there is a backlash against the Death Cults. These are nihilists who have only brought death and destruction during their time in power. Their latest victim is the US economy, the largest in the world at one time. Palin is one, a hardcore religious kook.
There is a fact for you. We in the reality based community use them a lot. Towards creos it works sort of like a cross towards a vampire. Except 5 minutes later, they arise without any memory of having seen a fact.
As to your standard talking points, they are just standard creationist babble and out of date by years or centuries. “What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?” Darwin wrote his book 150 years ago. Things have moved on. There are hundreds of people at least searching for fossils. There are some sitting on my deck for Cthulhu’s sake. Those gaps got smaller and smaller and now the god of the gaps has been pushed beyond the Big Bang with the physicists in hot pursuit.
And you really don’t care. God himself could show up, laugh and say, c’mon, I’m a smart being and have better things to do than micromanage my own planet. Besides which as an omniscient being, I already knew how the Big Bang was going to turn out.” Wouldn’t make a dent. You don’t worship a god, truth, or reality, you worship a book and your own Death Cult. There was something in the bible about setting up and worshipping idols. I’m sure you’ve never even read that book.
On Dempski:
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/
H Allen Orr reviewing No Free Lunch
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html
Why weep? Science has increased our lifespans 30 years in a century while banishing horrible diseases like smallpox and polio. Ever seen a polio victim? There are a few around. They are invariably late 50’s and older and have had a harder life than they wanted.
We feed 6.7 billion people, travel in space, and are surrounded by technology that St Paul would consider miraculous.
What have the Death Cultists done lately? Other than wreck the US ecnomy, shoot some catholics in N. Ireland, bomb some family planning clinics, and beat up the odd evolutionary biologist.
If you’re going to trot out the same lies and obfuscations that we’ve seen for years (yes, literally years), don’t be surprised if we’re angry.
Let us suppose that your great-grandmother is dead. You know she’s dead, you were at her deathbed, you were at the funeral, you saw her put into a grave, there is no doubt in your mind that she’s deceased. How would you react if complete strangers kept telling you that they saw and talked to great-grandmother just today? After a while, when yet another person told you about having lunch with great-grandmother, you’d possibly get annoyed. You know something is a fact and, when people keep telling you nonsense contradicting that fact, you might feel a bit perturbed.
In the same way, when
wackospeople like you tell us stuff that we know for a fact is wrong, and keep telling us these untruths over and over again, we get exasperated. Sorry if this disturbs you.Christina #589,
It’s not a matter of whether we “like them or not.” These materials provide no data supporting ID or refuting evolution (see #518).
As I said above, this is why it’s important to ask for data in peer-reviewed scientific research papers when asking ID supporters for evidence. The lack of data leads to one of three conclusions: ID is not science, ID supporters are inept at doing research, or there is a decades-long global conspiracy suppressing ID – and some people in the comments seem to be seriously suggesting the third option.
Bush appointee and religious conservative Judge Jones on Intelligent Design –
Christina:
I truly weep for my generation. Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git.
If someone is wrong, if it has been pointed out where and how said person is wrong and that person still asserts their position repeatedly, that person has been scientifically proven to be a git and should be addressed as such.
Git.
I’m sorry, yes, science is hard and should be, but it should never be about beating down opposition on an impulse produced by anger.
Flagrant, arrogant provable stupidity makes us angry, sorry.
If you really believe me to be misinformed or ignorant
Believing has nothing to do with it, moron.
don’t call me names as this is childish
I would call it cathartic, you pig-headed fool. Besides, ignoring refutations of your pathetic points is the online equivalent of clapping your hands to your ears and screaming “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”, which, I think we can all agree on, is pretty damned childish.
but seek to inform me of what you believe in a civil, adult manner.
Firstly, you don’t fucking get to tell anyone what to do. Secondly, you will be treated civilly if you stop acting like a child.
I enjoy nothing better than a good discussion
Liar. You haven’t listened to a word that has been said. You like to talk, and that is not a discussion.
as long as we can all be respectful.
Again, who the fuck are you to tell anyone what to do? Furthermore, not listening is disrespectful. Demanding respect without showing it is arrogant, stupid and childish.
yes, I will continue to mention this until it is heeded
Better have it ready to copy and paste then, airhead.
As to the list I previously posted of peer-reviewed articles and books
You don’t know what peer-reviewed means.
about scientific research
You don’t know what scientific research means.
published in science journals
You don’t know what science journal means.
or published as scientific books
You don’t know what scientific means.
Why ask about them, if you’ve already made your decision about them?
To illustrate your ignorance.
IDers can’t help if you don’t like their peer-reviewed materials, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
See above. Repeatedly asserting something doesn’t make it true. It helps to be right.
This entire concept of peer-reviewed seems somewhat of a game to me anyhow
Only because you have no fucking clue how it works, why it works and why it is a prerequisite. You wouldn’t know peer review if it hit you in your useless head.
For my part, it doesn’t mean a thing to me whether something has been peer-reviewed or not.
Okay, thank you for that concession. Let’s move on. Small question though: why were you harping on IDs dreck being peer reviewed IN THE SAME FUCKING POST?
Moron.
It is not as though it is impossible for someone to write something perfectly legitimate and scientific without getting it peer-reviewed.
Sure. But without review, how do you propose we verify it IS legitimate?
With that said, I would like to hear what people have to say about some of the scientific and mathematical studies done.
Sure, provide some. Peer-reviewed by non-creationists.
It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?
I say your understanding is wrong, I say I know where this statement comes from, I know it is bunkum. TalkOrigins is your friend.
What about the major gaps of the fossil records
Oh shut up. Go read TalkOrigins before you open your mouth again, tool. Do you think you are the first drone to try that lame, old canard?
What about stasis in the fossil records?
What about it?
What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?
Liar. Liar, liar, liar. Stupid Goddamned liar.
What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?
Adams. Puddle. Google. Idiot.
What about irreducible complexity? Don’t just call it dumb, why don’t you believe it makes sense?
Because it has been proven to be wrong, maybe?
TalkOrigins is your friend.
Many believe it makes perfect logical and scientific sense
Only the willfully ignorant ones. Five minutes on Google can educate you. Go do so, or shut the hell up.
just as many of you believe evolution makes perfect logical and scientific sense.
Theory proven to explain reality for 150 years, reinforced through multiple scientific disciplines
DOES NOT EQUAL
Random, incorrect, unsupported supposition that does nothing but vainly attempt to attack said theory without any alternative explanation beyond “I don’t understand how the world works, ergo God did it.”
Perhaps if we shifted to these topics it would make a difference.
Back your idiotic assumptions up first, you arrogant, ignorant douchenozzle.
(Yes, I’m grumpy. Good thing the weekend’s here!)
Lowel @ 584
I study behavior prediction and strong proponents of a position are always blinded by it. I’m a pot stirrer by nature. My mission is to help people see a bigger picture. Don’t be sheep.
This is an excellent point. People resort to name-calling when they are cornered. Simply put, most of the people on this blog appear to be deeply insecure about their outdated belief system, and they have don’t have any direct evidence that the variation/selection mechanism produced the complex systems necessary for life. So they attack people who make the attempt to engage them in debate, they call them names, they ridicule the opposing view rather than respond to the main points of their arguments, etc. They preach the need for scientific thinking yet engage in oppressive practices that would make the Church that persecuted Galileo pale in comparison (Galileo didn’t have any peer-reviewed articles either). For a science blog, the behavior practiced here is about as far away from scientific thinking as possible.
Beautiful rant BTW.
OT, may I recommend some of Rev. BDC’s, et al, suggestions as to beer/ales (I have an Arrogant Bastard chilling) to try, and Janine’s suggestions as to tunes that might make the weekend better. Chime in folks, let’s help the weekend progress.
Sacred Frenzy, yawn, methinks thou dost protest too much. Yawn.
Galileo was around at the birth of science, since then it’s come a long way. In a mere 150 years, we have observed mutation, adaptation, natural selection, and speciation – all the mechanisms required for evolution to work. By contrast ID has not shown a single experiment wherein their mechanism (Goddidit) for change is valid. Evolution is currently the only explanation that can account for life that has any evidential backing. Show me just how ID works and evidence of it working, then maybe the concept can remove itself away from being Creationism 2.0 and into the idea of a testable falsifiable hypothesis.
Sacred Frenzy, #609: They preach the need for scientific thinking yet engage in oppressive practices that would make the Church that persecuted Galileo pale in comparison….
What? Behe was forced to publicly recant and then place under house arrest for the rest of his life? I think you are joking.
Christina what you don’t seem to understand is that the creationist science you’re quoting emerges from a system that is identical to a privately owned vanity press. In other words, it’s not science. There’s no data, there’s no scrutiny, there’s no methodology, there’s no testing, there’s no error-checking, there’s no repeatability, there’s no independent testing (other than the prima facie evaluation that it’s crap) there’s no debate. Such-and-such creationist writes a tract and the DI publishes it. That’s that. That’s not science, you can call it something else “Creationist Musings” “Navel Gazing” “Monocultural Ponderings.” but it ain’t science, and all your whining and complaining to the contrary doesn’t change that cold, hard fact.
Christina, your tears are delicious. Books aren’t peer-reviewed. That you don’t put stock in peer-review demonstrates nicely that we ought to ignore your opinions. Without critical analysis and free inquiry, there’s no way to separate bullshit from reality. Apparently you prefer to just believe in a reality that makes you feel special. Good for you.
Sacred Frenzy, I call Poe. You’re saying the scientific worldview is outdated? Really? Coming from someone who (presumably) believes in a static two-millennium-old book, it’s the height of hypocrisy to claim that dynamic ever-changing science is outdated. And, Galileo didn’t have peer-reviewed papers? THERE WASNT ANY PEER REVIEW AT THE TIME YOU DOLT!
Jesse, you’ve been spending too much time thinking conspiratorially. Don’t call us sheeple. You say you’re a pot-stirrer … well, you argue like a pot-smoker. Only a small fraction of your writing makes any damn sense whatsoever.
Jesse #608
I’m all for vigorous philosophical debates, but when it comes to this discussion of ID we’re talking science. We are not “blinded” by accepting deep time, heliocentrism, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics, and so forth; similarly, we are not “blinded” by accepting the scientific theory of evolution. As a number people have said before, keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Bwahaha can’t convey my hearty yet lovely lilting laugh. I actually hurt my fingers hitting them on a table when I flung them up laughing at this. My weekend is made. Hilarious.
Sacred Frenzy:
People may resort to name-calling when they are cornered; however, not all name-calling is done by people in corners – it can be an act of ridicule, made by people who are tired of presenting facts to the obtuse and willfully ignorant.
Fixed it for you.
Liar.
They have no arguments; hence, they are ridiculed. Which part of that don’t you understand?
This implies you know what scientific thinking is – and you patently don’t.
—
Jesse wrote:
You’re a concern troll. There’s such a thing as groupthink; it is not the same as consensus based on reality. Kindly shove your pot, and whatever you stir it with, up your ass.
People also resort to name-calling when fucking idiots keep bleating the same lies over and over again. Here’s a prime example of a fucking idiot telling a lie:
This fucking idiot spews several lies and I bet he’ll whine that I call him a fucking idiot. It’s not my fault that a fucking idiot is a fucking idiot, it’s the fucking idiot’s fault.
Wow, Wowbagger and ‘Tis Himself, thanks for proving my point!
Sacred Frenzy, proving my point. Yawn, what a lying bore.
Well the dumb creationists are gone and the trolls have arrived.
It looks like it is just one wacko troll with multiple IDs. Thread over, mentally ill trolls have far more time to post rubbish than normal people have to read it much less respond.
BTW, who is name calling. Creationists are either dumb, ignorant, or crazy and usually all three. Them’s just the facts. Someone has to anchor the left side of the bell shaped curve.
I don’t disagree with anything in the response of Dr Gotelli to the invitation, either in detail or substance. I have to say though, that the initial email from the Discovery Institute was quite polite and it would have been completely possible to make the exact same points without being rude or insulting. If the entire debate on evolution could be conducted in the tone of the initial letter, wouldn’t it be at least slightly less irritating for everyone involved?
Intermission.
POINTED STICK WIELDER: “I predict someone will call me an ass when I say something stupid. Let’s begin: ‘People who call would call me an ass obviously can’t refute my points, of which I have made precisely none.’ ”
CHORUS: “You’re an ass because you haven’t made a coherent point.”
POINTED STICK WIELDER: “Ha ha! I win!”
CHORUS: “No, and you’re still an ass.”
How anyone deals with these people without heavy quanities of beer astounds me.
Romanov99, the tone is one of science with facts on its side, versus creationism/ID, which pretends to be scientific, but fails to be scientific. So we mock them for the stupidity. If they don’t want to be mocked, they can cease being stupid. That is to acknowledge creationism/ID are religious ideas, and should only be taught in religious courses. Until then, Mock, Mock, Mock.
Sacred Frenzy,
A whiny dipshit acts like a whiny dipshit then tries to brag about having predicted that people would call him a whiny dipshit. Yeah, that’s a point worth proving. What’s next? You put on a Klan hood and smugly cry ‘See! I knew you’d say I was a racist! Ha!’
Pissant.
Wow. This is becoming a troll hunting ground. I think I’ve seen more creationists on this thread than in the last month of Pharyngula.
After you’ve downed the whiskey, you can at least break the bottles over the heads of the willfully ignorant. Not that I would ever advocate violence against ID/Creationist types. Not when sober, anyway.
Sacred Frenzy, thou art a fool. Cornered? How are we cornered? We’ve seen mutation, selection, adaptation, and speciation both in the wild and the laboratory. All evidence in biology over the last 150 years has pointed to evolution. By contrast what does intelligent design have? How does ID work exactly? Where exactly did the Designer play his hand in nature and how can we detect that? To say it all looks designed is one thing, evolutionary biologists have been able to answer just why it looks designed for a while – before the words “Intelligent Design” were ever uttered (after the 1986 supreme court ruling outlawing creation science.
So if you think we are cornered, surely you can show the evidence that is allegedly cornering us. Because it looks to me like projection, biologists can show all mechanisms of evolutionary theory in action. What can you show, you dishonest little git?
I refer you to the Lenski affair
Sacred Frenzy:
Go here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/creationism/
Read a good dozen or so of the threads and count how many times the regulars here have been peppered with and refuted the same inane claims over and over and over and over again. Actually, if you go waaaaaay back, you’ll likely see many of these same people being significantly more patient. But a few years of being smarmily presented with the same ignorant valueless challenges and arguments is bound to wear on anyone’s nerves and patience. Especially when it’s so easy cured, by you challengers of evolution simply doing a little studying on one’s own or reading the information that’s been provided here time and time again.
People aren’t that terribly cranky about having evolution questioned. It gives an opportunity to share information and educate, which many here enjoy. They’re cranky from hearing the same sad shit again from people that prefer willful ignorance to challenging their religious indoctrination.
Seriously, SF, Christine and others… before posting again, please read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Please, creationists, come up with a new one every once in a while.
Bookmarked, and this blog will be followed from now on.
Damn, you guys are good.
That is the funniest thing I have read in a very long time!
subrosa7 #581
In Mendel’s Pisum paper, [it is] not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, published in 1859.
If you had bothered to read Darwin’s book you would know that Mendel was specifically criticising chapter five where Darwin discusses the “Laws of Variation” and sadly gets everything wrong because he didn’t know how hereditary worked.
Mendel did not oppose Darwinian evolution, he hoped to add to it by showing where everyone was wrong.
Unfortunately Mendel worked it out and was the completely ignored for forty years. It took another 20 years after that to finally marry genetics and natural selection.
I agree, ID theory should be religious studies and not hard science.
From Christina’s naïve reposting of the DI publication page:
Did it? I can’t remember any such event, and I’m a paleontologist. Proceedings of the Biological What?
BTW, note the logical fallacy right in the title. The ranks of traditional biological nomenclature (like phylum) don’t exist in nature, they are just conventions, and misleading ones at that. Stephen J. Gould fell victim to the same fallacy, believing that evolution must have been somehow different in the Cambrian than now; Dawkins trounced that by saying this is like someone being utterly amazed at the fact that all the thick limbs of a big oak are at least 100 years old — what lamentable degeneration that only puny branches have grown since!
Uh… yes.
Duh.
The scientific method consists of 1) falsification and 2) parsimony. When two ideas explain the same evidence, and neither has been falsified yet, the one that requires more ad hoc assumptions loses.
Atheists think that God is not. That no such thing exists. I mean, please!
That’s what Mendel apparently believed his work was doing. But guess what, Mendel was wrong about that.
Mendel’s work did disprove Darwin’s (today practically unknown) theory of heredity. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Here we’re talking about his theory of evolution — which in fact, and ironically, is much more easily compatible with Mendel’s theory of heredity than with Darwin’s! All you have to tweak is to allow for mutations, which are amply observed.
Do learn to separate people, ideas, and data.
Not that it matters, but peer-review hadn’t even been invented back then.
Concerning Haeckel’s drawings and textbooks, just plug Haeckel into the search engine of this blog. Top left corner of the page. You’ll learn something.
Inform yourself first — this is the Internet, after all; everything is just two clicks away, and maybe a few keystrokes in a search engine –, and stop pretending to yourself that you understand what you’re talking about. Then we can talk. :-)
The calculations that cdesign proponentsists make on this matter always assume that amino acids had to assemble themselves spontaneously to produce a full-length functional protein. Of course this is extremely improbable. But try imagining an RNA world instead, and then add tiny little peptides to it…
(He didn’t say “flaw”, obviously. He said this was one of the biggest potential problems.)
They’ve been shrinking ever since 1859. In 1861, Archaeopteryx was discovered. Immediately, the creationists asked for intermediate forms between this intermediate form and its ancestors and descendants. The discoveries kept rolling in at an ever-increasing pace, and just this year Anchiornis was described… google for it.
And that’s just the birds! I can tell you the same story for limbed vertebrates (Tiktaalik is just the latest addition to a long series — wasn’t Archegosaurus the temnospondyl discovered in 1847?), for whales, for mammals, half of it for bats and for pterosaurs… Really, I could go on for days if I didn’t have to sleep once in a while.
Even for rhynchosaurs. You probably don’t even know what a rhynchosaur is, because they died out so long ago, but we have a nice little series of intermediates between them and their closest known relatives…
Like many people you’ve misunderstood Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium. Both the stasis and the punctuation are only visible on an extremely small scale — single species over millennia, not large groups over tens of millions of years. To see that in the fossil record, you need to look at diatoms that form the floor of vast stretches of the Pacific Ocean, for example; things like dinosaurs aren’t preserved in sufficient amounts.
Define “species”.
No, really. I’m completely serious. There are at least 25 different definitions in the (mainstream, peer-reviewed, “orthodox”) literature out there, and depending on the definition there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico!
Under some of these definitions, speciation has been witnessed. Even in the lab. Talkorigins.org will supply details.
What?
Because it overlooks the phenomenon termed exaptation: function follows form, not just the other way around. Yes, a mousetrap that lacks a part isn’t capable of working as a mousetrap, but its parts are still useful as a paper clip, a cutting board, a spring and so on. Yes, a flagellum that lacks too many parts (more than Behe believed, but that doesn’t matter) can’t work as a flagellum, but it’s damn similar to the Type III secretion system… a sort of syringe. Again, I could go on for days.
Well, I tried. Sacred Frenzy, if you’re going to act like a troll:
Fuck off, you syphilitic, sheep-shagging shithead.
Gah. 29 comments are posted while I write mine.
Polite, yes, but hypocritical.
I refer you to the very beginning of Gotelli’s letter:
Any more questions?
syphilitic, sheep-shagging shithead.
Pure, unadulterated win.
That is the funniest thing I have read in a very long time!
We aim to please. Dillweed.
Re: Comment #293
Wow. As a Science teacher I’ve been bamboozled by my peers, NONE OF WHOM fit the mold of the “80%” of teachers in your claim. I’m SURE you have a valid link to the survey done to get this gem of information? Please send it to me, along with ANY OTHER evidence of the validity of ONE ‘fact’ in your post.
You really don’t get it. Science really DOES NOT WORK by votes, surveys, or opinion polls. Science DOES NOT WORK by posting on blogs and stating it true. Science DOES WORK by producing DATA… Please show the ID DATA and we can talk.
Until then STFU and quit lying. Jebus doesn’t like it when you lie.
Sorry DM, OM, but we are roused and must post our ridicule. Not to say your barb wasn’t honed like a piece of obsidian used to remove the hide from a stone-age kill. :-)
BREAKING NEWS: NPR (National Public Radio) has just given a legitimate platform to a member of the Discovery Institute, Michael Egnor. No, I am NOT kidding!!!!!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100867217
Still think ignoring the creationists is the correct course of action?
Jebus doesn’t like it when you lie.
Unless it’s for a Good Christian Cause, of course. Just like murder.
Still think ignoring the creationists is the correct course of action?
Correct and proper, yes. Wise, no. It’s a disease, and education is the vaccination. Then again, we have morons advocating against that, so perhaps we are all doomed in the long run unless we start requiring people to pass a common sense test before voting and procreating.
Oh, as a random aside, if you want to see how much education has declined in the past century or so, go here. Be sure to scroll down to see 1898 entrance exams.
Christ on a crutch, and I thought I went to a hardcore school. Humble pie.
Concerning the old adage “Debating a Creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon; the pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock proclaiming victory.”
Do what I did to Karl Priest of the Discovery Institute…to follow the analogy, when he started to crap on the board I closed it on him!
Our entire exchange can be found here; I’m the duck!
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins,page1#343559
I hear you, Stu! If I could combat these creationist clowns and scratch out a living wage doing so, I’d commit myself full-time to fighting this blight on our society.
Know anyone hiring? ;)
Ah,how nice to start the day with a well-done pwning by David M….
As to NPR,we get tidbits from that here in Australia on News Radio,and when I listen to them occasionally the comments often seem to have a right-wing or conservative bias,to say the least.SO Im not surprised that they would have a liar for jesus on.
Wow, Ragutis, you really got me with that. Or not.
But seriously, you guys would be taken seriously if you were able to engage in dialogue (you know, the way most adults do) rather than resort to vitriolic name-calling when people question your “Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it” screeds. What a sad bunch of Fundies!
Just like a kine to the cheese. What a befitting reply. I liked this most:
[b] P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.[b]
Sacred Frenzy, if you want to engage in a true, honest, dialog, acknowledge that creationism/ID are religious ideas, not scientific ideas. Until then. Mock, mock, mock.
Sacred Frenzy #650 wrote:
I suspect our creationist visitors would be taken more seriously if they ignored the ‘vitriolic name-calling’ and attended more to those portions which do engage on the issues. When people focus more on style than on substance, it doesn’t look like they’re interested in dialogue.
Darwin didn’t “settle” anything. He set off a chain reaction of research and hypothesis and prediction and experiment and more research again that hasn’t stopped yet, in 150 years.
But seriously, you guys would be taken seriously
Project much?
if you were able to engage in dialogue (you know, the way most adults do)
That is not a rock, it is a hoof. The horse, it is too high for you.
rather than resort to vitriolic name-calling when people question your “Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it” screeds.
While I agree with the return letter, I disagree with the philosophy that scientists should be “above” debating creationists. It is the staunch superiority complex that makes it so easy for billions of people to disregard scientific proof of evolution. Because the nation’s parents believe in God, science classrooms are under attack. The opinion of the masses is paramount in the furthering of technology and science itself. How long was the flat earth believed until it was finally taken as evidence? We have to prove science to people, not just write proofs. This is why Bill Nye and Dawkins are very helpful to our cause, and this particular Atheist is only making it easier for religion to keep doing its thing.
You know, creationists would be taken even slightly seriously if they realised that evolution is not the origin of species being regarded as dogma. There’s 150 years of empirical evidence gathered, and many modifications to the original theory to get what we call today modern evolutionary theory. Genetics has been fused with natural selection, genetic drift has been seen as a force, far more is understood about gene flow, and recently there’s been the addition of horizontal gene transfer to what is otherwise a process of vertical flow.
Evolution updates and adapts as per the evidence, so to say Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it” is being incredibly dishonest and misrepresentative of how science works and how evolution is understood. This is why people are calling you and others dishonest gits, it’s because you lie and lie and lie in order to keep up your feigned persecution complex. Get an education you moron!
Don’t you think that it’s the opposite, that the creationists have shown nothing but contempt and are not above lying, that to debate them would be to validate their deceptive tactics? While it would be nice to live in an ideal world where people were open, honest, and strived for factual accuracy, how often has this happened in public debates between scientists and creationists?
Brandon, I see where you are coming from… but this is why.
As has been explained to you and many many others, you wouldn’t get the vitriol, mocking, or insults if you ditched the see-through concern trolling and instead showed up with a jigger of humility, a dram of honest curiosity and dollop of understanding of science and the subject of evolution. Hell, even without those, if you just showed a willingness to learn when things are explained to you, or read when you’re pointed to a pertinent resource.
Act like a troll or a smarmy prat, you’re gonna get called one.
Christina @589
This argument indicates to me that you do not understand statistics.
The probability of being dealt a royal flush is very low, but if you deal the cards an infinite number of times, you will get one.
The statistical argument would only work if there was something particularly significant about the point in time when that protein formed. To put it another way: The formation of the first protein was inevitable.
If the Earth were in some special spot, like the centre of the universe, you might have a point. As it is, see above.
It appears Gotelli cannot handle differing opinions without blowing a gasket. The truth is that for all that we have learned through science, and have yet to discover through science, the odds of certain conditions ‘just happening’ are mindbogglingly remote.
Professor Gotelli’s response above is completely rude and disrespectful. He is obviously feeling threatened by not really being able to answer the intelligent design arguments. Instead, Gotelli resorts to name calling and insults, which diminishes his position.
On the other hand, David Klinghoffer’s request was polite and respectful of different opinions. Hopefully he’ll find a more confident scientist who is willing to debate on the merits of what science has not been able to explain.
So much fail in such a short space. IDiot after IDiot coming on here, spouting the same refuted nonsense and each time trying to claim the moral highground. “Why oh why won’t those big bad evolutionists debate us?” Maybe it’s because you won’t do any science to validate your assertions, it’s because the conclusion was already drawn before any research was done, and despite all points of ID being refuted by biologists, the same evangelising continues.
If they show some intellectual honesty and humility in the face of the unknown, then maybe people will show some respect to them. Instead acting polite while systematically undermining the scientific process through lies and public evangelising of untested unscientific ideas is not going to get them anywhere.
The truth is that for all that we have learned through science, and have yet to discover through science, the odds of certain conditions ‘just happening’ are mindbogglingly remote
I agree! It didn’t just happen.
fred:
All intelligent design “arguments” HAVE been answered. TalkOrigins is your friend.
Klinghoffer’s request was NOT polite. Scroll up.
the odds of certain conditions ‘just happening’ are mindbogglingly remote.
You can take your argument from ignorance and kindly shove it where mushrooms grow. Listen very carefully: nature does not play craps, it plays Yahtzee.
Dr Gotelli doesn’t want to discuss flat-earth either.
He clearly is afraid of the things that science can’t explain…
(my god ID people are stupid)
It’s all too improbable, therefore an infinitely improbable being must have done it…
Brandon St. Germain #655 wrote:
Dawkins does not debate creationists either — he’s been quite clear about that, and his reasons are similar to those of Prof. Gotelli. As for Bill Nye, I’ve never heard that he’s debated any creationists.
There are other ways to promote science — and evolution — than through public debates which appear to make it appear that there is a scientific debate.
Also he doesn’t want to engage with holocaust deniers. OMG, the holocaust didn’t happen!
Posted by: Christina:
Have any of you looked at the Discovery Institutes website or read any of their books and articles?
———————–
Why did you COPY AND PASTE THE ENTIRE DIATRIBE???
Sheesh! Is this one of the “debating skills” you learned in school?
Anyway, I recently debated (and crushed) a member of the Discovery Institute, Karl Priest – check out the entire transcript of it here:http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins,page1#343559
Karl claimed all of his evidence for ID was in his website:http://ednews.org/articles/33215/1/DARWIN-IS-DEAD-Leave-Him-in-the-Grave/Page1.html.
I’ve stared at that page until my eyes hurt…can anybody else find any evidence on this page?
Fred @ #661:
Yes, it is disrespectful. Klinhoffer is a fraud, representing an organization created for no other reason than spreading lies. Why do you think a paid liar deserves respect?
Fred the failed mind reader:
Oh, now I see why you think a paid liar deserves respect. You’re a creationist moron. You fell for the Dishonesty Institute’s propaganda.
Here’s a news flash for you: there are no “intelligent design” arguments. “Intelligent design” is just a pile of recycled creationist garbage, long-debunked attacks on evolution. cdesign proponentsists don’t even try to make an argument in favor of their own claims, because they know they’ll lose. They don’t offer the slightest speck of evidence for this “designer”, because they don’t have any. They don’t say what this “Designer” did, or when, or how, or why, because they have no answers to those questions that won’t expose them as either religious nuts trying to steal legitimacy from science or utterly vacuous empty-headed fools.
The only “argument” cdesign proponentsists have is the Gish Gallop. That’s a technique that involves constant lying without shame or pause. It’s throwing up so much dishonest bullshit that it would take days to refute it all, then piling more on. It’s spewing out-of-context quotes, misinterpreted results, and outright falsehoods while making sure honest people don’t have the time or resources to counter it all, and doing all that dishonest fuckery in front of an audience who don’t know any better. It’s a trick to bilk the gullible. It’s fraud. That’s all ID is, pure, shameless fraud.
Fred the creationist moron:
It’s not polite to lie. No matter how you try to dress up lies in pretty language, they’re still lies. You can’t polish a turd. The shit shines through. And shit is all ID has.
Fred the sideshow freak:
I’ve said it before: you don’t want a debate. You want a sideshow. You want to get up on stage and play “stump the scientist”. And an honest scientist is at a disadvantage, because he’s limited to the facts, while you bastards make shit up at every opportunity.
If Klinghoffer really wanted a debate, he could get it at scientific conferences or in the peer-reviewed scientific publications. But he won’t dare go there. He’ll flee in terror, because he knows an educated, prepared audience will recognize his bullshit for what it is. He knows if he dares write down the kind of shit he wants to spew before a live audience, countless scientists with expertise in the relevant field will look at it, see that it’s bullshit, and say so, openly, for all the world to see. Klinghoffer could get the debate he claims to want, but he won’t even try. Because he knows he’d lose. As every cdesign proponentsist before him has lost.
See comment #280 for clickable links to those sites.
How coincidental(?) that 2 days after I crushed Karl Priest, and he fled from the NPR forums, NPR goes and gives implied credibility to one of Karl’s “peers” at the Discovery Institute:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyComments.php?storyId=100867217
“. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” DNA
You’re a puddle, fred. The hole was not made for you. Deal with it, just like all us other puddles have to.
Yes, we’re incredibly fortunate to be here. All the more reason to enjoy this life, to grab the opportunity to investigate and learn what we can of our surroundings in order to aid ourselves and future generations. As Richard Dawkins said: “We’re all going to die. That makes us the lucky ones.” No time to waste on pseudoscience and wishful thinking.
I hate to nitpick, but actually it appears that one can polish a turd. Well, a non-metaphorical one. Naturally, it’s the Mythbusters that did it.
Ragutis: that was my entire point with:
Puddle. Adams. Google. Idiot.
Whoopsie. Missed that, sorry. Great minds, eh? ;)
Anyways, it could be repeated another 100 times and they still wouldn’t get it.
Well, another post that’s hundreds of responses in and we have creobots acting like their usual entitled selves and not doing the very thing they are blaming everyone else for not doing. Textbook projection. But, this is to be expected of a group of people who spend hours a week claiming they are ingesting the body of the savior they’ve never met and offloading their mental problems onto conceptualized air with a name. I must say I’m surprised this thread hasn’t devolved into the typical creobot place, that is blaming atheists for every ill that one man has ever committed upon another, and perhaps for even corrupting the devil “himself”.
I would say my favorite form of creobot is the one that thinks he’s bucking the “darwinist” trend and being hip by trying to laugh “evolutionists” into shame. This type of creobot is especially funny, since they believe the mustiest, non-intellectual crap, and are perfectly content to eat it up like good little followers. My guess is many of them where t-shirts that say things like “God rocks!” and “Jesus is my co-pilot”. Who wouldn’t want an all-powerful fairy being having their back against the “evil atheist hoardes”?
What about anyone else? What’s your favorite kind of creobot?
I typo’d my own nick! Beat that, suckers!
*headdesk*
Jesus Haploid Christ on a stick! Has PZ Myers been experimenting with troll pheromones? What if they form a lek? Then they might start mating.Ugh (shudder)
Ragutis: for the record, I didn’t even notice until you corrected yourself.
But when you did… spit-take of the day.
Anyhoo… where did all our dedicated ID minions go?
Tresmal:
Then they might start mating
What else are they going to do? Morons mating has been, is and will be an ongoing problem unless we intervene.
No, not on the mating part — the moron part.
“lies are for the weak”
My friend, I am the lone individual in my educational institution (and in my circle of acquaintances) who articulates a belief in the Triune God. I am also the lone individual to speak up in defense of His Word, to speak out against the abhorrent practice of abortion, and to support the defense of the defenseless around the word (regardless of how unpopular doing so may be). And no, I do not have a circle of like-minded friends to whom I turn after these things happen.
Am I weak?
These convictions, dear to me as anything in this world, are dismissed as lies.
But I have given up many advances in my career rather than betray them. I have been shamed and laughed at more than you with your (currently) popular beliefs will ever know.
To call religion (particularly Christianity, with its current bull’s-eye status) an opiate is an exercise in absurdity. Few things in this life have caused me as much pain as my confessions of my Lord and Savior.
Here I stand. In the face of all human “wisdom and knowledge”. In the face of such contempt and rejection. Why?
Not because I am so strong in faith. (Hardly! I am daily ashamed at my weaknesses and shortcomings!) No- because of what He did for me on the cross at Calvary. Knowing of such abiding, perfect love and sacrifice, how can I do otherwise?
We’ll all answer to Him someday. That is Truth.
Kelly asked-
Yes.
Judging by your post here, it’s because you’re a pretentious egotistical twit who enjoys drive-by grandstanding on someone else’s blog. Do you have any serious questions, or just more empty bloviations?
Very refreshing.
Kelly, do you live in the U.S.A.?
To all those believers who reject evolution –
If all the evidence points to evolution, what does that say abut God? Does it say that God has deliberately deceived us by making it look like evolution happened, or does it tell us that God worked through evolution in order to create us? I’m really curious, because when so many lines of evidence all point to life evolving over time, when the size and age of the universe are huge, it brings theological implications of either a deceptive God or a God who works through nature.
Personally I have this problem, what with me being an atheist and all. But surely for those creationists here there must be something troubling about the idea of a pranskter god making all evidence look as though it evolved.
Gee,that Kelly is the real deal…
The lunacy,it is amazing.Got to love the human brain.
“We’ll all answer to Him someday. That is Truth. ”
You kinda just undercut your whole martyr act with the appeal to the eventual vengeance of the Cosmic Bully.
Posted by: Kelly
I have been shamed and laughed at more than you with your (currently) popular beliefs will ever know.
————————–
And what beliefs would those be? If you have some meaningful insight, great! But if you are attempting to label evolutionary biology as a “belief”, then you have just called yourself weak: “lies are for the weak”
@Kelly
Quit the martyr complex.
Kelly, I don’t think you’re weak. I was a Christian for a long time myself. But I do think you’re wrong, and I’d like, respectfully, to explain why. I doubt I’ll change your mind, but I think constructive dialogue is valuable nonetheless.
The reason I left Christianity is, ultimately, the fact that it makes extraordinary claims without supporting them with any evidence. Christians, of course, believe that Jesus of Nazareth – a named figure living in historical times – was a divine being who performed many miracles and was physically resurrected from the dead. But all the evidence which it provides for this is a small number of anonymous texts of uncertain date and provenance, which contradict one another in places. There is no external corroboration (except Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum, which is generally thought to have been interpolated by later Christian scribes).
Of course, faith is all about believing things without evidence; that, in itself, is fair enough. But this raises a fundamental epistemic difficulty: where do we draw the line? How do we know which religious claims are right and which are wrong, if none of them are supported by evidence? How do we know that Jesus was the Son of God, but Mohammed was not a prophet? Or that Joseph Smith did not receive the Book of Mormon on gold plates from the Angel Moroni? Or that the Native American spirit gods are not real? Many of these beliefs are supported by purported eyewitness accounts, just like Christianity. So, if one abandons the need for evidence, how does one distinguish between what is true and what is false?
I also think the Epicurean dilemma raises a problem for all those who believe in a creator God, and who ascribe to Him the attributes of omnipotence and benevolence. Fundamentally, the physical and natural world is a harsh place. Tennyson had it right when he talked of “nature red in tooth and claw”; most animals either starve to death, die of disease, or are eaten alive. Not to mention the many who die in natural disasters. Centuries ago, before the advent of modern civilisation, the same was true for human beings, and in parts of the world it still is: most women died in childbirth, many people died in infancy, horrific infectious diseases were widespread, and most people lived in grinding poverty just above the subsistence level. It is human technology and innovation, not divine intervention, that has lifted us out of this miserable condition.
If, then, God is both omnipotent and benevolent, why did He create a natural world in which there was so much inevitable suffering? When you sing “All things bright and beautiful”, you must also contemplate the fact that if you give God credit for all that is beautiful and good, you must also give Him credit for all that is putrid and foul, from tapeworm to the influenza virus. So if God is the creator, and He deliberately created all this suffering, how can we call Him benevolent? Conversely, if God was powerless to prevent all this suffering, how can we call Him omnipotent?
Liberal Christians will often assert that God “works through” evolution and other natural processes. They will also contend that “our hands are God’s hands”, so it is for us to “do the work of God” by making our Earth a better place. Such ideas are, of course, very difficult to disprove; but they beg the obvious question – what, then, is the difference between a world with a God who does not intervene and leaves us to our own devices, and a world with no God? And how can we know that we live in the former and not the latter?
Finally, I also take issue with the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and in particular with the Protestant tradition in which I was brought up. Why did Jesus need to “die for our sins”? If God is both omnipotent and merciful, He could have forgiven us without the need for a human sacrifice. If, conversely, God is bound by some sort of “fundamental law” requiring a blood sacrifice for sin, then surely He is not omnipotent? Christian teaching is simply not internally logically consistent.
I’m not trying to belittle or attack your religion, merely to explain (as concisely as possible) why I left the faith. Apologies for this long, rambling post.
Nice post, Walton.
Walton,
you DO surprise me sometimes !
Facts are stubborn things.
Is truth only true once it’s published?
Did publishing the discovery of DNA make it fact? Were people before that DNA free?
Did things fall up before the theory of gravity was established?
Willfully blind!
Brent,
you point being?
Nice post Walton, keep it up.
As for Brent – being published is no gauge of truth. Rather it’s a means of seeing if an idea has some promise in explaining what’s around. Anyone can have an opinion, and from that extension, most people’s opinion is wrong. By checking any concept against a list of accumulated knowledge, one is able to weed out any ideas that don’t pass the basic test. One could assert that the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth daily, yet it’s a position that isn’t supported by the basic facts and to engage it as if it were as valid as the current model of heliocentrism would be unrepresentative of the validity of both.
Walton:
The Bible is internally logically consistent. If you leave out one or two ingredients, however, then it would appear not to be so.
I’m real sorry! I’m just not going to take the time to argue it, so I guess you can take that as a win for yourself as you like. I’m just respectfully going to say: Check again.
AND, to append my post at #694:
Is truth only true once it is believed?
clinteas:
You should know since you just proved it beautifully.
Kel:
In keeping with your argument, then, has the I.D. “movement” grown or shrunk since its inception?
Can we then conclude that, since it has grown (it clearly has) that there must be merit to its ideas, hypotheses’, etc.?
Brent:
Not being published does not make a valid idea invalid.
But an idea not worthy of being published is invalid, incomplete, or otherwise inferior.
If ID was valid, and as obvious and well-supported as it’s believers claim, it should easily be able to withstand the scrutiny of the peer-review process.
It’s not the journals’ fault that ID isn’t and thus, doesn’t.
You want your idea to be considered scientifically valid? Well then you’re going to have to actually do some science and your methods and results will have to withstand scientific scrutiny. If you can’t play by those rules, try getting ID into philosophy or comparative religion classes and texts instead.
Scientists may all be evil, atheistic, immoral, baby-eating kitten-stompers, but they do have standards.
ID has grown like HIV grows in Africa,that doesnt mean that having AIDS has merits.
Dickhead.
Well there’s really been no scientific movement and the arguments have been suitably refuted and explained. So in terms of that, it’s shrunken as it’s one more idea that’s been thrown on the scrapheap.
The public movement for the idea has grown, but that hasn’t translated into any science. It’s been 13 years now since Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, yet the scientific ideas contained within still haven’t been pushed in academic circles.
So if you are asking that because it’s popular among people who have no idea about how science works whether it has merit – my answer is no. Just as the number of people who believe in aliens making crop circles make the claim any more true. Argumentum ad populum, and what not. In terms of the science behind it, all concepts thrown forward have been long since refuted by people actually doing science. Check out talkorigins.org if you have any specific claim you want checked out.
As I said many posts above, for ID to have validity it needs to answer two questions: just what role did the designer play in nature, and how do we detect that? If you can answer those, then the idea might have some merit. Until such time, the concept is nebulous at best, and a disingenuous re-branding of creationism at worst. If you want to show that ID has validity, the nature of the claim means that you have to show the designers’ hand. Otherwise, pick up a copy of The Blind Watchmaker, written before the term Intelligent Design was even used, and see just how we can distinguish between design and apparent design.
Brent #698
“Grown” as in very well credentialed scientists who see the clear superiority of I.D. to explain the phenomena that we see.
And, how or to what degree a designer acted in the history of nature has absolutely no bearing on whether there is a designer, and, therefore, neither upon one’s ability to make scientifically accurate conclusions that a designer indeed acted upon nature.
One step at a time. Though I’ll note the irony that evolutionists like to have their cake and eat it too, as they quickly balk when challenged, and claim that evolution need not address OOL; “It’s out of the scope of evolution.” But, WE must give details about the designer. Lovely.
If you truly want the details of the designer, however, pick up a Bible; though that is my personal answer, and not what I.D. says, certainly.
It matters entirely, for without answering the concept of intelligent design is useless. If you don’t know what the designer does, then how can you test it?
People here aren’t saying that there isn’t a designer, there’s just no reason to think there is or to determine there is. It’s not that we are saying there is no designer, it’s saying there is no evidence to support a designer.
My copy of the Koran says you’re going to hell for using the bible!
All three of them? Actually it isn’t three, Dembski is a mathematician and Luskin is a lawyer.
Why do the creationists continue to prove they’re complete fucking idiots? Look, fucking idiot, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers giving evidence for evolution. Show us the evidence for your creationism. Can’t do it, can you? But you have the gall to whine about being asked to produce this evidence. You are a fucking idiot.
Then how can you say if we truly want the details then, if it’s just your opinion?
But okay, let’s say, for sake of argument, that your opinion jives with the ID movement’s opinion (letting that one hang there untouched…), and the ID movement is trying to assert that it’s pushing a scientific theory. Let’s say that the “design” is real rather than apparent and that we postulate the God of the Bible as the designer. If we accept all of that, one of the very the next questions we’re gong to need to ask (if this is to be treated as science) is:
How do we falsify God?
Brent, falsify the Flying Spaghetti Monster without using the Bible. Then show how your god can’t be falsified (again, the Bible doesn’t count as evidence).
In keeping with your argument, then, has the I.D. “movement” grown or shrunk since its inception?
Can we then conclude that, since it has grown (it clearly has) that there must be merit to its ideas, hypotheses’, etc.?
In keeping with your argument, then, has the Scientology “movement” grown or shrunk since its inception?
Can we then conclude that, since it has grown (it clearly has) that there must be merit to its ideas, hypotheses, etc.? (All hail Xenu!)
The problem here is quite simple Brent. Science has continued it’s observation of the natural world for the last 150 years and in that time collected mountains of evidence. We’ve seen mutation, adaptation through selection, and speciation – all the mechanisms needed for evolutionary theory to account for the diversity we see in nature. Through evolutionary means, not only can we show apparent design, but we can use the same principles in engineering in order to optimise systems. It’s important to understand that not only can evolution explain life on earth, we know the mechanisms under which in operates!
So the mechanism of intelligent design is the only thing that could distinguish it from evolution. Otherwise saying there was a designer involved is an unnecessary hypothesis. If you want to believe that god worked through nature, then that’s perfectly in your right. But without testing that idea, without proposing how such an event occurred – such a proposal is not science!
The notion that this obvious, predictable, and by-the-numbers response is some kind of smackdown from which Klinghoffer will be licking his wounds is ridiculous. The self-satisfied condescension in Gotelli’s letter and in the subsequent comments here is no badge of honor. Smugness sucks, even if you’re right. These hand-waving dismissals do nothing for those of us watching this debate from the sidelines who suspect that the Darwinian mechanism if not quite impotent, is nearly so. “Brilliant”? “Pwned”? Please.
Nathan,
Your concern is noted. Now please crawl back under the rock.
Nathan, your little ignorant diatribe makes you look small and pitiful. There is an easy way to prevent that. If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say it. Otherwise, you show people your ignorance, like you did above.
If you have any evidence for ID/creationism show it. Otherwise, go away.
Peer review? Peer-review?
There isn’t anything in any peer-reviewed paper that would demonstrate any amount of mutational accumulation can account for the diversity of life on Earth.
Heck there isn’t anything in peer-review tat would demonstrate that the vision system could evolve from a population that never had one.
IOW there isn’t any science behind either premise.
All you have are speculations based on the assumption.
Evolution occurs. No one is debating that.
But just what can evolutionary processes do is being debated.
And until we know what dtermines an organisms final form, we will never know whether or not one form can “evolve” into another.
Now if you want to falsify ID all you really have to do is start supporting your position. But all you can really do is bluff your way through any discussion.
There is a good paper out that demonstrates how difficult it would be just to get a new binding site.
However with universal common descent not only are new binding sites required but so are new genes, which require promoters, repressors, enhancers and all the meta-information required to get those new genes into the existing combinatorial logic.
IOW science has all but refuted your position.
And all you have left is your shit-eating mouths to try to stem the rising tide.
So munch away and be prepared to get flushed away…
So, Joe didn’t read that Nature special issue on the evolution of visual systems, did he?
IIRC the “paper that demonstrated how difficult it would be just to get a new binding site” actually demonstrated that even if you make a bunch of really bad assumptions about how evolution works, you can still evolve binding sites.
Ho hum.
And that “one form evolving into another” line smacks of the old cats-into-dogs idiocy. The stupid is dense in this one.
JoeG, showing us the argument from stupidity. One paper won’t do it. But hundreds of thousand and probably millions of papers will do so. Go read the whole literature. Then come back if you are still alive. Until then, keep showing us your ignorance with rants like that.
So, in other words, for you to consider evolution credible you would require scientists to provide you with a detailed roadmap of which mutations happened when, for all the history of life on earth, with evidence for each individual event.
Whereas to consider ID credible you simply require all of the above evidence to have not yet been compiled.
Is that what you consider science? Is that what you consider intellectual honesty?
I propose a fairer test. We have observed several new species arising from natural evolution. For ID to stand on the same footing you should show us at least a few new life forms being supernaturally created.
Staggering ignorance, Joe G.
If you don’t know something, it is a fallacy to believe that it is not known. This is an argument from your ignorance, which I’m sure you will be secretly happy to know, does not constrain the universe.
It’s lucky for all of us, I think, that just because science has not proved to your satisfaction that electrons exist, they still flow, still participate in bonding, still wend their merry way through the warp and weft of matter.
The evidence for common descent is demonstrable on every level of organisation of organisms. DNA shows it irrefutably.
But alas, our understanding it to be held up because for some reason your personal conviction is required for the universe to obey its laws. I suppose that had you been young enough, you would have watched fascinated as apples stayed suspended in mid-air as the resolution of the Newton-Einstein dilemma was resolved to your high standard of proof.
What crap, how smug and (easily) satisfied you are with the standard of your own philosophy – oh, and is that Jesus I see peeping over your shoulder? Thought so. Poor old Jesus is getting a bit of a hammering at the moment, what with being the patron saint of Christian Stupidity.
But let’s not blame him, it’s your own personal fault.
You’re a moron. What makes you thing that the argument from your own stupidity will make any difference to a supremely practical discipline like science?
It won’t. Get up to speed, find out the difference between fact, theory, and unsubstantiated hypothesis, and educate yourself. It really isn’t too late to make yourself slightly less stupid. Alas, I fear that experience teaches me that in practical terms it’s an opportunity you just won’t take.
RD (#405):
Social Text was a postmodernist humanities journal, not a science journal, and one which Sokal considered (apparently correctly) to have low editorial standards. An expose of a failure of proper peer review in one small field (an off-shoot of literary and social studies) tells us nothing about how peer review is conducted in a completely different discipline (science). You might as well argue that because nonsense sometimes get published in theological journals, then everything in the mathematical literature is suspect.
And contrary to your claim in #419 that “the journal ran articles about science”, the journal did not publish scientific papers. It published papers in the field of social studies, some of which either touched on the sociology of science, or which misused scientific terminology to make themselves sound more impressive.
If you’re going to cut and paste directly from Wikipedia, then you should quote your source. See? There’s a little peer review for you.
Singer’s a philosopher who publishes in the philosophical literature rather than the scientific. He does not publish as a scientist, and only an idiot would cite him as if he did. In any case, your “exhibit” fails to show any problem with academic peer review, since while you may not like Singer’s conclusions (which you predictably misrepresent), that does not mean that they are not cogently argued and worthy of publication.
Ahhh yes, and we’re supposed to be impressed by those who are watching from the sidelines, throwing out pithy little remarks that demonstrate that they likely don’t really understand what the “Darwinian mechanism” actually does anyway? Are you restricting your suspicions to the ToE, or do you also suspect that the cell is not the basic structural unit of living things? Are you concerned that the Theory of Plate Tectonics doesn’t really explain why sediments crumple at the proximal margins of deep ocean trenches? Are you concerned that there might not really be electrons within atoms, even though electrons are consistent with modern Atomic Theory? If you’re not also concerned about these other theories, then I have to wonder what basis you have to be “suspicious” about the ToE. If you’re only suspicious about evolution, and not other equally or less well understood theories, then you’ve just demonstrated such a poor understanding of science that I have to wonder why I’m supposed to care what your opinion is. You might see that as a hand-waving dismissal or as me being obnoxious, but I do this shit for a living and couldn’t really care less about the “suspicions” of people on the sidelines who don’t seem to know what the heck they’re talking about. You might tell your mason that you have a better recipe for mortar than the one she’s using to build your chimney, but I wouldn’t except her to care much unless you showed her how your mortar worked better than hers. And I certainly wouldn’t think she’s gonna care much if you tell her that her recipe for mortar doesn’t work when she spends her days using that recipe to lay brick.
The only debate about ID is the one regarding education. All we care about is whether or not IDiots get to lie to school children. I stand on the side that would prefer that they do not.
That’s evolution’s stand. Are you in good hands?
subrosa7 (#581):
In your imagination, perhaps.
The only idea of Darwin’s that Mendel’s work refuted was the idea of blending heredity – and if Darwin had known this he would probably have been very relieved, since he was having enormous problems reconciling blending heredity with natural selection. As it was, it eventually turned out that the mechanism of Mendelian genetics fitted with Darwin’s theory much, much better than Darwin’s own mechanism ever did.
So when you say “refuted”, what you actually mean is “provided invaluable support for”.
The central conceit of the evolution deniers is to think that personal belief is somehow important in the history of the universe. It isn’t. It wasn’t personal belief that made Darwin (mostly) correct, nor the acceptance of his ideas in scientific and much wider circles – it was ideas, experiment, evidence and outstanding success that makes all of biology accept evolution as fact and theory.
If there are bits of the theory you don’t understand, then please ask – there are many people here who will explain your difficulties – or even say “we don’t know.”
But don’t be hoodwinked by the illusion of your personal belief, or lack of it.
Joe G: after you take your meds, could you make your point if you have one?
Walton: bravo.
“My friend, I am the lone individual in my educational institution (and in my circle of acquaintances) who articulates a belief in the Triune God. I am also the lone individual to speak up in defense of His Word, to speak out against the abhorrent practice of abortion, and to support the defense of the defenseless around the word (regardless of how unpopular doing so may be). And no, I do not have a circle of like-minded friends to whom I turn after these things happen…”
Somehow I doubt it. You’ve found and been employed by the only near total atheist workforce in the world? Lone individual to “speak in defense of His Word”? Why doesn’t your god stand up for himself? Why does he, apparently, slough off the scorn for him to his followers? As for the “abhorrent practice of abortion”, that is your opinion, but the fact is that the countries in which women do not have rights to control their own birthing tracks are also the most oppressive in the world for them to live. I wonder why that is. And you “support the defense of the defenseless”, apparently under the assumption that atheists do not do the same, and are nothing but black hearts with cruel intentions. “(regardless of how unpopular doing so may be).” Cue one of the worst aspects of Christian culture: The ill-deserved persecution complex.
“…Am I weak?…”
I don’t think anoyone here is calling you weak for supporting certain good things, although we would take issue quite strongly on the abortion issue. The “lies” charge is in reference to the creationist/ID rejection of truth and knowledge, not your specific person. Do try and keep up.
“…These convictions, dear to me as anything in this world, are dismissed as lies.
But I have given up many advances in my career rather than betray them. I have been shamed and laughed at more than you with your (currently) popular beliefs will ever know…”
Well, since you apaprently have decided to maintain employment at this myhtical totally atheist (save you) “educational institution” where they mock you in your position and force you to give up “advances” in your career, it seems to me your plight was created by you. But please, stop making us laugh. You have received more ridicule than we will ever know? Atheists are (unsubstantially) reviled the world over by basically every religious organization big and small. Further, your own religion has made a point of using any means it could over centuries, perhaps longer, to beat back atheism, al,l while making people like you think there is a grand evil force out there designed solely for making little cross-carriers out of all of you. Spare us the martyr routing, we’ve seen it before and it gets no quarter because it’s self-righteous garbage. You do not deserve any more or less scorn than any other human being that voices dumb ideas, regardless of religion, sex, race, or orientation. We are equal opportunity shamers around here.
“…To call religion (particularly Christianity, with its current bull’s-eye status) an opiate is an exercise in absurdity. Few things in this life have caused me as much pain as my confessions of my Lord and Savior.
Here I stand. In the face of all human “wisdom and knowledge”. In the face of such contempt and rejection. Why?
Not because I am so strong in faith. (Hardly! I am daily ashamed at my weaknesses and shortcomings!) No- because of what He did for me on the cross at Calvary. Knowing of such abiding, perfect love and sacrifice, how can I do otherwise?…”
Ah the persecution complex continues. “…particularly Christianity, with its current bull’s-eye status…” Please stop. You are being absurd, and propagating, frankly, one of the biggest lies of modern political culture. Oh you Christians are just SOO beaten upon. Yet you are, as your leaders falsely claim, “96%” (more in the 70 range) of the Us population. How scorned you are all you hundreds of millions. Each one of you carrying that cross of shame every day. It must be tough. Why, how could even an atheist like me NOT relate? You people are unbelievable. Are you so blind as to miss the absurdity in the Christian persecution complex? I’m surely not, having once been Catholic. I know exactly where it comes from, and I know exactly how it is stoked in children. It’s a damnable part of the doctrine intended to put members of your tribe above everyone else. And in that sense iot makes you guys like Muslims, always going on about being martyrs for Jesus. Everyone’s a martyr so they can get their 15 minutes of glory when their eyes blink their last.
The human “wisdom and knowledge” that you are obviously chiding is the very thing that likely helps get you through your day in many ways. But I would hope that you would keep your word and stay true to your convictions by rejecting all the things that human “wisdom and knowledge” have created and provided for you. Thus, should I ever meet you in your domicile, I should be able to expect that it is comprised of a hole in a cliff wall somewhere, that you walk to work clothed in but sheets of the roughest-textured material you wove yourself, herd sheep on the way home, and given sermons upon decently sizable rocks to similarly behaving individuals that are part of your religion. Of course that would mean you are a member of a modern kibbutz, and well, you guys just can’t have that communistic-type stuff. So you are probably one of those that professes to practice at a moral standard well above everyone else, but probably shops at Wal-Mart, where they treat workers like crap, and buy stuff from China where sweatshops can still be found and animals are tortured before slaughter.
All that human “wisdom and knowledge” has provided you with everything good you have today. Not some deity who takes credit for it in a book still unofficially translated and written nearly two millenia ago that is still not complete, and is frankly a mish-mash of unintelligible stories. Great reading perhaps, but poor fodder for running your life.
“…We’ll all answer to Him someday. That is Truth.”
No, my friend, we won’t, because there is no truth in a being so petty, malicious, and prone to offense that the simplest things earn his greatest ire.
You know, though I often complain about the low standard of the creationist/religious posts on here, I can see why. The replies, while frequently abusive, are also insightful. If I were a proseletizing christian I certainly wouldn’t come here, unless it were to watch others floundering in a swamp way outside the narrow confines of their comfort zone.
Because they aren’t interested in what other people think, far less any transcendental truth, they always seem to learn nothing, and run off when they and their stupid ideas have been trashed, complaining of offence.
What a shame they don’t spend more time learning what scientists actually do think! Instead, they come here spouting their ignorance and take the insults as christ did his insults – confirmation of their rectitude.
Aaaah, geee…Mr. Myers (and bloggers)…718 posts and (I did not read everyone but I have spent 27 minutes glancing and reading over some) I sort of feel like I just got off the third-grade playground of U Bashem Grade School.
HERE IS THE FORM FOR THIS LETTER: first I bash too, then I’ll do something different…I’ll play the adult; really! And if you can’t take your own medicine then skip the next three paragraphs…and begin where I start “Mr Myers:”)
Have any of you watched a debate or discussion where both parties just nip away at the subject because both of the parties know that they are really in the same ‘boat’? They are both even toned, don’t make it personal, help each other out, and work at a solution with the idea of reaching the best common result (in that boat ‘picture’ that would be keeping it afloat).
I totally understand that all of you are against any discussion or that anyone else should be allowed to think or voice their opinion that a god might be the end result. Oh and ‘god’ forbid (Ouch I used the “G” word) someone should ask to talk about it with ‘smart’(assed) professors and hateful self-centered prideful folks in Vermont! Oops, now I’ve been classified, right?!! Well, wait a minute…you bashed away for 718 posts…does that mean that I can not bash the bashers? Is this just a good-old-boys redneck bar…hangout? Look (you ‘upper-class’ Vermonters (?)) , I’m in this thing called life too…just like you, I did not ask to be here and I will most likely not ask to go and as age (entropy) drains my ability to keep my ‘seed’ case (earthsuit) functioning I’ll probably whine in pain also when I go…JUST LIKE YOU! Why then would anyone be your enemy (and your mouth and pride be ready) and target for, your bashing, name calling, bulling, and condescending prejudicial tripe. Are any of you guys white…or black? Then there must be something wrong with you…your color is off (inferior) just like the words that ooze from your mouths! You said the “G” word!! Ohh my just come and lynch me then…in this free country in which I served 23 years in a uniform for you children! Had I known then what I know I would not have done that!
718 posts! Not one that I glanced over could entertain a question that might bring the creationist to the ‘table’ and allow them to converse…all because there were no adults present to break up the food fight. I’m sure I’m wasting my time here…huh?!
Mr. Myers: may I offer a way to entertain those other ‘types’ from a non-prejudicial approach?
The ultimate questions is not whether there is a God because no one who does believe (at least most) is going to come into the conversation and not bring up that Campfire Myth book that all you other ‘types’ laugh at. OK?! So we’ll remove your uncomfortable ‘feelings’ It is not about God, rather it is about…
Why is there something rather than nothing? Why isn’t the default condition just…zero, zip, not-ta, nill, no-thing? In fact, we should not even be having this conversation… further we should not be able to think in this manner. To ignore that there is design in the universe would be ignorant—there is design; take any formula from Planks constant to E-MC2; to the gravitational mass formula even the water cycle or even things like the Chandrasekhar limit for determination to cause an ‘orb’ to go nuclear. There is something really ODD going on in this whole thing called life! If you do not see that…then why do science and investigate ANYTHING!? ‘Existence’ done randomly should be done in a chaotic manner; it should have no ‘right’ to be orderly and predictable and repeatable and testable…there should be no ability to be ‘scientific’! The second Law of Thermodynamics basically says (in a closed system) that entropy will increase—that is things cool down and the energy potential difference between ‘items/places’ will level out. When everything is the same in its energy potential then nothing (there’s that word again) will change. Nothing will become new; nothing will get old…that is called the Heat Death of the universe. Aaaah, you Vermonters do know this stuff…right? Well, then where in life is there anything where the entropy is not above complete heat death? (we’re at 2.72 degrees Kelvin now) Let me make an example. If your cup of coffee cools down then in order to bring it back up to a nice temperature one must DO something(s). Usually this involves time, space matter, and energy (time in the microwave, you moving in space to get the cup into the microwave, the matter is the electricity that was produced by some COAL plant or however your power is generated, and the energy is that force transferred to the cup). Sometimes all these seem to blend together but…if you have a car or house (up there)…then keeping it(them) up and in good order and repair is all too obvious an issue! And that is an example of your desire to put a higher energy potential into the object (car/house) so that its entropy is low (its chaotic state is low…meaning its ordered potential is high). SO if there is order in the universe how/who put it there? We know that the universe began (WMAP, COBE etc) and we know it has/had order in it. We also know that there is an order deep down into the cell by powers of ten just as there is order when looking out into the universe by many more powers of ten. I could go on…but I won’t…you do it!
All of the above speak in manner from out of that big bad book you all just WILL NOT entertain…! Now there is the arrogance! If you want to really talk with ID folks (not literally beleiveing creationists that think that the word is only 6,000 years old) then come down of your stubborn horse and see if there is anything in that ‘book’ that just might HELP instead of being third-graders!!
Come on Vermont…you can do it!
Ohhh, BTW…I am in New England, and Yes I believe that God is real (well, as real as our limited four dimensions can reveal) but ‘seeing’ as how there are upwards of ten dimensions; why would I presume that I can just go see Him? One thing is sure. If God is real and one chooses to seek this out with open mind and soft heart and curiosity bent toward that possibility and away from pride and self-centeredness then…He will let you know. The only thing we have here when we come (born) into life is time…it is your responsibility what you do with it (being always in the world and of the world will not let you know God…One needs to be in the world but NOT of the world…be a foreigner to it). If I am wrong then I’ve lost nothing for none of us are going to bash this about later…for in nothing, nothing can be, and that goes for conversations about how I was wrong so that your pride can be elevated (there is no up…in no-where-land…there then would be… ‘nothing’; in-spite of the contradiction that there can not ‘be’ a be in nothing. A no-thing can not be a be! Only a something can be), but if I am right then you’ve lost eternity. Oh? You do not understand eternity? Have you ever spent an hour in a dentists chair waiting for the root canal to be over and it seemed like a weekend? Yet…you can be on a weekend (having a great time) and have it seem like an hour. What if time is just that relative to your perception and relationships with others (to include that inner self that makes you, you and not me)? What if in Heaven with God you would be so excited and happy that time goes so fast it is no longer perceptible—doesn’t exist! Gerald Schroeder mentioned that a photon of light takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth (well, maybe if you live in Vermont one never sees the ‘light’ …tee hee, sorry, I’m still not perfect!) but if you WERE the photon because you’d be traveling at the speed of light there would be no time! Hey, I could dig being light! I’ve shown on you all here, haven’t I? BTW: the default condition is that there has always been something there never has been nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. You can not have a nothing hole in a pieace of paper unless there is something around it (paper around the hole cut into the paper) and you can not dig a hole in the dirt unless there is dirt on its borders to define the hole. God is the something that defines everything in the universe and Dark Matter is just the beginning to understanding that when all this is over and time ceases and eternity remains that THEN we are going to be REALLY SURPRISED!
We are all humans…it is not about monkeys…and we are all going to die…we are all going to graduate life through death and come out the other side…maybe as light (or the lack of light; as darkness)! It is your choice your free will your responsibility but if you REALLY believe that all you’re here for is to buy a Lexus and screw chicks to bolster your gene pool then…go for it!
You’re here on this planet and in this life to serve Odin, GT. It’s our only purpose. If you’re not doing it devoutly, well then he’s gonna want to have a little chat with you when you die.
Joe G (#713):
We have a fairly good idea of what determines an organism’s final form – check out any of PZ’s posts on Hox genes for a start, and try reading up on evo-devo.
As for one form evolving into another, you need to specify what you mean by “form”. We can observe speciation (in the field, in the lab and as recorded in the fossil record), and we have abundant independent lines of evidence for common descent. We know that populations can diverge genetically and morphologically from a single parent stock. But unless you can be more specific about what degree of morphological difference constitutes a difference in “form”, I’m not sure what it is that you think that we don’t know.
No, if we want to falsify ID, what we really have to do is determine what predictions ID makes (if any) and then test those predictions by observation and experiment. And lo and behold, ID turns out to make hardly any any testable predictions (in part because of the refusal to formally specify anything about the hypothesised designer) and when it does, those predictions turn out either to be false (e.g., Behe’s claims about the unevolvability of the blood-clotting cascade) or trivial (in that they are just as compatible with evolution, e.g., the fact that some “junk” DNA has a function).
Whether or not evolution is true has nothing to do with the merits of ID. It’s entirely possible for both to be false. The fact that you think that testing evolution is also a test of ID shows that you really don’t understand the way science works (or indeed basic logic).
Would you actually care to provide a link to this “good paper” of yours? A quick Google actually comes up with several papers and references that suggest that generating new protein binding sites by mutation and selection isn’t that difficult at all. See, for example, here, here and here.
Yes, and none of them reading the thread before adding to it. Take comments 661 and 710 as examples. Comes in, complains about how Gotelli is unfriendly, completely glosses over Klinghoffer’s dishonesty which Gotelli links to…
It is evil to comment on a thread without having read it first.
Why don’t you use autofill? Are you at work and can’t change the most elementary settings of your browser?
Naturally, all of this can be waved away by calling it an ineffable mystery.
Everything and its opposite can be waved away by calling it an ineffable mystery…
Wow. He consciously makes an argumentum ad populum. Incredible! I’ve never seen such stupidity before.
Well said!
Selection! Hello-o!
Do you notice what you just did? You showed you didn’t even know that it’s called “the theory of evolution by mutation, selection, and drift”. How much more basic can it get?
Google is your friend.
Why do so many creationists believe that all knowledge they’ve never heard of really doesn’t exist? Why?
Ever heard of gene duplication?
Nothing is ever really new in evolution.
Yawn GT, tl;dr. I just skimmed your dreck. A) We’ve seen it all before and we are not impressed. B) You believe in god. Gee whiz, who would have thunk it.
Science does not and will not acknowledge imaginary deities in its methods. So your belief in god is irrelevant to science. That will not change. You are required to supply physical evidence for your deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, before any consideration of god by science. There is no physical proof in your dreck above. Try an eternally burning bush.
Nerd, that’s between Lindsay Lohan and her Gyno, ‘kay?
TO #729
Hey there you four-winged fruit fly…you did not get to the center of it then…
“…Planks constant to E-MC2; to the gravitational mass formula even the water cycle or even things like the Chandrasekhar limit for determination t…”
I guess the light just don’t get that far up into Vermont…go hibernate at least then “yawning” has a purpose for you.
GT, more nonsense from a godbotter. Take your meds.
GT, if you’re going to post here, please accept the minimum standards for argumentation that hold sway here. Don’t just give us an incoherent rant. It makes you look stupid.
Although you “think” differently, evolution does not attempt to disprove “God”, not even the debased, uni-dimensional (though apparently triune) one you support. Don’t equate science with religion – it’s a common fallacy, but a fallacy for all that.
I’m not an atheist because of science or evolution, I’m an atheist for many, more conventional reasons (evil god, why yours and not any of others, religion a cultural artifact etc) but the reality of the universe we find isn’t an argument for why god doesn’t exist, only, possibly that he’s unnecessary. And if he’s your god, and tells you that evolution didn’t happen, then he makes you a fool.
But if you want to come here and post, please make what you say truer, more insightful, and yes – much more interesting.
Otherwise, there’s nothing more to say about you than that you’re an ill-educated fool, in way out of your depth.
I’ve ran into one of those creationist-debaters bullshit artists characters before.
I was able at least to get him to admit that it’s only oral debates that “evolutionists” don’t want. I did challenge him to a written debate with somone who wants to meet him, which he’s yet to respond to.
Mind you, he is a busy little boy.
E.V. for the win!
GT (#725):
The fact that natural phenomena exhibit predictable regularities does not entail design. In fact, unless you actually assume a background context of predictable regularity in which a designer can operate, it doesn’t even make sense to posit design as an explanation for anything in the first place.
Briefly, agency – and hence design – is only possible if intention, action and outcome can be reliably linked in a regular, predictable way. To put it another way, to be an agent is to be subject to a predictability that is ultimately independent of the will of the agent. You can’t “will” order and regularity into existence from scratch, because unless order and regularity are already facts of existence, there is no guarantee that your “willing” will have any effect at all, let alone the effect you intended. You would never be able to do anything intentionally, let alone design and create a universe. In fact, without some existing order and regularity, you would be unable to think or intend anything, since there would be no regular connection between your various mental states (and one could argue that it makes no sense to speak of mental states in this context, either, since there would be no way to identify a distinct subject of such states).
Consequently, if you claim that the orderliness and regularity of the universe is the result of the efforts of a designing deity, then you’re presupposing that orderliness and regularity are already facts of existence. Now, you can define this additional level of orderliness as being part of God’s nature, but one can just as easily claim that orderliness is part of the universe’s nature. And at least the orderliness of the universe is something we can study and analyse. In the end, your appeal to design is vacuous – you haven’t really explained anything at all.
Possibly because finding things out is a worthy end in its own right.
Actually, even if your “orderliness indicates design” argument were sound, it wouldn’t demonstrate that the designer in question corresponded even remotely to the god of the bible.
What is this obsession with Vermont? Does someone we know live there?
I have a question.
IDiots believe that life was created, presumably by god. god wanted his creation (people) to worship him like adoring little slaves, but he also wanted them to CHOOSE to do so. so he gave free will to people, and in keeping with free will, contrived to hide all evidence of his existence, so that free will would never be destroyed. Now this mighty all powerful, omnipotent being has hidden all evidence of his existence and his being the creator . . .yet IDiots are still looking for it.
Now does this not seem a bit, well, idiotic to everybody. (sorry my question mark key is broken). Surely your supposedly all powerful all knowing god would not be stupid enough to leave some tiny clue, forget to tie a loose end, not realise the significance of one small detail, that would prove his existance, and that he created everything.
So, what’s the point in looking, in fact sure;y, by the standard of the bibly thing, the very act of looking is blasphemy, and not only do you seek to prove gods existence, but you insult him by implying that he is not clever enough to hide the truth from you. . . . . . .mmmmmmmmmmm
Brent:
There is no analogy between questions about Origin of Life and questions about ID’s unnamed Designer.
In TOE, the “designer” is random mutation + natural selection (to oversimplify a little; there’s sexual selection, genetic drift, and so on). The comparison is between that and your Designer.
Biologists have tons of details, tested and refined over and over, about the nature of this designer and how it works. They continue to be added to and tested. There are details about how the different mechanisms interact; there are timelines for when a lot of this stuff has happened in the past. Moreover, there are fierce debates among scientists about all of these details, which lead to received wisdom on the subject being constantly challenged and revised.
ID provides none of these details, and no testable hypotheses that might provide answers, despite twenty or so years of the ID movement. Moreover, there is no visible debate about these details among ID leaders, despite their apparent opinions ranging from “the designer just tinkered at certain points in evolution” (Michael Behe) to outright denial of common descent and any change in species (such as in the Of Pandas and People textbook).
And even if Origin of Life were analogous to your unnamed Designer… scientists still provide far more in the way of testable hypotheses about OOL, so your point would still fail on that score.
GT #725 wrote:
I don’t know. Is it possible that creationism might be wrong? And, if it were wrong, what kinds of evidence or argument would persuade you that you were mistaken?
Unless both sides can give at least a provisional, tentative, or theoretical “yes” to the first question — and a clear, specific, honest response to the second — then dialogue isn’t possible. And no amount of gentle, respectful, pleasant vocabulary could change that.
There are at least two possible approaches to answering this without invoking the empty and anthro-centric response that there is something instead of nothing “because Somebody wanted it that way.”
The first is to argue that the concept of Absolute Nothing — zero, zip, nada, no matter, no energy, no time, no space, no extension, no dimensions, no pattern, no chaos, no existence to existence at all, of anything, in any form — is incoherent and self-refuting.
A second approach is to look at the question by calculating the odds. There are an infinite number of ways that “something” might exist — and there are an infinite number of “somethings” that might exist — and there are an infinite number of variations of those “somethings” which could possibly exist. But there is one, and only one, way for there to be absolutely positively Nothing At All.
Therefore, looked at from a neutral statistical standpoint, the odds of Something over Nothing are Infinity Infinity Infinity times Infinity to the Infinity power — to One. Contemplate that.
If this were your chances of winning a lottery, I would suggest you buy a ticket. Winning at that particular something-vs.-nothing game would not require a miracle. How much better odds do you need, before you agree to stop goggling in astonished amazement over ‘wow, look — there’s something!!!’ ?
GT: entropy? You come in here with that tripe?
Brent spewed:
That old “argumentum ad cakum” fallacy again.
If I, as an evolutionist, have cake, I do like to eat it. Indeed, for me as a Darwinian, in a sense, “having” cake is the same thing as eating it, though in a sexual sense I suppose I could make a distinction.
What is your point? Would leaving cake to moulder on my shelf and then throwing it away make me a better, or even a more thoughtful human being?
And what the fuck does this have to do with evolution?
I’m sorry, but the whole cake thing just makes me furious.
To imply that evolutionists are wasteful, or cruel with their children (and I still remember the incident in my childhood where because of bad behaviour those luscious scones sat forever uneaten on a high shelf – but that’s nothing to do with it ); that’s just going one step too far.
Fuck off and leave me alone, arsehole!
GT, please. Your tactic of tackling the struggle here indirectly, and using easily-decoded verbal sleight of hand to take a few jabs is obvious. The incessant pleading that humanity is not here simply to screw and amass material things, that something will judge us after we die…the fact that you think this is novel material we A) have never heard and dealt with before, and B) have never seen put more eloquently than you, is pretty ignorant on your part. Do you really expect to be the next proselytizer in line to sway us?
Secondly your obvious begging the question through taking an earth-based question, that has physical answers and data supporting it, into the usual place creationists go (when they are conquered handily here on Earth) is to go cosmic and flounce around all the dark energy, gases, and minerals while pointing smiteful finger back toward us puny human thinkers to tell us how little our brains our and that design is obvious. YAWN. You aren’t proving anything. Scientists have found a language to describe tangible things in reality. It doesn’t mean some amorphous yet infinitely intelligent being with power over all things (except it appears its ability to explain the origin of its own existence) has given us a small glimpse of its grand schemes and provided us the decoder to understand it. But I do note your back-handed attempt to grandfather different aspects of actual science into ID’s scope, thereby trying to take credit for things you nor any other ID supporter has ever had any positive impact in discovering or explaining. In fact, you guys so regularly try to assume control of that which isn’t yours (rather thievish, no?), that if we followed your pseudo-intellectual lead, ID would feasibly become so huge and all-encompassing as to become the very thing its followers insist it’s not: a religion. And another religion based on the premise that an all-powerful being or group of beings controls everything we say and do, everything down to the last atom, and that it’s pointless to try to discover it all because the all-powerful being has our backs…that is, if you tithe weekly.
Save the crap GT. We’ve heard it, we’ve researched it, we’ve destroyed it. You came, we saw, we laughed. And you guys still haven’t made a picometer’s worth of traction forward on your points, because they are not substantive, and are nothing more than a highly non-intellectual street game…you know, the kind played with three cups and a seedy character shifting them about.
Kel, your post at #686 is very similar to an argument I’ve used debating theists before.
What I said was the following.
“Assuming that all we believe about God is true, that He is divinely good and wants the best for us, which is more likely?
That God would give us senses to observe the world around us and free will and intelligence to interpret what we see as it makes sense, but would then fill the universe with evidence contrary to the truth of the bible and punish us for believing the evidence that He Himself has placed before us and given us the tools to observe…
OR that the writers of the bible, with the best of intentions, misinterpreted his work and put together stories that made sense with what they knew at the time? Wouldn’t it make more sense to base our beliefs on the actual WORKS of God that surrounds us as opposed to WORDS as interpreted and written then reinterpreted and rewritten by small, flawed, limited humans over and over again over the last 2000 years?
Belief in scientific ideas is not mutually exclusive to belief in God, only the literal word of the bible. Which even the most devout of theists have to admit has a lot of parts that don’t make sense in today’s world.”
Thus far I have not received any real answer to that question. I’m not a theist, and freely admit that my question is a straw-man argument. But I still think it is valid because I think that if it could be answered it would settle or at least calm many of the debates like this one, which almost inevitability break down into petty squabbles and name calling.
“In keeping with your argument, then, has the I.D. “movement” grown or shrunk since its inception? ”
Let’s take the long view. The inception of the “ID movement” was thousands of years ago when people started anthropomorphisizing natural processes. Even if we narrow it somewhat and start it at the beginning of monotheistic creator religion, then that puts it back about 6000 years. It grew for a while, but has been shrinking for quite some time too, as humans understand more and more of the natural processes that govern the interaction of matter. The modern ID movement is thus just a circling of the wagons around the few remaining gaps into which one can cram a god if one is so inclined.
It’s also an artifact of authoritarian humans trying to control thought and behavior, and in that respect, I also think it’s shrinking.
Success of ID? Well, let’s see now:
Now I rather think that this hasn’t quite happened as they thought. I wonder why?
The tactics employed by PZ and his “gang” are similar to those employed by most fascists. Censorship, smear tactics, possibly violence either physical or economic. Folks, when you see this sort of thing, you should run away as fast as you can.
Those of you who relish in these forms of attacks on others will find that what goes around comes around. Fortunately, this echo chamber of hate and hubris serves to remind people how desperate many of your are to advance your scientific as well as philosophical views without the usual scrutiny that other scientific and philosophical disciplines require.
Myers biggest fans are primarily the poorly educated public schooled plebeians who can’t think critically and certainly can’t think scientifically because of the dogmatic manner in which science is taught to them. And, they can’t tell a logical fallacy from an ad hominem if it hit them in the face.
The responses by Myers moronic minions on this thread and others would be laughable if it weren’t for the virulent hate that motivates them.
Dave W #746 wrote:
I think the major theme running through the thread has been to argue that creationists need to go through proper scientific methods and channels if they want their theory to gain respect among the science community — and they can not, will not, and have not done that. The name-calling and mockery is just so much stylistic flourishing over this central core, which is that of systematic honesty and integrity in method.
That’s not how fascism works, of course — nor any form of totalitarianism. They value outcome over process, and are not interested in going where the evidence leads. They know where the evidence should lead — and it is up to the science to follow along to get the right result.
Creationism and ID are religious ideas. The backers lie when they pretend the ideas are scientific. We here have no objection to creationism and ID being taught in public schools, provided they are in a comparative religion course or a mythology course. If they want to be taught in science courses, they must first prove themselves scientific. The easiest way to do that is to publish the evidence for creationism/ID in the scientific literature. This has not been done. In fact, this has been studiously avoided.
Not engaging in a debate with creationist is not censorship. They have access to other media. They could give a speech elsewhere. If the creationists engaged in honest evidence based debate, they would be debated. But they engage in dishonest rhetorical tricks to avoid having to show evidence.
DaveW, a couple of questions. Do you have a working definition of fascism? Do you have ant idea what it is and how it works?
What gives you the impression that we, as a group engage in physical violence?
But I really must say, the all black uniform with the cephalopod medallion is simply smashing.
The tactics employed by PZ and his “gang” are similar to those employed by most fascists. Censorship, smear tactics, possibly violence either physical or economic. Folks, when you see this sort of thing, you should run away as fast as you can…”
Oh yes tell us all how you know so much about fascists. I’m surprised it took you fools so long to go all Godwin on our asses. I should at least be thankful that it took over 700 replies this time. It usually take you idiots about a dozen words before you prove your pathetic level of intellect. But I look forward to your posting of proof that Myers, or indeed anyone of similar or greatest stature, has done anything of the sort you are suggesting. We await patiently. Just keep in mind quite a few of us have met Myers personally, and he’s a nice guy. So we’re going to be quite harsh on you should you fail to produce the proof your charges demand that you show.
…Those of you who relish in these forms of attacks on others will find that what goes around comes around. Fortunately, this echo chamber of hate and hubris serves to remind people how desperate many of your are to advance your scientific as well as philosophical views without the usual scrutiny that other scientific and philosophical disciplines require….”
Oh really DaveW? Is that an open threat? Why don’t you take your statement and shove it? We’ve heard quite enough of this harbinger-of-violence talk from people a part of an organization that historically has been one of the very purveyors of such. We don’t need morons like you who been indoctrinated into abject crap telling the rest of us what is and is not true. We don’t take order, we ask the only question worth asking: Why? You guys have failed to answer that question repeatedly over millenia, and yet you still come in our house and give us crap. We aren’t taking it anymore.
…Myers biggest fans are primarily the poorly educated public schooled plebeians who can’t think critically and certainly can’t think scientifically because of the dogmatic manner in which science is taught to them. And, they can’t tell a logical fallacy from an ad hominem if it hit them in the face….”
Many here are doubtlessly public educated, but many others such as myself, were privately educated. Odd how simpletons like you never stopped to consider that. But I guess it’s to be expected of someone who’s had God and Jesus stuffed down his throat since he could crawl, and was never truly expected to do anything other than recite 10 stone age rules and a few poems by heart. We sir do our homework, and we don’t take kindly to people coming in here and telling us we’re evil because we don’t accept your god or anyone else’s.
…The responses by Myers moronic minions on this thread and others would be laughable if it weren’t for the virulent hate that motivates them..”
What you define as “virulent hate” is known as a mixture of honest questioning and ridicule for stupidity and systemic failures of logic in civil society. You also come in here demanding respect with pallid denouncements of hatred made behind words of war. You know nothing of the evils you ascribe to us, and are patently unqualified to warn anyone about them. Now shove off and go kneel to your statues. It’s the only thing you’re good at.
“The vast majority of the world’s scientists have systematically been involved in an evil conspiracy to spread an elaborate lie for over 100 years, and this lie is the cause of most of the world’s problems.”
“That’s a load of bullshit. Where’s the legitimate evidence for this?”
“You swore. That so reminds me of when the Nazi stormtroopers would viciously stomp people to death. Now I know exactly how the Jews must have felt.”
“Uh huh.”
Rey Fox (744) “Even if we narrow it somewhat and start it at the beginning of monotheistic creator religion, then that puts it back about 6000 years.”
The first that I am aware of was Ahknaten, which IIRC was around 1300-odd years BCE, making monotheism only 3300-odd years old. Perhaps you refer to something from the Indus valley? I am not up-to-speed on ancient Hindu/pre-hindu myths, but I am not sure if pantheism/panentheism/henotheism – I get them confused and I am not sure what the beliefs of the time would be called – would qualify as “properly” monotheistic. To what do you refer to?
No way – man, he’s just an illusion! I mean, come on, we’ve all “met” Myers, but not in real life! He doen’t exist dude, he’s just a construct we atheists use to give meaning to our nihilistic lives.
Please, let’s have no more Myersism on this blog. Myers is dead. Let’s just get on with our lives.
I know that several of the people involved in this discussion on the pro-science side have or are working on graduate degrees in various subjects, including scientific subjects. I regret that I have a lowly masters degree in (I shudder to mention it) economics. But Nerd has a PhD in (I believe) chemistry and David Marjanović is a doctoral candidate in paleontology.
re:755
‘Tis – but they aren’t educated through a fine institution like Liberty University or one of those online schools who work out of trailer parks and apartments. Seriously, there is no better PhD than one you can buy for $100 online. Obviously, if you go through a normal institution, you are being indoctrinated into the (let’s see if I can get them all) “Facist authoritarian Darwin-worshipping atheistic mean-poopie-headed” dogma that is keeping the Man down!!!!11!!
Hmm. Not enough CAPS. I’ll work on it.
No, she did say Triune God. She might work with and/or have acquaintances who are Muslims, Jews, or Unitarians — or, heck, maybe even Zoroastrians.
/snark
‘Tis, lowly masters? Once a degree is granted, what you do afterwards is important. I make sure to listen to others because I can miss things others catch. Never be afraid to put in your two cents worth, or call me out if you think I’m wrong.
I have detected eau de academe from several posters.
The only reason I have presented my degree is to demonstrate to some posters that they can’t bullshit me on what science is and isn’t, otherwise, we are equals at the keyboard.
Thank you, your emminence. You underestimate the boost your presence gives other humble posters, such as myself.
If I may be so bold.
That’s the funniest line of bs I’ve read in weeks.
I’ll be honest, Nerd, I’m proud of my MA. It took enough time and effort to get it.
No, I was doing the false modesty bit because Mr. DaveW was sneering at “poorly educated public schooled plebeians.” Even though I went to Catholic grade school and high school, I know I could never match DaveW’s schooling from his mommy and Rev. Billy Joe Jim Bob’s Washed In the Blood of the Lamb Evangelical Gospel Academy of West Bumfuck, East Carolina.
DaveW, if you feel you’ve been violently oppressed, please provide your evidence for ID here. I’ve asked this of almost every troll in this thread, and the only thing resembling a reply was someone copy-pasting a list of “publications” off the DI website that the fine commenters here quickly deconstructed.
So, put up or shut up. If you’ve been suppressed, air your censored materials here. If people get angry at you, get the hell over it … you’re (a) talking controversial science and (b) you’re on the damn internet.
Finally, I don’t like your disparaging comment about public school. This is my 20th year in public school, and barring a catastrophe I’ll be getting a PhD from my public university in the next few years. So, fuck off.
One more thing, an ad hominem IS a logical fallacy. Dumbass. Note that my calling you a dumbass is NOT an ad hominem, because I’m not saying “you’re wrong because you’re a dumbass.” I’m saying you’re wrong because there isn’t actually a conspiracy keeping your good evidence silenced, you just don’t have any good evidence.
These hand-waving dismissals do nothing for those of us watching this debate from the sidelines who suspect that the Darwinian mechanism if not quite impotent, is nearly so.,/i> – Nathan@710
Nathan, it was rather silly of you to include this in the smae comment as a link to your blog. Anyone who bothers to follow it can see that your cliam to be “watching this debate from the sidelines” is a barefaced lie.
I feel the same about my Nobel Prize for biology. You won’t find me boasting about it however. I’ve also got a massive dick, but modesty forbids that too from ever being mentioned.
I didn’t know imagination grew that large.
Iain Walker (#727)
I read Joe as saying he thinks we believe evolution works towards a specific, hierarchical goal where basic forms evolve into “higher” forms until they reach their “final,” ultimate form, and that to him “an organism” means “a species.”
At least, that’s the only sort of sense I could dredge from his ramblings.
My imagination is indeed immense, but then you know what they say…
supamanc (#737)
If you’re using Windows, try alt + 0063 (on the number pad).
The tactics employed by PZ and his “gang” are similar to those employed by most fascists.
Godwin in your first sentence! Congratulations, that’s a new record.
Also, in other news, you are a moron.
Nathan, it was rather silly of you to include this in the smae comment as a link to your blog. Anyone who bothers to follow it can see that your cliam to be “watching this debate from the sidelines” is a barefaced lie.
I know, I know… a mendacious creationist cretin… who’d’ve thunk it?
GT posted:
Aha! I think I’ve found your problem.
Try reading for comprehension instead.
If you don’t like the tone or style in this thread or on this blog, please read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
All your questions are answered there with references and recommendations for further reading. You’re welcome to return and pick up the discussion once you’re done. We’ll be here.
that’s a nice way of putting it, I’m at the stage now where I’m convinced that most theists do not believe in God, rather that they believe in the bible. That way they can avoid answering the dilemma altogether. I’m betting most don’t realise that the evidence pointing to evolution is overwhelming, and that there is at present no evidence to support the notion of a higher power. ID fails not because scientists are an atheist lot (the majority aren’t) but because the idea of Intelligent Design doesn’t pass scientific standards, hence why I’ve been going on about the two things ID advocates must answer.
It seems quite an obvious point, either Intelligent Design advocates show evidence of a designer interacting in nature or concede the idea is not science. Until a mechanism is proposed and tested, Intelligent Design is nothing more than the desire to push God in the classroom under the guise of “it doesn’t have to be God”
“The first that I am aware of was Ahknaten, which IIRC was around 1300-odd years BCE, making monotheism only 3300-odd years old. Perhaps you refer to something from the Indus valley?”
Er…no, I’ll go with your numbers instead. I’m not exactly sure where the 6000 thing came from.
Well they at least achieved this goal, the design hypothesis received a very fair hearing in Judgement Day.
Yes, though that wasn’t quite what they were hoping for.
The Wedge document is extraordinary though, isn’t it? All their wishes, all their motivation, laid achingly bare. That’s why they are so difficult to argue with – they truly believe that shit.
Hahahahahahahahahahahah. Ha. Though, eh?
Thus highlighting the semantic gap between fair and favourable. A fair trial can still end up with someone being found guilty.
Agreed, it does speak volumes for their convictions and it’s no wonder they resonate with the religious. It also speaks volumes for the level of ambition they had, the total failure to achieve any of those goals, and the underhanded tactics of using ID to get people to come to Jebus.
But yeah, it’s very hahahahahahahahahahaha pathetic on their count.
I am not sure that Darwin ever *debated* evolution. He wrote a book.
The thing that makes science science is that it is *written* and *reviewed*. Humanity has tried debate as a way to get at truth. Greek philosophy was all debated. *It doesn’t work*. Debate is not an effective way to get at truth – the sophists demonstrated that. Debate is prescientific.
If – *if* – one was to debate one of these people, the topic should be whether creation science counts as science, and the debater should not be a scientist, but a professional arguer: a philosopher, or a lawyer.
“My friend, I am the lone individual in my educational institution (and in my circle of acquaintances) who articulates a belief in the Triune God. I am also the lone individual to speak up in defense of His Word, to speak out against the abhorrent practice of abortion, and to support the defense of the defenseless around the word (regardless of how unpopular doing so may be). And no, I do not have a circle of like-minded friends to whom I turn after these things happen.
Am I weak?
These convictions, dear to me as anything in this world, are dismissed as lies.
But I have given up many advances in my career rather than betray them. I have been shamed and laughed at more than you with your (currently) popular beliefs will ever know.”
IMPOSSIBLE!!!
We (the atheist conspirators) have been working so hard for so many years to keep all of you out of all educational and scientific institutions, and you, against all odds, still have a job!
Please tell us what is this particular institution, we need to send some black helicopters over there right away.
“Creationism and ID are religious ideas” That’s your opinion and so to is your faith in atheisum…everyone even you monkeys that are still evolving have a worldview. Deny it all you want it is not my call…go talk to a phychologist. And who was the ‘post’ that said entropy not that tripe again? WOW! That’s the 2nd law of therm Dyn. I thought all you folks had grown up past primordial ooze. What a bunch of clowns. You should all go get jobs…Oh, I get it. You did have jobs but becuase you’re so far down on the Darinian food chain you’re hiding here on the blog so no other life form will chew you and spit you.
I came in here because I have a few of Sean Carroll’s books and I picked up a couple vids the other day and the cosmic variance is his hang around spot…this ‘offshoot’ must be where he dumps his holding tank for all you panspermium faith gods.
I’m gone…
you all a joke…and totally in hell (aaah that’s where everyone talks and no one has the sence to listen…or even knows how to listen…total gibberish complete 3rd grade din)
I’m not even going to waste my time spell-checking this
Ha ha haaa
“Another stupid fallacy we’ve heard a zillion times. Who created those Intelligent Aliens…” – Raven #429
You’re very clever, young man. Very clever. But it’s aliens all the way back!”
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist – with apologies to S. Hawking)
A-Fricken-Men!
GT #779 wrote:
Oh, too bad. We hoped to chat.
oooh I betcha GT just drove by.
GT: There are two different guys named Sean Carroll.
It’s spelled “phycologist,” and why would I be interested in talking about algae?
Erm OK GT. Bye bye. I don’t think that argument would of made sense in your native language either.
GT, you never proved creationism and ID are scientific. Your running away confirmed that you knew they were religious theories, and that you are scared to try to show they are scientific. Bawk, Bawk, Bawk.
Earlier, Bobber wrote:
“And did you really want to equate ID Creationism with Holocaust denial, which has NO standing …, just as ID Creationism has NO standing amongst real scientists?”
How is “real” defined?
bryce,
Thusly.
As for real scientists, perhaps these seventh-graders can help…
Fuck off, GT. All you’re doing is making a twat of yourself.
Come back when you’re sober and after you’ve read the pages I directed you to at #771.
DaveW:
This might be the funniest goddamn sentence clause in this whole thread. Bob at comment #762 covered why a little further up, but I just had to put in my vote.
Dave, you’re a cutup!
I’ll ask again:
Can any ID advocate actually show examples of how the designer has helped shaped the course of life on this earth?
Furthermore, can any ID advocate construct a test that would allow for the mechanisms proposed by the first question can be tested?
If neither of these questions can be answered, why should we considered ID a science?
Dr. Gotelli’s letter is going in my ‘keep for future reference’ file right next to Dr. Lenski’s response to another grandstanding moron. Such grace under fire is impressive, and had I the wherewithall to remain so composed in the face of blatant idiocy, I would at least have the satisfaction of achievement once the schadenfreude faded.
The MadPanda, FCD
That last line of mine should say “If neither of these questions can be answered, why should we consider ID a science?” Also it follows on that if ID is not a science, then what is this debate all about?
Prof. Gotteli did not want an anti-science, scientist-demonizing spokesdrone like Ben Stein to give the UVM commencement speech and, in an editorial, expressed a preference for a real scientist. Klinghoffer then used his blog to accuse Gotteli of hypocrisy because UVM didn’t replace Ben Stein with a scientist. Apparently it’s the professor’s fault that UVM found instead a former state governor who is the prospective Secretary of Health & Human Services in President Obama’s cabinet. Klinghoffer even quoted favorably a 3rd-party whinge about ‘couldn’t they get Daffy Duck?’.
Then he complains because Prof. Gotteli was rude to him. Gotteli wasn’t exactly rude but he was blunt. He called it two-faced when Klinghoffer followed up this whining and accusatory blog post with the unctuous letter that followed, asking for a scientific debate on campus.
It’s odd that Mr. Klinghoffer is now whinging about not getting his chance at free speech at UVM (as though free speech meant being given a free podium), when the blog where he whinges does not allow any comments.
I’m surprised that Gotelli had to guts to allow his letter to be made public. I guess he thinks it paints him as a Darwinitic hero or something. Obviously he is proud of his correspondence which, in my opinion, doesn’t say much for him or for Meyers who gladly published it on his site. They take pleasure in poking fun at people they call creationists, yet they want these same creationists(over half of the US population) to take them seriously. What a joke!
I understand Gotelli’s reasoning for saying “No.” to a debate. He claims there is no scientific controversy and he wouldn’t allow a flat earth society person come and debate. But equating ID theory with flat earth ideas is totally off base and he knows it. This is just a ploy to make ID seem ridiculous. Ridicule does not win arguments and he is simply making a fool of himself with that kind of rhetoric. If there really were no controversy, then I could understand his reasoning, but you have to be like an ostrich and stick your head in the sand to claim there is no controversy! This is just an excuse. No matter how loud they shout “THERE IS NO DEBATE AMONG TRUE SCIENTISTS!”, it remains painfully obvious to everyone not indoctrinated and imprisoned with naturalism(whether methodological or other) that there is a debate. I guess they think that if they shout loud enough and long enough, people will begin to believe them. Personally, I think it makes them lose credibility, but that’s me.
What I found most amusing in the reply of Gotelli was his condescending advice to publish in Nature or Science, or some other well established scientific journal. He knows very well that the Darwinites will allow no such publishing to take place. The lack of ID articles in these journals of course, gives absolutely no credibility to evolution. Evolution must stand and fall on its own feet. Just because there isn’t a better alternative right now, has nothing to do with how trustworthy Darwinism is or is not. However, it does give proof of one thing: censorship. Arguments can be made on a totally scientific basis for ID but even this is not allowed. Why? Because it is claimed the person believes in a Creator and that is not scientific.
To be fair, a person’s worldview about origins should have nothing to do with whether his scientific paper is accepted for publishing or not. An IDer cannot publish an article critical of evolution simply because he is an IDer. However, a Darwinist could write the same paper and it MIGHT be accepted. There are articles all the time in mainstream scientific journals that question some aspects of the evolution hypothesis, but the authors always make it clear that they are not questioning the whole scheme of things so it’s OK. But if you question the whole scheme of things, then your article is not allowed no matter if it is totally scientific in nature. So Gotelli’s challenge to publish is laughable. He knows very well this is not possible because of censorship. And he thinks the public doesn’t understand this? These guys are way out in right field and have very little respect for the public. As long as they treat people that way, they ain’t gonna get anywhere with their cute litte stories they masquerade as science.
I was just surprised at how little shame these guys have. Granted, he made what was probably an honest mistake in assuming that Klinghoffer was the author of the article that was critical of him on Discovery Institute’s website, but still, his response was childish and inappropriate. It is like, “OK, if you do me bad, then I have every right to do you bad too.” This idea was something that Jesus talked against. But who needs religion anyway? Maybe PJ and Gotelli do. It would seem that way. In fact we all do, because we all have this same sinful tendancy in our hearts. Do we all still think that science has all the answers for life that we need? Only evolutionists and atheists believe this. Like it or not, they have to because they have nothing else to stand on.
Jim in Tokyo
For all ID advocates out there, please answer these questions:
http://kelosophy.blogspot.com/2009/02/two-questions-for-intelligent-design.html
There’s only two, surely it shouldn’t be too difficult.
LOL.
I call Poe on Jim M. in Tokyo. Very well done humour!
Nice shifting of the goalposts there, the whole problem with ID is that there’s no evidential backing for the idea and has nothing to do with whether science has answers for everything in life. All evidence points to evolution, that’s why it’s backed by scientists. If Intelligent Design has merit – show the evidence for it! Otherwise realise that while there may be a designer, without evidence there is no debate.
If you want to believe that God played a hand in life, you are more than welcome to. But there’s a big difference between one’s own beliefs and what constitutes science. So when scientists ignore the dishonest folk at the discovery institute, it’s not because they reject a creator. It’s because Intelligent Design is an academically void concept that is publicly promoted despite the lack of evidence for it. You want it recognised? Show that there’s evidence!!!
Apparently I’m getting mixed up about who blogged what (the original comment on the editorial was not Klinghoffer’s) and who said what (about Daffy Duck). Nevertheless, I stand by my point that Mr. Klinghoffer is foolish to hold Prof. Gotteli responsible for the choice of former Governor Howard Dean as commencement speaker.
And, Christina, you should read the records of Kitzmiller vs. Dover about what that “peer review” of Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box amounted to. If someone told you that was the same review process as journal articles get, you were lied to. Here is the “peer review” as described by the professor of biochemistry who was asked by the publisher about the book: “I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.”
MUAH HA HA HA HA! *rubs hands maniacally* Our preposterous and unsubstantiated theory is safe from the Soldiers of Christ for another day!
*headdesk*
Seriously, you don’t think a paper providing scientific evidence of a Creator (god, alien race, whatever) would get published? It would be the biggest scientific discovery EVER, you moron.
Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot there, Jimmy.
When you do have an alternative that’s supported by evidence, please come back and present it.
FFS, does religion make you allergic to labcoats or something?
I wonder if the people who say that understand just how much evidence there is supporting evolution… I’m betting not.
Good grief. I go away for a day and a night and this thread is still going. Looks like you guys have disposed of the idiot trolls without me.
Oh, one thing – Kelly, #681, wrote:
I’m not your friend, buddy.
Actually, I’ve seen a few polio victims (my late cousin was one) but nowadays they are usually immigrants.
“FFS, does religion make you allergic to labcoats or something?”
No, it makes one allergic to thinking on their own. It makes their brain hurt.
Also, massive thumbs up for Kel.
I really admire your relentlessness.
(s)he’s not your buddy, guy!
Thanks, it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. And if I don’t, then there’s only about 30 or so people on here who will!
Yeah! What do these scientists think they’re doing, accepting evolution just because it’s the best available explanation for the evidence? That’s crazy talk!
Economic violence? Is that where we stab creationists right in the checking account?
Sorry, but Expelled‘s box office performance wasn’t our fault.
Thank you to all of you for being here on this blog engaged in this topic and for helping me already learn so much. I’ve been perusing this thread now for more than a day, following links, countering my incredulity, falling deeply in love with several posters and becoming less dumb (if I can say so myself).
For example, at first I though someone malicious had gone through and replaced every instance of the word “verifiable” with “falsifiable”. Searching several dictionaries did not reveal a meaning for “falsifiable” that was consistent with the context in which it was found here. I kept searching and thanks to that wikisite, I now think that it means more like “testable”. (I might not be the only person misled by that word and concede that I may still be wrong about how it is used in this thread). It’s always good to learn when a word is used to mean exactly the opposite of its familiar meaning.
There are so many scholars apparently writing here…is this an appropriate place for me to ask questions that might be kind of newbie? or can I get directions to that appropriate place?
What I want to know is, why isn’t anyone challenging those arrogant scientists who believe in the theory of flight? It’s just a theory after all. Why aren’t they being forced to the table for a discussion? What about the controversy? I mean, they’ve never proved the theory of flight have they? They just assume planes fly because of it.
Now I’m not saying it’s necessarily done by invisible pixies that go underneath birds and planes and helicopters and blue-footed boobies, but that doesn’t mean we have to allow people who believe in this ‘theory’ to go around telling others they aren’t allowed to comment.
Oh, and do not get me started on those closeminded, marching in lockstep, arrogant, echo-chamber, conspiracy-to-crush-all-dissent gravity theorists…
Ask away, there’s always bound to be someone willing to help.
<>
Isn’t it because, as bob posted in #762 …”you’re talking controversial science”? Flight & gravity being less so.
Thanks Kel, I’m so flattered to get a response from you especially, you are obviously a hard-working thinker. So my current pestery ignorance is about “survival of the fittest”. Is this a part of the theory of evolution? Where should I look for a reliable definition of fit?
Vagrant, it’s not that hard to look. Evolutionary fitness.
Vagrant:
“survival of the fittest” is not anywhere in the accepted scholarly works concerning evolution, it is just some simplified bullshit catch phrase from the layman and journalistic vagrants.
Anyway, I’d suggest in the upcoming end times, get a pile of rubbish next to a sewer, so you can fish for your own rats, as they will be in demand.
Vagrant (#812)
One of my college anthropology professors said it would better reflect reality if it were called “survival of the marginally adequate” instead. As long as you’re competent enough at survival to successfully pass on your genes to future generations, you could be considered “fit.”
For more, check out Wikipedia and some of the explanations on talkorigins.
Vagrant,
What’s a better question is this: why is the ToE any more ‘controversial’ than the other two in my facetious post?
There is as much evidence for the theory of evolution explaining the diversity of life on this planet as there is to support the theory of flight’s explanation of why things fly, and the theory of gravity’s explanation of why large bodies attract smaller ones.
Likewise, there is no evidence to the contrary for any of the three. The only ‘controversy’ is that there an educational system can produce people so lacking in science knowledge and critical thinking skills to think otherwise.
Err, that was supposed to be “competent enough at survival and reproduction.”
“Survival of the fittest” is a phrase that became associated with evolution after the theory was first outlined. It’s a truism in a certain sense, but it doesn’t mean fittest in the way we use it in everyday language. Remember that in each generation there are more offspring than parents, so there’s a competition between the offspring for the same resources. The ones that are best suited for gaining food, gaining a mate, avoiding being eaten, those are the ones who are going to have more offspring and those successful genes will be passed down through generations.
But of course it’s a bit more complicated than that. The environment is never static and in certain instances the genes that would allow one individual to dominate would be quite useless. Being big and strong is one thing, but it comes at a cost – one has to eat more in order to survive. So if there’s a crisis and food resources are depleted, it may be those smaller members of a species who survive. For a human example, in 1942 the Japanese captured about 50,000 Australian soldiers and put them to work on the Thai-Burma railway. They fed the prisoners with the same dietary rations that a Japanese soldier would get – about 1500 calories a day. Now Australians on average are much bigger and eat more – around 3500 calories. So when they were prisoners it was the fittest, strongest soldiers who died first through starvation and overwork.
So that should teach one important lesson – that what constitutes being ‘fit’ is wholly determined on the environment by which one is operating under. And therein lies the principle behind natural selection. Being bigger and stronger doesn’t always help if the environment selects against that. The ones best suited to their environment will thrive. Charles Darwin summed this idea up so beautifully –
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” – Charles Darwin
One more thing to remember, and it will come in the means of a joke: Two men are walking through a forest when suddenly they stumble on a waking tiger. One man turns to run, while the other puts on his running shoes. The first man in utter amazement says “look, you can’t outrun a tiger.” “You’re right, I can’t” said the 2nd man, “but I can outrun you.”
I like that way of putting it. My mate puts it a really nice way as well – “You don’t have to be the fastest zebra to avoid being eaten by a cheetah, just not the slowest.”
Posted by: John Morales | February 22, 2009 4:47 AM
Vagrant, it’s not that hard to look. Evolutionary fitness.
>>You’re right, but it can be hard for the ignorant to know which sources to trust and I asking for guidance from those whose opinions I’ve built some trust for, based on this thread. Your link led me to Wikipedia again, and I thought ID thinkers were as free as scientist to place information there.< < Posted by: scooter | February 22, 2009 4:53 AM "survival of the fittest" is not anywhere in the accepted scholarly works concerning evolution, it is just some simplified bullshit catch phrase from the layman and journalistic vagrants. >>Is this correct? If so, that is why I was reluctant to put my trust in Wikipedia who say it’s central to the theory and is natural selection.< < Posted by: A. Noyd | February 22, 2009 4:54 AM One of my college anthropology professors said it would better reflect reality if it were called "survival of the marginally adequate" instead. As long as you're competent enough at survival to successfully pass on your genes to future generations, you could be considered "fit." For more, check out Wikipedia and some of the explanations on talkorigins. >>I was trying to gain clarity from sources here. Finding takorigins (thanks to this thread) has been wonderful and informative, but left me still unclear about this phrase.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 22, 2009 4:56 AM
What’s a better question is this: why is the ToE any more ‘controversial’ than the other two in my facetious post?
>>Mistakenly, I thought you were responding to me, so I replied.
But I should probably make my own position clear. I am persuaded by evolutionary science, as I’m aware of it. I am not a scientist (though fascinated by it). My usual arena is with the unschooled, the ignorant believers and yet I cannot help but try to confront their ridiculous claims when they foist them upon me.
I think the ID bullies fight with evolutionary scientists because you are the scientists that the general public sees as most prominently, actively & vociferously engaged in defence of science. Since ID folks seem unwilling to put forward their own case, perhaps they (erringly) view defending one’s position as weakness and thus they attack. Little do they know.
Kel, thank you again. This time for responding with such bounty of information, without me even having made clear that I wasn’t antagonistic to your views. I bow to your grace. And your information was useful and matches my understanding of natural selection being different than “survival of the fittest” (also depicted as “only the strong survive”).
Also must mention: Dr. Gotelli’s letter…was wit, wise & wonderful.
@808: the significance of “Falsifiability” for science is that it means “If you were wrong, you would be able to find out”. It has nothing to do with whether a claim is actually true or false. “The square root of 2 is an irrational number” is a falsifiable claim (if you were wrong, you would be able to find out) which is also true, while “The earth is flat” is a falsifiable claim which is also false.
Vagrant,
My comment was just a random one rather than a response to anything you’d written – just me putting an idea together on the screen and thinking that perhaps the next cdesign proponentist might read it and think twice before trying the ‘why do evolutionists want to censor dissenting views?’ nonsense that we see a lot of here.
I’m not holding my breath, though. As they say, you can’t reason a person out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.
On that – as you’ve seen upthread there are those who like to bang their heads against the wall of reality by coming here and demonstrating their ignorance and closedmindedness; it’s sometimes hard to discriminate between them and people asking genuine questions.
I’m not a scientist either, but in the nigh on a year I’ve been coming here I’ve learned a lot about evolution and other areas of science from the posters. And anything people here don’t know themselves they’ll know places to go to find more information.
Posted by: A. Noyd Author Profile Page | February 21, 2009 5:33 PM
supamanc (#737)
(sorry my question mark key is broken)
If you’re using Windows, try alt + 0063 (on the number pad).
cool, did not know that, thanks!! and for the forward slash? :)
Josh (#719) and Knockgoats (#763), your point is well taken. “From the sidelines” probably wasn’t the best choice of words; “as a non-specialist who is keenly interested in this debate” would have been better. Accordingly, I do collect relevant books and quotes on my site. In my own writing I try to stick to philosophy and rhetoric, hence the nature of my comment (#710) here.
Isn’t that interesting? The last two IDologists here didn’t even understand that they were on the Internet. GT believed he was talking only to Vermonters (and upperclass ones at that, LOL!), and DaveW believed all of us had gone through the US school system. Well, folks, you’re not in Kansas anymore!
It means the exact same thing as “testable”, it’s only more obvious. That’s because, in the end, nothing is truly verifiable. Suppose you discover the truth. How do you find out that what you have discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which you don’t have? That’s why science cannot prove/verify, only disprove/falsify.
Well, yes, but there aren’t enough IDologists out there to make a difference on Wikipedia! We actually found out once: there are only about 900 IDologists on teh whole wide intarwebz — a very aggressively promoted Internet poll on the propaganda movie Expelled! didn’t get more than 900 favorable votes. It’s documented here on Pharyngula somewhere.
Well, Nathan, now that you’re back, let me refer you to my comments 639 and 728.
“IDologists” = IDiots = IDlers = IDolaters = …
;-)
@supamanc [823],
If I may steal A. Noyd’s thunder…
/ = Alt + 47
Also, ? = Alt + 63
As for a leading zero, it usually makes a difference, except for #s 32-126. You could type 100 zeros before 63, and it would still yield “?”.
For more info: http://www.alt-codes.net/
Or just open the Character Map (charmap.exe) if in Windows.
Re: Me
“You could type 100 zeros before 63, and it would still yield “?”.”
And, yes, I’ve tried it.
Nathan, a non-specialists who are keenly interested in this debate are very welcome, as long as they understand that the debate is about education, not science.
There is no debate among the people who actually study evolution for a living as to the central propositions of the theory. I don’t much care for what an engineer has to say about evolution’s validity any more than some physicist is likely to give a rat’s ass about my views on string theory. Nor should they. I don’t publish in physics; they have no need of my opinion. Science isn’t democratic and it tries hard not to be about opinion. English teachers shouldn’t be trying to tell carpenters how to best to build sheds unless they actually know something about hammering nails (or can conclusively demonstrate that the shed, as currently built, is falling apart).
Sure, there are a few people out there who both hold credentials in biology and have some biology publications under their belt, who doubt evolution’s validity. This does not mean that there is some huge debate about the validity of evolution raging within biological circles. The fact that some people dispute the shape of the earth as being spherical does not mean that there is a huge debate about the shape of the earth going on within geoscience.
Up until a few years ago (I think he’s dead now), there was at least one lone holdout left who did not accept plate tectonics. He had not succeeded in falsifying the theory, but he was still holding onto his belief (and at this point it really was belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Did his opinion (and those of perhaps a few colleagues–I really don’t remember) mean that there was a “huge debate” about plate tectonics raging within geology? Were the GSA meetings still holding theme sessions about this new tectonics paradigm that seemed to be blossoming everywhere? No. Those sessions had been held in the 50s and 60s. The sessions in the 90s were business as usual: structural geology with plate tectonics as the principal explanation for why the crust gets deformed; sedimentary geology with plate tectonics as the principal explanation for how accommodation space for sediment is created; igneous petrology with plate tectonics as the principal mechanism driving volcanism. You get the point. The existence of holdouts and detractors, in and of themselves, do not result in raging debate regarding a hypothesis or theory. Science doesn’t care about your opinion. If these holdouts identify major issues that the theory has trouble with (i.e., make observations that the theory cannot explain), well that’s a very different story. But that’s also not what is going on with the ToE. The holdouts in evolution aren’t doing a damn thing to advance biology. And they’re aren’t even trying. That’s not even their real goal. They’re trying to de-advance culture.
And before someone points at my plate tectonics example and says “See! See! Science is dogmatic! Dissent is silenced!” you would do well to spend some time studying the history of (e.g.) plate tectonics, so as not to embarrass yourself. Plate tectonics is now the accepted principal mechanism for how earth’s crust is shaped and formed because the theory has fucking earned it. The birth of that theory was bloody. But it’s over. If you want to see the process happening now–if you want to see real debate about an idea, then I recommend doing some research into snowball earth theory. That will give you a good idea of how much shit gets thrown at new, somewhat radical hypotheses in science. But neither of these ideas represent dogma; those of you who insist that accepted theories are dogma don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and should really stick to discussing American Idol.
*sigh*
Sorry–that turned out to be a rather longer blither than I had intended.
Anyway, non-specialists are absolutely welcome.
Obviously he is proud of his correspondence which, in my opinion, doesn’t say much for him or for Meyers who gladly published it on his site. – Jim M.
Who is this “Meyers” you speak of? Why is it IDiots like you so often can’t even get PZ Myers’ name right?
Arguments can be made on a totally scientific basis for ID but even this is not allowed. – Jim M.
Oh yeah? On the few occasions any IDiot has even tried, their claims have quickly been shown to be absurd – like the “irreducible complexity” of the bacterial flagellum, and vertebrate blood-clotting system.
But equating ID theory with flat earth ideas is totally off base and he knows it. Jim M.
What is this “ID theory” you speak of? Where is the research it has generated, the tests it has been put to, the journals this research and these tests are published in? (There’s nothing to stop IDiots starting their own journals if the wicked Darwinists are preventing them publishing their ground-breaking research in the existing ones.) The plain fact is they do no research worth the name.
But who needs religion anyway? Jim M.
That would be the intellectually challenged and morally feeble, unable to think for themselves, or act rightly without threats and bribes from a mythical sky-daddy – such as you.
“Posted by: supamanc | February 22, 2009 6:10 AM
cool, did not know that, thanks!! and for the forward slash? :)”
All you need and more :)
…just remember to add the leading zero(s)
“Posted by: supamanc | February 22, 2009 6:10 AM
cool, did not know that, thanks!! and for the forward slash? :)”
All you need and more :)
…just remember to add the leading zero(s)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 22, 2009 6:38 AM
It means the exact same thing as “testable”, it’s only more obvious. That’s because, in the end, nothing is truly verifiable. Suppose you discover the truth. How do you find out that what you have discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which you don’t have? That’s why science cannot prove/verify, only disprove/falsify.
>>So glad to have learned this and I can use it too. I walk and talk in a world with believers who are used to the word, “falsify” meaning disprove or misrepresent, so I hope having this new info will help me to guide them from their misled paths (or deflect them from befuddling me on mine).>>
Well, yes, but there aren’t enough IDologists out there to make a difference on Wikipedia! We actually found out once: there are only about 900 IDologists on teh whole wide intarwebz
>>Now this is most fascinating. I had no idea that their presence on the internet was caused by so few. And by presence, I mean havoc.
Another question: as sad (read pathetic), threatening and debilitating this need for this discussion is, I can’t be the only one provoked to laughter by the deep subtle (dare I say teasing) humour used by those presenting smart, pertinent responses and by how ridiculous the IDlogs present themselves? In spite of them, it’s enjoyable discourse. (In an attempt at even-handedness, I note that outside of this thread I’ve encountered more obnoxious Idiots).
Can anyone direct me to reputable, current readings on Sociobiology or discussion forums on the topic that are as enlightening as this one?>>
bryce:
Sigh. This will probably piss some people off, but I think that in order for you to be a real scientist, you must be contributing to the science. I would say that means you must be doing science (which I define as studying aspects of it and publishing the results of those studies). I do not personally think that just holding formal training in a discipline makes you a practitioner of said discipline (e.g., I don’t think of people that hold a BS in biology as biologists unless they do biology). Moreover, I think that real scientist is too broad. The days of Joseph Leidy are, sadly, over. Now we have real chemists and real biologists much more often than we have real scientists (it’s way difficult now to be good at even more than one subdiscipline; never mind more than one field).
There is a whole side of this discussion, of course, as to whether someone who educates people in the science, but doesn’t do it themselves, is contributing to the science. I don’t think they are. I think they’re planting terribly important seeds of curiosity that might ultimately result in major contributions to the science, but that they aren’t themselves advancing the science. Where that line gets placed can definitely be argued, though…
A. Noyd (#766):
Well, when confronted with people like Joe who like to throw about vague and ill-defined terms like “kind” or “form”, one can either:
(a) pick a possible interpretation and explain why (on that interpretation) they are wrong;
(b) ask them what the hell they mean;
(c) both.
Not that it usually makes much difference, since they usually haven’t a clue what they’re talking about anyway – Joe being a case in point.
Heres an idea…why don’t you show us your evidence that ID does not and cannot exsist..since your all so scientific…shoudn’t be all that hard for you !
Can’t?…thats ok…just show your evidence that humans evolved from something other than human !
Can’t do that either?
Please tell us how faith in science is more valid than faith in religion.
Enlighten us,,,the world awaits……..
You can all talk til the cows come home and the bottom line remains….not one person on the face of this planet can prove or dis prove either theroy..and they are exactly that..until the second coming..or the discovery of the missing link..thats all they will ever be !
supamanc (#824)
That would be alt + 0047. (Actually, you probably don’t need the 00 for either ? or /, but some alt code characters are particular about it.)
One word: evidence. Just how are you using a computer now if you believe that science is faith? Do you even know how a computer works, this device that can do billions of calculations a second, do you think it works on magic and pixie-dust? Or do you just reap the benefits of science in order to complain about how science is faith? Just realise you wouldn’t be on this website now if it weren’t for science and our understanding of quantum mechanics.
@FTK. Evidence that humans evolved from something other than human: shared endogenous retroviral sequences in humans and other primates clearly indicate common ancestry. There’s also the signature of a chromosomal fusion event in one human chromosome which matches two chimpanzee chromosomes. There’s more, if you have a few years to spare to learn about it.
See, while your side were happily assuring themselves that no question could ever be answered, actual scientists thought of good questions and answered them.
Pssh, #823 (not #824, whoops) got answered twice before I got in. That’ll teach me not to refresh before replying. :)
FTK (ForTheKids, banned?), it is up the claimants to prove their case in science. Since ID claims to be scientific, it must put the right information, or shut up. So far, it hasn’t put up any valid information, but won’t shut up, which indicates in is operating in a bullshitting mode.
So, if you have any evidence you wish to suggest positively proving ID, present it.
I was listening to The Skeptics Guide To The Universe just before sleep, and the quote of the week was oddly appropriate:
“Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them.” – Karl Popper (possibly the most influential philosopher of science in the 20th century)
FTK #837
So many strawmen, so little intelligence,
ID/creationism exists. You beating the ID/creationist drum is evidence for that. What we’re saying is that ID/creationism is not science.
Humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the same DNA. That’s pretty strong evidence that there’s a common ancestor who wasn’t human.
Science doesn’t rely on faith, it relies on evidence. It’s only religion, which lacks evidence, that needs faith to prop it up.
Just because you’re ignorant doesn’t mean the rest of us are.
Weak try, FTK. Come back when you’ve got actual arguments instead of logical fallacies and ignorance.
FTK, we don’t look for missing links. Do try to keep up. Or go back to ERV.
AND, the burden of proof is on you to show us how ID explains things better than the ToE. Otherwise, why should we care? The ToE works fine and YOU use the fruits of it every day (sticking your head in the sand re: those fruits is irrelevant). When snowball earth was proposed, do you think the geosciences community would have cared in the least if the proponents didn’t have a shred of evidence and couldn’t explain anything with their new idea that we didn’t already have before the idea? More importantly, do you think the geosciences community should have cared?
Here is a good example of how the burden of proof is on you, and not us. The Ozark cave fish, Amblyopsis rosae, lives in the dark in caves. It has nonfunctional eyes in its tissue, with no optic nerve. The ToE has an explanation for this observation (a blind cave fish that lives in the dark but possesses eyes that don’t function) that’s quite satisfactory and is congruent with the evidence. What is ID’s better explanation for this observation?
The evidence has been presented to you for years. It’s not our fault that you wave it away as unacceptable.
FTK. First, literate, well-argued posts only please. This is a clever blog. If you post badly-written screeds we will assume you are stupid, and I warn you that “we” are not.
Punctuation….please. No one here thinks that ID dies not exist. Clearly it does. The problem is that is doesn’t exist as a scientific theory. Even if you accept the central idea, that a creator did it, you are none the wiser. If you try to look for evidence for the creator in his creation, there is none, so far, in any scientific discipline. But ID is worse than just an idea with no evidence behind it – it’s useless. Even if you assumed it is true, what then? OK, so god made the universe. Now what?
Please note that the Discovery Institute fellows have not produced any scientific papers using their theories to put forward new ideas. There’s nothing.
That’s why science rejects ID. It’s dull, and it explains nothing.
What else was worrying you, about from your level of literacy? No doubt people here can help you, even if god has given up on you.
Remember, the ignorant are only informed people who don’t know what they don’t know.
Iain Walker (#836)
No argument there. It’s just interesting how we came to such different interpretations. And frustrating, in a way, since it shows how much work one has to do with massively misinformed people like Joe before one can make any meaningful engagement with them. Ugh.
Shorter GT @ #779:
“I can’t answer the several reasoned responses to my previous post so I’m going to have a hissy fit and pretend I won the exchange.”
Actually, I lied. I do assume you are stupid. The evidence exists. Consider:
1) Badly written post.
2) Poster could well be drunk
3) Inarticulate ranting at “you”, which must mean “me”. I am to be part of some kind of oppressive group. Well OK. What do I do now?
4) Evidence of psychological disturbance, anger and unhappiness. May be because of 2) though close textual analysis seems to reveal more than a bottle-long problem here.
5) No true grasp of problem being debated. A long thread not read, of if so, not understood.
6) Not a question to be easily answered. Rhetorical? And who answers rhetorical questions? Suspect poster does not understand word.
7) Experience. If it appears to be a fuckwit post, it always is. Oh lord, why don’t you make your acolytes more un-stupid?
Look, I know that there are clever christians out there. Why does Pharyngula only get the morons?
I often post here drunk, I find it entertaining.
lol, quoted for truth
Jim M. (#794):
True enough – it should depend on the strength of the arguments and the evidence presented. Unfortunately, that’s where ID falls flat – the arguments that they present are sloppy and their “evidence” never supports what they think it supports.
This seems to be something that the ID-ists are incapable of getting. The arguments for ID qua scientific hypothesis have failed.
“It’s unpleasantly like being drunk”
“What’s unpleasant about being drunk?”
“Ask a gin and tonic!”
Probably misquoted from HG2G.
Nothing wrong with drunk-posting, it’s just that truthiness increases while profundity decreases.
AnthonyK
Punctuation….please. No one here thinks that ID dies not exist
Classic
Yeah,I used to do that as well,,just to re-read what I wrote in the morning and blush with embarrassment or freeze in horror LOL
So I try to keep some sort of coherence these days when I post hehe….
That’s not punctuation, that’s apelling. Kind of. Now, you aren’t a wisdom free zone because….?
It does mean that, as I said. It doesn’t mean “misrepresent”, though.
BTW: typing <blockquote>quoted text here</blockquote> results in this:
Because the clever ones aren’t creationists. :-|
FTK, care to answer to any actual point?
goddamnit, spelling. Stupid is probably a retrovirus. I thought I’d be safe here. Suppose I’m wrong? Suppose FTK and the other dumn christianists are right? I kill myself now, right?
FTK (#837):
Of course intelligent design exists – it’s called human technology.
Numerous homologies, morphological and genetic, which are readily explainable in terms of common descent. Non-adaptive homologies like shared pseudogenes with mutations at the same points (not to mention the ERV sequences that Stephen Wells mentions at #840), which are pretty much only explicable in terms of common descent. A fossil record which shows step-by-step transitions from anthropoid ape-like species to human-like species, with the differences between said species often rather blurred. Etc. Etc.
Incorrect. Evolution is falsifiable. ID isn’t, except when its proponents are rash enough to make a testable claim on some side-issue, whereupon it invariably turns out that the claim is either false or provides no actual support for ID. On top of that, evolution makes countless successful predictions about the natural world (this is a thing that is known as “evidence”). ID makes no successful predictions that would serve to distinguish it as an alternative hypothesis.
Your understanding of scientific terminology seems to be based either on pre-Darwinian notions of the Great Chain of Being, or on supermarket tabloids. I suspect the latter.
“Missing link” is an outdated and misleading term that no scientist uses any more, especially when prefixed by the definite article. Instead, palaeontologists look for transitional specimens which share characteristics between, or are morphologically intermediate between, different successive taxonomic groups. Since many such transitional specimens have already been discovered for many different groups (including humans), it’s not a question of waiting for any one specimen to turn up. It’s more a matter of adding new evidence to an already existing mountain of evidence.
@ AnthonyK #849:
1. For exception-proves-the-rule falsification of “only”, there’s SH – but he’s not around much any more.
2. The less moronic ones don’t have such a big issue with reality and are unlikely to follow the ID cretinists’ ranting campaigns of disinformation and their mentions of or links to here.
3. The stupid ones do form the majority anyway. Quite apart from average IQ actually being depressingly low (so that the majority would be stupid by my standards anyway), we know that more scientists (and even some other well-educated people) don’t believe in gods. Hence the smart side of the bell curve is ever so slightly weighted towards atheism and science and away from theism, nonsense, non-science and pseudo-science.
As someone else said: “reality has a liberal bias”. With the obvious corollorary being that fantasists have a conservative etc bias – including hanging on to silly religious ideas.
“…Please tell us how faith in science is more valid than faith in religion…”
Another typical creobot that doesn’t get it. What makes you think we give a sh– about faith? You seem not to be able to separate study and thought from faith, which is most unfortunate. If you are to understand our position, you’re going to have to broaden your intellectual horizons a touch. We don’t care about faith. Faith is for people that need governing apparitions to marionette themselves about their existence. But let me state it again: we have no faith. Get it?
Ergo your couching of science as a competing faith with religion reveals your lack of interest in understanding what real science is. How do you think all this technology you are ranting at us with right now happened? Science. Seems pretty non-faith-based, and pretty practical and real to me. The scientists that created the technology for you to use your computer didn’t cross their fingers that their work would pay off. They did real work. They didn’t sit in pews and hope for the best while mumbling organized ramblings to things they’ve never seen and to date cannot prove the existence of, let alone the exact signature that defines the being they kowtow to.
Science is real; it is not faith. Science is work; it is not wishes. But don’t take my word for it: run your own experiment. Should you come down with a disease, I invite you to reject the science-based treatments (many of which were not possible without evolutionary theory) the hospital or doctor will doubtless prescribe for you. You are a man of your word right? Put up or shut up.
At last! After days of coming back to this thread I was starting to feel like Sisyphus.
I really have nothing to add so I’ll just echo: Nicely done Professor Gotelli.
Shit. For fuck’s sake. I go away for a few days and some careless person left the door open and FTK scurried in.
Long time no stupid from you FTK. Where you been?
I think you need to figure out what the definition of Faith is
dummy.
Intellectual rigour is necessary for science. From all evidence, it would handicap IDism.
It is correct and appropriate for scientists to refuse to debate with IDists, thus denying any legitimization of ID as science.
However the need to debunk ID remains — at PTA meetings, in public media, within civil organizations, etc. As a lay person, I need science to help me mitigate ignorance.
What comprises science is important to understand, yet widely misunderstood by non-scientists. This thread has been sterling in its presentation of the requirements of science. Given the large quantities of pseudo-science purveyed daily to the majority of people (who may be less educated, stupid, not inclined to investigate), how can even the ignorant reliably recognize bad science or non-science from valid science?
While you are obviously correct in scientific terms, another meaning in common usage for “falsify” is misrepresent – to make false. Excuse my hair- splitting, should just thank you for teaching me to quote.
Lots of learning available on this thread from you bloggers sharing your smarts.
BlueIndependent on FTK:
Wrong on both counts. FTK is a woman, and a pathological liar. She was banned from this site some time ago for spreading lies about PZ’s daughter, check her entry in the dungeon. So FTK is neither a man, nor does she have any interest in keeping her word. Just a worthless creationist fuckwit, worshiping lies as all her sick cult must.
I think that this new FTK is different than the other one that’s supposed to be plonked in the dungeon, especially since that one is spelled “FtK” and possessed competent spelling and grammar skills.
This one?
Just some coincidental troll.
Here’s an idea to handle “free speech/open forum” demands at universities from pseudoscience advocates: some university or group of universities might host an annual “persecuted studies” conference, where researchers into creationism, UFOlogy, astrology, homeopathy, alchemy, Velikovsky’s planetary pinball, flat-earth, palmistry, crystal gazing, tarot, geocentrism, astral projection, NDE, free energy/perpetual motion, panspermia, channeling, cryptozoology, wizardry, therapeutic-touch, prayer, spoon bending, parapsychology/ESP, tooth-fairies, leprechauns, Pastafarian creation, paranormalism/spiritualism, holocaust denial, scientology, various conspiracy theories, (apologies to any pseudoscience I overlooked) could all convene to have their best and brightest exhibit their latest research in open-forum presentations, for the edification of science students, faculty, and any scientists who care to visit and ask questions.
A requirement to conduct a session is that you have some actual research or detailed falsifiable theory to present, using some arguable semblance of scientific method, and all presentations must include open Q&A sessions.
Imagine the prestige of having one’s theories published in the “Proceedings of the Annual Persecuted Studies Conference” alongside all the modern great minds persecuted by the scientific community for their “unconventional” ideas (whoever they are).
@Grimpeur [#866],
“A requirement to conduct a session is that you have some actual research or detailed falsifiable theory to present, using some arguable semblance of scientific method, and all presentations must include open Q&A sessions.”
Excepting movie theaters, a room with many asses in seats and no bodies on stage is an unhappy room. Though your idea is great, is would be best to drop that whole requirement that they actually do science, so at least one “persecuted” group would be able to present. A grand night of entertainment would surely ensue.
True, but that’s a linguistic/definitional point (which is why David M clarified the distinctive meaning). If evidence is falsified, what is happening is the evidence is being made to show something it would not show, if not tampered with.
What is falsified in science is theories and models — presumably by (non-falsified) evidence that shows that the theory or model must be changed to account for the new evidence.
Hm.
In that context, this may be helpful:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Note that while earlier models of the shape of the Earth are falsified, the newer evidence helps provide more resolution to an incomplete model rather than showing that the earlier model is completely wrong. Even when a theory is falsified, the new theory that accounts for the new evidence must still account for the older evidence as well.
Were the following people “real scientists”?
Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, James Maxwell?
@bønez_brigade [#867]
“…it would be best to drop that whole requirement that they actually do science, so at least one “persecuted” group would be able to present.”
In that event, perhaps piratologists from the Institute for Noodly Research would step in to pinch-hit.
bryce wrote:
Irrelevant. Go here for the explanation of why.
Why can’t they ever cite scientists who were born after The Origin Of Species was published?
Because all world class scientists after OoS understand evolution is scientific fact.
Does a building crumble if we don’t know who designed it?
The specified complexity (e.g., a stairway between two floors which has a degree of complexity within itself, and also has meaning, or specificity, within the greater structure in order to perform a necessary function) of the structure itself says that a designer was required. There is no need to know anything else whatsoever in order to determine that a designer acted. This is all that I.D. is speaking to, though not to say that we don’t want or like to infer some things about the designer. It is possible to maker inferences about a designer from the design, but it isn’t necessary to I.D.s task at hand.
The ‘who’ is not the problem, it’s the ‘how’ that is. Without making testable predictions, how do we know that there’s a designer there? i.e. how do you differentiate between a process without a designer and the same process where the designer plays an unspecified role?
So in life, just what did the designer do? And how do we differentiate this from the blind processes that are the current explanation?
Brent,
Nope, complexity does not equal design. Go here and read why.
In fact, before you ask any more questions, read all of the TalkOrigins list of refuted creationist claims and you won’t have to ask us any more questions.
The problem is that this analogy is incoherent. An organism is not like a building, in that we know that buildings do not naturally self-assemble, while we know that organisms do self-assemble.
“Specified complexity” is not coherently defined as a term, either.
No, Kel, the how does not matter either. It is empirically factual that randomness does not lead to coherence and order, but that intelligent minds do. One does it all the time, the other does it never, at least not beyond the most crude and simple “order”, and even that is just dumb luck (e.g. a tree falling across the banks of a river to allow a bridge). But Darwinism doesn’t need a bridge, it needs a New York City!
I guess, if you like, the I.D.ists can explain how the building blocks in a cell work together and call that the designer’s “how”, but that is of course meaningless, really, because it’s both obvious and cannot explain what underlies that process until more data can be obtained by observation. Just because darwinists like to go beyond what we observe and arrogantly proclaim they know how it arose doesn’t mean that we should do it, and therefore I.D. will not.
Owlmirror: I guess we’ll just take that on your authority that organisms self-assemble. Leaving darwinist just-so stories aside, perhaps you could prove that by observation?
I tried to give you a simple idea of specified complexity, sorry you missed it.
Do you even know how evolution works?
Here’s the simple truth. We’ve observed mutation and adaptation through selection. We’ve observed speciation. Through the fossil record, through genetics, through anatomy and morphology, we see evidences of mutation and selection. This is so strongly evidentially-based that evolution is regarded as one of the strongest theories in science.
As an ID advocate you have two options:
1. Make a prediction of something in nature that necessitates a designer. Then test to see whether such a thing can arise naturally.
2. believe Goddidit and keep that view to yourself.
Saying it looked designed and appealing that a design necessitates a designer is not science. 300 years ago one of the greatest minds ever to walk on the earth said exactly the same thing about the solar system, yet today we have a good understanding of how stars and planets come together. If you want to believe God had a hand in nature, go ahead. You have every right to do so. But don’t call it science and don’t pretend that view is in equal measure with a view that’s been observed and survived extreme scrutiny for 150 years.
How do you think a fertilized egg becomes an adult organism? Angels reaching in and pushing the cells hither and yon?
Yes, development can be seen by direct observation. The cells divide and organize themselves. You could search youtube for “embryo development”, if you wish.
“Simple” does not mean “correct” or “coherent”.
Brent wrote:
Let’s say, for argument’s sake we accept that. Which ‘intelligent mind’ created that which created us? If it was aliens, whence came the aliens? If it was the gods, who created said gods? Continue ad infinitum.
Which may be true up to a point; even so, why does the answer of ‘we don’t know’ lead to ‘if you don’t know then my god must have done it’? At one point people claimed many things (thunder, lightning, rainbows) were the result of one or more gods acting in some fashion; eventually these all fell by the wayside as we discovered the natural explanations for them.
It’s the same thing here. ‘God of the gaps’ = FAIL.
For every Michael Behe who tried to give ID at least some notion of respectibility, there’s 10,000 brent’s – people who don’t know the first thing about biology or evolution and so while Behe is arguing that ID works alongside evolution, you get morons spouting the same creationist fallacies that have been around for hundreds of years…
And this highlights beautifully that ID is nothing more than a rebranding of creationism, brought along with those same arguments of personal incredulity and arguments from design that were there back when they could call it creationism.
Cleary, this structure was built by intelligent hands. It has all the hallmarks of design and construction — regular hexagonal columns, straight vertical lines, and distinct from the natural surroundings.
How could anyone look at it and say it occurred purely through natural causes?
Kel, all else put aside for a moment: Just because I or any number of other creationists adhere to I.D. does not mean that we are the I.D. movement. It might be easier for some to rationalize away if it were so, but that argument is meaningless.
And, because I adhere to I.D. over Darwinism doesn’t mean that I agree with all ideas within it, and certainly not other adherents to it.
So… again, your argument is meaningless.
But back to the topic: You asked if I knew how evolution works. Well, I think I know how it’s proposed to work, but it would be better if we suppose I don’t and you explain it. I’m not concerned with minor variation, mind you, but with major variation; bird to dinosaur, fish to man, kind of stuff.
Owlmirror: Very nice. I knew you’d resort to some process like you have and then say it is an example of self organizing. The problem for you is twofold, however. One, information: How do the organisms “know” how to self organize? Just knowing that it works as it does and then saying it is a random natural process is as much an argument from ignorance as what Darwinists try to nail I.D.ers with (unfairly). Two, you were strongly implying that life arose by separate organisms coming together randomly (i.e. not like an egg in which all of the necessary organisms are present, and unnecessary are not, and of which is part of a much larger and more complex process) and building up information, complexity, and coherence. This has never been observed. Your example with an egg would be analogous to a machine in a factory that was “automatically” able to produce a toy. The problem is that even though the toy seems to be “self-organizing”, it was still designed and the process was one that was just being carried on by a process without need of further intelligent intervention.
Kagato: Cool place! There is a place similar to that near where I live, too (Okinawa). Anyway, though it is neat and could make one wonder if it was designed, it misses one key ingredient; specificity. There is no reason or rhyme to the patterns. If it performed a function of some sort, then it would be reasonable to consider it as designed.
So, if something that otherwise appears designed has something that does not perform a function, it may then be considered reasonable to assume it wasn’t designed?
Then humans were not designed. Why? Two words: male nipples.
Hey, a male nipple will not cause harm. Also, they are useful for MtF transsexuals.
How about a pelvic girdle too small for a baby’s body. A whole lot of complications there.
The only reason I brought up development in the first place is because I was trying to offer a distinction between your simplistic example of a building, and a biological organism.
For that, you would have to study developmental biology in far greater detail than I know — and there are indeed still unknown. But so what?
Quite wrong, in many ways.
Life, as far as we can tell, is a biochemical process. There is no apparent intelligence or life-force involved in development or metabolism. So the burden is on you to show that biochemistry — “random natural process” — is insufficient to explain life.
So far, “ID” has failed to do that.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about here. Eggs do not contain organisms, they contain genetic material and cytoplasm (which then develops into an organism). There’s nothing that says that there can be nothing unnecessary in there; indeed, much about development involves things that aren’t really necessary to the final organism, such as tails on humans, to use one example.
Above you were discussing evolution; now it looks like you want to whine about the origins of life.
Well, life, as a biochemical reaction, either bootstrapped itself (analogous to cranes being put up to help build the scaffolding that is then used to build the building itself, then the scaffolding and the crane being disassembled when no longer needed), or it didn’t (analogous to a skyhook simply lowering the building down). The problem with the “skyhook” is that there is no way to explain where it came from, or where the building it lowers came from.
You can’t posit a designer without first showing that design is the only possible answer. But that means that you have to show that no natural cause could possibly have created life. That’s a pretty difficult problem. There are an enormous number of possible chemical reactions that might have lead to life bootstrapping itself. So far, we have only investigated a few (and had some interesting partial successes, by the way).
How would you go about showing that all possible chemical reactions cannot possibly lead to life?
If you could figure out how to do that, you will have taken the first step to demonstrating that “ID” is valid. You have to prove that there was no analog to scaffolding; no analog to cranes. Good luck on that one: You have to prove a negative…
And then you have to show what it is that did create life.
Your “toy factory” example is bogus.
Well, since I’m a runner I’d love to get rid of my nipples cuz it’s no fun to forget to tape them and only realize it when I’m 8 miles from home! Yeeooouchers!
Anyway, I’ll go ahead and leave them since it’ll probably be another in a long line of supposedly vestigial organs that turn out to be rather useful after all. But either way, they look cute!
What about all the vestigial organs that, like male nipples, haven’t turned out to be useful – and won’t? Are we supposed to accept ‘well, they might turn out to be useful; therefore, we were designed?’. You set the conditions for design; I’ve provided the flaw that exposes your claim to be unfounded. By your own definition, humans (the males at least) cannot be designed.
Cute doesn’t cut it. You want to try arguing that what humans find attractive is designed, too?
But, continuing with nipples… it’s a question that can be turned around, also. If there is no purpose then why do they exist? Isn’t natural selection supposed to select against this? Or is it only supposed to select against decidedly non-beneficial, harmful, traits? Seems funny to me.
Owl:
Thank you for ‘splaining that. Actually, I didn’t think it right to say organism, but it seemed that’s what you were saying since you raised this as an example to my challenge. Anyway…
I’ll be back. Don’t say you aren’t looking forward to it.
Brent, unless a fetus get testosterone at the right time, it will be female. Even if it has the XY pairing. And seeing the nipples are needed to feed the young, it was not likely to be selected out.
The male body is an add on to the female archetype. Oversimplification but it does make me laugh.
Brent wrote:
What makes you think the process of evolution is over? Do you think humans are the end product, the pinnacle? This is an illustration of your ignorance about what evolution actually is. It’s not funny – it’s sad. If it were 150 years ago, maybe. But not today.
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:
From conception until sexual differentiation, all mammalian fetuses within the same species look the same, regardless of sex. In humans this lasts for around 14 weeks after which, genetically-male fetuses begin producing male hormones such as testosterone.[citation needed] Usually, males’ nipples do not change much past this point. However, some males develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which the fatty tissue around and under the nipple develops into something similar to a female breast. This may happen whenever the testosterone level drops.
Doesn’t sound much like a design to me – unless you want to argue the designer was lazy and half-assed…
Janine said:
So males are superior?
wowbagger: Don’t make a mountain of a molehill. I was basically saying, “I don’t know”. However, you would be advised to take my point seriously in that, if you do some checking, the list of vestigial organs has decidedly dwindled. I don’t have a link handy, but I saw a list of previously believed vestigial organs that, as it turned out, were quite functional after more research and understanding. So, no, I wouldn’t count on no use for nipples on males to stand.
Owl:
I.D. at it’s best, or is that “Skyhook”?
You know the answer to your question. Possible, perhaps, but probable, never! Anyway, I was somewhat referring to OOL, but it doesn’t really matter. Even from the first living organism, or starting from numerous simple living organisms, there is simply no shown mechanism whereby they can become increasingly more complex, with novel (completely new) functions, and major morphological changes, which are necessary to Darwinism. It seemed to be what you were saying at first with your self-organizing claim, but then you resorted to an egg as an example, and then admitted it wasn’t the same thing. Strange.
In your case, obviously not.
Intelligent designer wrote:
How the bloody hell do even you – a man of dubious (at best) perception – get that from what Janine wrote? The word ‘add-on’ hardly implies superiority.
Dude. You obviously have no idea what those words mean.
Possible means non-zero probability, which means that yes, it can happen.
Yes, there is a mechanism. It’s called genetic variation, or mutation, and selection.
The fact that you don’t understand it does not mean that it does not exist. You really do need to read up on biology before you can criticize it.
No, you didn’t understand what I was talking about (and I wasn’t sure what you were talking about). It’s not my fault if you don’t understand biology.
Start with reading a good book on evolution, will you? I like Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, but there are others.
Brent, you’ve already demonstrated that you’ve got a very limited understanding of what evolution is, how it works, what it predicts and what it doesn’t. You need to stop posting and start reading, rather than rehashing already debunked creationist claims.
As for not adding novel functions, PZ himself posted about this one about a year ago – go here and read for yourself.
Which reminds me… I.D. doesn’t have a problem with devolution. We somewhat expect it. So, really, for I.D. this isn’t a problem. I.D., however, will predict that everything has, or started with, a function, and work from there. If, like male nipples (as far as I know), there is no known function, it will go in the mystery category and be the focus of further research. Interestingly, this is exactly what darwinists don’t do. They see something without apparent function and just say, “Aww, to heck with it. It’s just left-over evolutionary junk.”
“Junk” DNA, anyone? Junk…
and more junk…
Brent,
Did you read the list of debunked creationist claims at TalkOrigins? Seriously, they have dealt with everything you’ve brought up and everything else you will bring up.
Vestigial Organs
‘Junk’ DNA
In either of those pages is a link ‘List of Claims’ – click on it and look for anything you’ve found that the authors considered a ‘major problem’ or ‘flaw’ in evolution. They’ve heard it and refuted it.
The annoying thing about the internet is that some people don’t know when your joking.
Besides which, all the Abrahamic religionists would then have to regard women as superior – because Eve was actually the pinnacle of creation as an add-on or afterthought from Adam. (Whereas evolution totally fails to stipulate any inherent superiority in add-ons; just requiring some temporary local advantage or absence of significant disadvantage instead. Single-celled critters haven’t gone away as a result of multicellularity coming along.)
Furthermore, within those Abrahamic religions: the Jews would have to acknowledge the Christians as superior, the Christians would have to acknowledge the Muslims as superior, the Muslims would have to acknowledge the Mormons as superior and so on. Though I’m not sure Scientology is an add-on as such. Perhaps the next piece of religious crack-pottery will be.
Yeah Brent,
Haven’t you got talkorigins memorized yet? Go read it and don’t say another damn thing until you do. Of course I am sure it will go right over your IDiot head. And if you don’t agree with some of the things written there it’s because you are a stupid, lying SOB that is unwilling to learn. And if you get done with that stay tuned for my book list.
@ Brent #895:
I bet you saw something factually incorrect, written by ignorant and dishonest religionists then. I can even guess the details of what one of those faulty examples will be, because it’s a classic piece of religious misrepresentation (including, indeed probably starting from, the misrepresentation of “vestigial”).
However, I challenge you to post the whole list – what you remember of it if you really can’t find the original – so that we can all deconstruct the errors and point and laugh. If you can’t remember any of it, that suggests considerable dishonesty on your part over how much of an influence it really had on you (and how little checking you bothered to do at the time); since you were clearly never learning anything, just trying to reassure yourself in your preferred delusions by imagining a reliable list existed.
Perhaps you can logically refute my point rather than just saying I don’t understand evolution. I do understand it. I love evolution. I’m very thankful that I don’t have to look like every other person on the face of the earth. What I don’t like, and you can’t explain, is how your mechanism can account for change from even a simple cell to a more complex cell with novel function, let alone to a giraffe.
Don’t give me novel garbage either. A different function, or one that wasn’t present before and then is, may be said to be novel in one sense, but not completely novel. I.E., back to my log bridge analogy: a tree may fortuitously fall across a river to create a bridge where previously there was none. But what I’m talking about here is that this blind process has to first grow a tree when there were as yet no trees in existence, and then fall in the right place. This is what darwinism needs; something where there was previously nothing. It’s no help to you even if we stay off of the OOL topic. Either way, you have to go from nothing to something.
Really, there is no help for evolution even if you get to just start with a living organism. According to your theory, there were simple living organisms with minimal function and complexity, and now they have eyes, ears, the sense of taste and smell. These are novel in the sense that I’m talking. How can evolution do that? Evolution for variation of existing functions? Okay. Development of novel functions? Nope.
And, probable doesn’t mean likely, which is what you’d like to believe. Non-zero probability only means… NON-ZERO probability. You KNOW that I was using probable in the way it is almost always used today, i.e., likely. Doublespeak from a darwinist… oh, the shock!
Wowbaggar @ 899 wrote:
Wowbaggar, the conclusions PZ draws from this experiment are easily refuted. Put on your critical thinking cap.
Brent, you want a novel function that isn’t a novel function? You are confused.
How can a cell go from not sensing light to sensing it? By having a biochemical pathway – any biochemical pathway- involving a chemical that absorbs light; then light will alter the state of the cell. How many chemicals absorb light? All of the colourful ones. There are a lot of those.
So, you need to stop posting claims, and go and get yourself a basic education. Goodbye.
I have memorized talk origins, in fact. It goes like this: Write about how evolution is a fact, that the common arguments have been debunked countless times, cite a reference to some paper(s) write more stuff just to make someone really have to search for the meat, hide the meat (i.e. just-so-story) deep within the text somewhere, ad infinitum.
I used to take the time to scour the crap so as to separate the chaff from the chaff and subsequently point it out, but now I make sure a link isn’t going to talk origins before clicking on it. It saved me from suicide.
Brent,
If you understood evolution you wouldn’t be attempting to make the points you’re trying to make. You’ve already shown you think humans are the pinnacle of the process, rather than a ‘work in progress’ and that the process is ‘blind’ – both dead giveaways of ignorance of the process. The only question now is whether you haven’t bothered to read or are choosing to be obtuse.
Another sign is that, mid-thread, you’ve given up on evolution and are now focusing on abiogenesis – we call that ‘shifting the goalposts’. You want to be dishonest, fine. I’ll step back – I’m not a scientist – and watch those with the appropriate knowledge eviscerate you on every creationist lie you produce.
Intelligent Designer@907 wrote:
Refute it then. Put up or shut up.
And don’t toss out talking points and let everyone else do the legwork in refuting you. It’s bad form. How do novel features evolve? Small changes over a very long time. If you don’t grasp that, then educate yourself. TalkOrigins is your friend.
Cognitively Dissonant said:
That means “shut up”. Many folks here are fond of saying that in various creative ways. They are also fond of assuming you don’t have an education.
Oops. Sorry for the typos. Preview is my friend.
See what I mean.
Brent wrote:
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn’t it? Aren’t you lucky you’ve got Jesus?
‘Intelligent’ Designer babbled:
This from a drooling idiot who either can’t read or can’t spell. Colour me unimpressed.
Creotards: ‘Give us novel functions! You evilutionists haven’t shown us any novel functions!’
Scientists: ‘Okay, here’s a cecal valve on a lizard. It didn’t have one before. It’s a change on the physiological and genetic level.’
[crickets]
Creotards: ‘Give us real novel functions! A cow that can breathe underwater! A duck that lays beer-flavoured eggs!
Scientists: Evolution doesn’t claim to be able to do that. Can you cite where such a claim is made?
Creotards: Ha! We win! Praise Jesus!1! Oops, I mean aliens!
It’s not a matter of assuming it at all, since you (collectively as well as individually) continually demonstrate it. Unfounded assumptions are the province of you fantasy-based people. In contrast, we, the reality-based people, have things such as the evidence of your own posts by which to judge you.
It doesn’t really matter if they were real scientists then. The question was asked in the present tense.
Intelligent Designer bleated: “They are also fond of assuming you don’t have an education.”
No assumption necessary. The evidence is clear when posters lack the most basic science education.
People on this blog are willing to go to great lengths to answer questions from posters who demonstrate that they are willing to learn something. Trolls, on the other hand, are just irritating.
So you want me to do the critical thinking for you? Did it ever occur to you that the information for the so-called novel functions already existed in the DNA and that they were merely selected?
Also, I admit it. I am a troll. Is that a bad thing?
Quite simply, minor variation over time adds up to major variation. If you understand how the minor works, then surely you can see how through a non-random process there would be an accumulation of those minor traits. As for dinosaur to bird, we’ve been able to find in the fossil record dinosaurs developing feathers then gradually developing flight. From fish to man – we have fish to amphibian fossils, reptile to mammal fossils and ape to man fossils. One great thing is that we can look at the anatomy of fish and humans to see similarities. For that I recommend reading Neil Shubin – Your Inner Fish. It should explain a lot about our evolutionary ancestry.
Because we watch basalt cool in the many places that it does around the world fairly regularly.
Seriously, did you guys all stop going to school in the 9th Grade? I know a lot of people don’t get exposed to earth science in high school and most people avoid science classes like the plague in college (science is teh hard), but you do realize that various rock types form today, in the modern world, and can be observed, right?
You might be wasting your time, Kel. It’s beyond the capacity of these clowns to understand that being able to walk across a room also means that, given time, you could walk across a state. And even if you managed to convince them of you had they’d then insist that it ‘didn’t count’ unless after the first few steps you’d grown two extra legs and a beak.
Novel function in DNA – blue eyes.
How do they think evolution works?
New novel trait – nylon-eating bacteria.
@921- you can hardly expect people who think the world was made by a wizard 6000 years ago to know anything about real-world rock formation, can you?
Stephen–not them, no. Not at all. But of course the ID proponents continually ignore those among them who reveal the wolf in sheep’s clothing and try to assert that ID is scientific. As such, one might reasonably expect them to have some understanding of the world and what we know about it.
Brent stuck around longer than most IDiots, who just post and run. Scientific content of his posts was zero. No primary peer reviewed scientific literature cited. Without citations, all you have is unsupported assertion.
Of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea.
Must we intelligent designers spell out everything for you? What part of novel don’t you understand? Will unique help you at all?
Of course, I know that I sinneth against thy holy darwinism when I mean by words what the words actually mean, for one of thy ten commandments is surely: “Thou shalt not clearly define anything whereby you wouldst necessarily contradict thyself.”
@Brent: I think you’ll find that your post in which you demanded novelty while insisting you didn’t want to be shown novelty was a bit problematic.
At present it seems you won’t accept as evolution anything which can be shown to have evolved. Hmmm.
Two things Brent. Firstly we have a fossil record where we can see macroscopic differences, we have current morphological similarities and differences, and we have a genetic record that can show what variations are different. So we can tie all this historical evidence together. Secondly, we have been looking at life for about 150 years – given the time frame, it’s amazing we have seen anything at all.
Brent, look up nylon-eating bacteria. As you may be aware Nylon was invented only 70 years ago and there is no other material like it in nature. In just the last 70 years, bacteria have evolved to be able to eat the previously unknown substance – hence a novel feature.
Again, if you want to believe that a god is behind it all, go ahead. No-one here is stopping you. All you have to do is leave here. Just don’t move the goalposts. You asked for a novel feature that has been observed in nature and there it is. If you have any questions about how evolution asks, but don’t be accusing us of following “darwinism” when you are the one who is rejecting evidence.
Brent, what don’t you understand about the evolutionary process? Do you know how mutation works? How adaptation and selection works? How speciation works? And how it all comes together? If so, what’s is your problem with evolutionary theory? Methinks you just want to say Goddidit without the big bad evolutionists throwing evidence in your face.
That’s an impressive (ie outrageously dishonest) bit of goal-shifting. Given the repetitiveness of things in nature, your imaginary god would have to be quite the self-plagiarist. Flight arising over and over again in different lineages doesn’t stop it being novel to each lineage where it does arise. Ditto sight, other senses, camouflage or warning colouration and just about anything else.
Anyhow, Kel’s already given the obvious example I’d have given – that of nylon-eating bacteria. The fact that it had been mentioned earlier in the thread (#924), ie in plenty of time before you tried to shuffle those goal-posts again (#928), just goes to show how dishonest you are in your failure to read and acknowledge the evidence.
Brent, your use of “Darwinism” says you have a closed mind. Darwin first postulated evolution, and supplied the best evidence available at the time of his books. But, Darwin made quite a few mistakes because the necessary information was not discovered until after his death. These findings, which include genes, genomes, DNA, HOX genes, and other items crucial to the totality of evolution and development. That is why Darwin is not canonized by science in any sense of the word, and we call evolution “Modern Synthesis” these days. So drop the Darwinist, as it is a meaningless term, except to show your ignorance.
I’ve just spotted a flying visit in the latest comments which then refers to “previous posts”. So perhaps this is something of a come-back.
Brent (#885):
Wrong. Function does not imply design. The functionality of something can be characterised entirely in terms of the causal role that it plays in the behaviour and/or ongoing integrity of the system of which it is a part. Thus an up-draft in a storm system has a function with respect to the behaviour of said storm – it carries warm, moist air to the upper, cooler parts of the system. But only someone how was completely ignorant of meteorology (or hopelessly enslaved to teleological thinking) would argue on such a basis that storm systems were designed.
Similarly with specificity (if you mean by this term what I think you mean, but then ID-ists do like to keep their terminology vague and imprecise). A more precise causal role, in terms the actual causal outcome(s) relative to the possible range of causal outcomes, still doesn’t entail design.
To establish a connection, you have to show that functionality and/or specificity typically correlate with design. But to do that, you need to be able to identify design independently of functionality and specificity. Which we can already do, through our experience of the products of known designers (i.e., us and a few other animals) and through our related experience of the observed differences between artificially and naturally occurring processes.
But this doesn’t help you – in the first case, you can only infer design from what you already know about possible designers that have already been independently identified. You, on the other hand, are trying to identify a designer from scratch, based entirely on phenomena that we do not independently know to be the products of a designer. In this respect, you have the argument back to front – in order to demonstrate that certain phenomena are designed, you need first to demonstrate a designer that could plausibly design them.
And in the second case, you can only infer design based on a distinction between the artificial and the natural (e.g., do these materials occur in nature in this form? Are these materials typically found in nature in this configuration? If not then, the phenomenon in question is probably artificial/designed). But this is a distinction which your argument explicitly rejects – occurrence in nature is no longer considered as a possible contra-indicator of design. So without being able to rely on the artificial/natural distinction, we have to fall back on the first, narrower criterion.
In short, your argument is hopelessly question-begging – it doesn’t demonstrate design, it assumes it.
Okay then, I’ll bite: How is it that a bacteria that can eat nylon novel? Mind you that you already know the answer and obvious conclusion that it does not show any sort of new function, but a breakdown of an already existing function.
It’s not “a breakdown of an already existing function” if the original functionality hasn’t gone away! I.e. if it’s achieved via a gene duplication event followed by a novel mutation of only one of the copies. (Nor, despite your new attempt to shift the goal-posts, would it have been a breakdown if some old functionality wasn’t being used any more, ie no longer really had a function. It only has to be new to be novel. For the hard-of-thinking, the clue is in the definition of the word.)
If you didn’t have a phobia of talkorigins (and perhaps all scientific sites?), as part of your religious determination to preserve your ignorance, you could already have read about it. Do you have a similar phobia of wikipedia? It’s not quite as reliable as talkorigins or as detailed as scientific papers of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
What is funny is that you guys cannot even be remotely precise about what you claim is evidence for darwinist mechanisms (and I continue to use that term because, as you are all so equivocally aware, evolution has many meanings).
As for the hilarious shifting goalpost claims: I’m merely providing you with a clearer vision of what was obviously stated in the first place. You didn’t want to see how far the goalposts really were, and tried to cheat and make them closer. You then claim that I’ve moved the goalposts while in actuality you’ve only been forced to play by the rules. I know, I’ve broken yet another darwin commandment. I guess I’ll have to say a few more hail mother-natures.
The claim is made because it’s demonstrably true that you did! What part of the definition of the word “novel” are you having trouble understanding, Brent? Where did you get the idea that nothing else must go away in order for something to be novel?
To take your tree example: if a tree falls over to accidentally form a bridge, then it has lost much of its functionality as a tree (although it typically takes a while for something as big and slow as a tree to fully notice that it’s dead). That doesn’t make its new bridging functionality any less novel though.
It may also acquire new functionality as a substrate for fungal growth. It needn’t necessarily lose all its functionality as a home for small critters – as long as they don’t mind the different orientation and altitude. Most probably that “home for small critters” functionality will be adapted to suiting a different subset of critters.
All quite without intelligent design.
Ditto the geological processes which form land-bridges or change ocean floors into mountains, with considerable consequent change in their functionality.
Don’t ever try to play football with Brent, it will make you need to kill…
It’s pretty much impossible to play football without killing anyway. Eg all the cells which get sacrificed and any small independent critters which are ingested, inhaled, drowned in tears or crushed underfoot. And that’s ignoring the additional food life-forms intentionally ingested to fuel the attempt to play.
Sorry, I was being speciest; I meant the kind of killing that leads to a jail term.
What is funny is that you guys cannot even be remotely precise about what you claim is evidence for darwinist mechanisms.
That’s BS and you know it. It’s also particularly rich, coming from someone who thinks that “some unspecified entity, at some unspecified time, in some unspecified manner, for god (oops!) knows what unspecified reason, created (er, designed) the platypus” is a viable hypothesis.
It’s also ridiculous that you can say this while claiming allergy to TalkOrigins. No, nothing “precise” there, nosiree. I see a lot of predictions, confirmations, and potential falsifications, but that’s just darwinist bafflegab. It only looks precise, right Brent? Tell you what. You like precision. Why don’t you tell us, precisely, what observation or experiment would falsify ID?
> No, Kel, the how does not matter either.
Brent, that simple statement succinctly captures why ID/creationism is not science. “The how” is what theory is; if you don’t have or are not headed toward theory, what you’re doing is not science.
ID doesn’t care about “the how,” but pretends that “how not” is sufficient. It fails even at that, by not exhibiting a single failed prediction of evolutionary theory — which is what science demands in order to refute a hypothesis or theory.
ID has no explanatory power. It makes no predictions. It has no precision. It can not be tested. It adds no empirical observation to refute existing theory. Why should it be called “science”?
All ID does is shrug its shoulders and say, “Life is just so COMPLEX that nature couldn’t make it by itself,” with an ad hoc, imprecise definition of “complex.” A thunderstorm is complex; a river is complex; a volcano is complex; the moon is complex; a galaxy is complex; a single atom is complex. Complexity as a trait says almost nothing. Being filled with awe and wonder at complexity does not make one a scientist.
Ah, the basic misunderstanding of every single creationist so far. Mutation is random, but selection is not — it’s determined by the environment.
Dude, there’s an entire science called development biology (or developmentary or even developmental). There are textbooks for it. And there’s a lot of material online. Google is your friend, you know…
Show me there’s a difference in the first place!
Bizarre statement.
Bingo!
Over half of your genome consists of retrovirus corpses in various stages of decay. Easy to explain: retroviruses inserted their genomes, and then came a copying mistake that prevented them from being recognized and cut out again, so they just stay there and keep mutating into oblivion. There is no mechanism to cut them out all at once, so natural selection can’t do much except waiting for single-nucleotide deletions to accumulate, and that doesn’t happen faster than the addition of nucleotides or even the addition of new retrovirus genomes.
Most of the rest consists of very large amounts of repetitions of a sequence of 2, 3 or 4 nucleotides. Again easy to explain: that’s a sort of copying mistake that is very easy to repeat in the same place. (We know how DNA polymerase works.)
So? How does this term that creationists made up explain things like the fact that your eyes are backward? That you were born through a ring of bone? That DNA is used as the material of heredity? That last one is incredibly stupid, because DNA falls apart when stored in water! We spend lots of energy to constantly repair it (and, of course, sometimes make mistakes in the process — that’s a major source of mutations).
See?
Mutation alone isn’t evolution, and mutation with Mendelian inheritance alone isn’t evolution either.
This is not quite true. Gene duplication followed by mutation is enough.
Take the fact that most placental mammals are red-green blind but we apes aren’t. Our red and green receptors are very, very similar — much more so than they are to the blue receptor, and much more so than the red and green receptors of other vertebrates. This goes so far that the “red” receptor is only called that because it’s the one of the three that reacts most strongly to red light, but its absorption maximum is actually in the yellow part of the spectrum.
Or take α- and β-tubulin in eukaryotic cytoskeletons. Very similar to each other, except that α-tubulin can change its shape by turning the GTP molecule it carries around in a pocket into GDP, while β-tubulin has a fixed inbuilt GTP that it can’t do anything with. Turns out bacteria have a similar protein with a similar function, FtsZ, which also changes its shape by turning the GTP molecule it carries around in a pocket into GDP.
I could go on for a long time!
New genes arising from anything other than this process is a very rare occurrence. One is the antifreeze protein of ice fishes. As can be seen by comparison to the genome of close relatives of the ice fishes, it comes from junk that happened to acquire (by mutation) a start and a stop codon. You can see why this is improbable and therefore rare.
Evolution of variation of existing genes? Every day of the week, and twice on Sunday!
It won’t surprise you to learn that mutations of existing genes can lead to proteins with completely novel functions. One of the crystallins in the eye lens of chickens is almost the same as the blood protein albumin. Gene duplication, expression in the wrong place ( = mutation in a regulatory gene), et voilà…
Show me it was already there.
Well, yes. It means that you aren’t interested in learning or even in teaching, but only in getting emotional reactions just for the (sadistic) fun of it. It’s also a bannable offense.
That’s because that’s not how science works. What we need is to propose evidence against the theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift (Silurian rabbits, for example), as well as evidence against ID (the abovementioned cases of Stupid Design, for example).
WOW! No question the original Gotelli response and the ensuing blogs provide evidence of intelligence! There is an intelligence creating the dialogue and there are intelligences receiving the information content and the meaning of that sending and intelligently responding back and forth to those messages.
Though, it is true, some expressions convey little more information than a “grunt”, the “ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssddddddddddddrrrrrrrrrrr………..” of an experimental monkey on a key board or have little more meaning than “a lump of shit” on the keyboard, some observations of another intelligence are in order.
Obviously, from the “intelligence” exchanged one can surmise – most of the people’s emotions have run high, content in terms of “meaningful information” is low, group cohesiveness has increased in rallying around their “apostle”, personal worldviews have been reinforced, blindness to the “category mistake” made by Gotelli has been enhanced, creativity in demeaning another human has been successfully provoked and emphasized with glee, evidence of blindly wallowing in limited vision has been demonstrated, all are ignorantly pursuing a tautological philosophically closed system, all are exhibiting in blind agreement confusion of mechanism with agency and simply expressing subjective feelings rather than objective thought.
Hey! How’s that for ID with no reference to creationism? Please, Dr. Gotelli, sort out your categories and don’t confuse the issue and set off a trail of blabbering devotees giving you undeserved honor!
Do tell what the fuck you’re talking about.
I’ll take a shot at this one, though. By “mechanism” (of biological evolution?) you mean “mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift”? And so by “agency” you mean…what, exactly, if not a puppeteer/creator?
The “agency” of natural selection is the exigencies of a population’s current environment. Perfectly sufficient. Don’t you agree?
Willie,
Do you have an actual argument to make here in favour of ID? A scientific argument?
Wow. Over
9000900 posts and not a shred of scientific evidence in support of ID. I think there’s another useful point to keep in mind when considering why ID is not science (and not worth a debate from Prof. Gotelli): there’s no mechanism. Anyone who has submitted a manuscript for peer review in the biological sciences knows the importance of a mechanistic explanation. What is the mechanism for ID? How did the supernatural force or superintelligent extraterrestrials create complex biological structures here on Earth? If there’s nothing to observe, quantify, evaluate, and otherwise analyze, you don’t have science, you have a vague philosophical proposition not unlike William Paley’s in 1802.Willie, care to explain even one of the many, many assertions you’re making?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 23, 2009 3:40 PM
Willie, care to explain even one of the many, many assertions you’re making
……The reality is Willie’s turgid and confusing homily is essentially a self parody which he himself doesn’t even comprehend. You’re wasting your time talking to these folks as Gotelli clearly understands. At the end of the day the flat earthers and alien abductionists are never going away. Fortunately they are doing harm to no one other than themselves.
Nylon is a synthetic material that wasn’t invented until 1935. Meaning that the mutation that allowed for a bacteria to digest it had never happened before.
See, the thing is Brent that you are the one calling us closed-minded and adherents to “Darwinism” when it is us who is using the evidence, and you are just saying “wrong, Goddidit” as if you don’t need any evidence to support your position. Quite simply the fact is, the genetic record points to common descent, the fossil record points to common descent, geographical distribution of animals points to common descent, the anatomy points to common descent, and if you would just open up a science book you would see.
Note that people aren’t recommending On The Origin Of Species or any other book by Darwin, rather books that fit in with the current state of the scientific theory. Because science isn’t an appeal to one man, it’s a process that is ultimately decided by the evidence. You try to call us close-minded but I think it’s nothing more than projection from your inability to see the world any other way.
If English is Willie’s first language, he should be very mad at God.
Little Willie
Willie
Willie won’t
‘clap’
‘clap’
‘clap’
Go home
I must say I disagree: not on the merits of evolution versus intelligent design, but on the best way for scientists to respond.
To refuse a public debate, however reasonable it may sound to other scholars, merely gives ammunition to one’s opponents. What is more, a public debate is a real opportunity to change people’s minds. I for one think that serious scientists should jump at the opportunity to make their case directly to the public.
Frank, it has been pointed out repeatedly that a debate is not how knowledge is spread. The person who has the better rhetorical style usually “wins”. And that has little to do with facts.
Also, a public debate is seen as an admittance that creationism is a legitimate way to view biology. One should never give credence to an idea that is flawed from the start.
What is needed is a better and higher standard of education.
Frank, you are wrong about public debates. Science should only debate in the scientific literature, and in the scientific meetings. There is no good method to counteract the Gish Gallop. Therefore, the “debates” are not about evidence, but about appearance.
Frank #955 wrote:
I think serious scientists should stay away from such debates, because it gives credence to the opposition. However, this says nothing about the non-serious scientists, the retired biology teachers, and the argumentative guy at the coffee house who reads talk origins and used to be captain of the debate team. They should set up debates with the creationist ministers and engineers and home-schooling moms — and wipe the floors with them.
It’s more fair.
Frank, that would be true if creationists were interested in honest debate. They are not. A scientist develops certain habits of argument, formed from defending his ideas and criticizing those of colleagues, that are based on providing evidence and valid chains of logic.
A creationist has no such restraints. If a certain fact would help your argument, make it up. If your opponent demands a citation for that, make that up, too. Your audience won’t check. Unsupported claims, even outright lies, take much less time to assert than to refute, so pile’em on thick in an unending torrent of bullshit known as the Gish Gallop. Misquote your sources. Misquote your opponent. By the time anyone can generate a transcript and point out your mendacity, your audience (stacked with credulous shills) will already have gone home confident in their ignorance, and you will have moved on to your next speaking engagement.
No, if any debate is to be held with creationists, the written format is far better.
Why shouldn’t scientists debate creationists? Easy: because it’s easy to explain ‘Goddidit’ and it’s hard to explain evolution. Evolution is complicated; God is simple – he’s magic. What’s to understand when you can just go ‘poof!’ and everything’s there?
People prefer the easy answers. Why work hard to learn when you can just have it handed to you in a bible?
Given enough time and an audience prepared to actually think about what it all means and evolution would win every time. But in five minutes a creotard can list everything there is to know about God and the scientist is still stuck with explaining what DNA stands for.
DaveL #959 wrote:
Years ago I read a presumably true story told by Mark Twain in, I think, his book Following the Equator. On one of the long, slow trips across the Pacific there was a blowhard on ship who liked to argue. He would always win because — everyone suspected — he would make stuff up. Facts, figures, sources, citations, authorities, quotes would all roll smoothly off his tongue, with, of course, no possibility that anyone could check.
He was finally silenced by a man who had quietly observed it all, and then, one day, politely argued against the liar using the man’s own invented sources. “Ah, my dear sir, you do quite well to quote McClosky’s 1842 treatise on the sea turtle — how many enjoyable hours have I spent perusing it! — but it seems to me that you forgot to mention his last chapter, where he revised his earlier views.” And “what an admirable summation of the case of Baldock vs. Horn! I believe that was the case which the judge quoted in the subsequent case of Baldock and — do you remember the name — oh, Adams, yes, you were just about to say that, weren’t you? A scholar such as yourself could not have missed its implications, which, I’m sure you will agree, puts quite a different light on the matter.”
The bullshitter couldn’t call bullshit on his opponent, without admitting he had made up every source!
It would be interesting to try that with one of the Creationists. Just for fun and giggles.
Oh, I love that song!
Ok, nearly 1000 posts in and I think I’ve figured out the entire ID argument. Since there is no evidence the case for ID boils down to this:
You guys are mean = Darwin was wrong = ID is true.
Did I miss anything?
That’s about it, Helfrick. The ID/creationists haven’t realized that besides knocking holes in evolution they also have to fill those holes with falsifiable evidence for goddidit.
Posted by: otto | February 23, 2009 4:08 PM
“At the end of the day the flat earthers and alien abductionists are never going away. Fortunately they are doing harm to no one other than themselves.”
I would agree, until you begin to consider what they are avidly trying to do to science in the classroom. How much they have turned the ignorant and misunderstanding public with false arguments.
The reality is, they are harming all of society and specifically scientific advancement. If they could get their way, and they are trying and gaining more support every day, they would usher in a wonderful new Dark Ages. I’m sure a witch trial or Inquisition wouldn’t be far behind that, either.
So much to argue, but I’ll take up this question:
You must show that random natural/material processes can lead to specified complexity. You can show pictures of cool rock formations and pretend that it is as complex as a living cell if you want, but that won’t cut it, folks.
Brent, you got it backwards. In science, the claimant, namely you with your ID, must prove your case. Do so or shut up. We don’t have to prove anything.
You’ve been told about the nylon-eating bacteria several times. Or are you looking for a “specified complexity” predicted ahead of the mutation?
You may pretend to have memorized TalkOrigins but it’s obvious that the basics of evolution still elude you.
Because, as you know, evolution must have a goal.
Brent tapdanced:
How, exactly, is that a response to ‘Why don’t you tell us, precisely, what observation or experiment would falsify ID?’
Maybe you’d better read the question again – rather than dodge it – and focus on the part that reads ‘…what observation or experiment would falsify ID?’.
Just in case you’re unsure, here’s the Wikipedia entry on falsifiability.
It doesn’t work like that Brent. Even if evolution by natural selection weren’t true, it doesn’t make your explanation any more likely. You’ll never prove creation by disproving natural selection, all you do when disproving natural selection is disprove natural selection. Take the statement “All cars are red” now if you show that there’s a car that is not red, the statement “all cars are blue” doesn’t suddenly become true. Likewise, showing evolution by natural selection to be false doesn’t mean that whatever you say to be the case is true.
As for adding information in the genome – go to PubMed and search for the term “gene duplication” you should find over 3000 articles talking about how we can see an increase in information.
Brent, start out by choosing you intelligence agent, god or an advanced alien race.
Janine #969
Unlike ID, which tends to score own goals (Behe, Buckingham, Bonsell, etc.).
Brent, the reason we know evolution to be true is that multiple lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion. The case for common ancestry can be well established through: anatomy, morphology, geographical distribution, comparison of genetic code, and the fossil record.
How do we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Firstly we’ve found fossils of transitional stages. There were a group of bipedal dinosaurs that became feathered, as evidenced in the fossil record. Then we see fossils where the bipedal dinosaurs are turning their forelimbs into wings. One example is archaeopteryx – it still had claws on its wings, among other saurian features. It also had a reptilian tail, a reptilian jaw and teeth. Secondly we’ve found soft tissue from a tyrannosaurus and from there we can see that modern birds did not descend those giant killers but had a very recent common ancestor. Thirdly we can look at birds today. There is still one species of bird in south america which the infants still have claws on their wings. Chickens have an inactive gene to make teeth.
When looking at the genetic code between chimpanzees and monkeys we see some strong evidences for common descent. Chimpanzees and all other great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. So either they have a split chromosome pair or we have a fused chromosome pair, or there was no common ancestor. And when we looked at the genomes, there it was. All the chromosome markers that point to a fused chromosome which we call human chromosome pair #2. Also there’s a fascinating means of altering DNA. ERV’s or endoretroviruses are remnants of sections of DNA that viruses insert into the host. So they act as genetic markers. Again, looking at the genome we can check for these markers – and when we looked we found 17 ERV-K (just one type of marker) sitting in exactly the same spot in both genomes. Clear evidence for common ancestry. Then there is the fossil record of pre-humans, and the neanderthals that only broke from us a few hundred thousand years ago.
The fact is that life has been on this earth for billions of years and the evidence for common ancestry is so strong that it’s considered as true as science can be. If you don’t think the proposed mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory can account for that, then you are going to need to propose a mechanism that can. Because right now we’ve observed mutation, we’ve observed selection, and between them have led to adaptation as per the environment. We’ve even witnessed speciation, both in the wild and in the lab. We have the evidence to support evolution, so if you think there is a different mechanism at play – please demonstrate so. It would be Nobel-prize worthy material and would make you the possibly the most famous person in the world.
For that, ID bullshit artists would first have to explain how “specified complexity” can be identified after the fact other than by asking William Dembski.
Obviously, function doesn’t fit the bill, because we have oodles of examples of new function. It isn’t specificity or generality, because we have examples where each can be shown to increase.
Perhaps you can shed a little light on this subject.
I believe in intelligent design…and I am grieved to see others who would say the same acting so disrespectful and even hateful. Please accept the apology of one who does not share the same approach when engaging those who believe differently. I respect your beliefs as much as I would want to be respected myself.
Please know that not all who disagree do so as disrespectful as what you may have experienced.
I originally said in post 794 that
“This is just a ploy to make ID seem ridiculous.” I was referring to the conspiracy among Darwinists to prevent any paper from an ID point of view that questions evolution from being published in scientific journals. Darwinists won’t allow this publishing and then they turn around and try to use the fact that not many ID papers have been published in mainline journals as proof that ID is wrong. This is the ploy I was referring to and it is undeniable.
Owlmirror called this humorous. (Post 796)I guess he was being facetious here, but it really is humorous to me that Darwinites actually think they can fool people like this. No wonder the majority of people don’t believe in evolution.
Personally, I don’t think that a scientist’s views on evolution should have any bearing on whether his paper is accepted in a journal or not – IF the paper itself is scientifically accurate. Pledging allegiance at the foot of Pope Charlie should not be a prerequisite for publishing in these journals. But it seems like it is.
Why? Because, once in a while, an evolutionist can get an article published that is critical of or casts doubt on some parts of Darwinism, while IDers cannot. This seems like discrimination to me.
Aawwwww! Poor widdle Jim M. is all oppressed and discriminated against. Who knew the creationism was a civil rights movement?
So many whine about being disrespectful. So apparently trying to undermine the entire endeavour of science is not disrespectful, but calling them out for doing so is… Fucking IDiots!
Well, if you’re publishing on physics or geology or astronomy, I’m sure one could easily get published regardless of their acceptance or not of the ToE. Mostly, because it’s probably not going to come up or have anything to do with the work. The problem is, when you’re dealing with topics in biology, evolution is what’s scientifically accurate and it’s bound to play a part in whatever the smeg you’re talking about.
Feel free to submit your criticisms of evolution. There’s lots left to figure out and likely plenty of errors or inaccuracies to bring to light. But that’s a far cry from falsifying the ToE, and not even a single step in the direction of substantiating or providing evidence for design.
@ David:
Well, I’m not sure how far your apology will go to sooth tempers around here that have been frayed by that kind of behavior for a long, long time, but I’ll thank you. It’s a small gesture on your part, but we see so few like that, that I figure yours should at least be recognized.
If you feel like joining in and participating:
Why don’t you accept evolution and choose to believe in design? What evidence convinced you that something is spending his/her/it’s/their time fiddling with the DNA of billions and billions of creatures on this planet (and who knows how many others)? Also, how is/are he/she/it/they doing it?
Your silly conjecture to fit evidence into the Darwinian paradigm is, well, silly.
What I said is in fact, however, the way in which to go about falsifying I.D. The point isn’t whether it is or isn’t a hole in evolution at all. The reason that I.D. stands is because we know by everything that we observe in life that intelligence is a necessary ingredient for complex, working, purposeful (to try to help with the idea of specified complexity – complexity with a purpose may be a simple way to think of it) system or entity. The hypothesis is simply that design is required for any such system, which by definition necessarily includes living organisms, no matter how simple.
Though this is a problem for evolution, it happens also to be the crux of the difference between it and I.D., which is why you need to show it possible to falsify I.D.
The reason nylonase does not fit this criteria for falsifying I.D. is that I.D. does not predict against random mutation that may infer some benefit. What I.D. would predict against is that an organism like a bacteria can, by a beneficial mutation (or any other natural unguided process), become more and more fit (i.e., more complex and more purposeful) while undergoing these mutations (or other process).
Brent,brainwashed moron mumbled incoherently:
Define “we”.Then explain how we know this exactly.
The problem with ID is,it proposes something that relies on belief and is unfalsifiable.In short,ID makes shit up.
Not science,not even close.
Mutation creates variation, the ones that are better adapted have a better chance to survive, so those beneficial mutations will accumulate over subsequent generations. Surely it’s not hard to see how it all works…
I am a Christian (as I’m sure you may have guessed). I have recently listened to some very pointed sermons, and an excellent quip of the speaker was, “The world doesn’t need a new definition of Christianity, it needs a new demonstration of it.”
You’ve explained how it is supposed to work, but you haven’t shown me. I haven’t got a problem with the idea of how evolution is supposed to work, until, that is, we try to square that idea with observation.
Interestingly, if you had said, “Surely it’s not hard to imagine how it all works…”, then I could agree. Seeing, on the other hand, is wholly another matter; the one that counts!
Show your work.
We’ve seen countless examples of mutation, selection and adaptation in action. Look up the Lenski experiment to see how over many generations traits accumulated, and even had a novel change in the mix!
We have the mechanisms, we have the evidence. What do you have?
Brent,
you want to see evolution in action to believe it?
Get yourself HIV-positive and try some antiviral monotherapy.Let us know how you go.
Or get a MRSA foot infection and try some Penicillin.Good luck.
But you forget, God made AIDS to kill faggots… so AIDS evolution is really evidence for intelligent design because God is showing those pesky scientists not to get in the way of him killing faggots by mutating the virus on them. ;)
Surprise!
Actually, we’d take either. We’re getting tired of this shit.
Fixed that for you, pal.
You’ve been given examples in this thread and there’s many more on this blog. Try opening your eyes.
Kel,
I admit you have a point there !
And SARS was just to kill of those pesky Chinese… God bless America. U S A! U S A!
Jim M @ 977:
Oh wow, and honest-to-gosh Conspiracy Theory!
I think it’s really clever how all of the published biologists on the planet manage to work together in secret so well. With any group that size, I would have expected a whistleblower or two to show up in the ranks by now, or at least some slip-up or leak that reveals how they’ve managed to pull off such an extensive global plot. I guess they really are smart!
Aye, there’s the rub…
Brent @ 981:
Wuh…? What’s the difference?
A bacteria population that is almost starved of its normal food, over many generations, evolves the ability to instead digest a readily available but synthetic substance. This is such a successful adaptation that the population explodes in its limited environment. That’s pretty much a textbook example of becoming “more fit”.
The only objective “purpose” that can be ascribed to life as a whole is to reproduce… and even that’s really just a truism. There’s no rule from on high declaring “Life Must Breed”; but those that don’t would live, die & disappear, and those that do multiply.
Actually, that there AIDS is a twofer… gets rid of them damn queers and it’s killin all the darkies in Africa!
Yeehaw! Praise Jesus!
You guys are pathetic. Brilliant! Fuckin’ brilliant! I gotta buy you a beer! What self-congratulation! Are you Darwinists going to fuck each other up the ass in this mutual admiration society? You know, propagate the strong? Oh yeah that’s right. It looks like you secularists don’t have babies, therefore, you’re going to be ‘selected out’ in favour of religious nuts. Ha! Ha! BTW, P.Z. Meyers, you look like you’ve been gang raped already judging from your picture.
Ah,some christian love on display,how nice…..
The reason nothing can fit any criterion for falsifying I.D. is that I.D. does not predict anything. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you.
David @994,
Do you have any new research results to present in support of I.D.?
David seems a bit preoccupied with the sodomy. Don’t be ashamed of it David. We will accept you for who you are. You don’t need to hide behind your anger any longer.
So, as suggested by Kel, clinteas, and Ragutis… if some microorganism is “complex, working, purposeful”, and thereby demonstrates that an intelligence designed it, then if the microrganism kills many people, we know that the intelligence wants people to die? And if the primary victims of the microorganism are infants, we know that the intelligence wants to kill babies?
I ask only for information about this “designer” of which you speak.
Sounds like he was rephrasing G. K. Chesterton: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
But of course, Christianity was ill-defined from the very beginning, so “demonstrating” it has never been easy, and may well be impossible.
How do you “demonstrate” that 1 = 3, anyway?
“Ah,some christian love on display,how nice…..”
but no facts, no logic, nothing.
And what’s with the homoerotic fantasies with these guys?