ACLU Monkey Business
Posted on September 27, 2005
Hat tip to Hidden Nook
A Pennsylvania federal court Monday was set to consider whether school districts may teach a concept known as “intelligent design” prior to teaching biology lessons on evolution. Eight families in Dover, Pennsylvania, claim that teaching the theory in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.
The “intelligent design” concept, developed by scholars over the last 15 years, sets forth the belief that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot completely explain the origin of life, contending that an unidentified intelligent force played a role.
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools is to unfold in federal court.
The Dover Area School District on Monday was to start defending its policy of requiring ninth-grade students hear about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the concept under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.Source
This is always a hot topic of debate, so I’m gonna keep my analyses short and sweet. Intelligent design is not particularly religious. Just because Christians support its teachings does not mean its Christian, or religious. Intelligent design simply teaches that common sense observation, reveals the chance that we were created by chance is at greater odds than the possiblity there was design behind it. The complexities of the human body, and all the variations of life on this one planet are more likely the result of intentional design than random chance. Be it aliens, gods, an intelligent universe…whatever you want to call it..its more likely their was intelligence behind our development than not.
Its just a theory, and I don’t understand why all the secularists like the ACLU find it so threatening, when Darwins theory has been found to be full of hoaxes and flaws. One question evolution fans have never been able to answer to my satisfaction is how dead matter ever gained concioussness? How did an arrangement of chemicals and energy ever attain self awareness? Intelligent design raises these kinds of questions. I think it is a healthy addition to the debate of our origins. To see a good explanation on the mathmatical probabilities of chance creating us, take a look at Orge’s excellent analysis. Why the ACLU thinks this is a civil rights issue is beyond me.
Linked at Mudville Gazette, Basil’s and The Political Teen
Other Bloggers on this topic:
Espresso Roast
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
101 Responses to “ACLU Monkey Business”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Wow. You, like many chiming in blindly on the subject of evolution and ID creationism, pack a remarkable number of misunderstandings and general gibberish into few words.
“Intelligent design is not particularly religious. Just because Christians support its teachings does not mean its Christian, or religious.”
Since you haven’t done your homework, I could point you toward any one of hundreds of pieces of evidence to the contrary, but I’ll submit for your thorough consideration the “Wedge document”: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html. This was published by an arm of the Discovery Institute, the chief American locus of fomenting ID creationism. You can stop after the first sentence if you’re short on time.
“Intelligent design simply teaches that common sense observation, reveals the chance that we were created by chance is at greater odds than the possiblity their was design behind it. The complexities of the human body, and all the variations of life on this one planet are more likely the result of intentional design than random chance. Be it aliens, gods, an intelligent universe…whatever you want to call it..its more likely their was intelligence behind our development than not.”
Here you’ve stated in a number of ways that you find the complexity of the human body so marvelous that it could not possibly have arisen over millions of years through natural selection acting on the genetic by-products of beneficial mutation. Arguments from incredulity may be instinctive in the scientifically avoidant, but they aren’t satisfactory. You’ve also wrongly used the term “random chance,” but this is so endemic among creationists that it’s not worth harping on here.
“Its just a theory…”
ID creationism is not a theory. It’s ad hoc nonsense. Scientific theories are by definition testable and hence potentially falsifiable. ID creationism merely says “It’s amazing, so [God] did it.” Of course, there’s no evidence of this [God], so what’s to test? Can you offer one testable element of this “theory”?
“…and I don’t understand why all the secularists like the ACLU find it so threatening, when Darwins theory has been found to be full of hoaxes and flaws.”
Ouch! “Secularists”! Well, maybe it’s because ID creationism — be it religious nonsense or something culled from the ashes of an evil secularist’s burned Bible — has no place in science classes. Evolution is firmly established across every biological discipline and has no legitimate challenger in the garbage shouted from the lips of ID folk.
Also, please list one hoax that has been integrated into the theory of evolution, and a single flaw in same. You’ve obviously read your advanced biology books, so this should be an easy one.
“One question evolution fans have never been able to answer to my satisfaction is how dead matter ever gained concioussness? How did an arrangement of chemicals and energy ever attain self awareness?”
Ah, there’s the key phrase: “to your satisfaction.” Well, since you steadfastly refuse to enlighten yourself on the theories pertaining to abiogenesis, molecular agglomeration in a vastly different atmospheric milieu billions of years ago, and the aggregability of nucleotide precursors in the presence of a likely catalyst such as clay, I don’t think that anyone could explain this to within a hemisphere of your satisfaction. But take heart - while a nation of pursed-lipped bumpkins whacks and smacks their holy books while staunchly declaring that “Darwinism” can’t be right, biologists are hard at work in an effort to elucidate more clearly what might have happened in primordial times.
“Intelligent design raises these kinds of questions.”
That it doesn’t. It merely serves up a pat answer: “[God] did it.”
“I think it is a healthy addition to the debate of our origins.”
Kind of like arsenic is a healthy addition to beef stew.
“To see a good explanation on the mathmatical probabilities of chance creating us, take a look at Orge’s excellent analysis.”
Ogre’s analysis is misguided and trite. He’d be laughed out of any physics or mathematics department if he let fly with that stuff. I won’t bore you with the fundamental flaws in his reasoning.
“Why the ACLU thinks this is a civil rights issue is beyond me.”
See above. You know, it’s okay to hate on the often overbearing ACLU, but don’t drag scientists into the debate when it’s clear you’re completely lost on every epistemological aspect of this so-called debate.
BV wrote;
“ID creationism is not a theory. It’s ad hoc nonsense. Scientific theories are by definition testable and hence potentially falsifiable.”
And I ask, is evolution testable? Can we create a self aware intelligent being through evolution testing?
If so, do it.
And I ask, is evolution testable? Can we create a self aware intelligent being through evolution testing?
If so, do it.
Don’t have to… like ya said earlier, God already did.
Beaming Visionary, you know what I think is ignorant? Closed minds. I never said evolution was false, only that random chance was unlikely. A higher intelligence using evolution as a tool of creation…possible. I’m open minded to the possiblities of evolution and intelligent design, what I don’t understand is someone who could deny the possibilities, of intelligent design.
Beaming visionary, you’re blinded by your own beliefs.
Intelligent design and evolution are equally religious — a simple set of beliefs. Just because you don’t agree with one set of beliefs and agree with another doesn’t make you non-religious and someone else religious.
If intelligent design is not a theory because it cannot be tested, then evolution is not a theory, because it cannot be tested, at all, either.
Evolution is no more science than ID. The simple evidence of this is that most of those who support evolution will not consider any other evidence. Those who came up with the theories of naturalism and evolution started with the supposition that there is no God. Good science examines all the data to come up with a conclusion — they started with a conclusion and then found evidence for it — and continue to reject out of hand ANY evidence that conflicts with their pre-conceived conclusion — that’s BAD science.
You continue your blanket insults of people and see how well that supports your arguments and THEORIES to explain how rock became elephants. I theorize that my cat was birthed by the mating of the moon and a cockroach. I’m right simply because I declare I am and no one can prove me wrong because no one saw the birth. Gee, I sound like a real scientist, don’t I?
ID does raise questions, you just absolutely, blindly, refuse to accept any possible evidence that refutes your personal theory that you have faith in. Your faith is in naturalism and anything that questions your faith is wrong by definition. So you can have your naturalistic religion if you like — just like others who claim theirs is the only “true” religion.
And no, the ACLU is not concerned with rights in this case. They are opposed to anything that shows that man is not God. The ACLU wants to be God, and they don’t want anyone else to tell them they’re wrong. Evolution lets them be God.
This first rambling is so much Liberal bullcrap. This so called Beaming Visionary has a burned out bulb and has gall telling other people they need to do their homework.
First and foremost, the writer thinks he is writing to other gullible Liberal idiots, and assumes using big words and flashy references will convince us he is right, far from it however, and that we’ll just foldem and follow along like yet another gullible putz. I don’t think so. The first reference they attempt to use is the first sentence in the Wedge Document, which is a crock of crap. Why? Its basically Wedge restating a proposition, not making a factual statement. Lets move on as it obviously proves nothing and is a waste of time.
Secondly, the writer conveniently avoids really addressing and explaining natural evolution while using big scary words in an attempt to discount what was said about intelligent design. We’re still waiting for a detailed explanation with facts to back up your big mouth. We doubt you can supply either, but rather will respond with more unsubstantiated Liberal jibberish. We’ll not harp on that then….
Third this dolt makes a statement that on its surface appears to define Theory. Wrong again. A Theory as described can be statements and/or principles that can be tested, but it can also be based on widely accepted principles. That part was so conveniently left out so as to confuse and mislead. Didn’t work. Also, we’d like to see your test on evolution. Tell us where the lab is that we can visit and see where over millions of years through natural selection acting on the genetic by-products of beneficial mutation, evolution took place. We at least have evidence that Christ did in fact exist, and performed miracles. We’re waiting….
Fourth, there is the completely asinine statement that intelligent design has no place in science class. WHY?? You’re obviously anti-religion, by the way you speak, so the answer is because YOU and other control freak Liberals have a personal problem with it. Your type cannot understand the theory of religious freedoms. That would be where you believe what you want to believe and others will believe what they want to believe, but you don’t stick your nose into my beliefs and attempt to eradicate them because you don’t like them or believe in them. Further, evolution is NOT firmly established across all biological disciplines simply because if you knew what the hell you were talking about you would know that not all biological disciplines in fact support the theory or the idea, and that evolution has too many unexplained areas to be totally embraced by all sciences. This is fact, so spare me.
Fifth. Wow, how long did it take you to look all of those big words up in the dictionary? Molecular Agglomeration, Abiogenesis, Atmospheric Milieu, Nucleotide Precursors, and Aggregability. Those are pretty big scary sounding words, did your mommy help you with them? I’m quite sure all of us with working brains, especially Jay and other bloggers who post informative articles here fully understand the evolution theory and don’t necessarily disagree that it is a possibility that millions of years ago there may have taken place the development of a living organism from non-living matter allowed by the gathering of matters consisting of various compounds, phosphates and other materials to form basic DNA which is the building block of life. The problem is in that Liberal jackasses like you refuse to accept that this is not the only possibility, and much to your chagrin and torment, that there may be other ideas and theories out there that also quite satisfactorily explain how we got here. By the way, Aggregability and Milieu are not real words. So its not really a matter of Jay or myself or anyone else writing here wanting to understand a theory and be satisfied that it could work everything considered, but rather you having a problem with a theory that may possibly suggest a God or other superior intelligence may be involved. You’re just going to have to get over it little boy.
Sixth. Why do Liberals like you insist that everything intelligent design is about God? You’re as shallow as a 1/2″ deep puddle with your intolerance of anything religion. Intelligent design could just as easily mean that there are more intelligent beings out there in the universe, and they may or may not have had a hand in things. Given the stupidity of Liberals, I’m convinced that there may well be a more intelligent being out there, there has to be. So your “Pat Answer” theory is unfounded and as usual unsubstantiated. Just another way of avoiding the question, how typically pathetically, sickeningly, shallow minded, Liberal.
Seventh. I agree and most intelligent thinking people will agree that a variety of teachings are healthy. But we see again, you have no intelligent answer except to say that arsenic in beef stew would be healthy. Please, by all means make up a big batch and eat hearty, the sooner the better.
Eighth. It’s amazing how you Liberal big mouths come in with your big words and baseless statements, and proceed to discount statements by saying such idiotic statements like “Ogre’s analysis is misguided and trite.” Actually, it’s your writings here that are quite trite. You cannot answer in an intelligent manner an argument explaining Ogre’s position and showing proof where he may be wrong. You just poopoo his works without substantiating your position at all. This is because you cannot. You’re not smart enough to do that mainly because you know he is right and your argument is weak. We could simply do the same for your so called proof in citing Wedge. At least we gave an intelligent answer in that Wedge was simply restating a proposition, not forwarding a factual theory. So please, spare me.
Ninth. Wow, another big scary word. Epistemological. Did your mommy help you pick that one out too? Laughable you are. Jay and other writers here have done countless hours of research on subject matters. To insinuate that they have no idea what they are talking about is ignorant, not to mention rude and condescending. However, from dealing for many years with Liberals, this is to be expected from persons like yourself. Liberals like you should not use big words when you are unsure of their true and complete meaning, and especially if they apply to yourself more than those you’re vainly attempting to apply them to. Your depth of knowledge on either theories is pathetic at best and guided by the shallowness of your vision. Validity is all but non-existant in your ramblings further serving to prove your attempted points as invalid and not worthy of consideration.
We’re done with you. You and your ramblings have been discounted. Goodbye.
Now there’s a shocker. All sorts of angry rhetoric about liberal closed-mindedness, but nothing at all either supporting ID creationism or refuting evolution. And how you do love reveling in your awe and uncomprehension!
Let’s get one thing out of the way: Evolution is NOT “random.” It’s NOT “chance.” It’s blind, but that’s not the same thing. Mutations in the genome occasionally occur, and these provide the raw material on which natural selection can act, resulting in differential reproductive fitness within a species. This is not speculative — no more so than gravity, which, by the way, can’t be “proven” or quantified either.
You folks lack the background for me to explain further, and that’s not condescension — it’s fact. It’s also not a personality flaw, but rambling on with grand self-assurance in the face of one’s own lack of background is unmitigated arrogance, worthy of utmost scorn.
“I ask, is evolution testable? Can we create a self aware intelligent being through evolution testing? If so, do it.”
Nice try. Not. Scientists don’t need to create an entire sentient organism from scratch in order to establish the facts about evolution. Do you people know that predictions made in the 1800’s about the mechanisms of natural selection — predictions made long before concepts such as alleles and DNA arose — have been borne out by genomic sequencing in the past two decades? Heck, we don’t really need fossils these days to advance our knowledge of evolution. Thanks to advances in molecular biology, we’re literally able to watch evolution occur. Details are beyond the scope of this little chat, but those truly interested should visit the talk.origins.org site.
“…what I don’t understand is someone who could deny the possibilities, of intelligent design.”
Again, your lack of understanding doesn’t strengthen your position, it merely attests to your lack of credentials in even barking about this topic. Scientists would be happy to consider alternate ideas to evolution if evidence compelled them to do so — there’s no agenda here. Evolution and raw theism are not incompatible. If you can kindly list the evidence suggesting ID creationism might be valid that scientists are ignoring, please do so.
“If intelligent design is not a theory because it cannot be tested, then evolution is not a theory, because it cannot be tested, at all, either. Evolution is no more science than ID. Those who came up with the theories of naturalism and evolution started with the supposition that there is no God…”
This entire passage is such embarrassing, thoroughgoing nonsense that I almost feel dirty looking at it. The part about rocks to elephants made me grin, though.
Evolution has withstood every rigorous challenge thrown its way and has been directly observed in nature. One needn’t linger on Earth for two million years to confirm its central tenets and observe their output. The theory is eminently falsifiable, yet has only grown more powerful and explicatory over time.
Charles Darwin was a Christian who believed in God. This is well-established, yet you’d rather wax rebellious about “naturalism” and the supposed roots of evolutionary theory than operate from an informed stance, I guess.
If you’re not going to equip yourself with evidence, consider keeping quiet so as to not render yourself a blithering fool.
The entry from “Mr. Wonderful” is nothing but a tired screed from a backwater buhleever about the evils of liberals and their big words, and was even more noncontributory than Ogre’s. You guys are entitled to your venom, but I do chuckle at Mr. Wonderful’s claim that Jay has done “hours of research.”
There is nothing “closed-minded” about refusing to kowtow to others’ religious myths. And if you don’t understand that ID creationism is a strictly religious idea, you probably never will. Do you know what “Of Pandas and People” is? It’s one of the flagships book touting ID. Have a look.
A passage from an early edition:
“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”
Next, the revised and final version:
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”
There’s more where that came from, but you should be satisfied at this point that the “minds” behind ID use the terms creationism and “intelligent design” interchangeably. If you don’t see that as problematic as regards America’s classrooms, then you’re beyond reach and beyond reason.
I could say much, much more, all of it illuminating, but I only have so much time to waste on semiliterate bloggers and their screeching choruses of misguided support. But I will say that if any of you had any idea what you MIGHT even be talking about — any grasp of the subject at all — you’d understand why it is that biologists strike you as “arrogant” for rejecting such spurious malarkey as ID creationism.
Let me restate that I never denied evolution. Darwin’s theory of it however has been proven to be full of hoaxes. Personaly I believe in a lot of possiblities. The fact is that no one KNOWS for sure exactly how we got here. People who belive in God, do so by faith. I think evolution is a possiblity, however I also belive, by faith, that if it was…it was directed by a higher power.
Jay, you are free to believe whatever you choose about the origins of life. If anyone, Beaming Visionary or anyone else, told you differently, then they are wrong, pure and simple.
However, an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool. If it were, we’d have to let every possible theory on earth into the schoolroom to ensure that all theories were being presented, not just the ones we want to be right.
How pathetic, but as I said before, all so typical. Again comes the rhetoric in waves, and the vain attempt at turning the tables and attempting to call the kettle black. Yet they still say NOTHING of importance or substance what so ever. They do however, make it abundantly clear that they are in fact one sided in their thought process and their so called ideals. Unfortunately, both are wrong, even though they refuse to see this and accept it as the fact that it is. One only needs to read between the lines to see their [edited] for what it is:
“There’s more where that came from, but you should be satisfied at this point that the “minds” behind ID use the terms creationism and “intelligent design” interchangeably. If you don’t see that as problematic as regards America’s classrooms, then you’re beyond reach and beyond reason.”
We don’t see it as problematic because it is NOT problematic. Only you and your ilk see the teachings of various ideas as a “problem”. Hence YOUR closed mindedness, and obvious personal problem with anything regarding a higher power call it what you may, God, aliens or what ever. Either reply with facts listed clearly instead of rhetoric or please, make that arsnic Stew tonight and eat a plenty so we are rid of you and your [edited].
“Let me restate that I never denied evolution. Darwin’s theory of it however has been proven to be full of hoaxes.”
If you’re talking about hoaxes such as Lucy and Piltdown Man, realize that real scientists scrutinized these and vigorously rejected them as soon as their frivolity was evident. Don’t you see this as a strength? Scientists aren’t interested in manufactured evidence, even if it superficially supports their earlier findings. They just want the truth. Hence their extreme difficulty with another eminently manufactured concept — ID.
“People who belive in God, do so by faith. I think evolution is a possiblity, however I also belive, by faith, that if it was…it was directed by a higher power.”
I respect your individual right to believe as you choose, as well as your distaste for the ACLU’s overzealous involvement in matters spanning the sociopolitical spectrum. But I hope you will agree that because credible scientists are united in their endorsement of the theory of evolution — not a static body of knowledge, by the way, but a source of lively internal LEGITIMATE debate — there is no logical reason to include an unsupported idea, ID creationism, in American classrooms.
If you want to cast aspersions on anyone, blame the Dover parents who brought the suit, not the ACLU. But those parents are right in trying to preserve the integrity of science curricula. Simply put, there is no scientific controversy here, only a religious one, and science classrooms are not an appropriate battleground for such conflicts to unfold.
“Its just a theory”
Its not a theory. It doesn’t even supply a testable hypothesis. So it can’t rise to the level of a theory.
“We don’t see it as problematic because it is NOT problematic.”
So you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools? Guess you’re not familiar with, oh, the U.S. Supreme Court. And you think that anyone opposed to teaching religious dogma in science classes is “close-minded” and that scientific facts are tantamount to “rhetoric”? You believe that America’s schoolchildren should be taught that it’s just as likely that aliens created life on Earth as that life arose and evolved from natural processes conforming to known dicta of nature? Looks like someone has a problem, and it’s not me, the courts, the ACLU or the schools.
I’m sorry if my vocabulary and knowledge frighten you, but I won’t apologize for being informed. You can rant and rave all you like and wave your hands at facts in an effort to make them disappear, but until you produce a credible refutation of any aspect of evolution or offer sound support for teaching ID creationism, you’re nothing but jabber and static, like Iago, the bird on Jifar’s shoulder in “Aladdin.” SQUAAAWK! SQUUUAAAAAWWWWWK!!
Guess what. I’ve read the Bible and studied my biology, and like most sane people have arrived at the most likely explanation for how humanity as we know it came to be. Crack a textbook and make an effort to learn the basics of evolution, and then maybe you’ll begin to make a third as much sense as I do.
I just now noticed that the asinine cartoon at the top of the page has Kent Hovind’s name on it. I’m sure Jay is blithely unaware of what a laughingstock Hovind is, and that nothing being attacked in the captions is remotely related to evolution as it’s actually understood. Creationists have no legitimate answer to evolution, so instead they attack straw-man versions of it. What a sad life. Jay, your post is a wreck but FYI you’d gain a smidgeon of credibility by simply nixing the ‘toon.
“We don’t see it as problematic because it is NOT problematic.”
So you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools? Guess you’re not familiar with, oh, the U.S. Supreme Court. And you think that anyone opposed to teaching religious dogma in science classes is “close-minded” and that scientific facts are tantamount to “rhetoric”? You believe that America’s schoolchildren should be taught that it’s just as likely that aliens created life on Earth as that life arose and evolved from natural processes conforming to known dicta of nature? Looks like someone has a problem, and it’s not me, the courts, the ACLU or the schools.
I’m sorry if my vocabulary and knowledge frighten you, but I won’t apologize for being informed. You can rant and rave all you like and wave your hands at facts in an effort to make them disappear, but until you produce a credible refutation of any aspect of evolution or offer sound support for teaching ID creationism, you’re nothing but jabber and static, like Iago, the squawking, irrelevant bird perched on Jifar’s shoulder in “Aladdin.”
Guess what. I’ve read the Bible and studied my biology, and like most sane people have arrived at the most likely explanation for how humanity as we know it came to be. Crack a textbook and make an effort to learn the basics of evolution, and then maybe you’ll begin to make a third as much sense as I do.
“So you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools? Guess you’re not familiar with, oh, the U.S. Supreme Court”
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is above your lowly courts:
http://www.venganza.org
What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation. Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.
the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.
There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.
The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.
Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”
Here is the common sense breakdown.
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause;
If the universe began to exist, then
The universe must have a cause.
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.
It is interesting how often the liberal argument is always the same — start out by accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing. It’s always the same. I wonder if it works when they talk to each other. BV, you’re not providing evidence, either. And I’m not providing evidence of creation or intelligent design — I’m providing questions that refute the idea of evolution and you’re rejecting them only because you absolutely, with a religious fervor, can only see evolution and anything that conflicts with your personal belief system you can only reject.
You made a nice logically fallacious leap there — from individual gene mutation to species differentials. Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.
There is an agenda here, you just won’t admit it. The agenda is very clear and has been designed from the very beginning of all thought towards evolution, naturalism, and materialism, all the way back to Rousseu. The agenda, and the science associated with it goes like this: “There is no God and EVERYTHING can only be explained by the scientific process. Anything that conflicts with this can only be ignored completely and totally.”
The theory of evolution is NOT “eminently falsifiable,” no matter how much you want it to be. Evolution has only been able to withstand challenges when you work with the above assumption — anything that conflicts with evolution is, by definition, false.
A simpler example could be shown this way:
A. Two is NOT a number.
B. 1+1=3.
According to my rules (since I’m the scientist and can make the rules), 1 plus 1 is 3, and no one can prove me wrong, ever. You can only prove me wrong if you can come up with a better answer. And no, you can’t use 2 because I decided that’s not a number.
That’s how evolution scientists defend themselves. They define the rules, then declare themselves the winner — with a very defined, primary purpose, whether you believe it or see it.
I see you also set the rules, BV, by claiming that only “real scientists” and “credible scientists” are the ones who are those that agree with you. I’m quite sure that any who disagree with your belief system are not “credible” nor “real” to you, either. Oh, nice one towards the end there — only “insane” people can believe anything but your personal, superior religion of evolution and naturalism.
And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.
Thank you for confirming that you know better than everyone else on the planet, CV. We’re sorry to have bothered you with facts since we are so low and beneath your comprehension. Since you know all, why in the world did you bother commenting here? Yes, you are the supreme being in the world and we are all maggots. Will you go away now and play with your other supreme beings since we are such ignorant scum to you?
“And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.”
In much the same spirit as the earlier “science has never built a conscious being from scratch, ergo evolution is unproven” crap, the origins of consciousness are irrelevant to the question of the veracity of evolution. Take it to the neurobiologists and the philosophers.
If you’re going to regard this as some sort of argument-ender, I’ll just ask for evidence of the designer or for God, for which, of course, none exists. (Actually, this would be a legitimate move on my part, but it’s not necessary to establish the truth about evolution and the inanity of ID creationism.)
“What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation.”
The patterns seeingly indicative of “design” to the unscholarly have been thoroughly explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Comprehending same requires forsaking intellectual laziness and gaining a cursory understanding of math and biology and little else — certainly not “faith.” If you don’t believe me, please visit the talk.origins site rather than the creationist sites you’ve been plumbing. Talk.origins, however, offers direct refutations to virtually every creationist assertion posted here and elsewhere, so you may find it unpalatable.
“Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”
No kidding, and relativistic equations are used in wave-particle discussions, but not in botany. Claiming that a designer is responsible for processes already explained in more sensible, testable terms doesn’t wash. The fact that “design detection” has applications in some disciplines doesn’t make it relevant to biology, where a mammoth body of evidence favoring another process already exists.
“Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.”
Now I know you’re cutting and pasting. Amusing. Another “argument from incredulity” is still an argument from incredulity.
“…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.”
There’s no way to calculate such odds, although creationists enjoy extrapolating theirs ad absurdum in order to buttress their other foolishness. If you’re interested in a more thorough examination of cumulative probabilities and the origins of life on Earth, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker.” Excellent reading that will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.”
Another oh-so-common canard. Were this familiar territory to you, you would know to avoid this one because its use marks the proponent as hopelesssly parochial. You can’t use the cut-and-paste method to argue with a learned opponent, my friend.
Yes, there is ample evidence for macroevolution (although anyone agreeing that microevolution is legitimate virtually cannot argue against macroevolution, although that’s for another day). Much of it is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
If you disregard this on the basis of lacking the background to interpret it, the problem lies with you, not with the relevant science. Please have some trust in those who have studied this stuff for a long time.
“The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.”
Again, this, along with your “common-sense” argument, is all irrelevant to evolution. Creationsist love straying from the basic topic of evolutionary theory, which they don’t grok and don’t care to, and flinging out cosmological what-ifs in order to muddy things. No one’s fooled, though. But regardless, within the ID framework, something as complex and “information-rich” as God certainly requires a cause, one even more complex than God itself. And so on, back through an infinite number of Gods. There is no useful argument here, which makes the basic presumption of matter, cause unknown, not only simpler but more logical.
“Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.””
I know ol’ Al a lot better than you know him from those who choose to misrepresent his words, and I assure you that he didn’t believe in the sort of Christian god the ID gang are certain underlies creation.
ID proponents are dishonest, nefarious, deluded and generally stupid. I don’t know how the ACLU could possibly be a target of your scorn if you give these drooling nutbags a free pass.
“Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.”
Why does it matter whether a person can give birth to trees?
“And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.”
That’s not the case. We can look at the fossil record, as well as the world, and see if it as what evolution predicts we would see. And in fact it is so.
“It is interesting how often the liberal argument is always the same — start out by accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.”
It’s interesting that I’m not even a liberal, of reflex hammer of amusingly shallow mind.
“BV, you’re not providing evidence, either.”
Yes I am. Read it or don’t, I don’t care.
“I’m providing questions that refute the idea of evolution and you’re rejecting them only because you absolutely, with a religious fervor, can only see evolution and anything that conflicts with your personal belief system you can only reject.”
I’m rejecting them because they’ve been thoroughly rejected already, repeatedly and soundly, by biologists the world over. I’m sorry if the implications cause you such grief.
“You made a nice logically fallacious leap there — from individual gene mutation to species differentials.”
If you don’t understand the intermediate steps, this, too, is your deficiency, not mine or evolutions. As much as you may dislike what sounds like a mantra, there’s no point in my ignoring the fact that you know nothing about evolution — its tenets, its implications, its history. I already pointed out that Darwin was a Christian, yet you persist with your conspiratorial gibberish about science being an inherently anti-God construct. Just because many of its findings happen to rule against the notion of a triune God doesn’t mean this is its purpose. God is an inherently dumb idea, so it’s only natural science would tend to rule it out.
“Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.”
Ah yes, osteogenesis imperfecta. So much for intelligent design, or are horrible diseases this a we’re-all-sinners thing?
You are ignorant of genetics. Most mutations are not damaging, they’re silent. But a steady stream of beneficial mutations is not required in order to provide fodder for natural selection. You need to realize that at least 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, because traits that were adaptive for a time ceased to be adaptive and the organisms in question couldn’t hang. What we see today are, by definition, organisms whose ancestors have all reproduced successfully — every one of them. Lights going on yet?
“There is an agenda here, you just won’t admit it. The agenda is very clear and has been designed from the very beginning of all thought towards evolution, naturalism, and materialism, all the way back to Rousseu. The agenda, and the science associated with it goes like this: “There is no God and EVERYTHING can only be explained by the scientific process. Anything that conflicts with this can only be ignored completely and totally.””
The fact that you embrace this whackjob hokum goes a long way toward explaining how and why you remain blind to basic principles. Your de facto motto: God first, and all that conflicts with God goes out the wondow. What a sure route to anti-enlightenment. Who has the agenda here?
“The theory of evolution is NOT “eminently falsifiable,” no matter how much you want it to be.”
If a hominid skeleton were to be found in the same strata as an archaeopteryx, evolution would collapse. There are countless other ways in which it could be turned on its ear. And if you think scientists are united in an unyielding thirst to deny anything contradicting evolution out of hand, consider how rich and famous a scientist would become if he could provide genuine evidence that evolution as we understand it now is completely wrong. We’re talking Nobel Prizes here. So if anything, scientists motivated by avarice have all the motivation in the world to deny evolution. The obvious (not to you) problem is that it cannot be done — the evidence is simply too overhwlming.
“Evolution has only been able to withstand challenges when you work with the above assumption — anything that conflicts with evolution is, by definition, false.”
Molecular biology has allowed scientists to confirm much of what evolutionary theory predicted a century ago. I’d say that’s pretty impressive. The more “Neo-Darwinism” comes under attack from the sightless and the slack-jawed, the stronger it becomes. And boy, does it make creationists gnash their teeth.
“A simpler example could be shown this way:
A. Two is NOT a number.
B. 1+1=3.
According to my rules (since I’m the scientist and can make the rules), 1 plus 1 is 3, and no one can prove me wrong, ever. You can only prove me wrong if you can come up with a better answer. And no, you can’t use 2 because I decided that’s not a number.”
Actually, two IS a number. So much for your “example.”
“That’s how evolution scientists defend themselves. They define the rules, then declare themselves the winner — with a very defined, primary purpose, whether you believe it or see it.”
Actually, the evidence stands on its own merits, but if it consoles you to think this way, I won’t argue.
“I see you also set the rules, BV, by claiming that only “real scientists” and “credible scientists” are the ones who are those that agree with you.”
All credible scientists believe in evolution. I didn’t “set” this condition; it merely exists. There are nutcases in every discipline, some of them with PhD’s, but they eventually fall by the wayside in their colleagues’ view (as with Michael “irreducible complexity” Behe, all but ostracized at Lehigh and rightly so). Consider this another form of selection.
“I’m quite sure that any who disagree with your belief system are not “credible” nor “real” to you, either.”
It’s not about me, it’s about truth, in this case evolution. Keep up the ad hominems, though, they’re doing your arguments (so to speak) a world of good.
“And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.”
Already dealt with. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, and only a thumb-sucking idiot would pretend this doesn’t happen. Evidence for evolution abounds, from bacterial resistance to countless other examples. See, we can now OBSERVE changes at the DNA level. We KNOW more about the mechanisms of evolution than ever before. Meanwhile, Bible-beaters everywhere are in a tizzy.
“Thank you for confirming that you know better than everyone else on the planet, CV. We’re sorry to have bothered you with facts since we are so low and beneath your comprehension. Since you know all, why in the world did you bother commenting here? Yes, you are the supreme being in the world and we are all maggots. Will you go away now and play with your other supreme beings since we are such ignorant scum to you?”
Look, I offended it. My condolences, ogre, no one’s going to keep you from your blinders and your foolish, ramshackle ideas about science. See, this is a great country, and you should thank organizations like the ACLU for fighting tooth and nail for your right to remain uneducated.
Fark, don’t get me started on fossil records. There is absolutely no proof of evolution in fossil records. As a matter of fact looking at fossil records will only lead to blowing more holes in the evolution theory, thats where you’ll find all kinds of gaps that “haven’t been found yet”. The fact they haven’t been found just expounds on the fact that evolution is based on faith in a theory, and not completely on fact.
That’s circular logic, Fark — the fossils were discovered, so people proposed evolution to explain them. Then the support for evolution is given to be fossils. So evolution is true because fossils exist and fossils exist because evolution is true.
Look, the primary point of this lawsuit can be broken down very simply into one question:
“Do you believe that any evidence that conflicts with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be allowed in schools?”
That’s all the school district wanted to do. They STILL WANTED to teach evolution! They just wanted to add one sentence at the beginning of the course that said it might not be the gospel truth.
If YOU answered “no” to that question, you are a closed-minded person with total religious faith in YOUR theory of evolution and you refuse to allow your religion to be challenged. If it’s such a perfect theory, why won’t they allow challenges?
“That’s circular logic, Fark — the fossils were discovered, so people proposed evolution to explain them. ”
I don’t think that evolution was proposed because of fossils. Darwin at least proposed it due to livign animals. Its just that the fossil records conforms to what we would expect from evolution.
What does ID say the fossil record should look like? Anything at all?
“The fact they haven’t been found just expounds on the fact that evolution is based on faith in a theory, and not completely on fact.”
Its based on acceptance of a theory, given the fact that the evidence we have matches the theory. As we get more evidence, we get more matches.
“They STILL WANTED to teach evolution! They just wanted to add one sentence at the beginning of the course that said it might not be the gospel truth.”
They better not be bringing in any gospel truth.
“Do you believe that any evidence that conflicts with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be allowed in schools?”
Always have to add “Darwin’s,” right? Can’t just say “evolution” because that’s harder to demonize. The fundagelicals love to hate on the word “Darwin,” though, so even though invoking his name is superfluous here in the 21st century, it makes for good demogoguery.
That aside, you insist on being 100% full of faeces. There is no “evidence” that conflicts with evolution. None. Not in the IDiot camp, not in the world’s holy books, not in a ketchup stain in Peoria. If you believe there is, present it. If not, accept the facts.
If that in your view really is the central question, then by your own incidental admission ID creationism is dead in the water. This question, rooted as it is in false premises, isn’t useful. It’s specious.
And for the last time, like as not, evolution doesn’t require “faith.” For YOU it would. For the clear-headed it doesn’t. Faith is a word used by religious people to attempt to plug evidential gaps. If it did require faith, I’d reject it because matters of faith are loads of bunk for the weak-minded and the squint-eyed.
Ah, but the ACLU wants to bring in their OWN gospel truth and accept no others. That’s the point of the lawsuit.
What a bunch of malicious tripe.
Here is a great website called the Institution of Creation Research, or ICR–that contains articles and abstracts written by creationist scientists. But creationism and ID are not exactly the same. If you read the published articles by the creationists, you will see that they refer to scripture and incorporate their scientific findings into what can be found in scripture, which I think is really cool.
To get a grasp of what the debate over intelligent design is really all about, you really have to understand just two things. First, scientific materialists will try to dictate what evidence may be considered by playing definitional games. Secondly, there is now a wide range of scientific evidence that contradicts materialism and re-opens the question of purpose and design in the universe. Get those two points, and you’ll have a better understanding about the current debate than nearly all of its critics.
First, let’s discussion ID’s definition. What is, ID, really? What is ID as design theorists themselves understand it, not as the hostile media portrays it?
Despite what you may have heard, ID is not a deduction from religious dogma or scripture. It’s simply the argument or the contention that certain features of the natural world–from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, –to the fine-tuning of physical constants–are best explained as a result of an intelligent cause. ID theorists argue, the universe provides evidence of purpose and design. ID is thus a tacit rebuke of an idea inherited from the 19th century, called scientific materialism.
Picking up the story in the 19th century, natural science in the Victorian age, or rather its materialist gloss, offered a simple view of the universe. 1) The universe has always existed, so we need not address where it came from 2) everything in the universe, large and small, submits to a few well-understood deterministic laws 3) life is the love child of luck and chemistry 4) cells, basic units of life, are little more than blobs of jell-O -different flavors, but all alike.
Onto this dubious edifice Charles Darwin added a fifth conjecture; all the sophisticated organisms around us grew from a starkly simple process called “natural selection”. This almost miraculously creative process seizes and passes along those minor, random variations in a population that provide a survival advantage. With this, Darwin explained away the apparent design in the biological world as just that–apparent, not real.
That’s it. The materialist worldview was now essentially complete. Halfway through the 20th century, Darwin’s random variations were more specifically defined as random genetic mutations, but the theory–because it failed to grapple with the deeper implications of the information revolution in biology-remained at its heart a Victorian theory of origin. Much like the world is flat…when you get the bigger picture, you must adapt your hypothesis to include the new information.
Each of those four assumptions has been either discredited or badly shaken by 20th Century science, but the gloss remains, an outlook called scientific materialism; There is no god, matter, and science is its prophet. It hides behind its more modest cousin, methodological naturalism. According to this tidy dictum, scientists can believe whatever they want in their personal lives, but must appeal only to material causes when explaining nature. According to this rule, anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science ceases to be a scientist. (Such a rule would exclude most of the founders of modern science, though, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, but let that pass for now.)
There was one problem with this tidy little rule; nature didn’t get the word that it was supposed to conform to someone’s definition of science. Consequently, it spent much of the 20th century making trouble for materialism and its question-begging rule about what did and didn’t count as a scientific explanation. The startling revelations of the quantum realm suggested that the world was not quite as submissive as many had expected.
Then, in the ’20’s, Edwin Hubble discovered, to his surprise, that the light from distant galaxies was “red-shifted”. It had stretched during the course of its travels. This suggested that the universe is expanding in every direction. Reversing the process in their minds, scientists were suddenly confronted with the prospect of a universe that had come into existence in the finite past. Hubble’s discovery, and later confirming evidence, flatly contradicted the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing cosmos. The universe itself had reintroduced the question of its origin to a community bent on avoiding the question altogether.
This was the beginning. In the 60’s and 70’s, physicists began to notice that the universal constants of physics, such as the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, seemed to be “finely tuned” for the existence of complex life. If these constants were much different, or we were to try to pick their values at random, we would almost always get a universe incompatible with life. To astrophysicist and atheist Fred Hoyse, this suggested the activity of a “superintellect”.
Still more recently, growing evidence in astronomy has revealed that even in a finely tuned universe, many local things have to go just right to build a single habitable planet. You need just the right kind of rocky planet with just the right atmosphere. You need lots of liquid water, and for that, you need to be at the right distance around the right kind of star, with the right moon to stabilize the tilt of the axis. You need the right planetary neighbors. You need to be in the right galaxy, and in the right neighborhood in that galaxy. And so on.
The universe is an enormous place, perhaps all this could have happened just once, by chance. So is there any reason to think this evidence might suggest design? Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, PhD. (among others) think it is. As it happens, this growing list of requirements is only half the story. Gonzalez and Richards argued in “The Privileged Planet” that all those conditions to build a habitable planet also provide the best overall conditions for doing science. In other words, the places where complex observers like them can exist are the very same places that provide the best overall conditions for observing.
For instance. The most life-friendly region of the galaxy and also the best place to be an astronomer and cosmologist and the atmosphere most conducive to life is also transparent in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum most useful for doing astronomy. You might expect such coincidences if the universe were designed for discovery, but you wouldn’t if you were a card-carrying materialist.
Even if you have an environment suitable for life and discovery, you don’t automatically get either. Here is where the discussion gets tough. It’s a strange feature of our intellectual climate that talking about purpose of cosmology and physics is less controversial than raising critical questions about Darwinism and biology, or even worse, suggesting there is evidence for design in biology. Such talk is the surest way for a scientist to ruin his career or a cocktail party. Part of the reason, perhaps, is that Darwinism is widely seen as making design in biology superfluous, as prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala has put it.
The most excellent point, therefore, is that our views about government are dramatically affected by our belief systems; whether we are “designs” or “occurrences”. As explained by the Declaration of Independence, our government was founded on the proposition that we were created by a “Creator” with certain “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Concepts of life and liberty include the freedom to believe, to speak, to assemble, and to own property. If our rights are NOT alienable, then they cannot be taken by government. Instead, the role of government is to protect them. Our country was founded because of an alleged taking of these unalienable rights by government.
If we are “occurrences”, we have no “unalienable rights”. We are just happenings. We are like boulders in a field with no relation to a creator. This idea justified the formation of a communist regime in Russia where individual rights were subordinated to the rights of the state.
That is why the idea of Intelligent Design is being attacked by organizations like the ACLU. They’re trying to force the majority of people into believing that we’re “occurrences” instead of “designs”.
Think about it.
Although the starting point for any system of ethics and morality has been much debated, it is difficult to imagine anything more foundational than our view as to whether we are “designs” or “occurrences”. If we are just “occurrences”, then, as the secular humanist Dr. Kirk claims, we have no reason to subscribe to traditional religion as a gbasis for our social systems. The alternative necessarily becomes human reason and science. Evolution then becomes the foundation for ethics.
According to Michael Ruse, that is now happening; “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.” Ernst Mayr, “one of the towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology,” notes with price that “Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics…To borrow Darwin’s phrase, there is grandeur to this view of life. New modes of thinking have been, and are being evolved. Almost every component in modern man’s belief system is somehow affected by Darwin’s principles.”
And I’m not certain if anyone here realizes it, but Darwin’s theory of Evolution was something that Hitler believed in very much, and opened the door to the holocaust and other atrocities documented here.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was the “scientific justification” for the crazed, blood-thirsty ideas of the Nazis.
“The Nazi leaders certainly used evolutionary theory to provide scientific justification for their barbaric actions . . Adolf Hitler was not alone among the Nazi leaders in his idolatrous worship of evolution. Heinrich Himmler, head of the Gestapo, stated that ‘the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest.’ In fact, all of the Nazi leaders were committed both to evolution and Germanic racism, as were most German scientists and industrialists during those dark days.” -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 78.
An avowed evolutionist explains that *Hitler systematically murdered millions because it agreed with Darwinian objectives:
“Hitler [was] devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.. Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it. It is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.” -*Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 28.
Azar makes these two comments:
“This doctrine of racial supremacy Hitler took at face value.. He accepted evolution much as we today accept Einsteinian relativity.” -Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 180.
“Sixty-three million people would be slaughtered in order to obey the evolutionary doctrine that perishing is a law of nature.” -Op. cit., p. x
A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this:
“I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.” -*Edward Simon, “Another Side to the Evolution Problem,” Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.
*Hitler’s fascination with Darwinian thinking went back to his childhood.
“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking-probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas-quite undisguisedly at the basis of all that is worst in Mien Kampf and in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . . ‘He who would live must fight, he who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.” -Robert E.D. Clark Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.
Even in defeat, *Hitler held to his unwavering faith in Darwin’s ideas.
“Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish . . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.” -*P. Hoffmann, Hitler’s Personal Security (1979), p. 264.
*Benito Mussolini gained strength and courage from Darwin’s books to carry out his blood-thirsty deeds.
“Mussolini’s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process.” -R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.
As with *Hitler, *Mussolini was captivated both by *Darwin and *Nietzsche, who, in turn, founded his beliefs on Darwin.
“Benito Mussolini who brought fascism to Italy, was strengthened in his belief that violence is basic to social transformation by the philosophy of *Nietzsche.” -*Encyclopedia Britannica (1982), Vol. 16, p. 27.
Shocked by what evolutionary theory has done to society in the 20th century, Wilder-Smith makes this comment:
“Social Darwinism belongs to the most dangerous elements within the thoughts of [received from] the last century. It aids the propagation of ruthless national and racial egoism by establishing it as a moral norm. If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties.” -A.E. Wilder-Smith, Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (1981), p. 148.
“Ah, but the ACLU wants to bring in their OWN gospel truth and accept no others. That’s the point of the lawsuit.”
Science is not ‘gospel truth.’ Its simply the scientific method.
Cao’s description of the scientific process: adapting its explanations to new natural phenomena is wonderful.
Too bad he’s stuck on the supernatural.
Fark’s arguments are really without scientific fact; only vague references to bones. Time and again scientific evidence refutes the Theory of Evolution, only scientists discount it–much like the 9/11 Commission discounted any facts that didn’t fit into their preconceived notions about what the outcome should be.
Science doesn’t grow and operate that way. If new science refutes a theory, the theory should be changed to admit the new data.
With the Theory of Evolution, that doesn’t happen.
Great stuff Cao! Now will one of you polite evolutionist please answer my original question which has been ignored totally, because you don’t have an answer for it.
Explain concioussness and how it came to be. How did we become self aware? At what point in evolution did this occur, and how?
“And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.”
In much the same spirit as the earlier “science has never built a conscious being from scratch, ergo evolution is unproven” crap, the origins of consciousness are irrelevant to the question of the veracity of evolution. Take it to the neurobiologists and the philosophers.
If you’re going to regard this as some sort of argument-ender, I’ll just ask for evidence of the designer or for God, for which, of course, none exists. (Actually, this would be a legitimate move on my part, but it’s not necessary to establish the truth about evolution and the inanity of ID creationism.)
“What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation.”
The patterns seeingly indicative of “design” to the unscholarly have been thoroughly explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Comprehending same requires forsaking intellectual laziness and gaining a cursory understanding of math and biology and little else — certainly not “faith.” If you don’t believe me, please visit the talk.origins site rather than the creationist sites you’ve been plumbing. Talk.origins, however, offers direct refutations to virtually every creationist assertion posted here and elsewhere, so you may find it unpalatable.
“Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”
No kidding, and relativistic equations are used in wave-particle discussions, but not in botany. Claiming that a designer is responsible for processes already explained in more sensible, testable terms doesn’t wash. The fact that “design detection” has applications in some disciplines doesn’t make it relevant to biology, where a mammoth body of evidence favoring another process already exists.
“Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.”
Now I know you’re cutting and pasting. Amusing. Another “argument from incredulity” is still an argument from incredulity.
“…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.”
There’s no way to calculate such odds, although creationists enjoy extrapolating theirs ad absurdum in order to buttress their other foolishness. If you’re interested in a more thorough examination of cumulative probabilities and the origins of life on Earth, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker.” Excellent reading that will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.”
Another oh-so-common canard. Were this familiar territory to you, you would know to avoid this one because its use marks the proponent as hopelesssly parochial. You can’t use the cut-and-paste method to argue with a learned opponent, my friend.
Yes, there is ample evidence for macroevolution (although anyone agreeing that microevolution is legitimate virtually cannot argue against macroevolution, although that’s for another day). Much of it is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
If you disregard this on the basis of lacking the background to interpret it, the problem lies with you, not with the relevant science. Please have some trust in those who have studied this stuff for a long time.
“The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.”
Again, this, along with your “common-sense” argument, is all irrelevant to evolution. Creationsist love straying from the basic topic of evolutionary theory, which they don’t grok and don’t care to, and flinging out cosmological what-ifs in order to muddy things. No one’s fooled, though. But regardless, within the ID framework, something as complex and “information-rich” as God certainly requires a cause, one even more complex than God itself. And so on, back through an infinite number of Gods. There is no useful argument here, which makes the basic presumption of matter, cause unknown, not only simpler but more logical.
“Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.””
I know ol’ Al a lot better than you know him from those who choose to misrepresent his words, and I assure you that he didn’t believe in the sort of Christian god the ID gang are certain underlies creation.
ID proponents are dishonest, nefarious, deluded and generally stupid. I don’t know how the ACLU could possibly be a target of your scorn if you give these drooling nutbags a free pass.
“Great stuff Cao! Now will one of you polite evolutionist please answer my original question which has been ignored totally, because you don’t have an answer for it.”
Yeah, great stuff Cao! Invoke Nazism in order to try to discredit evolution rather than list what you feel are deficiencies in the theory itself. I’m sure Hitler’s version of “artificial selection” is precisely what Darwin hoped for when he happened across a huge piece of the puzzle of life on Earth. (Hitler had a poor understanding of “Darwinism” anyway.) Should I list all of the ghastliness and horrors of the Inquisition and the Crusades in order to “prove” that all Christians are murderous zealots?
There peripheral indictments of evilution and evilutionists are interesting, but the original topic dealt with 1) the validity of ID and 2) the alleged uncertainty of evolution. Not with Nazism, atheism, the origins of consciousness (or of life on Earth, period), morality, or various untoeard agendas. And yet not one of you has risen up and addressed either of these, coherently or otherwise.
But since you’re all enamored of moral principles, perhaps you should read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”
“Fark’s arguments are really without scientific fact; only vague references to bones. Time and again scientific evidence refutes the Theory of Evolution, only scientists discount it–much like the 9/11 Commission discounted any facts that didn’t fit into their preconceived notions about what the outcome should be.”
Facts are facts. I don’t know what the difference is between a scientific or a non-scientific one. I do know the difference between scientific and non-scientific explanations and predictions for how facts should look.
But sadly, here, you’re wrong.
I hope you know that you come across very rude, elitist and condescending. Anyway…
You presume too much in generalization of me. I will conclude you are very close minded or have a great lack of oversight. You pick and choose to ignore points that confront your beliefs, and brag about how much knowledge you have, and how much better you are than us dumb Christians…another presumption…I never said I was Christian.
I believe in possibilites, and one of those possibilities I happen to believe in is evolution…so I’m not refuting any of your long winded soapbox comments defending it. I picked on Darwinism because it does have flaws. I admit that modern evolution has taken its place. I won’t deny the evidence that points to evolution.
I also will not deny its lack of evidence, and its holes of undiscovered as of yet gaps. Sure we could argue that if there is a God, then where did he come from…and yes, its the same dead end that evolution comes to.
I am open minded. I believe in evolution, and God. I believe in possibility. You, as far as I can see so far, have closed your mind to your own elitist views.
And your answer to my question of where concioussness came from was the same cop out answer I always get. It is a relevant question.
As far as the ACLU being involved in this…I really can’t see why they view it as a civil liberties issue. I think they are just afraid it is religious. However, my friend that thinks we were put here by aliens doesn’t think its religious at all.
“I hope you know that you come across very rude, elitist and condescending.”
Unfortunately, science is a meritocracy.
If you can explain how the development quantity we call “consciousness” is relevent to the relative merits of evolutionary theory as a whole, then I’d be happy to take you up on it. Certainly it’s a relevant question in general, and is addressed in a book by Daniel Dennett called “Consciousness Explained” (were only it so simple!). But to proclaim that an incomplete understanding of consciousness implies an absence of evidence for evolution — well, that’s more than a small stretch. But maybe that’s not where you’re coming from.
If I come across as condescending and rude, it’s because I get testy when people like Ogre spout falsehood after falsehood about things they know nothing about, all in the name of denigrating it for superstitious reasons. Those of us who have studied science for many years naturally have little tolerance for this, which EPITOMIZES closed-mindedness. If he won’t check out the schematic and easily digested refutations of creatonists’ usual horn-blats on talk.origins, hardly an “evil atheist” science site, then he deserves to be called on it.
The ACLU does get involved at the drop of a religious hat, often overzealously, as with the seal on the L.A. County flag a while back. This, however, is a strongly religious issue in that were it not for fervent fundamentalist Christianity, no one would have issues with “Darwinism” and ID would not exist. Its main proponents have in the past all admitted to being creationists, and for every ID adherent who thinks aliens or some non-Godly force might have been the designer, there are probably 100 Bible literalists. The idea here is not to advance an honest theory, it’s to overturn evolution. Christian groups have been trying to do this in various ways since time immemorial and it’s beyond tiresome that so many cling to a GEnesis-style account of life’s origins in the 21st century.
Sorry for the multiple and duplicate comments (I’m sure one of each from me is more than plenty), but I have trouble with this interface.
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exist.
What more can I say?
“And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.”
In much the same spirit as the earlier “science has never built a conscious being from scratch, ergo evolution is unproven” crap, the origins of consciousness are irrelevant to the question of the veracity of evolution. Take it to the neurobiologists and the philosophers.
If you’re going to regard this as some sort of argument-ender, I’ll just ask for evidence of the designer or for God, for which, of course, none exists. (Actually, this would be a legitimate move on my part, but it’s not necessary to establish the truth about evolution and the inanity of ID creationism.)
“What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation.”
The patterns seeingly indicative of “design” to the unscholarly have been thoroughly explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Comprehending same requires forsaking intellectual laziness and gaining a cursory understanding of math and biology and little else — certainly not “faith.” If you don’t believe me, please visit the talk.origins site rather than the creationist sites you’ve been plumbing. Talk.origins, however, offers direct refutations to virtually every creationist assertion posted here and elsewhere, so you may find it unpalatable.
“Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”
No kidding, and relativistic equations are used in wave-particle discussions, but not in botany. Claiming that a designer is responsible for processes already explained in more sensible, testable terms doesn’t wash. The fact that “design detection” has applications in some disciplines doesn’t make it relevant to biology, where a mammoth body of evidence favoring another process already exists.
“Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.”
Now I know you’re cutting and pasting. Amusing. Another “argument from incredulity” is still an argument from incredulity.
“…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.”
There’s no way to calculate such odds, although creationists enjoy extrapolating theirs ad absurdum in order to buttress their other foolishness. If you’re interested in a more thorough examination of cumulative probabilities and the origins of life on Earth, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker.” Excellent reading that will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.”
Another oh-so-common canard. Were this familiar territory to you, you would know to avoid this one because its use marks the proponent as hopelesssly parochial. You can’t use the cut-and-paste method to argue with a learned opponent, my friend.
Yes, there is ample evidence for macroevolution (although anyone agreeing that microevolution is legitimate virtually cannot argue against macroevolution, although that’s for another day). Much of it is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
If you disregard this on the basis of lacking the background to interpret it, the problem lies with you, not with the relevant science. Please have some trust in those who have studied this stuff for a long time.
“The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.”
Again, this, along with your “common-sense” argument, is all irrelevant to evolution. Creationsist love straying from the basic topic of evolutionary theory, which they don’t grok and don’t care to, and flinging out cosmological what-ifs in order to muddy things. No one’s fooled, though. But regardless, within the ID framework, something as complex and “information-rich” as God certainly requires a cause, one even more complex than God itself. And so on, back through an infinite number of Gods. There is no useful argument here, which makes the basic presumption of matter, cause unknown, not only simpler but more logical.
“Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.””
I know a little more about Einstein and his real beliefs (not that these prove or disprove anything) than those who love to misrepresent his words, and I assure you that he didn’t believe in the sort of Christian god the ID gang are certain underlies creation.
ID proponents are dishonest, nefarious, deluded and generally stupid. I don’t know how the ACLU could possibly be a target of your scorn if you give these drooling nutbags a free pass.
Here’s a brief explanation of why calculations like Ogre’s don’t hold water:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
“It is interesting how often the liberal argument is always the same — start out by accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.”
It’s interesting that I’m not even a liberal, oh reflex hammer of amusingly shallow mind.
“BV, you’re not providing evidence, either.”
Yes I am. Read it or don’t, I don’t care.
“I’m providing questions that refute the idea of evolution and you’re rejecting them only because you absolutely, with a religious fervor, can only see evolution and anything that conflicts with your personal belief system you can only reject.”
I’m rejecting them because they’ve been thoroughly rejected already, repeatedly and soundly, by biologists the world over. I’m sorry if the implications cause you such grief.
“You made a nice logically fallacious leap there — from individual gene mutation to species differentials.”
If you don’t understand the intermediate steps, this, too, is your deficiency, not mine or evolution’s. As much as you may dislike what sounds like a mantra, there’s no point in my ignoring the fact that you know nothing about evolution — its tenets, its implications, its history. I already pointed out that Darwin was a Christian, yet you persist with your conspiratorial gibberish about science being an inherently anti-God construct. Just because many of its findings happen to rule against the notion of a triune God doesn’t mean this is its purpose. God is an inherently dumb idea, so it’s only natural science would tend to rule it out.
“Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.”
Ah yes, osteogenesis imperfecta. So much for intelligent design, or are horrible diseases a we’re-all-sinners thing?
You are ignorant of genetics. Most mutations are not damaging, they’re silent. But a steady stream of beneficial mutations is not required in order to provide fodder for natural selection. You need to realize that at least 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, because traits that were adaptive for a time ceased to be adaptive and the organisms in question couldn’t hang. What we see today are, by definition, organisms whose ancestors have all reproduced successfully — every one of them. Lights going on yet?
“There is an agenda here, you just won’t admit it. The agenda is very clear and has been designed from the very beginning of all thought towards evolution, naturalism, and materialism, all the way back to Rousseu. The agenda, and the science associated with it goes like this: “There is no God and EVERYTHING can only be explained by the scientific process. Anything that conflicts with this can only be ignored completely and totally.””
The fact that you embrace this whackjob hokum goes a long way toward explaining how and why you remain blind to basic principles. Your de facto motto: God first, and all that conflicts with God goes out the window. What a sure route to anti-enlightenment. Who has the agenda here?
“The theory of evolution is NOT “eminently falsifiable,” no matter how much you want it to be.”
If a hominid skeleton were to be found in the same strata as an archaeopteryx, evolution would collapse. There are countless other ways in which it could be turned on its ear. And if you think scientists are united in an unyielding thirst to deny anything contradicting evolution out of hand, consider how rich and famous a scientist would become if he could provide genuine evidence that evolution as we understand it now is completely wrong. We’re talking Nobel Prizes here. So if anything, scientists motivated by avarice have all the motivation in the world to deny evolution. The obvious (not to you) problem is that it cannot be done — the evidence is simply too overwhelming.
“Evolution has only been able to withstand challenges when you work with the above assumption — anything that conflicts with evolution is, by definition, false.”
Molecular biology has allowed scientists to confirm much of what evolutionary theory predicted a century ago. I’d say that’s pretty impressive. The more “Neo-Darwinism” comes under attack from the sightless and the slack-jawed, the stronger it becomes. And boy, does it make creationists gnash their teeth.
“A simpler example could be shown this way:
A. Two is NOT a number.
B. 1+1=3.
According to my rules (since I’m the scientist and can make the rules), 1 plus 1 is 3, and no one can prove me wrong, ever. You can only prove me wrong if you can come up with a better answer. And no, you can’t use 2 because I decided that’s not a number.”
Actually, two IS a number. So much for your “example.”
“That’s how evolution scientists defend themselves. They define the rules, then declare themselves the winner — with a very defined, primary purpose, whether you believe it or see it.”
Actually, the evidence stands on its own merits, but if it consoles you to think this way, I won’t argue.
“I see you also set the rules, BV, by claiming that only “real scientists” and “credible scientists” are the ones who are those that agree with you.”
All credible scientists believe in evolution. I didn’t “set” this condition; it merely exists. There are nutcases in every discipline, some of them with Ph.Ds, but they eventually fall by the wayside in their colleagues’ view (as with Michael “irreducible complexity” Behe, all but ostracized at Lehigh and rightly so). Consider this another form of selection.
“I’m quite sure that any who disagree with your belief system are not “credible” nor “real” to you, either.”
It’s not about me, it’s about truth, in this case evolution. Keep up the ad hominems, though, they’re doing your arguments (so to speak) a world of good.
“And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.”
Already dealt with. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, and only a thumb-sucking idiot would pretend this doesn’t happen. Evidence for evolution abounds, from bacterial resistance to countless other examples. See, we can now OBSERVE changes at the DNA level. We KNOW more about the mechanisms of evolution than ever before. Meanwhile, Bible-beaters everywhere are in a tizzy.
“Thank you for confirming that you know better than everyone else on the planet, CV. We’re sorry to have bothered you with facts since we are so low and beneath your comprehension. Since you know all, why in the world did you bother commenting here? Yes, you are the supreme being in the world and we are all maggots. Will you go away now and play with your other supreme beings since we are such ignorant scum to you?”
Look, I offended it. My condolences, ogre, no one’s going to keep you from your blinders and your foolish, ramshackle ideas about science. See, this is a great country, and you should thank organizations like the ACLU for fighting tooth and nail for your right to remain uneducated.
“Do you believe that any evidence that conflicts with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be allowed in schools?”
Always have to add “Darwin’s,” right? Can’t just say “evolution” because that’s harder to demonize. The fundagelicals love to hate on the word “Darwin,” though, so even though invoking his name is superfluous here in the 21st century, it makes for good demogoguery.
That aside, you insist on being 100% full of faeces. There is no “evidence” that conflicts with evolution. None. Not in the IDiot camp, not in the world’s holy books, not in a ketchup stain in Peoria. If you believe there is, present it. If not, accept the facts.
If that in your view really is the central question, then by your own incidental admission ID creationism is dead in the water. This question, rooted as it is in false premises, isn’t useful. It’s specious.
And for the last time, like as not, evolution doesn’t require “faith.” For YOU it would. For the clear-headed it doesn’t. Faith is a word used by religious people to attempt to plug evidential gaps. If it did require faith, I’d reject it because matters of faith are loads of bunk for the weak-minded and the squint-eyed.
Darwin’s not right, that’s a laughable concept. Who died an appointed you God? Or the Ruler of the Universe? C’mon, man, get with the times, Darwin is old hat. Darwin is extinct.
Before the Darwinian mechanism can even get started, there remains the nagging problem of the origin of biological information itself. Most of us have heard of the information encoded along the DNA molecule. It’s often described as an extraordinarily sophisticated computer code for producing proteins, the three dimensional building blocks of all life. And with the right cellular hardware, the code does exactly that.
As early as 1968, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi saw that the information in that code stubbornly transcends its chemical medium, just as the letters and sentences of a book transcend the chemistry of ink and paper. That means that the attempt to reduce life to the laws of physics and chemistry was doomed.
In 1984, Walter Braldye, Charles Thaxton and Roger Olsen dared to suggest in “The Mystery of Life’s Origins” that this was best explained by Intelligent design. And in recent years, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has turned this evidence into a formidable argument for intelligent design.
Meyer argues that the usual aimless processes of chance and chemistry can’t explain this information and moreover, that everyday experience shows us quite clearly where information of this sort comes from: intelligent agents.
Moving up a level, we find complex and functionally integrated machines that are out of reach to the Darwinian mechanism. Biochemist Michael Behe immortalized some of this in his 1996 book, “Darwin’s black box”.
Behe offers evidence that strongly suggests that Ayala’s judgment was premature. Behe argues that these tiny molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, are “irreducibly complex”. They’re like a mousetrap. Without all of their parts, they don’t work. Natural selection can only build systems one small step at a time, by traversing a path where each step provides an immediate survival advantage for the organism. It can’t select for a future function. To do that requires foresight–the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. That’s the positive evidence: Such structures ar4e the sort produced by intelligent agents, who can foresee a future function and actualize it. They have just the features we normally attribute to intelligent agency. If you get this point, you’re already comprehended more than most journalists writing on the subject.
Moving to the macroscopic world, there is the three-dimensional complexity of many diverse animal body plans. In the fossil record, these show up at more or less this same time, geologically speaking. The problem for Darwinism is not that there are “gaps in the fossil record”. Of course there are. Rather, it’s the geologically sudden appearance of numerous highly distinct body plans or phyla. This is not the gradually branching tree of life the Darwinian story leads us to expect.
This is not just an argument from ignorance, as critics assert quite often. In our experience, sudden innovations and massive infusions of information come from intelligent agents. And as with Cambrian Explosion, the primary innovations come first (e.g., car, airplane, a particular animal phylum) followed by numerous design variations on the original form. If the history of life follows a purpose, this is what you would expect.
Then there are human agents themselves, which are so unexpected in materialist terms that many materialists actually deny their existence. You see, the materialist rule about what science may consider, if followed consistently, leads to a denial of the existence of agents in general. That means you and I don’t exist. As a rule of thumb, any idea that entails that you don’t exist is not an idea that you should take seriously.
All this evidence for design has become clear just as interest in intelligent design has exploded among philosophers. In fact, the debate over design is probably livelier now than it has ever been in Western history. The philosopher who has done the most recently to increase the rigor of design arguments is William Dembski, whose 1998 technical monograph with Cambridge University Press, called “The Design Inference”, has helped create a widespread if sometimes acrimonious debate among philosophers, mathematicians and biologists. Dembski has helped make this reasoning about design far more rigorous and objective than it has been in the past.
Despite this, the crowning achievement of scientific materialism, Darwin’s theory of evolution, lingers on. But even if you take design off the table as an alternative, Darwin’s theory still suffers acute problems. For all its supposed splendor and nuanced innovations (genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium) the Darwinian toolkit–natural selection and random genetic mutations-is quite limited. It’s great for explaining the trivial things that aren’t in dispute. If you ask why finch beaks adapt to change climate in the Galapagos Island, natural selection is quite the charmer. But these are mere fluctuations among a population that is more or less the same before as after. There’s no obvious increase in complexity.
If you ask, however, for the Darwinian explanation of the bacterial flagellum or the light sensitive spot that supposedly leads to an eye, be prepared for a speculative yarn strung around precious little data, along with a doctrinal statement that something like this must be true because the alternative is unacceptable.
More telling than a mere lack of evidence is that the theory has consistently relied on a small stable of half-truths and misrepresentations. Think of anything you can remember about evolution from your tenth grade biology class. Go ahead, think. Much of what you can remember will wither like a vampire when exposed to sunlight, that is, to the relevant scientific literature.
Biologist Jonathan Wells made many of these “icons of evolution” famous in his 2000 book by the same name. Anyone who has bothered to read “Icons of Evolution” now knows that much of what we believed was evidence for Darwinian evolution was either misleading or false. Remember those diagrams of vertebrate embryos; showing those similar they are early in their development? The image is supposed to provide evidence for the common ancestry of vertebrates. We are told that various classes –humans, fish, and chickens–express their common ancestry early in development, and then diverge as they develop.
Darwin called this “by far the strongest single class of facts” in favor of his theory. Too bad for Darwin. The original drawings by his 19th century disciple Ernst Haeckel were fudged. Haeckel cherry-picked the examples that looked the most alike. Then he made the least similar embryos look more alike than they really were. And then he started his drawings mid-way through development, where the animals happened to look the most alike. The earliest stages in his diagram are not the earliest stages of development. The earliest stages, when many of the animal embryos look strikingly different, are nowhere to be seen.
And there’s also the example of the hilarious spotted moth theory that is false; but leftist elitist know-it-alls don’t even acknowledge these findings as they’re in complete denial like you; unable to reason; no cognitive learning ability; clinging desperately to an antiquated ideology that would mean disaster to our society and our freedoms, much like what happened in Nazi Germany.
You’re unable to learn from history, it would seem, and I’m extremely sorry for that.
Creationism and Intelligent Design should BOTH be taught in classrooms across the country and Darwinism should be shown as the fallacy and weak-kneed political sham that it is.
Junk science is getting quite famous as the reasoning behind forcing political agendas on people; the “science” behind Kyoto being just one example.
Since I’m on a roll I thought I’d talk about the hilarious peppered moth theory.
In England, the numbers of light and dark moths were known to fluctuate. The assumption was that when industrial pollution darkened the lichen on the trunks of trees, this provided camouflage for the dark moths, which then began to predominate. When the air quality improved, the tree trunks lightened again. The trunks then provided camouflage for the light moths, and they began to predominate.
This was a hunch, but then some famous field studies in the ’50’s seemed to confirm that natural selection was responsible. Birds were even seen eating the hapless moths, exposed as they were on the contrasting tree trunks. Natural selection in action! To quote George Tenet, it was a “slam dunk”.
Now even if this story had turned out alright, it wouldn’t have shown much. There are no random mutations to speak of. No new species emerging. No story about where the moths came from. There’s just a diverse population of moths, waxing and waning when one group, and then the other, enjoys a selective advantage.
So it was hilarious when this story began to unravel. In the ’80’s, scientists began to realize that the proportions of light and dark moths had fluctuated in OTHER parts of the world where industrial pollution WASN’T A FACTOR! More stunning, the peppered moths aren’t fond of tree trunks! They like to rest UNDER the branches of trees, where the camouflage doesn’t make any difference. They’re also NOCTURNAL, again making the camouflage a moot point. And they get eaten, not by birds, but by BATS! Those nice pictures we’ve seen of the moths on tree trunks are dead or sleepy moths that were PLACED THERE for a photo op! For a thoughough deconstruction of this hilarity, see Judith Hooper’s delightful book, “Of Moths and Men”.
There are lots of icons like this in Darwinian lore–the gradually branching tree of life, four winged fruit flies, feathered dinosaurs–and the textbooks persist in recycling them. Why? (Do you really have to ask?) If the evidence of Darwinism is so “overwhelming” why keep using discredited evidence?
Maybe Darwinism could be given the benefit of the doubt, if it weren’t for the fanaticism that people like you defend it. The perverse conduct of so many Darwinists suggests to many onlookers even without a scientific background that you guys are running thin on evidence as science continues to advance.
For writing “Icons of Evolution” Jonathan Wells has been accused of faking his academic credentials (false) of never having done scientific research (false), and has been especially vilified for his presumed religious beliefs. But armflapping about religious beliefs isn’t going to put those moths back on those treetrunks, buddy.
BV, why are you still here? You’ve already told us that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid, ignorant, insane moron. Yet you persist in throwing up the same crap, trying to convince us that we’re stupid, ignorant, insane morons. Guess what, Mr. Smartypants? We don’t believe you! You’re not ever going to convince us we’re stupid, ignorant, insane morons — in part because you, yourself are revealing yourself to be an incredibly closed-minded stupid, ignorant, insane moron.
You continue to claim that you’re right and we’re wrong, period. You bolster your argument with YOUR personal web site that is the total and complete truth, while at the same time bashing any other web site that’s mentioned as stupid and useless. Pause for just a moment, come out of your own reality, and consider for one second that there’s actually a chance that other people actually have opinions other than yours.
Most of your evidence is followed by the implication that if anyone dares to disagree or even question your absolute truth, then they are morons. Guess what, king-of-your-own-mind, there is absolute truth, and you wouldn’t know it if it knocked you upside the head with a 2×4 — you’re so blinded by your own personal faith in your own personal system that you can’t see anything else. Try reading a book not written or imagined by yourself some time. Try opening your mind to ideas other than your own. You might learn something.
You’re also making assumptions about me. I never mentioned God in any way, shape or form, nor did I claim that God did anything. All I did was the heretical act of questioning you. Then you reacted, knee-jerk style, to assault anyone who happens to believe in God. Feel good about yourself now? Does each insult you type make you feel bigger? Of course, that’s pretty much all you’ve got, isn’t it — knock other people down to make yourself appear larger.
As for the 1+1=3 example, thank you for making my point completely. You now understand how you are trying to support evolution, even if you won’t admit it.
Again, you continue to believe that only those who agree with you are perfect. There are quite literally thousands of scientists from all areas of science, from countries around the world, that agree there must be some sort of intelligent design. But I’m sure in your tiny mind that all of those thousands, simply because they question your holiness, are “nutcases.”
And still you won’t answer — why do you spend your time with us drooling mouth-breathers, since you are so high and mighty and already know all the answers. You’ve told us yourself, time and time again, that we’re too stupid to understand you and your holy truth — yet you continue to try and prove that you are right. Why is that? Why do you refuse to even entertain that there might be some doubt about your truth? Perhaps because if you allowed anyone to point out that you have no clothes they might see you for what you really are.
Ogre, that’s the crazy slapdown of the leftist elitists who go for this ancient Darwinism crap.
BV, you are relying on Victorian age science and completely dismissing new scientific evidence of today’s scientists and astronomers. Fitting, that.
At the beginning of the 21st century, we look out at an utterly different world from that envisioned by 19th century materialists. We have new evidence and new intellectual tools at our disposal. Standing in the way is the materialistic definition of science inherited from the Victorian age, and at least one creaky theory that succeeds only because the definition disqualifies the theory’s main competitors.
In the 1990’s, this situation led Phillip Johnson, the godfather of the intelligent design movement, to ask a singularly subversive question: If a definition of science conflicts with the scientific evidence, whouls we go with the definition or the evidence?
To ask the question is to answer it.
Questioning or criticizing Darwinism is not the same as advocating intelligent design.
Intelligent design is just one theory to explain the complexity of life, much like Darwinian evolution is a theory trying to explain the same thing. Other theories backed by prominent scientists include self-organization theory (proposed by biologist Stuard Kauffman) and natural teleogy (proposed by paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris). One doesn’t have to be a proponent of ID to be skeptical of Darwinian evolution’s claim that natural selection working on random mutation alone can explain the diversity of life as we see it around us. Many scientists are critical of the theory of Darwinian evolution, but are also critics of the theory of intelligent design. If all the intelligent design theorists int he world fell off the earth tonight, tomorrow scientists would still be arguing over the validity of Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the widespread lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, or whether observable micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain unobserved and unobservable macro-evolution. Don’t confuse criticism of Darwinian evolution with advocacy for Intelligent Design.
The critics of Darwinism come in all stripes–some religious, some not. Discovery Senior Fllow David Berlinski is a prominent critic and certainly not motivated by religious beliefs–he’s an outspoken Agnostic Jew. This is science, and in science, motivations shouldn’t matter–only evidence and the best conclusions drawn from said evidence.
If we talk about ID, unfortunately, we’re warned, someone, somewhere, will start talking about God.
So what? Certain ideas in science will always have theological implications. As arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins memorably said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. Right. In contrast, the leading atheist Anthony Flew recently announced that he know thinks there is some kind of God, because of the mounting scientific evidence of Intelligent Design.
So both Dawkins and Flew agree that ideas in science can have theological implications. Isn’t that obvious? Everyone knows that a unierse that suggests it was designed for apurpose encourages all sorts of interesting questions. Yet in our current climate, even the bare rumor of God causes some to reach for their stash of derisive terms and start name-calling– “theocrat” “fundamentalist” “creationist”–they don’t require much imagination.
But the response rings hollow. Flew’s change of mind is a snapshot in the changing state of the debate. The genie is out of the bottle. The mandarins can no longer control the flow of information to those who seek it. Personal attakcs, indignant bloviations and one-sided media propaganda will not put this genie back in the bottle. The only question is–when will the critics of intelligent design and their accomplices in the media decide to deal with the preponderance of evidence, no the politics and the personalities?
I mean, when was the last time you heard about Piltdown Man’s bones being a combination of the skull of a man and the jawbone of an organgutan? In about 1953, the British Museum’s Kenneth P. Oakley ran a chemical analysis on Piltdown Man and proved the fraud. By 1953 the scientific establishment had mustered enough presumed evidence of man’s transition from the apes that Piltdown man was no longer necessary, but add more of these examples together, and it’s not a stretch to conclude how desperate some people (like you) are to prove this stupid theory.
“Fark’s arguments are really without scientific fact; only vague references to bones. Time and again scientific evidence refutes the Theory of Evolution,”
Fact is fact. I have no idea what makes on ’scientific’ and the other not.
The pursuit of informed, scientifically literate society may be a valid goal, but a science policy that prejudges the most important characteristic of natural phenomena is inconsistent with that goal. The prejudgement of elitists like BV opccurs when “methodoligical naturalism” is applied to questions of origin. This is because methodological naturalism rules out design by definition.
In practice, methodological naturalism is synonymous with philosophical naturalism and materialism. Philosophical naturalism is “the doctrine that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid.” [Webster's 1993]
Materialism also rejects design by allowing only material causes to explain natural phenomena. Although it’s been argued to the contrarty, methodological naturalism and philisophical naturalism are synonymous, because a “method” that does not allow its fundamental assumption of no-design to be contradicted is a doctrine.
Its nature as a doctrine is evident in the statement of John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, that “A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism.” [Scientific American, p.84 July, 2002]
Any theoretical distinction is lost in practice where overt efforts are taken to officially suppress any contradition of this doctrine.
This is clearly advocating what Stalin said: Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
It’s clear that NAS and AAAS have prejudged the issue. Life is an occurrence, not a design. Under this formula “informed decision making” must start with the ultimate question having been answered in advance.
To effectively exclude any design theory, one must also censor criticisms of evolutionary theory and its fundamental claim of no-design. Teachers who seek to teach evolution “honestly” are reassigned. A bevy of censors recently turned out in force to oppose a statement placed in biology textbooks that would urge students to understand that evolution is a “theory” that should be “approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
This isn’t a case where we are excluding a falsfied hypothesis that the earth is flat or a religious hypothesis that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not true. In this case, an inference of design that arises from both intuition and analysis of the data per the scientific method of the evidence itself–all because it conflicts with a philosophical notion that looks very much like religion itself.
Protecting evolution from the competition exempts it from a test that is necessary for it to be a legitimate scientific theory, rather than untested speculation. Evolution has become an answer ordained by the “central tenet of modern science”. When the “central tenet” banishes design from the realm of science, it also places it in a limbo where there are no qualified investigators to analyze and test its claims. It takes physicists, chemists, geologists, mathetmaticians, information theorists, biochemists, biologists and others to formally analyze and test an inference of design. Theologians and philosphers do not have the experience or training necessary for that job. Excluding scientists from the investigation effectively assigns the evidence of design to an intellectual black hole.
Under this paradigm, the answers that is ordained-that we are occurrences and not designs–wholly lacks credibility. Instead of swapping lawyer jokes at parties we will shift to jokes about scientists who can’t be believed. According to a quote attributed to Thomas Huxley, “Science commits suisice when it adopts a creed.” In origins science, the central tenet is nothing more than a creed.
“This is because methodological naturalism rules out design by definition.”
If its not natural its not science. And if its not science it doesn’t belong in science class.
Leave the mythology somewhere else.
On cannot look at the forty different body plans that arose suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion and predict which would meet evolutionary success. If the clock were rewound and the very swame button were pushed again, a different outcome would arise and we wouldn’t be here. This is because natural “selection” is driven by both hypothsized random mutations and random environmental pressures. Hence, a deistic push of a button in the first instance could not logically intend our occurrence, assuming its use of a mechanism driven only by law and chance.
Designs have a future perspective, occurrences do not. Designs reflect a purpose, occurrences do not. Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, discusses this issue in his book “Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a purpose?” The apparent design of nature is a problem for a materialistic view of science. In this view, nothing is actually designed. Everything just occures, from law and chance, which may work in physics and chemicsty, is very counter-intuitive in biology.
Biological systems like eyes and ears have a future perspective, a function, a look designed. Hence many biologists use terminology in describing them. According to Ruse, that terminology is merely metaphorical because we “know” the systems are not designed. His problem is whether it is appropriate to use the metaphor or whether it should be discarded, because in his view it’s misleaing, to call something designed when it really isn’t.
If we conclude that something is a design and not just an occurrence, then logic leads us to two important conclusions. 1) the things has an inherent purpose and b) at some time in the past a mind existed to create it for that purpose. If on the other hand, we deem the thing to be an occurrence, then it has no inherent purpose. Also, we cannot use it to infer the prior existence of a mind. Of course, if all natural phemomena are occurrences, then none of us have a purpose and there is nothing we can observe in the natural world that would support belief in the existence of a mind other than our own and those of animals and other entities that our minds control.
Those who believe that life is an occurrence are materialists. Those who believe that life reflects design are teleologists. A teleologist is one tep removed from a theist. A materialist is one step removed from an atheist. If we are teleologists our views about religion, government and ethics will likely be very different from those of materialists. So, should science and government lead us to be materialists or teleologists, or should they simply fully inform us that we may make our own “informed decision”?
Wait wait wait…….having tired of this argument long ago (believeing Steven Hawkings comment about this subject), I have decided that the best thing to do is go with the idea that the Founders of this country were wrong to mention “creator” and that we are not endowed with certain inalienable rights, but rather that we are animals and therefore what we have written into “law” is simply ridiculous.
Since we are animals, (and tribal, cliquish ones at that), I say we all get together and beat bloody hell out of each other.
I like this idea. Most of the folks on the left, (that seem to support the ACLU’s goals and dislike religion) don’t own guns, and not seeming to be religious will probably fight real hard believing the end of their life is teh end of all.
Those on the right, for the most part, do own guns and believe that there is an afterlife, but will fight equally as hard, only they will be armed with guns.
What an idea for PPV eh?
It boils down to this folks;
The ACLU hates Christianity, (and never said a word when a school teacher handed out an assignment for her students to live as a muslim for a week), and they are doing everything in their power to destroy every vestige of anything even remotely related to religion in public.
The truth of the matter is that, without a time machine, Darwinism is also a theory.
Science deals with theory.
Theories should be taught.
At one time “science” said the earth was flat and the center of the universe and tomotoes were poisonous.
Darwinism vs. ID?
Cover them both as the theories they are.
“Darwinism vs. ID?
Cover them both as the theories they are. ”
The problem is that ID is not a theory. Its not even a testable hypothesis.
Wouldn’t it be even more fair to leave our minds open to the question and use scientific analysis to test for the absence of or the presence of design?
It can be safely said that formal analysis of many apparently designed natural phenomena tend to confirm rather than rebut the inference of design. Some of that analysis is very briefly summarized in “Intelligent Design, the Scientific Alternative to Evolution.” According to William Harris, PhD., a research biochemist, the strength of design inference increases in proportion to our increase in knowledge about the genome. This is reflected in Gene Myers’ assessment of the “architecture” of life that is unfolding as the code is cracked.
The results of analysis that tends to confirm design are as follows:
*Lack of natural explanation for the laws which appear to be design to order certain aspects of the universe.
*Lack of an adequate natural explanation for the “fine tuning” of a universe that is necessary for our existence.
*Lack of a natural explanation for the semantic character of biological information.
*Lack of natural explanation for the origin of genetic code, the origin of the first cell and the origin of lengthy set of genetic instructions necessary to sustain life in the most primitive cell. Chemical analysis shows that the sequence of message bearing symbols in DNA is not dictated by law, and statistical calculations indicate that chance formation is not a scientifically reasonable hypothesis. If the weight of the evidence favors for the origin of life itself, then Occam’s razor would seem to cut off any Darwinian hypothesis as an explanation for all of the remainder of the diversity of life.
*The fossil record reflects long periods of stasis in biological complexity puntuated by sudden bursts of increased complexity, a pattern more consistent with technological development by design than the gradual increase in complexity postulated by the Darwinian theory.
*Lack of adequate natural explanation for many biological systems that appear to be “irreducibly complex.”
*The lack of adequate evolutionary simulation.
*The fact that much of the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is also consistent with the competing design hypothesis and therefore proves neither.
In the case of the Martian Face, for example, we have used further analysis to test the inference of design and have found natural explanations that show that it is now a face at all, but merely an illusion of design. However, in the case of the messages that we find in DNA, we have looked behind the messages and are not finding natural explanations, but rather deeper layers of design.
Rigorous scientific analysis seems to be leading us toward CONFIRMATION of design, rather than away from it.
And historically, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, constructed the first reflecting telescope, and whome many consider the greatest scientist who ever lived, wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion–more than on physics or astronomy. He wrote papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible; he believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation, and the Ussher chronology (which dated Earth as a few thousand years old.) Here are a few quotes:
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.
All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.
We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy, I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.
Astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) reasoned that the universe must be orderly if designed by God, he discovered the laws of plantetary motion and conclusively demonstrated that the sun is the solar system’s centre. he explained that he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after him” and said,
I had no itnention of becoming a theologian. But now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for “the heavens declare the glory of God.”
And:
Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, if not of the glory of our minds, bur rather, above all else, of the glory of God.
Robert Boyle, (1627-1691), regarded as the father of modern chemistry and whose name is married to the fundamental law of gas pressures determined that gases consist of particles, made early discoveries concerning vacuums, and even invented the first match.
Boyle also read the Bible daily, was governor of a missionary organization, wrote “The Christian Virtuoso” to show that studying nature is a religious duty, and in his will established the “Boyle Lectures” for the proving of Christianity.
Then there was Francis Bacon (1561-1626) credited with developing the scientific method. He said:
There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God, then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.
How about Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) the brilliant french mathematician who developed the science of hydrostatis and helped formulate the laws of probability? From 1658 until his death, he worked on a defense of Christianity. He said;
Except by Jesus Christ we know not what our life is, what our death is, what God is, what we are ourselves, Thus without scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its objective, we know nothing, and we only see obscurity and confusion in the nature of God and in nature herself.
Hmmm. Sounds like something a narrow-minded bigot would say.
“Wouldn’t it be even more fair to leave our minds open to the question and use scientific analysis to test for the absence of or the presence of design?”
The problem is that there is no scientific test for supernatural design.
I see that cao is having fun cutting and pasting from Intelligent Design Network manifestos and the like. Too bad he doesn’t understand enough about the relevant science to comprehend why all of those creationist claims, from the “myth” of the peppered moth (it’s not a myth) to the laughable misrepresentation of the so-called Precambrin explosion, are absolute garbage. There’s no need to read any of his zillions of lines of recycled text, because he gives an immediate tip-off as to his fallacious world view in his first post by referring to the Institute for Creation Research as a meaningful site. Every one of the “refutations” of evolutionary theory he’s posted has been debunked, but there’s no reason to waste scads of time on explanations with this crowd, which is not only unaware of the evidence for evolution, but doesn’t want to see it anyway.
Kenner wrote:
“The truth of the matter is that, without a time machine, Darwinism is also a theory.
“Science deals with theory.
“Theories should be taught.
“At one time “science” said the earth was flat and the center of the universe and tomotoes were poisonous.
“Darwinism vs. ID?
Cover them both as the theories they are.”
Wrong. If you’re saying that evolution is “only a theory” because we can’t directly observe organisms that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago anf follow them right to the end of their existence (or to their present-day descendants), you might as well dispense of the history of Revolutionary and Civil Wars as well. Hypotheses formed years and years ago regarding evolution have been borne out by incontrovertible evidence. The tools of molecular biology have revealed precisely what we would expect in the genomes of various species in terms of common descent with modification. Basically, to reject evolution or downgrade it to “maybe” on the basis of not having a time machine is to deny most of science and history.
ID, on the other hand, doesn’t even offer anything to test. No one needs a time machine to confirm or deny ID because it makes no specific claims. Well, a time machine that could bring us back to the supposed instant of man’s creation would be handy, but as no such event transpired there’s no point in even envisioning such a device.
In other words, evolution and ID are not both “just theories.” They’re not on equal ground. There is no reason to usher religion-based trash into U.S. classrooms simply because creationists don’t like evolution. If evidence for a designer can be produced, then people will be all for it. But none exists, so the yokels should really save their energy for the pulpit.
Ogre engages in the same silly relativism:
“You bolster your argument with YOUR personal web site that is the total and complete truth, while at the same time bashing any other web site that’s mentioned as stupid and useless.”
Except that talk.origins consists of a huge compendium of peer-reviewed research, while creationist sites are operated by eyes-rolling-in-sockets, drool-bib-wearing freakbags who begin with an absurd premise and proceed to misconstrue, misinterpret and flat-out lie in an effort to ward off the truth. See a difference? Think hard now.
Look, I don’t expect to convince you guys of anything. You’re too far gone even if some of you have the basic wiring in place to conduct yourself like open-eyed citizens. But if you post a bunch of inflammatory, errant detritus on the Web for all to see, indicting those things you know zilch about, you can certainly expect reprisals from the informed.
I see that cao is having fun cutting and pasting from Intelligent Design Network manifestos and the like. Too bad he doesn’t understand enough about the relevant science to comprehend why all of those creationist claims, from the “myth” of the peppered moth (it’s not a myth) to the laughable misrepresentation of the so-called Precambrin explosion, are absolute garbage. There’s no need to read any of his zillions of lines of recycled text, because he gives an immediate tip-off as to his fallacious world view in his first post by referring to the Institute for Creation Research as a meaningful site. Every one of the “refutations” of evolutionary theory he’s posted has been debunked, but there’s no reason to waste scads of time on explanations with this crowd, which is not only unaware of the evidence for evolution, but doesn’t want to see it anyway.
Kenner wrote:
“The truth of the matter is that, without a time machine, Darwinism is also a theory.
“Science deals with theory.
“Theories should be taught.
“At one time “science” said the earth was flat and the center of the universe and tomotoes were poisonous.
“Darwinism vs. ID?
Cover them both as the theories they are.”
Wrong. If you’re saying that evolution is “only a theory” because we can’t directly observe organisms that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago anf follow them right to the end of their existence (or to their present-day descendants), you might as well dispense of the history of Revolutionary and Civil Wars as well. Hypotheses formed years and years ago regarding evolution have been borne out by incontrovertible evidence. The tools of molecular biology have revealed precisely what we would expect in the genomes of various species in terms of common descent with modification. Basically, to reject evolution or downgrade it to “maybe” on the basis of not having a time machine is to deny most of science and history.
ID, on the other hand, doesn’t even offer anything to test. No one needs a time machine to confirm or deny ID because it makes no specific claims. Well, a time machine that could bring us back to the supposed instant of man’s creation would be handy, but as no such event transpired there’s no point in even envisioning such a device.
In other words, evolution and ID are not both “just theories.” They’re not on equal ground. There is no reason to usher religion-based trash into U.S. classrooms simply because creationists don’t like evolution. If evidence for a designer can be produced, then people will be all for it. But none exists, so the yokels should really save their energy for the pulpit.
Ogre engages in the same silly relativism:
“You bolster your argument with YOUR personal web site that is the total and complete truth, while at the same time bashing any other web site that’s mentioned as stupid and useless.”
Except that talk.origins consists of a huge compendium of peer-reviewed research, while creationist sites are operated by eyes-rolling-in-sockets, drool-bib-wearing freakbags who begin with an absurd premise and proceed to misconstrue, misinterpret and flat-out lie in an effort to ward off the truth. See a difference? Think hard now.
Look, I don’t expect to convince you guys of anything. You’re too far gone even if some of you have the basic wiring in place to conduct yourself like open-eyed citizens. But if you post a bunch of inflammatory, errant detritus on the Web for all to see, indicting those things you know zilch about, you can certainly expect reprisals from the informed.
Jay, who has deleted a few of my comments and flagged my posts as spam, desperately wants me to go away so he and the rest of you can exchange back-slapping and lies with aplomb, so I’m done with the cretin brigade here. Have at it. The truth will prevail regardless.
What do you mean? There is all kind of scientific evidence, as I’ve already discussed above which indicate much more scientific evidence on the side of ‘design’ rather than ‘occurrence’.
the fact that you’re not willing to even acknowledge that makes me laugh.
Om the ’60’s and 70’s physicists began to notice that the universal constants of physics, such as the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, seemed to be “finely tuned” for the existence of complex life. If these constants were much different, or if we were to pick their values at random, we would almost always get a universe incompatible with life. To astrophysicist and athist Fred Hoyle, this suggests the activity of a “superintellect”.
I already said that, above. But I guess you’re either not paying attention or you’re ignoring all the evidence to the contrary of your ridiculous victorian-age Darwinian theory.
More than 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of skeptics of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, according to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought”, said David Berlinski, a mathematician and philospher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, or CSC. “It is large, almost copmletely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”
The Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, first published its statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001.
The think tank challenged statements made in the PBS “Evolution” series, which claimed that no scientists disagree with Darwinian Evolution.
“The fact that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life, said John G. West, associate director of CSC, “We expect that as scientists engage int he wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in the past year.”
The institute says that in the past three months, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the statement, which includes more than 70 biologists.
Two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State University, Lev Beloussov and Vladimir Voeikov, are recent signers.
Voeikov said, “The ideology and philosphy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of bioligy seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.”
West says constant characterizations in the news media of the debate as “science vs. religion” are misleading.
“This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds,” he said.
Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Saithe; Richard von Sternberg, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology information; and Guiseppe Sermonti, editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology forum.
The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and the University of Washington.
The public policy debate over how we should teach evolution in America is too important to be based on science fiction like Darwin’s theory of evolution. At stake is whether our students will receive a quality science education in which they learn the truth about evolution, or a science indoctrination in which the truth is hidden from them.
Evolutionists are incapable of selling their ideas in an open marketplace. Instead, they resort to this type of Soviet-styule coersion and censorship to impose their views on others. Remember, it was the communists who made a special point of teaching that God played no rule in the creation of the universe and mankind. Evolution became their god, and history is repeating itself in America’s classrooms today.
The truth is we don’t know what we don’t know, and that’s as good a reason as any NOT to teach what we don’t know as fact to kids forced to attend government schoools.
Some of the brightest people in the world today disbelieve in the theory of evolution. Some of the very brightest people throughout history have believed the world was created–men like Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus and Maury. Why is it so vital to the new gods of scientific correctness that every school kid in America be tuaght only–I repeat ONLY–their theories of the universe which are turning up to be LIES and FALSEHOODS?
what do you mean there is no scientific test?
What about Meyer’s article “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” which cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism?
Meyer–a fellow at Seattle’s Discovery Institute, a leading advocate of ID, contends supporters of Darwin’s theory cannot explain how so many different animal types sprang into existence during the relatively short period of Earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.
The Darwinian mechanism wojuld require more time for the necessary genetic “information” to be generated, and intelligent design offers a better explanation.
The theory holds that the complex features of living organisms such as an eye, are better explained by unspecified designing intelligence than by random mutation and natural selection.
Outside of the biological sciences there is even more robust debate over the idea of purpose and design in nature, and the evidence for it in fields like cosmology, phyusics and astronomy.
Intelligent design, BTW, is not creationism. ID is based on scientific evidence, observation and analysis. Intelligent design theorists argue that some highly-ordered complex features of the natural world–such as the molecular machines in cells or the finely-tuned laws of physics–are best explained as products of an intelligent cause rather than an unguided process. Creationism is based on religious beliefs and assumptions. This debate is not about religion versus science, or creation versus evolution. This is about scientific evidence and how best to interpret it. That’s it.
“There is all kind of scientific evidence, as I’ve already discussed above which indicate much more scientific evidence on the side of ‘design’ rather than ‘occurrence’.”
the problem is that the fundamental claim of ‘design’ is that ‘we have no other explanation.’ The only test is how awed we are. That’s not science.
Actually no cutting and pasting is being done here…I’m noticing too many typos for that to be the case, but all you want to do is discredit the information rather than read it with an open mind.
You guys are not about listening to another point of view…you just want to shove your secular humanism down our throats like the Soviets did and do.
What I’m trying to illustrate is that there are credible scientists who base their findings on science–not skull fragments from two different species died to look the same with the teeth filed down to look human–
Science is in fact all about testing a hypothesis.
But you are refuting solid evidence like that by saying things like “the only test is how awed we are”.
No, look back at what I just said up there.
Darwinism doesn’t answer many questions that Intelligent Design satisfies and answers.
But you’re not willing to look at ID as an answer, because you’re close-minded leftists authoritarians! bwahahahahaha!
“But you are refuting solid evidence like that by saying things like “the only test is how awed we are”
“Darwinism doesn’t answer many questions that Intelligent Design satisfies and answers.”
Intelligent design answeres ‘too much.’ All it does is say that since there is no natural explanation, then the supernatural is the way to go. All it does is fill the gaps and stifle the search for natural explanations.
Explain how intelligent design “answers too much”. Intelligent design actually fills in the gaps that the antiquated victorian Darwinism fails to answer AT ALL!
How is that “too much”? Too much for the atheist secular humanist?
That’s too bad. People should be allowed to arrive at their own conclusions based on solid scientific evidence, not the mixed up bones that are carefully dyed to match with the teeth ground down to mix certain criteria and then passed off as skeletal remains of a missing link.
Side shows do not consistute science, and nothing is going to make those moths get back on those tree trunks.
Scientia means knowledge. Natural science should be the search for knowledge of the natural world. If we are properly scientific, then, we will seek to be open to the natural world, not decide beforehand what it’s allowed to reveal.
Look, either the universe provides evidence for purpose and design or it doesn’t. Many argue that it doesn’t, but if the universe can provide evidence against design, then, at least in principle, it can provide evidence for design. The way to resolve the question is to gout and look at the evidence. Imposing an artificial definition of science in order to avoid what’s becoming obvious won’t resolve anything.
What’s becoming obvious is (”Of Moths and Men”)–there are so many icons of Darwinian lore like the speckled moths, the branching tree of life, four-winged fruit flies, feathered dinosaurs, the embryos–whichh have been discredited. So why do the textbooks persist in recycling these lies?
With mounting scientific evidence is against the Darwinian theory, that’s the short answer.
Even a small mind can wrap itself around the ridiculous assumption that “evolution” is not “fact” but a “theory”, and by extension kind of silly when you think about how interdependent life is.
Bees pollenate flowers and fruit trees, ants need to be present to get flowers to open, one species needs to be present in order to feed another predatory species, and so on.
ROFL! How about that comment #67! I’m literally laughing out loud.
First, the problem is that ID doesn’t explain enough, then when it’s illustrated that it might actually explain and answer some questions, it answers too much! I love it!
Explain how intelligent design “answers too much”.
Because all it does is say: “do you have an explanation? no, if not, then go— I mean, an intelligent designer did it.”
And that’s the end of the proof. I don’t think that hte ID’er actually proves the negative — that there is or cannot be a natural explanation. I think they just look at the fact that there isn’ a natural explanation yet and then conclude that the god/intelligent designer did it
“First, the problem is that ID doesn’t explain enough, then when it’s illustrated that it might actually explain and answer some questions, it answers too much! I love it!”
By explaining everything, it explains nothing.
Intelligent design explains nothing. It PROPOSES the existence of a Designer, but that’s a far cry from an actual explanation. I or anyone can propose stopgap explanations for anything I don’t (yet) understand — especially if I introduce the widely embraced God concept — but unless actual science is involved, it’s worthless.
So I ask the ID supporters: WHAT does ID TRULY explain that evolution doesn’t? No cutting and pasting (even from legit sites, much less the wrecks used for this purpose so far), no carping about secular humanists and commies and those who are too closed-minded to comprehend that Jeebus saves. Just some simple answers from all you closet creos doubling as budding science experts.
I can’t believe the ID lovers here are yowling in triumph when the futility of their position remains painfully evident in their resporting to importing creationist nonsense in support of ID, all the while claiming the creationism and ID are different things. The verbal vomit spattering this thread from the ID side is evidence of a colossal failure of the American educational system.
Great discussion. However, I have always found that a truly gifted debater is always able to keep the argument on the intellectual plane, rather than allow the banter to “evolve” (pun intended) into a bout of urinary olympics.
To wit, I would ask those on the evolutionary side of the equation to consider a simple scenario. Suppose you had been walking through the middle of a barren desert for days upon days, and miles upon miles. Eventually, you come across a laptop computer lying in the sand. It is fully functional. Does your gut instinct tell you that someone designed and built that laptop, or that in the middle of this vast desert, the pieces were assembled and built on their own through random chance? Scientific reason would favor the former explanation.
It is no different than the consideration of the origin of a universe perfectly tuned for life in the midst of a vast expanse of nothingness.
“It is fully functional. Does your gut instinct tell you that someone designed and built that laptop, or that in the middle of this vast desert, the pieces were assembled and built on their own through random chance? Scientific reason would favor the former explanation.”
my ‘gut instinct’ is based on what I know about laptops, and manufacturing and technology. And it would be a very naturalistic and materialistic, explanation to extrapolate from my knowledge of human technology and manufacture to this piece of equipment pretty identical to the one I am typing on right now.
“It is no different than the consideration of the origin of a universe perfectly tuned for life in the midst of a vast expanse of nothingness.”
Its very different, because the universe is not something I am familiar with, in the sense that I know its made by IBM, and HP and compaq.
“To wit, I would ask those on the evolutionary side of the equation to consider a simple scenario. Suppose you had been walking through the middle of a barren desert for days upon days, and miles upon miles. Eventually, you come across a laptop computer lying in the sand. It is fully functional.”
Great. Watchmaker scenario #3,965 (see also: “Tired themes in ID creationism”).
“Does your gut instinct tell you that someone designed and built that laptop, or that in the middle of this vast desert, the pieces were assembled and built on their own through random chance? Scientific reason would favor the former explanation.”
This is a trivial conclusion. I don’t need to guess or go with a “gut instinct” — I *know* the laptop was designed and built by human beings. Why are people so enamored of this noncontributory “thought experiment”?
Also, your notion of “self-assembly by random chance” does not apply to biological systems. Naturla selection is not random; quite the opposite. Evolutionists can patiently explain this until they’re blue in the face, but creationists (and I’m not saying you are one, but you sound like one) are so wed to their pat “rebuttals” that they simply ignore this.
No one (except creationists and ID proponents, that is) has ever claimed that humans suddenly came to be in a whirlwind frenzy of random activity, or any activity. If you can’t be bothered to understand what evolution scientists hold true about common descent with modification, and refuse to acknowledge the enormous contribution of the time scales involved in moving from protobionts to the diverse species of today, and have no understanding of the mechanisms involved in the process, then you can’t see why your scenario is meaningless and that such “thought experiments” — be they recycled ones like the above or brand-spankin’-new ones — are for naught.
“It is no different than the consideration of the origin of a universe perfectly tuned for life in the midst of a vast expanse of nothingness.”
It is incalculably different. For one thing, computers are machines. Animals aren’t. The implications of this are not trivial, and the fact that living organisms have DNA and can evolve and machines do not and cannot is only one of them. The universe isn’t “finely tuned for life” just because it contains life. Quite the reverse! a priori, life would have to be finely tuned to the universe in order to survive. Why people insist on getting a simple concept utterly backward is beyond me.
Let’s take a look at one of these “tests” that someone above said are nonexistent.
That field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late ’40’s. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.
The rest is here.
A very strange grouping of facts emerged (known as the “dust on the moon problem), using a figure published in 1960 of 14,300,000 tons per year as the meteoritic dust influx rate to the earth, creationists have argued that the thin dust layer on the moon’s surface indicates that the moon, and therefore the earth and solar system, are young. Furthermore, it is also often claimed that before the moon landings there was considerable fear that astronauts would sink into a very thick dust layer, but subsequently scientists have remained silent as to why the anticipated dust wasn’t there. Now that’s the moon.
As far as the age of the earth itself, it is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth’s atmosphere from space and then gradually settling to the earth’s surface. The best measurements of this influx have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year.” This amounts to 14 x 1019 pounds in 5 billion years. If we assume the density of compacted dust is, say, 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume of 1018 cubic feet. Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5 x 1015 square feet, this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5-billion-year age of the earth, a layer of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world!
There is not the slightest sign of such a dust layer anywhere of course. On the moon’s surface it should be at least as thick but the astronauts found no sign of it (before the moon landings, there was considerable fear that the men would sink into the dust when they arrived on the moon, but no comment has apparently ever been made by the authorities as to why it wasn’t there as anticipated).
Even if the earth is only 5,000,000 years old, a dust layer of over 2 inches should have accumulated. Lest anyone say that erosional and mixing processes account for the absence of the 182-foot meteoritic dust layer, it should be noted that the composition of such material is quite distinctive, especially in its content of nickel and iron. Nickel, for example, is a very rare element in the earth’s crust and especially in the ocean. Pettersson estimated the average nickel content of meteoritic dust to be 2.5 per cent, approximately 300 times as great as in the earth’s crust. Thus, if all the meteoritic dust layer had been dispersed by uniform mixing through the earth’s crust, the thickness of crust involved (assuming no original nickel in the crust at all) would be 182 x 300 feet, or about 10 miles!
Since the earth’s crust (down to the mantle) averages only about 12 miles thick, this tells us that practically all the nickel in the crust of the earth would have been derived from meteoritic dust influx in the supposed (5 x 109 year) age of the earth!”
The rest here.
Now there’s a “test” where the evolution explanation doesn’t fit, and there are numerous others.
Suffice it to say that science and mathematics have evolved past the victorian age and we must allow the new data through–even though it discredits those secular humanists who want so badly to cling to the theory of evolution.
Science is supposed to examine the available evidence, postulate theories, critique those theories, revise the theories, etc., to arrive at reasonable answers. When someone finds a flaw in a scientific theory, the theory is supposed to be withdrawn & revised. But that doesn’t happen with the Theory of Evolution. Its proponents just ignore the problems & forge ahead, insisting that nothing else be taught.
There are any number of flaws in the Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is the age of the Earth. God gave us a brain. Don’t allow yourself to be brainwashed by the anti-God crowd. If you keep an open mind, you might learn something & even gain a little common sense.
“Now there’s a “test” where the evolution explanation doesn’t fit, and there are numerous others.”
This is the first time i’ve seen evolution being asked to account for geological events.
“There are any number of flaws in the Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is the age of the Earth”
The theory of natural selection has a prediction for the age of the earth? I would imagine that would be more in the domain of geology or even the physics of radiation.
“The theory of natural selection has a prediction for the age of the earth? I would imagine that would be more in the domain of geology or even the physics of radiation.”
actus, cao is madly shoveling pile after pile of material from the Institute for Creation Research into this discussion. Perhaps he understands the spectacular errancy in this and is only stirring up discord for discord’s sake, or maybe he really believes what he’s read there; both are common strategies of committed anti-evolutionists.
Pick any one scientific misstep and rip it apart, as you just did, and twenty more just as easily refuted distortions remain unaddressed. Dealing with such folks is like playing Hans and trying to plug an allegorical dyke with your fingers; until they generate ideas of their own or focus on any one aspect of what it is they’re trying to assert, they are best ignored.
“Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5 x 1015 square feet, this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5-billion-year age of the earth, a layer of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world!”
There was. The bible got it wrong and called it rain. Noah & his crew actually circumnavigated the earth in a dustcraft. How can I get this taught in school?
Just to point it out: answersingenesis.org, a group of rabid antievolution fanatics if there ever was one, publishes a list of arguments against evolution that are just too hilariously bad to use at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Needless to say, the deep dust argument is on the list.
For the record, I think that the arguments that AiG will still use are pretty hilarious, but using one that is beneath them is really going for the bottom of the barrel.
I’m not sure if there is a point to my posting, but I thought I would attempt to address some of these points in a manner that I do not intend to be offensive or confrontational (so if any comes across that way please forgive and ask for clarification, because it was probably unintentional). Although I will not address the ACLU’s stand on this topic, I think the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) postitions have been mischaracterized:
Cao stated:
Protecting evolution from the competition exempts it from a test that is necessary for it to be a legitimate scientific theory, rather than untested speculation.
I think this is a valid point, but I would assert that NAS and AAAS both lack the power to “protect” any theory from testing and they lack the desire to do so. However, what they do believe is that the content of science *education* - esp. K-12 education - should focus on presenting and demanding that students understand of the ideas that are considered to represent the best representations of reality by the majority of the scientific community, esp. focusing on the opinions of those experts most closely related to the topic in question. Bruce Alberts is a cell biologist and was a former president of the NAS, and he wrote a strongly pro-evolution/anti-ID letter in response to Michael Behe’s NYT editorial. But it is important to stress is that the issue he was addressing was NOT whether inquiry into ID or any should be forbidden (academic freedom preserves the right of any interested investigator to examine the issue) but whether it should be presented in classrooms.
Are some of the ideas that are “accepted by the majority of the scientific community” incorrect? Almost certainly, though just as we owe our children the best possible diet in the lunchroom *based upon our current knowledge* and the best possible construction given reasonable budgetary constraints and *based upon our current knowledge of adequate safety measures*, I would assert we owe them the best possible content in their science classes *based upon our current knowledge*. My point is this - imagine that convincing medical research showed that there was a strong correlation between some dietary item - say mystery meat - and cancer, would it be wise to stop serving the stuff? Of course (and I’m sure you all agree with that, assuming the research were convincing as I’ve stated in this example). But was the school wrong for having served mystery meat when *almost everybody* thought it was nutritious (if not delicious)? I’m sure you all agree that blaming people for serving something they believed to be nutritious at the time it was served is pretty unreasonable.
With that said, there is an unfortunate perception of a one-to-one linage between materialism and atheism. After all, materialism has served us well and will continue to do so. Personally, I look at what we have accomplished over the past few centuries and am willing to believe that the trend of being able to explain phenomena in materialistic terms will continue, and that belief informs my lack of faith. But I admit that it is ultimately a belief (indeed, it is a clear example of reasoning by induction - and it suffers from the well understood problem of induction).
Jay stated,
“Let me restate that I never denied evolution. Darwin’s theory of it however has been proven to be full of hoaxes. Personaly I believe in a lot of possiblities. The fact is that no one KNOWS for sure exactly how we got here. People who belive in God, do so by faith. I think evolution is a possiblity, however I also belive, by faith, that if it was…it was directed by a higher power”
A reasonable position, and one I respect even though I disagree with with part of it (the part about “[evolution] was directed by a higher power”). However, I certainly wouldn’t take up slings and arrows (or guns) to fight over that difference.
However, an unfortunate aspect of the current culture wars is that there is substantial misinformation about evolution. The statement that “Darwin’s theory of it however has been proven to be full of hoaxes.”
I would first say that I am glad you separated evolution and Darwin’s theory. Darwin proposed a *version* of evolution - in which random variation followed by non-random selection resulted in changes. In the mid-20th century Darwin’s theory was revised, yielding the “modern synthesis” or “neo-Darwinism”, by figures such as G. G. Simpson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, J. B. S. Haldane, Ledyard Stebbens, and R. A. Fisher. This revision was to integrate Mendelian genetics into Darwin’s theory, which improved the quantitative nature of the theory and actually explained mysteries of how Darwinian evolution could work (the “blending inheritance” assumed by Darwin actually would have been problematic.
You may ask why Darwin worked with a problematic version of the rules of inheritance. Mendel apparently sent Darwin a copy of his manuscript, but Darwin apparently did not recieve the manuscript or it simply got buried under the piles of material Darwin recieved. But working on ideas that have problems being a *complete* picture of reality is common in science. When Einstein was working on the theory of general relativity he published several intermediates where he abbandoned the central principle of relativity (the idea that no reference frames are privleged) because doing so made the maths easier to solve (general relativity requires tensor calculus, which can be quite difficult). So Darwin was doing something similar - providing a mechanism (natural selection) and assuming the rules of inheritance would work out correctly to allow his mechanism to work. The rules of inheritance did work out in that way.
Regarding the assertion that Darwinian (or more properly, neo-Darwinian) evolution is rife with fraud, that is simply a misperception. Even the cartoon at the top illustrates that:
1. Lucy was not a chimpanzee, as the bones is both quite complete and shows clear evidence of having walked upright (very much *unlike* a chimp). Even if it had been a chimp, it wouldn’t have been fraud, it would have been a mistake (a stupid mistake, but a mistake nonetheless). Furthermore, there are additional Australopithicus fossils, so Lucy isn’t the only example (just a well-preserved example). For more info see http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html at Arizona State University.
2. Homo heidelbergensis is not generally agreed to be human, except in the sense that members of the genus Homo are human. It was taller and more muscular than modern man, with a more developed browridge and a brain case 93% the size of the mean for modern humans.
3. “Nebraska man” was described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of an ape-like tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917. The artist Amedee Forestier drew the putative hominid modelled the drawing on the proportions of Homo erectus (”Java ape-man”) for the Illustrated News of London, but Osborn was not impressed with the illustration and called it: “a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate”. Many other palaentologists questioned the identification of this tooth as that of an ape. Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth, despite its resemblance to that of an ape, was probably that of a peccary and William Gregory, a colleague of Osborn’s at the American Museum of Natural History published a retraction of the species Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Science in 1927. So it was a case where the *scientific community* looked carefully at a potentially exciting finding that turned out to be a mistake - not fraud. Within five years the incident was over, but not because of people who questioned evolution. It was over because evolutionary biologists looked at the data carefully.
4. Piltdown man was a genuine fraud, but again the fraud was discovered by evolutionary biologists precisely because piltdown man didn’t seem to fit in the hypothetical ancestry of modern humans. The fraud was probably for reasons other than simply validating evolution - it satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British also wanted a “first Briton” due to national identity, leading to the dismissal of the first Frenchmen and Germans that the French and Germans already had, Professional jealousy kept the faked skull and jaw securely locked away from public gaze. The discoverers were well respected, the skull matched expectations (brain development before the jaw) and it was a well-executed forgery for its time. Even though it was quickly shown to be out of place and was relegated to the status of an unimportant curiosity, it was not dismissed as a forgery immediately. However, since a large portion of the scientific community at that time embraced evoltion, Piltdown Man had no real impact.
5. Peking man is Homo erectus, and it wasn’t the first example of Homo erectus to be found (the first example was in Java). Although the original fossils were lost, it was not a “mysterious” situation. They were being shipped to America and the ship they were on sank.
Furthermore, it is worth adding that NONE of these fossils provided evidence for Darwinian evolution per se (evolution by natural selection). Lamarkian evolution would have made the same predictions for fossils (that there would be a set of hominid fossils on the lineage leading to man), as would a theistic version of evolution in which God guided the process of evolution and added a soul when we became fully human.
The other allegation of fraud that is often tossed out (and was described in a post by Cao here) is Bernard Kettlewell’s experiments with Biston betularia (the peppered moth). Although there were definitely problems with the peppered moth experiments, Judith Hooper’s book is also a highly flawed source. To address a few of the concerns:
1. In the ’80’s, scientists began to realize that the proportions of light and dark moths had fluctuated in OTHER parts of the world where industrial pollution WASN’T A FACTOR!
Although there are fluctuations in the proportions of melanistic and light morphs in other parts of the world, what caught people’s eyes in the UK was the fact that the proportion of melanistic moths increased *faster* than one would expect by chance. Indeed, this was the very observation that motivated the experiment. The proportion of melanistic and light morphs changed in the US in a similar manner (correlated with pollution) and there has not been - to my knowledge - publication of changes in the proportion of light and dark moths *faster* than expected by chance fluctuations in gene frequency in a manner that is not correlated with pollution. For an analogy, think of a reasonably still lake that has a person go out and jet ski on it. The jet ski causes waves. Arguing that fluctuations in the proportion of melanistic individuals in the UK has nothing to do with pollution in the UK using the fluctuation of the number of melanistic moths elsewhere would be like arguing the jet ski didn’t cause waves because you were at the lake the day before and there were still waves. But - of course - the jet ski waves are *bigger* than the relatively small normal waves on the lake.
The specific allegation the Hooper made - that American peppered moths (which she incorrectly states to be a different species from Kettlewell’s - not directly relevant but indicative of less care than desirable when it comes to the science) did not show the same pattern is simply incorrect. Bruce Grant studied American moths and saw an increase of melanistic individual followed by a decrease in a manner directly correlated with pollution.
2. More stunning, the peppered moths aren’t fond of tree trunks! They like to rest UNDER the branches of trees, where the camouflage doesn’t make any difference.
This allegation has been made repeatedly, but it is incorrect. Mike Majerus (one of the scientists who brought up some of the limitations with the original Kettlewell experiments) counted numbers of moths resting on verious parts of trees - he found that the *preferred* to sit under the junction of branches and the trunk and could be found there about half the time. But a quarter of the time they were off on branches and the remaining quarter of the time they were on trunks. Although they prefer branch-trunk junctions they will set down all over.
3. They’re also NOCTURNAL, again making the camouflage a moot point. And they get eaten, not by birds, but by BATS!
Although bats apparently are responsible for the majority of peppered moth predation, it is well established In the scientific literature that birds do hunt and eat peppered moths. Ornithologists have shown the woodland ecosystem to be vertically stratified by competition between different bird species. This zonation means that there are skilled predators patrolling all levels of the forest: the trunks, trunk-branch joints, branches, and higher canopy so camoflage is necessary even for moths on branches (which were also stained by industrial pollution).
4. Those nice pictures we’ve seen of the moths on tree trunks are dead or sleepy moths that were PLACED THERE for a photo op!
True, but not relevant. The photos used in textbooks were not a part of the data used by Kettlewell or by any one of the 7 studies that replicated in a qualitative manner the findings of those studies. They were taken for one purpose - to show that melanistic moths match darkend trees and light moths don’t.
Not relevant? I think it’s EXTREMELY relevant. It goes to show that the evolutionists don’t have REAL SCIENCE to back up their claims and demonstrates even further that Victorian-age theory of evolution must make way for the latest scientific discoveries that debunk it.
As the first response points out, from The Wedge Manifesto, “Intelligent design” is all-Christian — although some Muslims are now also on board.
It isn’t a theory either. It’s an antitheory. It consists exactly of the belief that the theory of evolution is untrue. That’s all.
It isn’t knowledge either. Scientific knowledge comes from experiments described in reports that are published in special magazines called journals, after your work is checked by independent readers for obvious mistakes. Despite this, some of those reports contain errors. But “intelligent design” has not one good published scientific report. None.
In fact, “intelligent design” is a lie, and I believe you know it’s a lie. It’s a lie because it isn’t true, and because Christians who speak it deny that it’s a Christian belief, and they do not speak their real beliefs. They are concealing their religion in order to get “intelligent design” into schools.
Putting this in school science classes is antiknowledge and antiscience. And it wastes time and the meagre allowance of money that public schools are allowed.
Incidentally, this Web page wrecked my computer.
I find it amusing that your post starts with an illustration from a Jack Chick religious tract and then proceeds to cliam that intelligent design is not religious. I’m also amazed that anyone would use a Jack Chick tract as a source of information. Especially a tract that goes on to claim that god holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. (protons, being like charges, must repel each other. Therefore, god must hold them together.)
You really need to check your references. As Edward pointed out, almost every claim made in the comic is demonstrably false. If you did a little research, you would find out that Jack Chick tracts are notorious for making demonstrably false claims. They’re also notoriously anti-catholic, anti-muslim, and anti-jewish, but that’s a secondary issue.
Finally, define consciousness. Nobody has ever been able to determine a uniquely human aspect of intelligence, and there seems to be a continuum along any line that you may use to define conscoiusness. Are ants conscious? what about protazoa? Were the animals alive in the cambrian conscious?
I’m not going to mince words here ore try to protect anyone’s feelings or even justify my position. I’m just going to tell it like it is.
Those who refuse to believe that evolution is not the best explanation for the modern diversity of life on Earth are simply uneducated buffoons or congenital morons.
Let me add a bit more. Believing a book written a few thousand years ago instead of carefully examining the overwhelming evidence that said book is factually inaccurate is a mark of unbelievalby stunted intellectual power.
Let me spell it out. God did not create the world or life. In fact there is not one shred of evidence in all of science to support the idea that God exists. There is no God. Deal with it.
Julie, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. We are just ignorant buffoons, so just let us believe in God, and go on about your business.
Of course we think it is you who are the close minded buffoon, but we are entitled to that opinion as well.
If you are right, it doesn’t really matter, however if we are right, you should do some sould searching. There is a God, deal with that….or you’ll deal with it later.
“Just because Christians support its teachings does not mean its Christian, or religious.”
However, the fact that virtually nobody supports Intelligent Design who is not a Christian–and the vast majority of ID advocates are not merely Christian but fundamentalist Christians–reveals it as a religious doctrine, no matter how many scientific trappings have been heaped about it in hopes of sneaking it into science classes. When you speak to biologists (who nearly unanimously accept evolution) you find Christians of many sects, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Hindus. Yet the only people who accept ID are those who feel that evolution is somehow inconsistent with their Christian faith.
You obviously didn’t read any of my comments. I believe in evolution and Intelligent design.
Cao,
Did you read all of the material I posted when you replied the following?
“Not relevant? I think it’s EXTREMELY relevant. It goes to show that the evolutionists don’t have REAL SCIENCE to back up their claims and demonstrates even further that Victorian-age theory of evolution must make way for the latest scientific discoveries that debunk it.”
All of the first three points were about the REAL SCIENCE behind work with peppered moths. They were:
1. Proportions of the light and dark morphs of Biston betularia did change in a manner consistent with changes in pollution. The change in the proportion of moths with the dark phenotype was greater than expected by chance.
2. The camoflage would be expected to provide protection from birds.
3. Birds do contribute to the predation of moths.
My other point was that taking a picture to illustrate the color differences in a staged manner was not relevant because:
1. It WAS NOT a part of the data used to establish the model for the evolution of the moths.
2. It was only used to illustrate differences between the morphs.
However, characterizing evolution as “Victorian” science does lead into another misconception that many outside of the biosciences have regarding evolution. Evolution has change *greatly* since the time of Darwin. Mendelian genetics was integrated into evolution in the middle of the last century, and the neutral theory made an important contribution to our understanding of molecular evolution since it was proposed in 1969 by the late Motoo Kimura (and independently by Jack King and Tom Jukes). That theory was itself expanded and worked upon by a number of people.
New discoveries in genomics have been *extremely* compatible with the broad structure of evolution. Far from a “Victorian science”, evolutionary biology is a cutting edge science. At the same time, it is remarkable how many of Darwin’s insights have turned out to be accurate when examined with modern data.
I think a number of honest people have written anti-evolution material, and I suspect you are in this category. But most of the problems that are brought up reflect misconceptions regarding the state of the art regarding our knowledge of evolution as well as a misconception that a natural explantion for our origin excludes God (as opposed to being a mechanism that God might have used).
Obviously Jay’s position - which I would read as the possibility that evolution might have been “front loaded” with information - is harder to address. I would say we don’t know enough right now to say that intelligent design starting thing can be ruled out (conversely, we don’t know enough that it can be “ruled in” and I personally don’t believe it, but that is neither here nor there - I would simply say that we disagree on this issue).
If anything, the misconceptions about evoution shouw the need for better science education. I think Jay made a very resonable comment, and to the extent that he (in my opinion erroniously) indicted “Darwinian” evolution as problematic I think it was done out of a lack of detailed knowledge of the status of evolutionary theory rather than a dogmatism. Science eductaion has to both address those specifics and help people with this issue.
I haven’t had time to read all of the comments yet, but I want to ask this question. If teaching something that is, at most, REMOTELY connected to a religion because a religious group supports it is a violation of your civil rights, meaning not being “MADE” to learn a religious theory you don’t agree with, why is my being “MADE” to learn a secular theory I don’t agree with OK? I DO NOT believe in evolution, and guess what, now, even Darwin knows the truth!
“If teaching something that is, at most, REMOTELY connected to a religion because a religious group supports it is a violation of your civil rights, meaning not being “MADE” to learn a religious theory you don’t agree with, why is my being “MADE” to learn a secular theory I don’t agree with OK?”
Because that’s the way our public school system is currently structured. If you don’t want your children to learn science, send them to a private religious school. If you want public schools to teach creationism, then vote for people who want what you want.
Cao–
“Not relevant? I think it’s EXTREMELY relevant. It goes to show that the evolutionists don’t have REAL SCIENCE to back up their claims and demonstrates even further that Victorian-age theory of evolution must make way for the latest scientific discoveries that debunk it.”
Edward just explained the scientific research. Either you didn’t read it or you just don’t want to. The fact that you conflate eugenics with evolution is enough to dismiss your protestations out of hand. The fact that many scientists hold religious beliefs has nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolutionary biology. In general, your cutting and pasting of all the age-old creationist attempts to debunk science is unfrotunate. If you want to believe it, you’re welcome to. If you want your children to believe it, send them to a religious school where creationism is taught.
“Darwinism doesn’t answer many questions that Intelligent Design satisfies and answers.”
What does ID tell us about mass extinctions?
Smoke Eater,
Darwin doesn’t know anything now. He’s dead and that is the end of it.
In school we learn what academic research has discovered among other things. Notice I say academic, this is because crackpot research is not acceptable. ID is crackpot research.
Education should be by definition secular. It is the secular world our education system is preparing students for, not the priesthood or any other form of religious service. You are required to learn that the CSA was defeated by the Union army in 1865. I don’t suppose you have to believe this (many Southerners do not) but you have to learn it.
I would compare the controversy over teaching evolution to that of the Holocaust. Everyone with any reasoning ability knows the Holocaust happened. This is fact. However, many people continue to believe it never occured. Does that mean we should not teach students about the Holocaust in school? It is a secular event that a small portion of the population refuses to believe happened. OF course we should educate our students about the Holocaust the same as we should about evolution.
You creationists are wasting your time trying to fight a valid scientific theory on the basis that you will be receiving a reward (everlasting life) for supporting God. How many of you volunteer to help the needy on a regular (i.e. weekly, daily) basis? Or do you spend all of your time trying to change the nature of education. If there is a God and s/he is anything like the God of the New Testament, you’re probably not going to be high on the get into Heaven ladder. Perhaps you should look to the greater problems in the world such as poverty and sickness as an appropriate place to spend your energy. Helping others (including donating money and time) is what Jesus told you to do. There is no way around that. Take a good look at the Bible and tell me if you think you’re following all the rules!
Jay wrote:
“There is a God, deal with that….or you’ll deal with it later.”
This is a favorite retort of believers when confronted with the patent falsity of their chosen god: “Just you wait and see.” It’s inane but airtight in its own way, since believers will die without ever knowing they were wrong and with no way to convey this fact to living believers. Thing is, the “just you wait and see” game has been going on for a couple thousand years now, to no avail. When’s the Second Coming going to finally come to pass? “Just you wait and see.”
Jay wrote:
“You obviously didn’t read any of my comments. I believe in evolution and Intelligent design.”
Really? You wrote at least twice that you think evolution is rife with hoaxes. Why would you embrace something rooted in pure B.S.? On second thought, check that; you’ve already admitted to buying into the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind, so what’s one more?
Waffling is almost as bad as spitting up mistruth after scientific mistruth.
You write:
“One question evolution fans have never been able to answer to my satisfaction is how dead matter ever gained concioussness?”
Everything that is known today - about everything - was once “not able to be answered”. A mere 200 years ago the common man thought that lightning was a sign of God’s anger. Good thing we didn’t listen to those chumps.
“One question evolution fans have never been able to answer to my satisfaction is how dead matter ever gained concioussness?”
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It deals with the development of life. There is a branch of evolutionary science that attempts to answer this question scientifically. There are a number of theories, but no consensus has been reached at this point.
Since the Bible explicitly states that God made man from the dust of the earth, I personally don’t see any conflict with a scientific theory which postulates that life arose from inert matter.
“Those nice pictures we’ve seen of the moths on tree trunks are dead or sleepy moths that were PLACED THERE for a photo op!”
The photographs of cells and other microscopic matter you see in biology textbooks are also “staged”. Sometimes they even tint them pretty colors to make them easier to see. Does that mean they’re fake?
I don’t see any conflict either Grover. However, the dust man was made of had the breath of life breathed into it.
“However, the dust man was made of had the breath of life breathed into it.”
Yes, but what is that? I’m not being snarky–what is “the breath of life”?
A biologist is naturally going to seek a scientific explanation, if he or she can, of what that means in physical terms. It’s what they do.
“However, the dust man was made of had the breath of life breathed into it.”
Yes, but what is that? I’m not being snarky–what is “the breath of life”?
A biologist is naturally going to seek a scientific explanation, if he or she can, of what that means in physical terms.
Well lets meet halfway on this. First of all, the breath of life is the soul. Now, to meet you half way, in the words of one of my favorite music groups.
Everything is based on this simplicity…the sould you have is electricity.
That’s fine with me, really.
Science makes certain assumptions in it’s quest to understand our world and universe. Saying “It just happened” or “It was just designed that way” isn’t good enough–it’s dead end, scientifically speaking. The proper way to teach science, particularly evolutionary biology, IMO, is to help students understand what biologists mean by “random,” “undirected” etc., and how these suppositions lead to fruitful research and experimentation.
If you (generically speaking) are a Strict Creationist–yes, you’ve got a problem these days. A stop at any natural history museum in this country will attest to that. But I honestly don’t have much sympathy for people who hold that the Earth is 6000 years old and Noah crammed all the dinosaurs in the ark, or whatever.
Any thinking person of faith has to confront the challenges to faith raised by history, physics, geology, literary studies, etc. Singling out evolutionary biology (as opposed to Darwinism), misrepresenting it and seeking to undermine it are counterproductive.
If you don’t have a problem with evolution per se, then I would say, don’t contribute to confusion about what it does or doesn’t seek to explain.
I am a little confused.
All the ID proponents here seem to support ID because they believe in creationism and think it should be given time in the classroom even though it is not scientific.
But the defendants in the case are trying to prove that ID is scientific and is not creationism, since it is clearly established that teaching creationism in public schools is illegal.
One can assert that ID is not religious (though it appears cler that it is, according to its inventors’ own words), but how does one support the opinion that it is scientific without following any of the steps of the scientific method?
I think it’s painfully clear the trial will show there is no way. The defendants may as well have adopted a standard curriculum from the start and simply donated money to the ACLU.
In scrolling down this blog, I am heartened to see how many people are stepping up to defend evolution.
I will not pile on, but merely add two questions that address the fundamental issues ID’ers claim as reasons ID should be given equal time in public schools:
1. ID is not based on religion.
Question: Who is the ‘designer?’
Most ID’ers pay lip service to aliens or “we just don’t know” but every one I’ve ever met thinks its God. God=religion.
2. ID is valid science.
Question: What evidence would convince you ID is not true?
A real scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, if it is to be believed.
I have also yet to encounter an ID’er who thinks there is or ever will be evidence proving God did not create humans.
The Dover trial will no doubt address these, and hopefully at least some in this country will realize that DNA is a better link to our past than the Bible.
First off, I’m not a scientist, and I don’t even play one on tv.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong. If a scientific theory is “proven wrong” isn’t part of that “proven wrong” thing supposed to provide an explanation of *everything* the original theory explained plus something new that the old theory didn’t cover?
So, simply put what is it that ID explains (if anything) that evolution didn’t?
There seems to be this unspoken understanding by ID folks that once evolution has been shouted down that by default ID will win. I don’t think it works that way.
Then there’s the (falatious apeal to dire consequences argument here, but I truly wonder…) what will the US look like after evolution has been “swept aside” in favor of a newer more modern theory like ID? The point is that evolution, and the theories around it get into every aspect of science.
Since we’re in the mood to throw out old theories let’s toss out atomic theorie. After all, since the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, all that business about radioactive decay and millions or billions of years has to go.