Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute reported that University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture. Apparently, the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism.
Salvador Cordova has picked up on this at Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent in an article titled "Darwinian indoctrination required at UCSD? Or will the other side be heard someday?". He notes that 40% of the freshman class reject Darwinism.
I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.
59 comments :
People should reject Darwinism- that is until it can be scientifically (objectively) tested.
Over on Uncommon Descent, as well as other blogs and discussion boards I have asked the followinf two questions (meant to demonstrate that Darwinism is NOT scientific):
1) How could we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via purely stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes?
2) How could we falsify that premise?
I will also take this time to note that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck, which is itself a science stopper.
And the following from geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti demonstrates why one should reject Darwinism:
"Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress."
IOW wobbling stability is what we observe in the lab and in nature. That means that one has to reject observation in order to accept Darwinism.
Did you notice that I'm not a Darwinist?
Until you IDiots learn something about science you don't deserve to take up space at a decent university. However, there's still hope for you. There's nothing in your comment to suggest that you've even reached the age of adulthood. Maybe you'll get educated before you graduate from kindergarten.
Wow Larry, quite a comeback.
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions. Is that because you cannot?
Or is false condensation the best you can do?
Do you realize that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck- which any sane person understands is a science stopper.
Did you also know that the greatest scientists to grace this planet were Creationists? If that means I can only be as scientifically literate as they are I can only say that is a good thing and light years ahead of where you will ever be.
"Darwinian indoctrination" - It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, universities will be offering round earth indoctrination.
Joe G said: "Or is false condensation the best you can do?"
I believe he would prefer that you remain in the gaseous, as opposed to a false liquid, state. I recommend lunch at Taco Bell.
joe g, thinks this is an intelligent comment ...
Do you realize that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck- which any sane person understands is a science stopper.
Here's a scientific article that explains Evolution by Accident. You IDiots should actually try to learn some science before you make fools of yourself.
When can I expect some of the adult Intelligent Design Creationists to stop by? What are they waiting for?
Larry:
joe g, thinks this is an intelligent comment ...
Do you realize that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck- which any sane person understands is a science stopper.
No I just know it is indicative of reality.
And just so Larry knows- science encompasses much more than evolution. Sheer-dumb-luck starts right at the beginning (including the laws that govern nature) and permeates throughout.
As for your essay, well that seems to be refuted by reality:
Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming:
The findings may have implications for understanding animal evolution, Marden said. One view of evolution holds that it is not a purely deterministic process; that history is full of chance and historical contingency. It is the idea purported by Steven Jay Gould and others that if you were to "rewind the tape" and run it again, evolution would proceed down a different path, Marden said.
"Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again," Marden said.
and why are you still avoiding these?:
1) How could we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via purely stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes?
2) How could we falsify that premise?
BTW there aren't any Intelligent Design Creationists so don't wait for one to stop by...
joe g quoting Marden: "... even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again."
I agree. Plants will seek the light and tend to evolve stalks or stems. Animals will seek food and tend to evolve protrusions to aid in locomotion. However, due to the vagaries of life, these stalks and protrusions may have significant differences.
However, your views seem to be inconsistent. Here you quote approvingly someone whose studies indicate how evolution would proceed — in similar environments, in similar ways. Other places, you indicate that you don't accept evolution, not even common descent.
Zachriel:
Plants will seek the light and tend to evolve stalks or stems. Animals will seek food and tend to evolve protrusions to aid in locomotion. However, due to the vagaries of life, these stalks and protrusions may have significant differences.
They may but that is doubtful.
Zachriel:
However, your views seem to be inconsistent.
In reality it is your thinking which is inconsistent. Or perhaps it is just consistently incorrect.
Zachriel:
Here you quote approvingly someone whose studies indicate how evolution would proceed — in similar environments, in similar ways.
I know this is difficult for you but please try to stay in context.
Zachriel:
Other places, you indicate that you don't accept evolution, not even common descent.
Now you are just a plain ole liar.
I have never doubted evolution and Common Descent- that being that all extant living organisms owe their collective common anscetry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms- cannot be objectively tested and should be rejected.
As an example:
1) How could we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via purely stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes?
2) How could we falsify that premise?
You have failed to answer that before and you will fail again.
joe g: "I know this is difficult for you but please try to stay in context."
You cite Marden's studies which include the claims that evolution occurs, that similar environments will result in similar adaptations due optimization guided by natural selection, but that you can't predict exactly what organisms will look like due to the vagaries of historical contingency.
joe g: "I have never doubted evolution and Common Descent ... cannot be objectively tested and should be rejected."
As I said. Yet, your own cite disagrees with you. I always find it quite amusing when Intelligent Design advocates cite study that directly contradict their stance.
"When can I expect some of the adult Intelligent Design Creationists to stop by? What are they waiting for?"
Signs of intelligence from the blog owner.
Some pertinent facts that are apparently beneath the radar scope of the Discovery Institute and the community at Uncommon Descent:
Pennock's lecture is required because he is the speaker for the fall quarter Convocation. He was invited as part of the 2006-2007 Council of Provosts Convocation Series. or Pennock's lecture, attendance is required only for first-quarter freshman in the Culture, Art, and Technology core sequence in Sixth College.
What no one in this little tempest-in-a-teapot seems to appreciate is that education is necessarily coercive. If you don't want a formal education, fine; go ahead and be an autodidact. But getting a formal education means putting oneself under the authority of another, and hoping that this trust is not misplaced. (On the other hand, between student and peer evaluations, it is not difficult for bad teachers to be weeded out.)
That education is coercive has not been appreciated by those who insist on getting both sides heard, on "teaching the controversy." Presumably Frank Rich (winter quarter Convocation speaker) and Derek Walcott (spring quarter Convocation speaker) will be heavily protested by neoconservative apologists and by poetasters who insist that it can't be poetry if it doesn't rhyme, respectively.
It strikes me as incredible that the average incoming freshman student to UCSD could have arrived at doubts about Darwinism through a careful and judicious evaluation of the evidence. Most of them, like most first-year college students, doubt Darwinism because they've been told to doubt it. Likewise, most of those who accept Darwinism accept it because they've been told to accept it.
Having taught at UCSD for several years while in grad school, I did not find that the ability to evaluate different positions on the basis of evidence and logic was not part of the skill-set of the typical UCSD college freshman. Which is fine, of course -- they are there to learn how to think, write, research, etc. They are in college to receive an education. I find it simply ridiculous to suppose, as many over at Uncommon Descent appear to, that most of these freshman students -- regardless of their beliefs -- have arrived at their beliefs through a mature and careful appraisal of both sides of the debate.
Interestingly, one of the co-sponsors for Pennock's lecture is Cal(It)2, a consortium of Californian industry, including some really heavy hitters in biotechnology. I guess they haven't yet heard that ID is the wave of the future.
Marden: "Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again."
What a lovely just-so story. To convert it to science all you'd need to do is make it testable. That's the problem with the macro-evolutionary narrative. It makes no testable predictions about the future. The macro-evolutionary narrative describes a process that is unrepeatable and unpredictable. At best this makes macro-evolution a theoretical science not an experimental science. And that's the whole problem in a nutshell. A large contingent within the scientific community wants evolutionary biology to get the respect given to experimental sciences. It ain't happening. It it isn't an expermental science and no amount of hand waving is going to transform it into one.
DaveScot: "What a lovely just-so story."
So you disagree with Joseph who introduced Marden's study as no less than "reality".
DaveScot: "That's the problem with the macro-evolutionary narrative. It makes no testable predictions about the future."
That is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution (including the ongoing study of evolutionary mechanisms) makes a number of valid empirical predictions concerning future observations in fields as diverse as paleontology and genomics.
Let's compare what happens in an experimental science with what happens in a theoretical science.
ES - We discovered how hydrogen can fuse into helum at low temperature and pressure. Here's how...
[others then attempt to duplicate the work and cannot so the cold fusion theory is abandoned]
TS - We discovered how the bacterial flagellum may have evolved. Here's how...
[others can't even begin to test it because the underlying evolutionary process is unrepeabable and unpredictable]
I have formulate a hypothesis that Larry Moran has sufficient discriminatory powers to understand the difference between experimental and theoretical sciences.
This comment is an experiment to test my hypothesis.
Zachriel
Macro-evolution is about the origin of species. What new species does the neodarwinian narrative predict will evolve in the future?
DaveScot: "Macro-evolution is about the origin of species. What new species does the neodarwinian narrative predict will evolve in the future?"
Descendents of extant species, just like always. And any newly discovered metazoan species, extant or extinct, will fit the nested hierarchy pattern of descent. Indeed, we can even predict where to find heretofore unknown fossils of organisms that fit the nested hierarchy of descent.
DaveScot: "Let's compare what happens in an experimental science with what happens in a theoretical science."
All areas of scientific inquiry involve theories.
In any case, it isn't necessary to create stars in the lab in order to make valid predictions about their characteristics, or to make empirical predictions about new observations in order to test various hypotheses and theories.
On Moran's article about the role of pure chance in evolution (Moran is a drifter in more ways than one).
Larry, you know how Dawkins says that the appearance of design is just an illusion? I say to you the appearance of accident is the illusion.
You're taking a currently and possibly hopelessly intractable problem (predicting evolution) and rather than admitting the problem is a lack of knowledge on your part you turn it into a story of random chance where no one could ever predict it.
It's a good thing scientists who study the weather haven't thrown up their hands in despair and decided they'd never be able make reliable predictions. They have the humility to realize the problem isn't that the weather is unpredictable but rather their ignorance is what stymies their efforts.
"Macro-evolution is about the origin of species. What new species does the neodarwinian narrative predict will evolve in the future?"
Macroevolution has been directly observed like say, >50 times. Welcome to the 21st century.
Prof. Moran says we should flunk the idiots. I can't agree more. I attempted to teach history and western humanities to incoming freshmen for a number of years and their ignorance was astounding. They were unfamiliar with Greek myth, modern literature, major trends in philosophy and art and sadly many of them voted. The worst offenders, of course, were the computer science, physics, chemistry and biology majors, followed in close step by those who majored in education. In fact, I suspect if we applied Prof. Moran's ignorance test more widely (as opposed to just in biology) it is likely he would not be teaching now and burdening the rest of us with his vacuous comments.
Stellar evolution is a theoretical science too but it's a lot more grounded in empirical evidence than the chance & necessity theory of macro-evolution. Common descent from one or a few common ancestors is grounded in all kinds of empirical evidence. The underlying mechanism of descent with modification given as random chance (filtered or not by natural selection) is not well supported by empirical evidence. It's an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorant can be correct but that doesn't change the nature of the argument.
Now how about instead of telling me another just-so story that speciation will occur in the future you give me a testable prediction. I could predict that God will create new species in the future out of species already here. That is no different from your prediction. I can't say anything more specific. Can you? If you can't, what is the difference between God-did-it or chance-did-it? I say there is no difference. God and chance are interchangeable when neither can be predicted.
DaveScot says: Now how about instead of telling me another just-so story that speciation will occur in the future you give me a testable prediction.
Funny how you bring up testable predictions. The ToE has provided many testable predictions, from whale legs to the existence of DNA to the Nested Hierarchy. What predictions has Intelligent Design brought to the table? (Not a rhetorical question.)
You don't think the ToE has made testable predictions. Okay, fine, I can see how people can blind themselves and think that. So you don't support it. Why on earth would you then support ID? For it's astounding predicative power?
For the record DS, would you have ID taught in high school?
joe g: "I have never doubted evolution and Common Descent ... cannot be objectively tested and should be rejected."
Zachriel:
As I said.
Another lie- you stated that "Other places, you indicate that you don't accept evolution,..
It appears Zachriel can't even follow his own posts! Sad but typical.
Also I cited Marden to refute what Larry put in his essay. I know it is difficult for you but please at least try to follow along.
And also the article I cited did not provide any data that demonstrates Common Decent is indicative of reality. It, like most people, just take it on faith.
On to macro-evolution:
What is the evidence that demonstrates a population of bacteria can "evolve" into something other than a population of bacteria?
What is the evidence that demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms?
Once one realizes there isn't any data that demonstrtaes either of the above it becomes clear that macro-evolution is taken on faith alone. Add to that fact we don't even know if any mutation/ selection process can account for the range of change required and you see the religious nature of that beast.
And Paul Nelson tells us of someone who is trying to sell the notion that phenotype dictates genotype:
A quiet revolution
Dan,
Nested hierarchy is NOT a prediction of evolution. The theory of evolution can live with it or without it. And as a matter of fact if all the alleged transitionals were still alive we couldn't place organisms in nested hierarchies. Whales only have legs in the minds of those who have faith in Common Descent. And it should also be noted that some 50,000+ transitionals would be required to bring about the differences between modern whales and their alleged land ancestor. Yet all we have is a mere handful of speculations.
Common design predicts NH and cannot live without it. As a matter of fact NH was first used as evidence for common design.
And as Dan Dennett tells us "There is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time." Which would lead any objective person to wonder if it has any predictive power at all.
To have ID taught in schools is stupid. That is because there aren't enough teachers well versed in ID. However there aren't any teachers or scientists anywhere that can tell us what mutations led to the differences observed between chimps and humans (for example).
On the other hand ID can be tested and falsified. Tested by the concepts of IC, CSI and counterflow. Falsified by demonstrating that stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes can account for them. IOW ID predicts IC, CSI and counterflow...
joe g: "Another lie- you stated that "Other places, you indicate that you don't accept evolution,.."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you are do you not agree with this statement?
Common descent from one or a few common ancestors is grounded in all kinds of empirical evidence.
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from my friend Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/. Click on the Life Science Prize at the bottom.
DaveScot: "I could predict that God will create new species in the future out of species already here."
In fact, God would not be so constrained, thus your prediction does not follow from the premise. Rather, you observe that for billions of years new species have descended and diversified from ancestral populations, so it is reasonable to suppose they will continue to do so.
DaveScot: "The underlying mechanism of descent with modification given as random chance (filtered or not by natural selection) is not well supported by empirical evidence."
Evolutionary change through natural selection and genetic variation has been directly observed. Gee, there are even experiments demonstrating this process of mutation and adaptation. However, the mechanisms of evolution are not completely understood, e.g. embryonics is an area of current interest in evolutionary biology.
joe g: "Another lie- you stated that "Other places, you indicate that you don't accept evolution,.."
Zachriel:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course you don't even though those are your words in your first post in this thread.
Zachriel:
Common descent from one or a few common ancestors is grounded in all kinds of empirical evidence.
You mean all kinds of circumstantial evidence which requires Common Descent to first be assumed.
Heck you can't even answer these questions:
1) How could we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via purely stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes?
2) How could we falsify that premise?
3) What is the evidence that demonstrates a population of bacteria can "evolve" into something other than a population of bacteria?
4) What is the evidence that demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms?
That alone demonstrates the total emptiness of your faith in Common Descent and the theory of evolution.
DaveScot: "Common descent from one or a few common ancestors is grounded in all kinds of empirical evidence".
joe g: "You mean all kinds of circumstantial evidence which requires Common Descent to first be assumed."
That was DaveScot's statement. Just checking. As I said, you *do* reject Common Descent.
Questions 1,2: The evolution of the flagellum is very ancient, and the evidence is tenuous, at best. There are a number of theories, and scientists have discovered homologous elements in microbiology that point to an evolutionary process.
Question 3: Modern bacteria are highly evolved organisms with billions of years of prior history. The common ancestor of life on Earth today may or may not have resembled bacteria. The Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply to the origin of cellular life, where some sort of endosymbiosis may have been involved.
Question 4. The evidence for common descent of metazoan life is found in the nested hierarchy of descent. The common origin of eukaryotes can be found in predicted homologies.
We discussed the nested hierarchy on your blog. You failed to tell us how we use independently derived traits to determine the existence of a nested hierarchy. I got the impression you really didn't know what constituted a nested hierarchy.
My mouth hangs open at the stupidity of your remarks, Joe G.
Nested hierarchy is NOT a prediction of evolution. The theory of evolution can live with it or without it.
Simply false.
Whales only have legs in the minds of those who have faith in Common Descent.
They've found the bones. Go check 'em out. No faith required.
Common design predicts NH and cannot live without it.
Please tell us why the designer was required to use common design. Is the designer you believe in that limited? Many believe in an omnipotent designer. I guess you've found a reason to rule that out. Please share.
And as Dan Dennett tells us "There is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time." Which would lead any objective person to wonder if it has any predictive power at all.
So the ToE has to predict every mutation for it to have any predicative power? Simply mind-numbing.
To have ID taught in schools is stupid.
It's always nice to share common ground.
On the other hand ID can be tested and falsified. Tested by the concepts of IC, CSI and counterflow.
Don't you find it odd that mathematicians (who have no vested interest in evolution) have never taken IC, and CSI seriously? The terms are vague and definitions change depending on who you ask. It boggles the mind that you think those nebulous terms can be the basis of a science.
bio:
WTF kind of research do you think is going on in this area right now? Damn, just read Nick Matzke's primer on flagellum research in Nature. I'm sure you've heard of it. It describes how the premise of flegellum evolution is being tested.
Geez at the Dover trial all the evos were up-in-arms when Dr Behe proposed a way to test the premise.
As far as Nick's article- doesn't that just relate to alleged homologs? That does nada for the evolution of, let alone the mechanism. And it totally disregards the assembly instructions and the command & control required to operate the flagellum.
bio:
You can falsify this premise by showing that flagella were magically poofed into existence by some telic, disembodied intelligent designer.
Your strawman aside- So if ID can falsify any part of evolution, that must mean that ID is scientific. Or can pseudo-science refute science?
----------------------------------
Zachriel:
We discussed the nested hierarchy on your blog.
And you ran away like a beaten dog with your tail between your legs.
But these are precious and must be archived to demonstrate the utter vacuuity of the theory of evolution:
Zachriel:
Questions 1,2: The evolution of the flagellum is very ancient, and the evidence is tenuous, at best. There are a number of theories, and scientists have discovered homologous elements in microbiology that point to an evolutionary process.
Homology and Homoplasy
You ignored that before and I am sure you will continue to ignore it.
Question 3: Modern bacteria are highly evolved organisms with billions of years of prior history. The common ancestor of life on Earth today may or may not have resembled bacteria. The Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply to the origin of cellular life, where some sort of endosymbiosis may have been involved.
It sounds like the premise is untestable and therefore out of the reralm of science. Thanks for that admission.
Zachriel:
Question 4. The evidence for common descent of metazoan life is found in the nested hierarchy of descent. The common origin of eukaryotes can be found in predicted homologies.
Only a fool would think that is a valid answer. And as I have already demonstrated and you ignored nested hierarchy would be expected in a Common Design scenario. NH is not expected in a Common Descent scenario for the many scientific reasons I have already provided. Your continued willful ignorance is not "evidence" for anything- except that you can't face reality.
JoeG is a FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER who's somehow an expert on evolution. Apparently he knows things that the world's top scientists don't. My guess is that he somehow acquired this knowledge in the field (servicing computers? refrigerators? telephones?)
Nested hierarchy is NOT a prediction of evolution. The theory of evolution can live with it or without it.
Dan:
Simply false.
What I said is absolutely true for the reason I stated.
Whales only have legs in the minds of those who have faith in Common Descent.
Dan:
They've found the bones. Go check 'em out. No faith required.
I have seen what they have found. And without the fleshy parts only someone fully wed to common descent would call what was fould "legs".
Common design predicts NH and cannot live without it.
Dan:
Please tell us why the designer was required to use common design. Is the designer you believe in that limited? Many believe in an omnipotent designer. I guess you've found a reason to rule that out. Please share.
It doesn't have to be required. However it is a fact that NH was first used as evidence for Common Design.
And as Dan Dennett tells us "There is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time." Which would lead any objective person to wonder if it has any predictive power at all.
Dan:
So the ToE has to predict every mutation for it to have any predicative power? Simply mind-numbing.
Your mind must be numb as I never said anything about mutations.
On the other hand ID can be tested and falsified. Tested by the concepts of IC, CSI and counterflow.
Dan:
Don't you find it odd that mathematicians (who have no vested interest in evolution) have never taken IC, and CSI seriously?
Reference please.
Dan:
The terms are vague and definitions change depending on who you ask.
The terms are well defined. Just because you don't understand them means what to me?
Dan:
It boggles the mind that you think those nebulous terms can be the basis of a science.
Coming from someone who thinks sheer-dumb-luck is the basis of science- oops- you do realize that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck- starting with the laws of nature all the way down to us humans appearing- sheer-dumb-luck all the way through- I can only cringe at what you think is science.
Zachriel: We discussed the nested hierarchy on your blog.
joe g: "And you ran away like a beaten dog with your tail between your legs."
Not quite. You refused to answer very basic questions on the nested hierarchy. As you had originally blogged on the nested hierarchy, it would be your responsibility to provide a valid definition and demonstrate some understanding of what constitutes a nested hierarchy.
Specifically, I asked for a definition. You provided a cite that indicated that the nested hierarchy results from descent with modification, but that designed objects such as cars do not show a conservation of traits to single taxonomic group. Oddly, you repudiated this aspect of your own cite.
I then accepted the definition from the same cite as "'Nested hierarchy' refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups." Then I asked specific questions for clarification.
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy?
* Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy?
* Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).
You refused to attempt an answer, even after I asked several times. However, I am still willing to listen.
And as a matter of fact if all the alleged transitionals were still alive we couldn't place organisms in nested hierarchies.
Cite?
I have seen what they have found. And without the fleshy parts only someone fully wed to common descent would call what was fould "legs".
I see, so without fleshy parts you can't imagine what they looked like. What can convince of their leggness if not femurs and toes? Mind you, they were first predicted, then they were found. Not the other way around.
Prediction: if the ToE is true then whales must've had legs at one point.
Test: Finding extremely convincing leg-like appendages on whale ancestor's skeletons.
Your reply: I can't tell if they are legs without the fleshy parts.
It doesn't have to be required. However it is a fact that NH was first used as evidence for Common Design.
So now you say that NH doesn't have to be required for common design. But you just said "Common design predicts NH and cannot live without it." Which is it?
Who cares who used it first? The fact that the sun moves across the sky was once first evidence for Apollo. Does science have to revert back to that idea too?
Your mind must be numb as I never said anything about mutations.
I assumed that mutations are what were being selected for. (Whoops!) Switch out mutations for selections and my point still stands. Let me help you visualize that: "So the ToE has to predict every selection for it to have any predicative power? Simply mind-numbing."
Don't you find it odd that mathematicians (who have no vested interest in evolution) have never taken IC, and CSI seriously?
Reference please.
It's extremely hard to show mathematicians NOT using stupid notions. But, you should be able to disprove my assertion by providing counter references easily. I won't hold my breath.
The terms are well defined. Just because you don't understand them means what to me?
Perhaps you can define them for me. Or do you not understand them either?
Coming from someone who thinks sheer-dumb-luck is the basis of science- oops- you do realize that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck- starting with the laws of nature all the way down to us humans appearing- sheer-dumb-luck all the way through- I can only cringe at what you think is science.
Ahh yes, I was wondering when you would play your "dumb-luck" strawman card. Let's see how "sheer-dumb-luck" is used in other fields. How about physics, where I'm more comfortable? If I have a bunch of radioactive nuclei, they will decay (surely you agree). Now, whether or not each particular nucleus decays during a given amount of time is "sheer-dumb-luck." But, we can still construct statistics that explain radioactive decay quite accurately. Homework question: How can we ever trust our analysis which is based on "sheer-dumb-luck?" Remember that we wouldn't be able to harness the power of the atom without such analysis, so you can't argue that it is flawed.
Prof. Moran,
Are you proposing to flunk the kids without testing to see whether they understand? Is there not a good chance that remediation would work for a large number of them?
Dan,
For a thorough refutation of NH as evidence for Common Design please read chapter 6 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".
Ya see if every transitional was still alive there would NOT be distinctive hierarchies. Even Darwin understood this. That is why extinction events were very important to him.
As for sheer-dumb-luck- well reality isn't a strawman. And yes sheer-dumb-luck applies to every field in any materialistic alternative to ID. That is because even the laws the govern nature had to arise via sheer-dumb-luck- that includes the four forces discussed by physicists.
How can we trust our analysis? Because we are here by design.
It also appears that like Zachriel, you can't even follow a discussion:
Dan:
Please tell us why the designer was required to use common design.
To which I responded:
It doesn't have to be required.
Then you chimed in with:
Dan:
So now you say that NH doesn't have to be required for common design.
Which doesn't follow from what was posted. Oh well.
However that response may be incorrect. That is because systems need some common ground in order to function correctly.
As Dr Gish tells us:
A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food. Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn’t work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function. (Gish, 277.)
Joe G
joe g, I read all through your post, even checked your blog. I do not see an answer to my questions about the nested hierarchy.
* Please provide a valid definition of nested hierarchy.
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy?
* Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy?
* Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions.
You have so-far refused to attempt an answer, even after I have asked repeatedly. However, I am still willing to listen.
joe g: "Ya see if every transitional was still alive there would NOT be distinctive hierarchies."
So a dead twig on a tree violates the nested hierarchy?
Zachriel:
However, I am still willing to listen.
All evidence to the contrary of course. Here is just another example:
joe g: "Ya see if every transitional was still alive there would NOT be distinctive hierarchies."
Zachriel:
So a dead twig on a tree violates the nested hierarchy?
Truly unbelievable...
joe g: "Truly unbelievable."
You forgot to answer the questions I posed. Think of this as a teaching moment for our gentle readers. You have repeated used the term "nested hierarchy".
* Please provide a valid definition of nested hierarchy.
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* etc.
JoeG, I'm convinced that you don't understand what a nested hierarchy is.
Ya see if every transitional was still alive there would NOT be distinctive hierarchies. Even Darwin understood this. That is why extinction events were very important to him.
What possible difference does it make that the transitionals are now dead? We're talking about A NH. There are not distinct hierarchies.
I will let your idiocies stand as they are. I have no more patience to reply to moronic statements like:
"That is because even the laws the govern nature had to arise via sheer-dumb-luck- that includes the four forces discussed by physicists.
How can we trust our analysis? Because we are here by design."
Actually let me just point out the stupidity of the final comment. You're saying that we can trust our analysis based on "sheer-dumb-luck" because of the fact that we, the analyzers, are designed. Talk about a non-sequitor.
-Dan
Until you IDiots learn something about science you don't deserve to take up space at a decent university.
I guess we can ship them to your university, then.
Prof. Lawrence (“Larry”) Moran’s coercive directive to flunk Intelligent Designer students is a classic example of Lysenkoism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism%E2%80%9D”>
Like Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, Moran seeks to deny education and employment to all who do not hold to his dogmatic theories.
Prof. Moran’s Darwinian fascism directly violates the
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association. . . .
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html
Specifically, Moran violates parts I.2a) “freedom of conscience and religion”; I.2b) “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”, and I.15(1) “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right of . . . equal benefit of law without discrimination . .”
Such dogmatism caused the death of more than 95 million people during the 20th century at the hand of Marxism – more than three times all deaths by 20th century wars. See the Black Book of Communism.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/%E2%80%9Dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism%E2%80%9D
Academic freedom critically depends on the unalienable rights to speech and religion – INCLUDING freedom to explore and model nature for all who are skeptical of Darwinian orthodoxy. Coercive discrimination like Moran’s seriously hinders science and harms society, especially when exercised under dictators such as Stalin. We need courageous scientists like Maciej Giertych, to take the courageous stands to stop Darwinian Fascism like that shown by Moran and to preserve our unalienable rights.
See: Maciej Giertych, Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved, Nature 444, 265 (16 Nov. 2006)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444265d.html
dlh: "Like Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, Moran seeks to deny education and employment to all who do not hold to his dogmatic theories."
People can hold whatever religious beliefs they want. However, the claim that Intelligent Design represents a valid scientific theory is not a protected belief. It is a falsehood disguised in the language of science for political and social purposes.
I know Joe G has been active on the blogs. I guess he is avoiding the answer to my questions.
WOW,
Instead of burning books you have chosen to burn people’s careers. If I were a student in your class I would be in the Dean’s office about my grade and in-class discussion almost daily, due to your presuppositional biases. Ha, that class would be an easy A because the Dean would be scarred about the public statements made… no studying for this class! Whoo hoo!
Dr. Moran would just have them flunk the IDiots. How clever and novel! This is what we have to look forward to if the Darwinites gain the upper hand. Pope Charlie has a real hold on these disciples.
Dr. Moran seems to think that people who believe in God are IDiots. God has a different idea about that. Psalm 14:1 He says "The fool has said in his heart "there is no God."" Indeed, the amount of faith that is necessary to believe in the literally inumerable random miracles that are necessary to explain the world we experience is just mind-boggling. Darwinites and believers are both people of faith - it is just the object of our faith that differs. Personally I find it more rational to believe in an Intelligent Designer than a totally random purposeless unguided process. If he prefers an unintelligent cause, fine. I'm happy and absolutely unashamed to admit that I fit into the category of IDiot as described by Dr. Moran. Call me whatever you will, but don't restrict my rights. Let me take an IQ test to see just how unintelligent I am and then if I don't match up with all the Darwinites, then fine, don't accept me. But just because my worldview is different then yours does not give you the right to disqualify me from studying a particular subject, even if the subject is science as limited by the worldview of naturalism. Most scientific research has nothing to do with Darwinism. When Darwinism comes into play, then we leave the realm of science and get into the world of just-so-stories. Figuring out how something evolved is not nearly as important as figuring out the design of things and how it works. That is why the science of bio-mimetics is such a big thing these days. You don't have to be a Darwinite to do this helpful, promising and wonderful research. In fact, the ID perspective probably even enables a person to do better work in this area because one isn't bogged down with trying to come up with a fairy tale as to how it evolved. IDers look for design from the start and don't ignore "junk DNA" etc by just writing it off as evolutionary leftovers. Well, enough of this. a happy and intellectually fulfilled IDiot
jim m: "Dr. Moran would just have them flunk the IDiots. How clever and novel!"
Um, I think it was a bit of hyperbole. Religious beliefs are protected. But requiring knowledge and understanding of evolutionary theory is reasonable, and any high-school graduate should have familiarity with the subject.
Prof. Moran’s Darwinian fascism directly violates the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do you see the right to a passing grade in a class despite not knowing the relevant central concept?
As a UCSD alumnus (of Revelle College), I support Dr. Moran's statement entirely.
Dr. Moran, it appears that you have attracted the ususal IDiots, perhpas because you are relatively new in the blogosphere. Unfortunatley this means I will have to listen to same tired old crap from the same sad people that cannot be bothered to learn anything about science never mind evolutionary biology. It shows in their use of terms such as Darwinism and their complete refusal to accept that their silly fairy stories are only for their own comfort, the rest of us have decided that purpose comes from humans, not made up characters. I can only hope they grow up soon and join the rest of us in rejecting superstition. In the meantime I will continue to read and enjoy your blog and ignore all the meaningless noise in the comments.
I am not a biologist but do take an interest in the subject since it gives such a beautiful explanation of the world around us. Keep up the good work.
Fire the IDiots
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com
questions on Larry's "The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b%40posting.google.com
Larry has always responded to my questions, and responded with thorough, thoughtful answers.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c5jngr$255h$1%40darwin.ediacara.org
I take Larry most seriously.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1153842837.103288.208080%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Besides flunking them, fire the IDiots.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com
[CanuckRob]"it gives such a beautiful explanation of the world around us"
How do you account for the origination of genetically-encoded information?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
can atheism account for origination of 382 essential genes?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164396926.582303.88630%40j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
joe g: "Ya see if every transitional was still alive there would NOT be distinctive hierarchies."
This is interesting... than how does classification work in lineages without a good fossil record. How do all those papers get published in journals like Evolution, Cladistics, Science etc that have HC based only on data from living organisms.. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Would someone please get joe g a copy of Miller's latest high-school biology text? Although, I have a feeling it would just collect dust.
Besides, who needs a book when talk origins has such a nice FAQ section just for people like joe g:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
I know joe, it doesn't directly answer your fabulous flagellar foolishness but maybe you can read this, then miller's book, then Matzke's article and you'll finally get it. Oh wait, I forgot, evidence means nothing to you
Professor, I guess Einstein, Newton and others would be denied admission or flunked out of the UC Berkely, based on your recommendation...
Did you know that if you go to Drdino.com the person will give you $250,000 if you can give any scientific proof for evolution. By the way evolution only happens in the
imaganation. It is a big lie. It is a religion. IT IS A RELIGION.
************Joel*********************
The issue is: most of advancement in science, art and culture were made by people whom believed in God. Anthropologically speaking, extreme atheism is not less idiotic, when become ideological, than fundamentalism of any sort. Freedom of speech and expression is more important than the anti-liberty attitudes of atheists whom would like to silence whom they disagree with . Indeed, the all battle of arguments are s a waste of time.
Religious fundamentalist cannot demonstrate 100% that God exists, Atheists, even with a PhD, cannot 100% demonstrate that God does not exist.
They just spend time, money and neurones in a futile batte of principle (or just another way to attract attention and fame).
By the way, if we should follow Dr Moran's suggestion, I suppose the world should have never had geniuses such as Blaise Pascal and many others.
Fascism (the attempt to impose one's believes on other and silence the other--or even remove them from society, or isolating them) is fascism; with God or without.
The issue is: most of advancement in science, art and culture were made by people whom believed in God.
Not only that, they also believed in slavery, racism, and that women were inferior to men. Most of them supported totalitarianism and/or monarchies and they were opposed to most of the freedoms we take for granted.
Many of those who believed in god(s) believed in very different gods that the ones you believe in.
What's your point?
Post a Comment