Tuesday, December 18, 2007

What Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

 
Over on Uncommon Descent there are a group of adolescents pretending to be scholars. Most of them are patting each other on the back saying what good fellows they are. The highest level of scientific knowledge they possess comes from reading Michael Behe (which they consistently misinterpret). One thing they've mastered is quote mining—do all creationists take a course in effective quote mining or do they just copy the quotes from some website?

My short foray into dumpster diving didn't provoke much in the way of intelligent discourse over there except for one poster named "gpuccio." He made some points that are worth responding to [Uncommon Descent]. I think his version of Intelligent Design Creationism may be very different from what I read. Maybe he's a cut above the rest. (Warning, don't get too excited before you read the rest of the posting.)
You are, maybe unwillingly, misunderstanding the words in Granville Sewell’s post. I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "mechaninsm". What Sewell obviously means is that we don’t know any theory which can explain the "causal mechanism" of the generation of information in biological beings which is usually termed "evolution". All your stuff of arrogantly citing natural selection and genetic drift, as though Sewell ot all of us are not aware of them, is simply pointless.
Now this could be interesting. Naturally I was aware of the fact that Sewell was not using real scientific terms when he implied that scientists know nothing about the mechanisms of evolution. That was partly the point in responding the way I did.

But in this response we have the beginnings of something significant. Maybe for the first time we are going to see a real scientific discussion of those other "causal mechanisms" that the creationists have been so cagey about.
In case you have not understood that, the whole point of ID theory is that RM, NS, genetic drift, and any other kind of random variation, have not trhe power to generate that kind of information that we observe in biological beings. You may agree or not (I suppose you don’t), but simply stating that natural selection and genetic drift are the mechanism of evolution doesn’t answer the point of ID.
I'm guessing that gpuccio is talking about special mutations here. It looks like he's redefining evolution in terms of an Intelligent Design Creationism version of information.

Before continuing, let me make one thing perfectly clear. When Granville Sewell demanded that scientists admit that they know nothing about the mechanisms of evolution it seems fair to assume that he's talking about scientific definitions of "evolution" and "mechanisms of evolution." I made that assumption and showed that Granville Sewell was just plain wrong if he was talking about science.

I think we're about to learn what Intelligent Design Creationists mean when they use those words. While this will be interesting, it's not really all that relevant when talking science to scientists.
To answer the point of ID, you should understand why we are convinced that your so called “mechanisms” are not mechanisms at all, and then demonstrate that we are wrong, and that you are right. Pretendong that we are only “invoking the supernatural”, because science can’t explain everything in detail, s only a lie. It will not do, not here. We know that’s not true. You can repeat that lie in your blog, where other darwinists are ready to support it, but not here. Here, if you want you must discuss.
Whatever. Please get to the point.

I mentioned that I lecture about evolution and I use examples like the irreducibly complex citric acid cycle and plant photosynthesis complexes to show probable evolutionary pathways to complexity. gpuccio replies with this,
Really? Can you explain a molecular pathway to all that you say? Please, explain that to us. Let’s verify the credibility of your "mechanisms" in your supposed molecular pathway. Let’s calculate the probabilitys of your supposed events. Lets’ reason, as every scientist should do, in terms of cause and effect, if we are talking necessity, and in terms of probabilities, if we are talking randomness. If you invoke natural selection, let’s verify which step of you supposed mechanism is selected, why and in what times. You see, nobody wants that you can explain everything, or have the e4vidence for everything, but just that you give a credible, detailed mechanism which "could" be believed, and for which there is at least some solid evidence.
Hmmm ... this sounds an awful lot like typical creationist screed. Whenever we mention some evidence for evolution they all of a sudden want all the excruciating details, or it doesn't count. Where are those demands when it comes to the Intelligent Design Creationist explanation of the citric acid cycle, huh?

Anyway, we see here the typical confusion of the creationist. They can't distinguish between evolution the concept, evolutionary theory, and the unique history of life on this planet. When gpuccio says "mechanisms" above, he doesn't mean mechanisms of evolution. He means detailed descriptions of events that took place several billion years ago. Nothing else will do for the creationist mindset. If we can't supply the complete historical account then it can't be evolution—God must have done it. Can you say "God of the gaps?'

gpuccio, you don't get to redefine "mechanisms of evolution" just because it suits your rhetorical purpose.
When you say that ID focuses on some complex structures, while many others are well understood, you show that you have not understood anything of ID. ID has focused on the bacterial flagellyum just because it is an easy example. But we could discuss practically any complex structure in biology, and show that it could not come into existence by your "mechanisms".
I'm sorry gpuccio but there's no polite way to say what I'm about to say.

That's just bullshit. You are lying.

Even Michael Behe has abandoned the citric acid cycle because he knows we have a reasonable evolutionary explanation. The same is true of dozens of other complex structures and pathways. There's a reason why 99% of creationist literature focuses on bacterial flagella and one or two other complex structures. It's because that's where you see the gaps and that's where your God can hide. For now.

Incidentally, I'm rejecting your use of the word "mechanism" to describe unique historical events.
You ask:
"Let me ask you a question. Did the intelligent designer allow naturalistic evolution to do most of the work, saving a few well-chosen examples for special attention? Did he (making an assumption here) let photosynthesis and the citric acid cycle—and dozens of other things that we understand—evolve on their own but step in to design bacterial flagella or whatever other complex you have chosen as the evolution problem of the day?"
No. Absolutely not. Again, you have understood nothing of ID. ID maintains that practically all "macroevolution" is the product of design. Only some patterns of "microevolution" (some kinds of bacterial resistance, and so on) can be ascribed to your "mechanisms". Please, read Behe’s last book for the details, and then answer that. Bu please, stop pretending that ID says things that it has never said.
Oh dear. Turns out that this creationist is no more intelligent than all the others. Now he's reduced to stomping his feet on the ground and shouting "no macroevolution allowed! that's what Intelligent Design Creationism is all about."

Okay, I understand. You have an intellectually bankrupt position. You say macroevolution never happens and that's what real Intelligent Design Creationism maintains. How does one debate such a position?
You say:
"Do you see the point? Scientists have plenty of good examples to choose from. From those examples they extrapolate to others where there is less information available."
Wrong again. See discussion above. The point is not, and has never been, how much information scientists have about something or something else. The point is how scientists have regularly deformed and forced the interpretation of facts to support an unlikely and unbielievable theory of supposed causal mechanisms.
So, what your saying is that you don't give a damn how much evidence scientists have about evolution and the history of life. It's all lies. Now that's an intelligent response.

Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe you are an IDiot just like the rest.
You say:
"ID proponents, on the other hand, do the opposite. They take all of the well-studied examples and throw them in the waste basket because they are an embarrassment to their worldview. Then they taunt scientists with the more difficult cases and conclude that everything must be supernaturally created when scientists can’t give them a detailed answer to their specific example."
False. Irrational. You discuss your fantastic view of ID. Id has never said or done what you say. It is really offensive how you superficially and irrespectfully lie about serious scientists and thinkers like Dembski, Behe, and others. I respect you for having come here to say what you say, but not for saying this kind of things.
I don't think this "discussion" is going anywhere. All you keep doing is insisting that what I say about Intelligent Design Creationism is wrong. I don't think so. I'm beginning to think that it's you who doesn't understand Intelligent Design Creationism. Let me give you a clue. Intelligent Design Creationism is all about proving that some special examples of complex things can't possibly have evolved by the known mechanisms of bioloical evolution. Therefore, God exists.

The final straw is when you refer to Dembski as a "serious scientist." Now I know you're just pulling my leg.

Goodbye.


36 comments :

  1. gpuccio (attributed by Larry): What Sewell obviously means is that we don’t know any theory which can explain the "causal mechanism" of the generation of information in biological beings which is usually termed "evolution".

    It would help if gpuccio described what he meant by "information". What metrics? What criteria? One must ask because the simple act of gene duplication (partial or otherwise) can be said to increase information by any number of common metrics. In fact, one would be hard pressed to identify a quantifiable metric by which duplication wouldn't be tallied as an increase.

    So, clearly, gpuccio must have something else in mind. Perhaps he's thinking about "Spetnerian metrics" (named after Lee Spenter), in which often contradictory criteria are swapped in & out as it suits a creationist's argument.

    Ah, but this sort of crap has been discussed and beaten down for well over a decade. Anyone with a clue could easily scan old usenet posts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. His intelligence and reason are assuredly not reinforced by his shitty use of punctuation. And will the real ID please stand up? Is it YEC or not? Oh yeah! It's the big tent and theistic realism. I have a response to that utter waste here

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again, you have understood nothing of ID. ID maintains that practically all "macroevolution" is the product of design.

    First Dembski goes off message and admits that the designer is God. Now, if gpuccio is to be believed, Behe got it all wrong too, when he tried to define the "edge" of evolution. When Behe defined the "edge" as being somewhere above the species level, he was obviously showing that he knows "nothing of ID".

    Only some patterns of "microevolution" (some kinds of bacterial resistance, and so on) can be ascribed to your "mechanisms". Please, read Behe’s last book for the details, and then answer that. Bu please, stop pretending that ID says things that it has never said.

    But...but... First he says that Behe knows nothing about ID, and then the directs you to Behe's book. Is he trying to trick you? Devious...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Larry, I just want you to know that I really look forward to these kind of posts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Larry, I salute you for attempting to reason with creationists.
    However, they are ignorant, lying scumbags whose purpose is to destroy real scientific learning in public schools.
    I really enjoy your science posts, and I always learn something from them.
    I hate to see you wasting your time and considerable teaching talents on hopeless intellectual zeros such as this "gpuccio".

    ReplyDelete
  6. What you have to understand clearly Larry, when debating almost any creationist, is that you are debating religious people, that hold some weird story to be true right down to the miraculous resurrections and the "rapture"... if you are willing to believe in such things like the resurrection of a 3 day corpse, you will probably not be too scrupulous about the opinion of science. Right?

    Rather than being genuinely interested in debating, they have fully made-up minds and are more in some kind of a propagandistic errand (ultimately, evangelization). Many belong to dogmatic religions with tightly wven communities that reafirm themselves about creationism; the kind that would socially isolate anyone who outspokenly defends the fact of evolution.

    There is no such thing as the sincere, purely scientific creationist. It's all about the bible.
    You can this the central falsehood of creationism; the unbreakable principle of intrinsic creationist phoniness. No exceptions exist.

    For the most, these people's minds important conceptual and social restrictions as to where they are allowed to go in their thinking.

    If they cite "scientific evidence", most of the time, they barely know what they are talking about. Thus, they are incapable of understanding or appreciating the scientific explanation that a guy like Larry may deliver.

    The result is indeed like debating an idiot. I think any kind of "scientific" debate with creationists is pointless and a complet waste of time that can only favor their holy agenda.

    The problem with creationism has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Creationists are not to be debated on the basis of data or scientific discussion, but on the philosophical grounds, which is where the real problem resides. They think that if evolution is true, the conclusion must be that god does not exist. Pretty narrow thinking, huh? Indeed, there can hardly be anything sillier than making the existence of god hinge on the denial of a well-established fact.

    Any atheists (for instance, dawkins) who argue that evolution leads to atheism, are simply hanging themselves onto the argument created in the first place by religious narrowness.

    njw

    ReplyDelete
  7. A design hypothesis doesn't immediately refute biological evolution or provide unquestionable support for theism. Hardly.

    Even if a design hypothesis is supported by evidence (such as the discovery of "designed motifs") from the genomes of living systems, all we can say is that our genomes could have been designed or meddled with by some entity.

    Could be an Alien, H.R. Giger-style. An extinct non-carbon based lifeform. Or even Joe the lab technician who managed to seed life in our Universe through some bizarre time warp. None of these alternative explanations can be eliminated by the acceptance of Intelligent Design.

    If ID was compelled to become real science (ie generate testable predictions and do experiments) then we might find out who our Designers really are.

    I'm rooting for the Alien, preferably drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm following this debate with a great deal of interest.

    Sanders said:

    They (creationists) think that if evolution is true, the conclusion must be that god does not exist. Pretty narrow thinking, huh?

    With that, Sanders, I concur completely! Ironically, I think you might find that some atheists also accept what to these creationists is a counter factual!

    'Logically' expressed:

    evolution => no God

    If both sides of the debate share this conditional but have a deep commitment to ascribing different truth value to the proposition 'No God' it's not surprising why evolution is such an emotive issue.

    I'm a theist who accepts evolution and in my travels I sometimes come across ex-atheists, now christain believers, who have changed sides because the 'evolution' half of the above conditional has somehow become 'switched' off! In fact there seems to be another conditional lurking under surface, namely:

    Evolution false => God exists !!!

    Needless to say I don't accept these conditionals even though I'm a theist. It is ironic that some atheists should share their mindset with some Christians. Perhaps that's why someone like myseld gets abused by both sides of the debate! (But not by Larry, I'm glad to say!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Needless to say I don't accept these conditionals even though I'm a theist. It is ironic that some atheists should share their mindset with some Christians. Perhaps that's why someone like myseld gets abused by both sides of the debate! (But not by Larry, I'm glad to say!)

    Indeed Timothy, which is why my one true God is the testable prediction. I'm surprised that our Gods differ.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I noticed in the comments on UD the notion that the organisms that gave rise to stromatolites were "preparing the Earth" for the arrival of future organisms.

    So now that we have living things that metabolize oxygen, why are there still cyanobacteria?

    ReplyDelete
  11. ian pulls a quote of gpuccio: Again, you have understood nothing of ID. ID maintains that practically all "macroevolution" is the product of design.

    I also want to comment on that statement. It expresses what is perhaps a popular opinion among creationist IDers, but there is nothing inherent in ID that any sort of biological macroevolution need be a direct product of design.

    Case in point: Michael Denton. His version of design has the intervention phase of the designer *ending* with the the birth of the universe. Everything after that arises from the original 'laws' and configuration present at the Big Bang: No further 'twiddling" required by a designer. Even Johnson and Dembski have given lip service to the possibility that natural mechanisms might be behind much of biological evolution, but perhaps not in any case.

    There is no ID theory. ID maintains "nothing" distinctive to say about how the world may appear. It would be better if gpuccio has instead said: "I'm an IDist and my personal belief is that macroevolution requires the direct intervention of a designer". He shouldn't conflate ID, which is an amorphous blob of fog, with his unsubstantiated but distinct personal beliefs.

    ***************************
    jud writes: I noticed in the comments on UD the notion that the organisms that gave rise to stromatolites were "preparing the Earth" for the arrival of future organisms.

    Apparently, terraforming the Earth by directly manipulating inorganic compounds was beyond the capabilities of the designer. Maybe the designer can only mess with living things. That seems odd, but perhaps that's the sort of hypothesis ID theorists should consider investigating (Or would try out, if they had any interest in scientific details).

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can't believe that after all this time, there are people who still consider ID as "creationism".

    That's the same as considering evolution as atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ mats:

    I suggest you do a bit of research on the Dover trial. They showed pretty clearly that intelligent design merely is rebranded creationism. Ignoring the fact that intelligent design uses all the same arguments as creationists. In the book by the discovery institute, the ones who came up with the idea (immediately after creation science was ruled unconstitutional to teach in public schools) they just did a "find/replace", replacing creationism with intelligent design (except for where they screwed up and wrote "cdesign proponentsists" instead of either "creationist" or "design proponents". If you look at the definition of creationism used by the Discovery Institute:

    "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

    and their definition of intelligent design:

    "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc"

    I think it is pretty clear they are the same, by definition (pun intended).

    ReplyDelete
  14. When someone says, "ID maintains that practically all "macroevolution" is the product of design", you'd better believe they're talking about creationism. They are the ones who are confused.

    Who knows what ID "maintains" about anything specific.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mat's,

    A simple question.

    Do you and a chimpanzee share a common ancestor?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lim Leng Hiong said:

    Indeed Timothy, which is why my one true God is the testable prediction. I'm surprised that our Gods differ.

    Hi Lim,
    I don’t really want to interrupt this discussion of biological realities with philosophy, but let me just say this:

    An anonymous commentator on this blog once said that evolution successfully ‘joins’ the dots of observation (and, one hopes, predicts dots as well!). I would certainly want to concede that. In fact one might say that all science does this to a greater or lesser extent depending on the epistemological tractability of the object in question: some objects, particularly complex objects like evolution, history, human beings and social realities in particular, present far less accessible dots in relation to their size and complexity than say relatively simple objects like springs obeying Hooke’s law. To cut a long story short let me just say that for me personally it is this spectrum of epistemological tractability by which theism gets through the net!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stromatolites "preparing the Earth" for oxygen metabolizers is part of a spectrum that includes "front loading," the concept that "junk" DNA (in the sense of DNA that performs no function, coding or non-coding) was put there by a Designer in preparation for employment further down the line of inheritance.

    Putting aside for a moment how this is supposed to work if common ancestry is denied, or be necessary if macroevolution is denied, it is wonderful to consider the concept in the context of the "onion test:"

    Onions - made the development of future life on Earth possible, and taste great in salads!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mats,

    It is easy to prove that IDiots are Creationists. All you have to do is go to Uncommon Descent and propose the following 3 versions of ID:

    1) Life on Earth was designed by aliens;
    2) Most species were developed through a purely naturalistic process called Evolution, but a small number of species may have been created by a designer or modified from their original, natural form;
    or
    3) Life was designed in such a way that species can give rise to other species through purely naturalistic processes.

    You will see that IDiots will oppose these versions vehemently because in version 1) the designer is not God and in versions 2) and 3) they have to accept "macroevolution", which means that species were not created, which goes contrary to what Creationists believe.

    In other words, the only version of ID they will be willing to accept is the version closest to gold old Creationism - where the species themselves are created, but once created they can change a bit through "microevolution", but not to the point of becoming another species.

    Then ask yourself why this is the only version they are willing to accept...

    I rest my case.

    Robert M.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You will see that IDiots will oppose these versions vehemently because in version 1) the designer is not God and in versions 2) and 3) they have to accept "macroevolution", which means that species were not created, which goes contrary to what Creationists believe.

    Spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I did a comment yesterday, but it seems it was deleted.
    No, I don't believe that humans and animals have a common descent. Apart from the total absense of testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence, it's absolute nonsense.

    ID = the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as opposed to a undirected, (impersonal) natural cause.

    Creationism = God created the universe is 6 literal days, around 6,000 years ago, and around 4,500 years ago He sent a world wide flood.

    Only a darwinist would see a "common ancestor" between creationism and ID. But then again, darwinists see common ancestors everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No, I don't believe that humans and animals have a common descent. Apart from the total absense of testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence, it's absolute nonsense.

    I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. Chewie, take the professor into the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.

    ID = the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as opposed to a undirected, (impersonal) natural cause.

    Creationism = God created the universe is 6 literal days, around 6,000 years ago, and around 4,500 years ago He sent a world wide flood.

    Only a darwinist would see a "common ancestor" between creationism and ID. But then again, darwinists see common ancestors everywhere.


    ID couldn't be creationism, no! Creationism is just plain stupid. 6 literal days? 6000 years ago? Worldwide flood? Omnipotent and omniscient Creator?

    Absolutely stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  22. mats: No, I don't believe that humans and animals have a common descent. Apart from the total absense of testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence, it's absolute nonsense.

    It's like a Joe Foxworthy set-up: You might be a creationist if...
    ...you claim there is a total absence of empirical evidence for human evolution.
    ...you think humans shared no common ancestor with other animals.

    "Creationism = God created the universe is 6 literal days, around 6,000 years ago, and around 4,500 years ago He sent a world wide flood."

    Hmm... I know that Young-Earth Creationism has a common abbreviation, 'YEC'. I wonder what the 'O' in 'OEC' represents? Perhaps 'Old'? Gosh, maybe there's another, popular variant of Biblical creationism in which the 'days' are interpreted as long periods of time and many groups of organisms are still directly created.


    Only a darwinist would see a "common ancestor" between creationism and ID. But then again, darwinists see common ancestors everywhere.

    Right. The fact that newer editions of "Pandas and People" changed words from "creationism" to "intelligent design" but otherwise left most of the earlier passages intact was pure coincidence.

    Only a person without a sense of history would miss the relationships between creationism and ID. Here's a starter: Read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers, or any article about the history of anti-evolution by Numbers. Along the way, you'll also learn that there are numerous variations of Biblical Creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mats says,

    I did a comment yesterday, but it seems it was deleted.

    Unlike creationist blogs, I never delete comments unless they are obvious spam. I haven't deleted any of those for several months.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, mats is an IDiot, so naturally it took him a while to muster enough intellectual effort to find the "Publish your comment" button. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Unsympathetic wrote:
    The fact that newer editions of "Pandas and People" changed words from "creationism" to "intelligent design" but otherwise left most of the earlier passages intact was pure coincidence.

    No. Obviously those similarities were the product of design: they were placed there by the designer to test our faith.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I know Larry doesn't ever censor; unlike PZ myers, who has banned me on pharyngula for strongly criticizing Dawkins.

    I already said that creationists are phonies. They will say "No, no! I am NOT a creationist!! I'm just an ID proponent, who does not believe in common descent!!" Yeah right.

    Creationism is the idea that new species originate fully formed by an intelligent creator rather than descent and modification from some previously existing. CREATION, dude, CREATION. That is why you NEED evolution to be false. Got it?

    Actually, I think you should get it. II don't think you are stupid, that you may not understand this pretty simple point; You are simply another phonie creationist trying to fool someone that he isn't. Sure dude. You are only about the science, huh?

    Well, you are fooling nobody here, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  27. By the way, what do you guys think of the newly discovered whale ancestor Indohyus?
    We have know for a while form the dna evidence and morphology that whales descended form hoofed, artyodactyl herbivores (creationists sometimes make fun of us for this)
    Predicted, and found: a semi acuatic artyodactyl herbivore that shares several synapomorphies only with whales...
    It's beautiful stuff isn't it. Why do some people feel that the tree of life is an aberration?

    ReplyDelete
  28. PZ myers, who has banned me on pharyngula for strongly criticizing Dawkins.
    If you really think that's the reason you were banned, your fantasy world is nearly as rich as these creationists'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Along the way, you'll also learn that there are numerous variations of Biblical Creationism.

    There are no variations within the Young Earth position.

    Secondly, I noticed that no one contested the definitions of ID and Creationism I suplied. This again leaves my question hanging:

    Since ID and Young Earth Creationism are diferent, why do darwinists still think they are the same»

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sanders tries to act informed, but totally misses the point.
    Sanders says:
    Creationism is the idea that new species originate fully formed by an intelligent creator rather than descent and modification from some previously existing. CREATION, dude, CREATION. That is why you NEED evolution to be false. Got it?

    Sanders, whoever taught you about creationism deceived you greatly.
    Creationism is NOT the belief that NEW SPECIES apear fully formed.
    YEC says that the GENERIC types/kinds of animals were created by God around 6,000 years ago, AND ever since then, genetic variation, natural selection (etc) has caused the origination of new species. Got that, Sandy?

    Sanders then adds:

    By the way, what do you guys think of the newly discovered whale ancestor Indohyus?
    We have know for a while form the dna evidence and morphology that whales descended form hoofed, artyodactyl herbivores (creationists sometimes make fun of us for this)

    Darwin skeptics make fun of darwinists because you guys are so gullible. Genetic or morphologic similarity is not evidence for common descent. IT can be evidence for a Common Designer.


    Predicted, and found: a semi acuatic artyodactyl herbivore that shares several synapomorphies only with whales...

    I thought Darwinhad predicted that the whale evolved from....bears? The "prediction" changed (again) ?


    It's beautiful stuff isn't it.

    Yes, the design in the living world is beautiful.

    Why do some people feel that the tree of life is an aberration?

    Some scientists think that the tree of life is an aberraton because it keeps getting falsified by the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Darwin skeptics make fun of darwinists because you guys are so gullible. Genetic or morphologic similarity is not evidence for common descent. IT can be evidence for a Common Designer."

    What? Have you heard about this test? You like use word "falsify", what this say to you?

    Actually "genetical similarity" is not evolution, but if evolution is true, there MUST be certain kind of similarity.

    Similarity is really not evidense for "Common designer" (if you even understand the word "falsification" - and you must know, or you don't use it.) It can be. But it allways can. If i made computer program, which is C -program, and computer program, which is java or i made mechanical calkulator, their "code" is totally different. And they still have same "creator". So, it actually can not be "evidence".

    But you crea -or "we lie that we are not crea but we are" - guys are just silly. If you can see data different way, it does not mean that others must be wrong:
    Different theyries can be same falsification criter. And if both survives, it is proof for *both*.
    (And the test which one is better must find somewhere else.)

    And as we see, your similarity -stuff is not really a theory. It is just "ad hoc" -explanation. But you are "ID" or "crea", so i can bet that you basicly can not see the difrence...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Today I feel like talking about these slimy creationist phonies so I'm glad Mat is here to provide us the perfect opportunity of a materialized example.

    Creationism is not about the difference between "young earth" creationists and "old earth" creationists. The CREATION point, you understand, remains intact.

    Certainly nobody could be so stupid to not clearly understand this, right?

    If you deny common descent, you are a creationist.
    Any arguments trying to circle round this obvious fact is a perfect indicator of phoniness. You cannot admit to yourself that you are a creationist? Sad stuff to see someone embarrassed to have his thinking clearly spelled out for him. How many more times will you deny Jesus, Mats?

    The other indicator is crass scientific ignorance, with a clearly simply hateful and totally mindless disregard for evolutionary scientific research. Let's remeber that intelligent design produces ZERO academic scientific reserach. It's a platitude for dogmatic jesus freaks.

    What I find most pathetic in these suckers is that they cannot admire nature for itself, but always need to find the face of god behind it to REALLY steal their sighs of wonder. These people do not like nature nearly as half as they like cheap idealism, bible stories and church...

    Mats, you suck. Go back to church, where you belong.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'd written: "Along the way, you'll also learn that there are numerous variations of Biblical Creationism."

    mats writes: There are no variations within the Young Earth position.

    Logical fallacy #1: Red Herring. Mats claim is irrelevant to the argument. mats original post defined Creationism thusly:
    "Creationism = God created the universe is 6 literal days, around 6,000 years ago, and around 4,500 years ago He sent a world wide flood."

    He did not originally say: "Young Earth Creationism is...", but "Creationism is..." The fact is, most 'Darwinists' don't think ID is exactly the same thing as YEC. They recognize that some (not all) IDers believe the Earth is old. Throwing red herrings into the discussion doesn't make this any less true.

    Secondly, I noticed that no one contested the definitions of ID and Creationism I suplied.

    Au contraire. Fallacy #2: "Argument to ignorance". People did contest that definition. In fact, mats response included a quote of mine from a post demonstrating that the term "Creationism" has multiple connotations. That act is called: "Shooting one's own foot."

    This again leaves my question hanging:

    Since ID and Young Earth Creationism are diferent, why do darwinists still think they are the same


    Fallacy #3: Straw Man. The presumption is that 'Darwinists' think all ID is the same as YEC. I think most people here (call them 'Darwinists' if you wish) recognize that ID does not require a young earth. Quick questions: Is Behe an IDer? Yes. Is he a YEC? No. And most people here know that.


    PS: Another mistake of mats: Although it is irrelevant to this discussion, there are, in fact, different forms of Young Earth Creationism. mats might learn this if he read a little more broadly. Again, I recommend the book by Numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."
    (Dean Kenyon, Edwards v Aguillard")

    And I actually have wondered WHY ID:ists are so angry if someone say that they are creationists? And Why they are always specially saying that they are not YECs? Is it becouse of science or politics?

    If it is becouse science, they are saying straight that the YEC is poor science. And so they don't want to mess with it. IF YEC (or creation science in broader sense)is good science, why not just accept it and proudly saying "yes!, creationism is science, and part of our movement, too"?

    And if it is about the politics. Hell, i have heard somewhere that they(ID:eers) are doing science. And then my adwice is:
    If you are doing science, do science
    If you are doing politics, do politics
    If you are promoting religion, promote religion

    But dont mess with them and blur them with others.

    Becouse if you do it, we will proudly call you IDiots!

    ReplyDelete
  35. anonymous wrote: And I actually have wondered WHY ID:ists are so angry if someone say that they are creationists?

    Indeed. Phil Johnson wanted to extend the definition to include anyone who believed God interacted proximately and at any time in the history of the universe.

    ReplyDelete