Friday, August 22, 2014

Does this video have anything to do with the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism?

In spite of what they say, the Intelligent Design Creationist movement is primarily an anti-science, anti-evolution movement. Something like 99% of their efforts and activities are directed toward discrediting scientists and science. The 1% of their effort devoted to promoting scientific evidence for creationism has been a spectacular failure.

Here's a new video produced by John G. West. In case you don't know who John G. West is, here's what Wikipedia [John G. West] says about him ...
John G. West is a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), and Associate Director and Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs of its Center for Science and Culture (CSC), which serves as the main hub of the Intelligent design movement.
The video was posted to YouTube on Aug. 14, 2014 and it is copyrighted by the Discovery Institute. I learned about the video from a post on Evolution News & Views (sic) [Coming to Grips with the Truth About Social Darwinism].

The video has nothing to do with evolution and evolutionary theory but IDiots believe that it does. That's, of course, why we call them IDiots.




74 comments :

  1. Well...it doesn't have anything to do with your view of evolutionary theory (should we call it the "Drifter Theory"?). But it did have to do with how many biologists were interpreting Darwinian theory at the time, including eugenicists in America and Social Darwinists in Germany.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't get the science right, can't get the history right.

      Delete
    2. "Does this video have anything to do with the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design [Creationism] [sic]?"

      Absolutely not.

      A comment posted on Youtube regarding West's video, and from a Christian organization:

      "If Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest is true, why did Germany get beat twice? Either (1) they were not the fittest, or (2) Social Darwinism is nonsense, or (3) they were not the fittest and it is still nonsense. I prefer number 3."

      Ah, even a Christian organization takes umbrage with the social darwinst concept, as do I. While true that the 'survival' concept of propagation of species may connote by an extension of logic, the disposing of the less adept by genocide, it may exist merely as an inherent human dispositional trait. And as to whether it evolved simply by a process of natural selection, who knows? If consciousness contains a cognitive element aside from its cephalic 'data center', if may in fact transcend the hominid species, as well as biologic life.

      "In spite of what they say, the Intelligent Design Creationist movement is primarily an anti-science, anti-evolution movement. Something like 99% of their efforts and activities are directed toward discrediting scientists and science."

      True to a degree. There are certainly ID/C's, or better termed as C/ID'sts who are Biblical Literalists, which requires a YEC philosophy that would of necessity oppose evolutionary theory in toto, thus fitting the descriptor 'anti science'. But now to the percentages.

      Brian Alters:

      " "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported."

      While the 'half of the U.S. population ' and the '40 to 50 percent' have been approximated by Gallup Polls, the '99.9' number applied to a stadium of Skeptics would mean that of 20,000 fans, only 20 would be skeptics (small 's') of evolutionary theory in toto, or even to a small degree, according to some.

      Which kind of reminds me of the +100 year old '99 and 44/100 % pure' jargon put out by Ivory Soap. Regarding opinions, I like 'most', 'nearly all', or 'a significant percentage' jargon a little better.

      But again, to poll the populous (and scientists) definitively regarding evolutionary theory, the God concept, and the ID premise would require explicit definitions of the various concepts, which has not been done so far. And if scientists were to be accurately polled, to be even nearly accurate, it would have to be done with total anonymity, a highly unlikely scenario. In short, we will never know to what degree scientists hold to absolute materialist philosophy.

      "The video has nothing to do with evolution and evolutionary theory but IDiots believe that it does. That's, of course, why we call them IDiots."

      It might in fact be an evolved trait, but rather than blame Darwin, I'd blame Mein Kamph directly, and its brainwashed followers. Hitler was an anarchist, racist, and supremacist, which may have been encouraged by Darwin's views, in the way that the ISIS'sts are influenced by the Shiria Law, a 'man-constructed/ offshoot of the Koran. Both constitute flagrant and false extensions of a priori doctrines, true or not in all or most of their concepts, and twisted to serve ones' flagrant purposes.

      Delete
    3. Lee: "Hitler was an anarchist, racist, and supremacist, which may have been encouraged by Darwin's views, in the way that the ISIS'sts are influenced by the Shiria Law, "

      Hitler was not motovated by "Darwin's views" which were that life evolves on Earth by common descent. This has nothing to do with Hitler's views. However, Hitler was apparently convinced that god approved of his nightmare regime, and that he was doinggod's work.

      Delete
    4. Iirc, Hitler was actually an anti-darwinist. But that's irrelevant anyway.

      Delete
  2. What I would like to see an honest answer to is: why Larry Moran and others need to use deceptive phrases like "Intelligent Design Creationist movement" and other defamatory tactics meant to derail scientific discussions pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligence.

    Theory of Intelligent Design


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a distinct version of creationism called "Intelligent Design." It's best characterized as a movement (or a cult) as this video demonstrates.

      What's deceptive about that?

      Delete
    2. Hey Gary,

      If it's honest answers you are looking for, you could try asking honest questions.

      And I think that Larry is being very nice in letting you post links back to your web site, which I suspect is the only way that anyone is every going to visit it.

      Delete
    3. Larry, what makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a "creationist"?

      Intelligence Design Lab - 1

      Intelligence Design Lab - 2

      Intelligence Design Lab - 3

      Click on my name (next to avatar) for more.

      Delete
    4. Gary:

      1) The foremost historian of Creationism, Ronald Numbers, considers ID to be an outgrowth of the Creationist movement, and in 'The Creationists' (which is explicitly subtitled 'From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design') documents its common threads.

      2) ID's first major foray was the textbook 'Of Pandas and People', which (as the Dover trial demonstrated) was simply a relabelling of Creationism.

      3) ID shares with Creationism the defining feature of religiously motivated opposition to evolution.

      4) The fact that some programmer puts up a bunch of code and labels it "Intelligent Design Lab", does not change these facts in the slightest.

      5) "what makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a 'creationist'" The use of self-important jargon and inflated claims makes me suspect this is likely to be pseudoscientific bunk. But then, I'm not a mathematical biologist (but then again, neither are you apparently).

      Delete
    5. The deception entirely comes from the Intelligent Design movement. Prior to 2003, they called their hypotheses "creationist", "supernatural", "theistic" and "Christian". Future IDers like Phillip Johnson, Dean Kenyon, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and Paul Nelson all either called their hypothesis "creationism" or called themselves and each other "creationists." They defined ID in those terms: creationist, supernatural, theistic and Christian.

      Why do you accuse us of "deception", but you do not accuse the ID authorities of deception, when they said the same thing pre-2003?

      After about 2003 they stopped using that language and began claiming they never talked that way. IDcreationists think they can neuralyze us and blank our memories.

      Bull.
      We have their books, their articles, and links to the Internet Archive. The deception is entirely yours; we have the evidence and you can eat it.

      Delete
    6. Diogenes: The deception entirely comes from the Intelligent Design movement. Prior to 2003, they called their hypotheses "creationist", "supernatural", "theistic" and "Christian".

      The theory (that was missing from science) was first explained by Alfred Wallace who knew the theory he co-founded with Charles Darwin had a very serious problem with it.

      Darwin's Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxvAVln6HLI&list=UUJ1OTO1-oy4GrIba2mzqtrg

      P.S. I studied his book and easily understood what he was saying. But if you want to be a science denier of Alfred Wallace that is your religious right, I guess, as long as you keep your antiscience out of the US public schools and government activities/funding.

      Delete
    7. Gary did not respond to a single point I made. To quote myself: Prior to 2003, they called their hypotheses "creationist", "supernatural", "theistic" and "Christian". Future IDers like Phillip Johnson, Dean Kenyon, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and Paul Nelson all either called their hypothesis "creationism" or called themselves and each other "creationists." They defined ID in those terms: creationist, supernatural, theistic and Christian.

      Why do you accuse us of "deception", but you do not accuse the ID authorities of deception, when they said the same thing pre-2003?


      Simple question; Gary didn't answer it. Instead he moronically bleats about Alfred Wallace, in an attempt to change the subject.

      There is no science of ID and there never was. The IDiots at Uncommon Descent once compiled a list of references to the phrase "Intelligent Design" pre-"Origin of Species." All the references they found were to a theological, religious context. Not one reference was secular. But not one of the UDites commented on this remarkable fact.

      Delete
    8. 55c2da2e-2a79-11e4-bc3c-eb6104a04a11:
      Gary:
      1) The foremost historian of Creationism, Ronald Numbers, considers ID to be an outgrowth of the Creationist movement, and in 'The Creationists' (which is explicitly subtitled 'From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design') documents its common threads.


      I'm concerned about what is scientifically possible and testable being flushed down the crapper by religious extremists who counter religious sounding arguments with their own religious arguments, which are only concerned with what is NOT scientifically possible and testable, instead of what is. As far as I'm concerned it's a taxpayer funded rip-off that uses ID to establish Atheism as a state sponsored religion, as the Soviet Union once did.

      Delete
    9. Gary,

      Larry, what makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a "creationist"?

      So, the "science" being taught there is that a micromanaged frontloaded static design works better than pure randomness and that there's no other choice?

      Could it be because the person teaching something like that is necessarily assuming a creator doing the design and frontloading?

      About that lab 3... you're not doing yourself any favors using VB6 as the coding platform but the algorithms for the following should be available for that as well.
      I'd suggest a follow-up: add a model where the sensory input and the decision making are connected with a neural net - doesn't have to be big, something like 32 summation nodes between input and output - and an initially random genome in the 8kb range providing weights to the connections. Start with food abundant, movement costly and only individuals surviving a set number of cycles without starving allowed to be among the progenitors of the next generation. Decrease food supply as the surviving set grows. Allow for a five digit number for generations.

      At some point where the surviving population size has started to stabilize, add your front-loaded designer critters to the mix. Keep going for another five digit number of generations.

      Without changing any other programming, turn 10% of the appearing food to poison. Keep going for another five digit number of generations. Observe the nature of the surviving population.

      Designed traits do not adapt, evolved do.

      Delete
    10. CatMat, see the thread at this link that better explains requirement #4, which is the ability to take a guess:

      Understanding Michael Behe - Friday, August 22, 2014 9:08:00 PM

      The word "evolved" along with other generalizations to name things is not a computer model for the phenomenon of intelligence and intelligent cause that models from the behavior of matter on up over time to (technology willing) virtual humans on a virtual planet Earth.

      Models that now exist in "evolutionary biology" are an entirely other thing, which does not have a four requirement system for qualifying intelligence and more to make it almost infinitely more biologically accurate than a model with a "fitness function" and other subjective generalizations inherent in the core logic of Darwinian theory.

      A whole new theory is required that does away with the problematic variables of the other not for the phenomenon of intelligence anyway, therefore Darwinian theory is scientifically useless for predictions pertaining to intelligent causes, what is and what is not intelligently designed, etc..

      Delete
    11. Gary,

      About the linked discussion, I'm at a loss how it applies here. I wonder if, say, the process for the US federal budget counts as intelligent behavior under those four requirements. If not, does DI classify it as instinctual? Random? Or are we now maybe guessing the future requirements when making the initial design? What evidence is there that any set of organisms was designed to survive the Oxygen Catastrophe?

      So the three linked "Intelligence Design Labs" are not intended to explain and test the model presented, they are intended to prove a need for "intelligent cause" for intelligence by playing a sample of design against a straw man. OK, got it.

      Since the labs as linked don't actually make the case for such need, they are not science, they are demonstrations at best. The cockroach does not seek dark, hidden environment when illuminated because it was designed to do so but because that's what its ancestors did and they survived to produce offspring. Still, in most cases that's the intelligent thing to do for a cockroach, no guessing involved there.

      Look, it's not rocket science. Which of these do you disagree with?
      1) In actual organisms, survival affects reproductive success
      2) In actual organisms, behavior affects survival
      3) In actual organisms, phenotype affects behavior
      4) In actual organisms, genotype affects phenotype
      5) In actual organisms, aqcuired heritable traits affect genotype
      6) In actual organisms, reproductive success affects heritable traits in the offspring

      And that's just the Darwinian part. As stated often, evolution is so much more than Darwinian theory that it's not even funny. Postulating a need for intelligent causes does not actually make it so, such a case would need to be made on actual facts. Darwinian theory is also markedly useless in providing justification for invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't count against evolutionary theory in the slightest.

      But at least, if your answer really is that the point of those labs is to demonstrate a need for intelligent causes for intelligent actions, that answers the initial question what makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a "creationist"? The answer is simply that such a person chooses to ignore science to make a case for a creator.

      Delete
    12. CatMatSaturday, August 23, 2014 8:20:00 PM

      Look, it's not rocket science. Which of these do you disagree with?
      1) In actual organisms, survival affects reproductive success
      2) In actual organisms, behavior affects survival
      3) In actual organisms, phenotype affects behavior
      4) In actual organisms, genotype affects phenotype
      5) In actual organisms, aqcuired heritable traits affect genotype
      6) In actual organisms, reproductive success affects heritable traits in the offspring


      That evolution happens is basically a more elaborate restatement of the fact the organisms reproduce and that replication is imperfect.

      Because once that is accepted as true (and it obviously is) the rest is pure math that nobody can argue with. There are selection coefficients associated with each allele, those affect the fixation or elimination of these alleles in certain ways depending on the situation, etc.. It's very complicated in real life, of course, but the basics and very very simple and entirely noncontroversial.

      This is also the reason why ID is pure creationism regardless of the fact that they so much hate to associate themselves with the label. Because they all argue for creation at the beginning of life, some of them argue that common ancestry is false (which means multiple acts of special creation), or that if it ís true, the process was directed, and the only way it could be directed is if the "designer" directly inserted specific mutations in genomes and made sure that they got fixed (which is once again basically special creation).

      Delete
    13. CatMat, common descent and the process generalized using the word "evolution" are (as far as the theory and I are concerned) facts. But the "natural selection" variable of "Darwinian theory" is the source of problematic generalizations, which force a programmer to play God by artificially deciding who mates with who and a zillion other possibilities in an attempt to do without the multiple level four requirement cognitive model explained by the Theory of Intelligent Design (with my name on it).

      The straw-man is from your arguing that "evolution" has happened, against a theory that provides evidence that is in fact true.

      Delete
    14. Gary, are you claiming that every time anyone or anything has had sex ("mated") with someone or something it was because of a multiple level four requirement cognitive model explained by the Theory of Intelligent Design (with your name on it)?

      Delete
    15. Gary, given that you claim that your theory is far superior to all other explanations, how come I've never read about you on the numerous creationist sites? Are you a legend in your own mind?

      Delete
    16. Acartia Tonsa: "how come I've never read about you on the numerous creationist sites?"

      Even though Biblical Creationists who understand my mission are OK with the theory there are other factors I did my best to explain in a comment to the article BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION: NEW PERSPECTIVES FROM INTELLIGENT DESIGN

      In as few words as possible I think it would fair to say that I am in the middle of extremes, between two very polarized sides. Neither is quite sure what to make of me. But thankfully experts in cognitive science related fields are OK with my David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub based way of explaining the K-12 basics. Going from there to the Theory of Intelligent Design is like icing the cake that first has to be there to be frosted or it's at best all hollow and empty inside (and ones best able to judge a cognitive theory would just laugh at me trying to frost an invisible cake).

      Delete
    17. The whole truth, how many intelligence levels are contained in each parent depends on what it is. Only multicellular has three behavior levels. Cellular (cells) two. Molecular (self-replicating RNA and other replicating genomes) has one. Next is behavior of matter from which consciousness emerges but that is in addition to intelligence not a requirement for intelligence to exist.

      Multicellular plants are generally believed to be unintelligent (has no brain like we do) at the third. Scientists who from their experiments with plant chemical communication are convinced plants have some form of intelligence are automatically correct by Molecular and Cellular Intelligence existing in the system. Third level behaviors like phototropism that makes plants point and grow towards sunlight would not be using trial and error learning system (brain) controlling their stem direction, it's a dumb guibed missile type feedback needed to aim in a given direction. It's obvious such behaviors are not intelligent by the control sensory being directly connected to whatever motor/muscles make it move (no memory system or way to take a guess just points the right way to begin with).

      This theory forces everyone including myself to be more specific than usual, in regards to what is or is not intelligent.

      Delete
    18. Gary, what does your response have to do with what I asked you?

      Delete
    19. You asked: Gary, are you claiming that every time anyone or anything has had sex ("mated") with someone or something it was because of a multiple level four requirement cognitive model explained by the Theory of Intelligent Design (with your name on it)?

      I had to explain why (when discussing intelligence levels) every time anyone or anything has had sex ("mated") with someone or something it was because of a single or multiple level four requirement cognitive model explained by the Theory of Intelligent Design (with my name on it).

      Except for a few words that are needed to be precise, everything else you said looks good to me.

      Delete
  3. The narrator does have a very soothing British accent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gary, it is certainly a more accurate term than the ones you creationists use for evolutionary biologists. The term 'Darwinist' and 'Darwinian evolution' are far from accurate. Darwin's natural selection may be the starting point of modern evolutionary research, but his theory has been significantly modified since his days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia, same question for you: What makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a "creationist"?

      Intelligence Design Lab - 1

      Intelligence Design Lab - 2

      Intelligence Design Lab - 3

      Click on my name (next to avatar) for more.

      Delete
    2. Gary: "Acartia, same question for you: What makes a person who explains/teaches science like this a "creationist"?"

      Simple. Any life arising or changing as the result of design is an act of creation, therefore, creationist.

      Unless you know of a way for the designer to get thinks rolling without creating something.

      Delete
    3. Acartia you did not even bother to read the theory you are now trashing, correct?

      I provided a link right here:

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/08/does-this-video-have-anything-to-do.html?showComment=1408748210887#c5284341878956456559

      Explain what the theory actually says, and how the ID Lab model works.

      Delete
    4. Sorry Gary, I tried opening the link but the right hand of the text was blocked by an ad banner that I could not get rid of. If I were you, I would get s new web designer.

      Please explain it to me in plain English. Why is ID not simply a form of creationism?

      Delete
    5. It has lately been OK for me, but I would also sometimes get an ad page while navigating Sandwalk by going from article to article. And at any time the Allstate man may say a word or sentence. Also interesting sound effects.

      What "ID" ultimately becomes depends on what there is for a scientifically useful Theory of Intelligent Design for experimenters at Planet Source Code and beyond to have fun with. It's then something that future scientists normally learn about by high school, after at least finding it on the internet while searching for a great mad-scientist idea where one does get to for real say "It's Alive!!!!" after the line chart showing it's learning makes it obvious that they on their own coded their own intelligent entity, their creator.

      Whatever the Discovery Institute fellows have to go along with what I have like talking about "information" and odds of something to at random happen that requires the system to be intelligent like this is just fine by the theory and I. I do not need to argue against what Mike said and my evidence what he says is essentially true are the computer model and its obligatory Theory of Operation.

      The power of real science makes what at first seems to make no sense fall into place in a way that's awesome for ID and other communities that normally don't get much respect from the ivory tower and sure don't mind in a real way seizing control of an embattled and neglected emerging area of cognitive science where the phrase "intelligent cause" is really no big deal to utter. This first empowers programming and scientific areas where shaking up Darwinian evolutionary biologists this much is heroic, historic, and quite amusing.

      The way the science works out (nothing at all personal and nothing I can do to change the way it is) a paradigm with a "fitness function" is not empowered at all. It's another model entirely for modeling "evolution" that none need to even know to model "intelligence" that from the molecular level on up changes over time like the real thing.

      Cells are autonomous entities with very complex behaviors that must be included in a model of reality, which Darwinian theory is not designed for in the first place. It becomes such a something else it's counterproductive to waste time time arguing against it. You get what you wanted in regards to theory versus theory being an annoyance you wanted to make gone, so not all is lost on your side. Some things fall into place that makes your problems gone but the Theory of Intelligent Design has to become for real and forever in science, for that to be possible.

      Since Theistic Evolution is now also called Evolutionary Creationism using the word "creationism" is no longer helpful to your cause, like it used to be. Believing ID is another form of "creationism" just adds Intelligent Design Creationism to the list after Evolutionary Creationism, which makes that argument against ID gone for good too.

      Delete
    6. Cells are autonomous entities with very complex behaviors that must be included in a model of reality, which Darwinian theory is not designed for in the first place.

      Of course it is. It handles evolution of unicellular and multicellular life forms quite nicely. Unless you're on about crap like bacteria choosing how to mutate, which has been experimentally disproved to the satisfaction of nearly every scientist who initially hypothesized it.

      Delete
    7. From another forum discussion now taking place:

      Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

      Stress (from diet, heat, cold, sunlight, exertion, cognitive tasks, etc.) is from one or more confidence levels being near zero. Each kind of stress chemically address via signaling molecules specific mutation hotspots (memory locations) such that white blood cells effectively hypermutate new defenses against invaders, without the cell line self-destructing by the entire genome going over a million times the normal "mutation rate".

      Guesses (mutations) are tried when the system senses that memory actions are not working, needs to try something else. When taking place inside of us we have the uneasy feeling of a given "stress" that is by theory predicted to increase the guess (mutation) rate of the system at specific memory locations (hotspots) in an effort to learn a new trick, sort of speak. Even a totally random guess is part of a controlled process, for when no working action is known and it needs to try anything new. It's like getting to pick the expensive prizes you need behind one of three doors, but if your brain can't take a guess then you would just be shrugging your shoulders saying "I can't guess!" then after the time buzzer goes off you get none of the three. At a genome level: at the right time and place it's vital to be able to take at least a random guess or the molecular system is soon extinct.

      Delete
    8. Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

      According to modern evolutionary theory, mutations are unguided and undirected, and their fixation is a probabilistic event, also unguided and undirected.

      How is ID not contrary to that?

      Delete
    9. If we put the first and last paragraphs of the ID theory together then it quickly gets to the guided and directed conclusion that is contrary to your opinion of what Darwinian theory predicts, which is unable to accurately predict either way. I recall some who argued evolution can be said to be guided and directed. In this Theory of Intelligent Design the guiding is from molecular systems that learn over billions of years of time, which all together are equal to or greater than the complexity of what is going on in our brain:

      The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level (self-replicating genetic systems) combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

      (1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is the primary source of our instinctual behavior, and molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

      (2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

      (3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

      The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

      Delete

  5. This is such a basic logical fallacy that I am left scratching my head every time I see it used, and it's used by basically every proponent of religion, including the "sophisticated" ones...

    Whether evolutionary theory (as misunderstood in the late 19th and early 20th century) did or did not play a causal role in the horrors of the 20th century is completely irrelevant to the questions of whether evolution is a fact or not and whether the process was undirected and unguided. IMO Darwinism was a minor factor at best in the developments of the 20th century - I don't see any real change in human behavior in that time compared to the rest of human history, the major differences that made it possible for so many people to be mass-slaughtered was technology and the increased power of states. If anything, there has been a slight improvement - if they had machine guns, aviation and nuclear bombs in the middle ages with the mindset they had at the time, it is quite likely we would not even be alive today. A brief look at history (and at the world today) is sufficient to see that the religion correlates with increased barbarism, not with the establishment of some sort of moral heaven. But that's a digression too.

    The whole thing is basically one giant argument from consequences - "I think that if A then B follows, I don't like B, therefore A is false" (note that it does not even have to be true that B follows from A), which is a classic logical fallacy...

    P.S. How come creationists have Wikipedia pages (and quite substantial ones too), while so many serious scientists don't?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Georgi: A brief look at history (and at the world today) is sufficient to see that the religion correlates with increased barbarism, not with the establishment of some sort of moral heaven.

      I agree that religious arguments are irrelevant to the scientific issues. But in what you said above I'm not sure whether you are saying Atheism/Freethought religions also correlate with increased barbarism, or you purposely left out religions that claim to not be a religion (though the US Supreme Court already ruled that even Atheism is a religion) yet many followers are obsessed by religious issues and historically helped kill millions in the former Soviet Union, while trashing science by using a know to be barbaric double-standard I daily see being condoned by those who should know better:

      Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

      Delete
    2. This is trolling that I should not be feeding, but I can't help it.

      1. The US Supreme Court has ruled no such thing,

      2. Why should the US Supreme Court be an authority on the subject to begin with?

      3. Whatever crimes the Soviet regime committed were motivated by the desire (and very real need) to protect its power. Which is no different from what any other oppressive regime in history has done. How far things will go is largely determined by the practical constraints of the situation. What the Soviets did is hardly unique in history - rulers have committed mass murder continuously throughout it.

      There is only one case in which mass slaughter can be legitimately argued to have been motivated by secular ideology and that was Pol Pot.

      4. It is the height of hypocrisy for citizens of the US to use 20th century genocide as argumentative tools for or against anything, given that their own country is built on the biggest organized genocide in history. They were all atheists when that happened, weren't they? I guess the Belgians in Congo were atheists too? And the Spanish in Central and South America, the English in Australia, etc.

      5. Genocide is in fact an incredibly common thing in history, it's basically part of human nature and a logical result of in-group/outgroup dynamics in conditions of limited resources. What made the 20th century so bloody is the rise of the nation-states, which swelled the size of the in-groups and outgroups to tens of millions of people combined with the development of tools that could carry out such mass-slaughter. But the core motivation for it has changed little from the times of tribal warfare. Genocide on that level can still be observed in remote areas of Papua and the Amazon and genocide on a somewhat larger level has also been observed regularly - Chatham Island, the Zulus, Rwanda, Congo, etc. etc., it's an endless list.

      6. It is incredible that I keep seeing people argue how bad we have it right now as a result of the advancement of secular society when Liberia and Sierra Leone are all over the news. They stormed an ebola isolation ward and looted it, taking out the infected sheets and mattresses, etc. Unbelievable suicidal stupidity.

      This is what a prescientific society looks like and what we will go back to if people like you have their way. Also, people have, of course, forgotten it, if they ever knew about it in the first place, but those countries had some of the most brutal civil wars ever documented just a decade ago, with horrors that make the Nazis look tame in comparison. There might not be even a single atheist in that whole region and for most of them even the very concept of non-belief does not exist...

      Delete
    3. Speaking of things in the news, I forgot to mention the nice rational, skeptic, having nothing to do with the Abrahamic tradition, folks from ISIS

      Delete
    4. Thanks Georgi, that was an excellent way to indicate that you purposely left out religions that claim to not be a religion, from your fudged data that correlates with increased barbarism.

      Delete
    5. Creationist tactic #1598587:

      When cornered, avoid the issues raised entirely.

      Delete
    6. Well that's an incoherent mouthful, Gary.

      1. Atheism is not a religion. Calling atheism a religion is like calling sober a flavor of vodka. Not believing in Santa Claus is not a religion, just like not believing in genocidal Middle Eastern war deities is not a religion. The Supreme Court does not decide that atheism actually is a religion; they say it can be treated as a religion for purposes of implementing the First Amendment.

      If atheism were a religion, the government would owe us tons of money-- money from the Office of Faith-based Initiatives for atheist charities; tax deductions for all housing expenses for atheist preachers, like religious clergymen get; immunity from all zoning laws under the RLUIPA; the right to discriminate any way we want-- refusing to hire Christians or Jews or blacks or Asians, while still receiving massive government $$$, like Ken Ham's Ark Park gets; the right to set up atheist non-profits with have ZERO oversight regarding finances, as churches have; and the right to nullify all laws we don't like, like Hobby Lobby. If you call us a religion, then you owe us many billions of $$$ so pay the $%&# up.

      Finally, if atheism were a religion, atheists would get to molest kids for free like religious leaders get to while the cops stand back and say they'll let the other (sex-abusing) clergymen address the problem. Every time in the USA that a Protestant preacher of Catholic priest or Brooklyn rabbi gets caught raping kids, the cops always looked the other way and said, "Let's let the church/bishops/rabbis handle that problem." We atheists will never be able to match the sheer criminality of the Christian leadership, but if atheism is a religion then we demand you pay us billions in $$$ you owe us and we want total immunity to all laws like the perverts, rapists and money-grubbing criminals that lead conservative Christianity.

      Pay the $%#& up or shut the $%&# up.

      Delete
    7. The US Supreme Court already ruled that Atheism qualifies as a religion. And US public school teachers are required to adhere to US law, not your religious ideology.

      Delete
    8. Gary, why is it that if you or other cdesign proponetists are trying to discuss a scientific theory, you invariably have to bring religion into it?

      Delete
    9. Georgi, the logical fallacy is called the Appeal to Consequences.

      Delete
    10. TheOtherJim: Gary, why is it that if you or other cdesign proponetists are trying to discuss a scientific theory, you invariably have to bring religion into it?

      In my case a completely scientific discussion is not allowed by (anti)religious extremists. That's why I said:

      What I would like to see an honest answer to is: why Larry Moran and others need to use deceptive phrases like "Intelligent Design Creationist movement" and other defamatory tactics meant to derail scientific discussions pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligence.

      Why is it that year after year the so-called "science defenders" keep sabotaging scientific discussions by bringing religion into it using phrases like "Intelligent Design Creationist" then not allowing scientific theory to even be discussed or developed?

      Delete
    11. Read the next post on this blog. The theory is being discussed purely on it's merits, and we have supplied criticisms-a-plenty to help it develop.

      Read the link in previous comment, and get back to me on the real motivation of the ID movement. The "Of peoples and Panda" story does give quite a few people valid reasons to link ID to creationism.

      Delete
    12. READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    13. AND I MEANT THE ENTIRE THEORY AND COMPUTER MODELS NOT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    14. HEY GARY,

      THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU KEEP DROOLING ON YOUR KEYBOARD, EVENTUALLY YOU SHORT OUT THE CAPS LOCK KEY.

      !!!!!

      LINK TO RANDOM DEPECHE MODE VIDEO HERE.

      ????

      Delete
    15. VERRY RELEVANT 2013 IS HERE!!!:

      KATY PERRY - ROAR (OFFICIAL)

      WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!

      ROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    16. ""In my case a completely scientific discussion is not allowed by (anti)religious extremists. That's why I said:""

      So first Atheism is a religion, but then atheists are anti-religious...you're as incoherent as ID itself.

      Delete
    17. Oh, and I put "(anti)" in front of "religion" to help prevent a thread from being derailed into another "Atheism is not a religion" argument. You can then have it whichever way you want, without my having to be incorrect (per the US Supreme Court) by not putting somewhat wishful thinking in parenthesis.

      Delete
    18. And of course "(anti)" is sometimes used in front of "religious" not just "religion". Same meaning either way.

      Delete
    19. The US Supreme Court already ruled that Atheism qualifies as a religion.

      Nope. The actual legal principle from the Court is this: The right not to have a religion, not to have a belief in any deity (to be an atheist) is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, just as a person's right to have a religion and believe in a deity is so protected.

      This is not even close to being the same as saying atheism is a religion. Both erotic films and political speech are protected by the First Amendment, but (news flash to Gary) this does not mean a political speech is a type of erotic film, or vice versa.

      Delete
    20. The actual legal principle from the Court is this: The right not to have a religion, not to have a belief in any deity (to be an atheist) is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, just as a person's right to have a religion and believe in a deity is so protected.

      My experience only adds evidence to indicate that the US Supreme Court made the right decision, even though they only had to rule on one reason why Atheism is a religion, not all of them.

      Atheist/Freethought clergy and churches would lose instant tax benefits nonreligious nonprofit corporations don't get. Atheism is now in many ways just another religion, and there are a good number of Atheists who want to keep it that way. My experience only adds to what is already there to agree that it is. Its world-view looks for "bad design" and therefore followers still normally don't know much of anything at all about Muller Cells that are missing from their unique (and contrary to modern science) version of retina biology and conclusions made from it that all fall/fell apart with Muller cells included like they should be. The long laryngeal nerve of many animals could be a brilliant way to make sure the vocal system properly resonates at various vocal tract lengths by providing a timing delay for controlling vocal muscle action, but I did not see that possibility mentioned while cutting one up in a video to promote the Atheist world view that has faith it should not be made that long. That belief could in the near future be proven false, when enough is known to know whether an extra long time delay is useful or not to something that has an extra long 10 HZ long distance call. The systematics of the theory I develop led me to an entirely different conclusion, which none in the Atheist camp looked for before jumping to conclusions again.

      I found too many similarities for Atheism to be anything but a religious view with beliefs being taken on faith, like any other religion.

      Delete
    21. And in case you didn't know: in the above reply the animal I mentioned in the video was a giraffe being dissected while Richard Dawkins argued that was evidence against a world view that more or less finds his argument to be evidence against nothing, which I have to agree it is.

      Delete
    22. Atheist/Freethought clergy and churches would lose instant tax benefits nonreligious nonprofit corporations don't get. Atheism is now in many ways just another religion, and there are a good number of Atheists who want to keep it that way.

      Congratulations - this was the most understandable sequence in a response that reached near-free-associative levels of incoherence.

      Too bad it's so obviously nonsense.

      Delete
    23. Gary, your link goes to a page that says absolutely nothing at all about "atheist...clergy and churches." The entire discussion on the linked page is about whether there should be property tax exemptions for religious institutions, while *non*-religious institutions don't automatically get them.

      So you've now published an irrelevant link to justify an incoherent comment.

      Delete
    24. "The long laryngeal nerve of many animals could be a brilliant way to make sure the vocal system properly resonates at various vocal tract lengths by providing a timing delay for controlling vocal muscle action,"

      Interesting, then, that giraffes are mute. As are most reptiles, and songbirds use the syrinx, rather than the larynx, to make sounds. Yet all tetrapods have RLNs.

      But, as is common with creationists, the only thing that matters is what the function might be in humans, and to hell with the actual evidence.

      Delete
    25. http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Sound-Does-a-Giraffe-Make

      Delete
    26. And this one for elephants has a great test for you subwoofers:

      http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/cyclotis/language/infrasound.html

      More on long range infrasound communication:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9mljeo3QPs

      Delete
    27. "And this one for elephants has a great test for you subwoofers:"

      some tetrapods make complex sounds. Many do not. How does this help your case vis a vis the supposed function of the RLN?

      Delete
    28. During nervous system development the (unequal length) left and right nerve paths (each from brain to muscle then back again) adjust their propagation speeds to be equal to each other, by myelinating appropriately. The nerve fiber that goes the length of the acoustic resonant chamber causes the signal time delay of the two nerves to be around equal to the resonant frequency of the vocal system to control.

      In case you know of any: more information is needed for the brain circuit that connects to the in/out from left and right nerves, and the purpose of the muscle each controls.

      My experiments in machine intelligence led to needing a time constant to match the resonance of the speaker. Otherwise calling out as loudly as it can would be a high frequency signal in the ultrasonic range, not hear anything at all. That problem is solved by slowing down the propagation speed of the nerve signal that goes from memory data output to a motor muscle then back to the brain where the sensory feedback addresses memory and is used to adjust (central hedonic) confidence level (usually two bits, for four states, 0 to 3). It's the same circuit systematics I was wondering about this morning in regards to codons:

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/08/another-stupid-prediction-by.html?showComment=1409142215768#c7214480783282672036

      And typo alert in what you quoted by me: the word "you" should be "your".

      I cannot rule out the seemingly "bad design" being needed for proper vocal system timing, in any size animal the cognitive system is used for.

      Whether it is a good or bad design is a religious philosophical question that does not matter either way to me, or the theory I write. What I am explaining is another possibility, which could be a coincidence, but either way it's too early to jump to conclusions that the weird wiring has no purpose.

      Take home message is the example of this ID theory not stopping where others did because of a belief used to support the Darwinian theory that come from lack of evidence for anything else. The theory of ID with my name on it forces the theorist to do more than talk about how long a nerve is, it's another feature of living things needing to be included in models for the Intelligence Design Lab type environment. By then it might be possible to more reliably conclude one way or another whether the nerve path is a good design or not, but either way it would still not matter to the model and theory. What I need to know is whether that is the delay time constant I had to draw into the circuit to make a speaker resonate, for it to intuitively produce loud and as long distance calls as possible, without having to add any circuity at all to the upper level cognitive system. Eliminating the need for what can become a complicated circuit by forcing one of the wires to become as long as the chamber to resonate is by engineering standards a brilliant design. There is nothing religious about thinking this way, it's just one of the Machine Intelligence Robotics 101 possibilities to look for before concluding that an unusually long signal path on one side is a bad design.

      If the theory challenge I provide now makes you hesitate before jumping on an anti-ID bandwagon (that does in fact believe something that seems scientifically unarguable but can still be wrong) then the theory of you know what was already useful to you. And hopefully better understand why its being contrary to what Richard Dawkins explained in the giraffe dissection video is not because I'm trying to counter Atheism, it just turns out that it actually is too early to conclude one way or the other yet.

      Delete
  6. Evolution is not the origin for killing people.
    its Satanic inspired murder that always happened.
    The only thing about evolution is that it allowed a opinion, amongst the educated classes , that people's moral and intellectual abilities were determined by evolutionary processes with results forcing conclusions of inferiority and danger etc.
    yet today Pinker and Wade and more say the same thing to the educated classes. they just switch the names around. Nobody really minds them anymore then the old days. right or wrong these ideas don't really matter.
    Yet in the wrong hands they might matter.

    Evolution was embraced by the bad and the good guys. disbelief in evolution likewise.
    yes evolution makes a , evolving human brain, a option for perceived human differences.
    so yes evolution has a presumption responsibility for the educated classes being at peace with these ideas and not able easily to fight them when they are asserted by some movement.
    YET presumptions like this did not motivate anyone to murder anyone.
    Hatred leading to murder was the unique cause. Usual cause.
    I don't agree with creationism(s) making evolution the hangman.
    Everyone says race race is behind these things but its bigger then that.
    If evolutionary views of humans was the big problem then why does not organized creationism strike at the Pinkers and Wades of today??
    This because they see no danger from them. Well same as the old days then.
    yEC does a better job of asserting human equality innately but ID flirts with modern ideas of human "differences" because its common in higher education today.
    Its all poorly thought through.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. Does Bilbo still sodomize dead goats ?

      Hey, this is fun.

      You can ask all sorts of of loaded questions hiding behind a paper thin veneer of objectivity and skepticism all the while catering to an innate propensity to being a complete and utter wanker.

      Delete
  8. Except for very few pacifistic groups, including the Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were then called, most religions supported the world war I.

    "The Rev. Dr. Charles A. Eaton, pastor of Madison Avenue Baptist Church, announced from his pulpit yesterday that the parish house of the church was to be turned into a recruiting station for men desiring to enlist in either the army or navy.
    “He was one of a dozen clergymen in the city who preached war sermons at their regular Sunday morning services, and who urged the men and women to attest their loyalty to the nation and democracy by offering their services in the war at the earliest opportunity. Flags decorated many churches.”—The New York Times, April 16, 1917

    Religious leaders did little to counter that ugly spirit (of the war). Says historian Paul Johnson: “On one side were ranged Protestant Germany, Catholic Austria, Orthodox Bulgaria and Moslem Turkey. On the other were Protestant Britain, Catholic France and Italy, and Orthodox Russia.” Most clerics, he adds, “equated Christianity with patriotism. Christian soldiers of all denominations were exhorted to kill each other in the name of their Saviour.” Even priests and nuns were mobilized, and thousands of the former were later killed in action.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry, you beat UD by a couple days with this.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/riveting-14-minute-documentary-on-darwinism-as-one-of-the-root-causes-of-wwi/#comment-511800

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's like arguing tank technology was a root cause of WWII.

      Delete
  10. There is a great great biography on ww1, i'm rewatching after this thread,.
    It shows such creat camera work and full storries of all of it.
    I question the reasons given for the war.
    I say its simply everyone willing to kill people to impose their will. Causes are not the real reason for these wars.
    Its was the Austrians/huns invasion of Serbia to punish and probably enslave them that brought out allies to the Serbs. Then the germans helped the austrians.
    They all reaped a civilization that was not christian enough and drigting from the Christian values they somewhat obeyed. the Brits were more christian but even them were too quick to kill for mere threats.
    I'm glad canadians/french cAnadians were slow to join the Canadian armed forces. The first army was actually almost all British immigrant boys.

    ReplyDelete