I think they've painted themselves into a corner. They are so opposed to evolution and modern science that they will take any opportunity to discredit it. They saw a chance to do so about twenty years ago when they became aware of the controversy surrounding junk DNA. This was their chance to (pretend to) rely on real science to back their position. By taking a stance against junk DNA they could seen to be supporting the latest evidence ... or so they thought.
Intelligent Design Creationists claim that they "predicted" that most our genome would be functional. They claim that "Darwinists" predicted junk DNA. The second part isn't true since evolutionary theory is silent on whether some genomes could become bloated with junk DNA or not. However, the ID proponents are sticking to their guns in spite of the growing consensus that most of our genome is junk.
The gist of his argument is that "Darwinists" are fighting the ENCODE claim because they are committed to the evolutionary worldview ....
... when a powerful evolutionary paradigm is threatened by the findings of molecular biology, don't expect the establishment to quickly concede defeat. Indeed, the entire debate over neo-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design (ID) may turn on the outcome of this question.What's interesting is that Casey Luskin is staking the reputation of Intelligent Design Creationism on the outcome of a real scientific controversy that will be decided by scientist, not creationists. He's admitting that ID may be refuted if it turns out that most of our genome is junk.
That's a big
This report [ENCODE] was a game-changer in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design because, since the mid-1990s, ID theorists had been predicting that noncoding DNA would turn out to have function, and ID critics had been arguing that junk DNA drove a stake through the heart of ID.Why would Casey Luskin take such a risk? It's because he is very confident that he has caught Darwinists with their pants down and Intelligent Design Creationists are on the side of the science experts.
Darwin defenders weren't going to take ENCODE's data sitting down. But this time, they found themselves in an unaccustomed position. Many Darwinians take great assurance in knowing they stand in the scientific majority, which enables them to appeal to the consensus and dismiss challengers as "deniers." But in the post-ENCODE world, Darwin defenders have found themselves challenging the consensus of an international body of leading molecular biologists who have discovered that the vast majority of human DNA has biochemical function.Let's make sure we remember what the Intelligent Design Creationists are saying in 2015. In a few years they will have to eat their words and scrabble to explain why the validity of ID didn't really turn on the outcome of this question.
How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm--and by personally attacking those who challenge their position.
Either that, or Intelligent Design Creationism will have been falsified and disappear.
223 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 223 of 223I don't understand why so many of you are incapable of civil discussion.
...says the guy who just called me an asshole. Is that your idea of "civil discussion", Beau?
It's been nice talking to you Lutesuite but let's never do it again. Goodbye and take care young man.
It's an interesting paradox that lots of creationists prefer to reply to the people who insult them in preference to those who don't.
"It's an interesting paradox that lots of creationists prefer to reply to the people who insult them in preference to those who don't."
That might be a good argument for being polite to them, even when they don't deserve it.
The whole truth,
"Wow, I thought that even you could come up with something better than that."
I suspect sarcasm. I was expecting exactly what Septic Mind "presented" (except the "information" crap, which seems new, but I bet it will be one of the old ones I've already seen, with different wording, though, of course, it will have the very same problems as the other claims: mere horoscope-like reading / cherry-picking / etc / etc / etc / etc).
It's an interesting paradox that lots of creationists say goodbye and promise to never come back again but as the good book says:
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I'm a big Rashi guy myself.
Being consistent with all available evidence.
Dazz,
I think you made the case for the remarkable differences between religious "differing opinions" and scientific approaches, quite clearly and eloquently. But I doubt that Beau is reading any of that for full comprehension.
Piotr Gasiorowski
1. Known already to ancient Greek thinkers such as Pythagoras in the 6th c. BC. Unknown to the authors of the Bible, who thought the Earth was more like a pancake.
I think you also forgot to mention that the thinkers thought that the pancake Earth was sitting on the backs of 4 gigantic elephants and those 4 were standing on the monstrous turtles that were floating in the water.
Bible writers knew thousands years in advance that the Earth is spherical.
Isa 40:22 “It is he that sits upon the globe of the earth”
1:0 for the bible writers
They also make a bold statement that the Earth is hanging on nothing
Job 26:7
"He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspends the earth upon nothing"
I’d say it is 2:0 for the bible writers.
Piotr
2. I have no idea what you mean by "specific information", or what it has to do with the Bible.
You do. You have been debating this issue for years. Life and its variations in body structures are based on information. One of them being the DNA. Scientists very recently uncovered that body plans are formed based on that very specific information. One source of such information is DNA. How did bible writer know about such specific information about body parts that were “written down” somewhere thousands of years before science even began to contemplate it and not to mention proving it? How?
PS 139:16
“ Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book. Regarding the days when they were formed. Before any of them existed.”
The way I see it is 3:0 for bible writers
Piotr
3. Most philosophers and scientists (including those who thought the Bible was the ultimate fount of wisdom) had believed in a stationary Universe until the mid-20th century (even when they stopped believing in crystal spheres revolving round the Sun). It's only modern creative interpreters who think the Bible says otherwise.
This is nonsense my friend. What you are stating here has no relevance. The bible writers make a very clear statement that God is stretching out the heavens. This statement clearly indicates that the universe is expanding as the Hebrew language is clearly indicating and this fact has been scientifically proven just last century. These statements not only reveal a fundamental scientific fact thousands of years before science has found evidence for it, it also reveals the source of energy for the universe expansion.
Job 26:7
“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space”
Isa 40:22
“He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, and he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
The score is 3:0 or maybe even 4:0 for bible writers
Piotr
4. In many cultures a connection between keeping your hands clean and not getting diarrhoea was made thousands of years ago. Minoan Cretans had baths, drains and flush toilets long before the Bible was composed. There were also baths, private and public, in ancient Egypt and Greece, the Indus Civilisation, and of course in Rome.
Nonsense again. We are talking about science not culture. In medicine doctors began routine practice of hygiene going from preforming an autopsy to attending other patients less than 200 hundred years ago.
Bible writers knew this very fundamental scientific fact thousands of years ago. Read Leviticus chapter 15.
4:0 for bible writers or is it 5:0 ?
Piotr
5. As I said, whales and birds before land animals is hardly a good guess.
This is not what I’m talking about. We are not talking about one step of the appearance of one or two kinds of life. We are talking about the logical, scientifically proven sequence of events that had to have taken place in the formation of the universe, planets and stars, the Earth and the gradual transformation of the Earth to sustain life. Your minimizing it doesn’t make it wrong. It makes you look like and imbecile who claims to have scientific way of drawing conclusions. It is the opposite actually.
The final score is 6:0. You failed miserably but not because of lack of knowledge. It is the choices you made in acquiring knowledge. And this is the essence of human nature. We make choices. You chose the one that suits your beliefs. I'm not going to judge you. You have the wonderful gift of choice. You chose the dark side.
A good question, Septic Mind. How could the authors of the Bible know about the solar system, DNA, the genetic code, developmental biology and all that jazz? The answer is simple: they knew fuck-all about any of it. You are trying to read it anachronistically into what they actually wrote (cherry-picking among available English translations). If the knowledge was there before being discovered by modern scientists, why did nobody predict those discoveries based on the biblical text?
By the way, ancient Greek philosophers did not believed in cosmic elephants and turtles. They realised that the Earth was a sphere because they were good at making observations and drawing conclusions. They were intelligent people, quite different from those pathetic imbeciles who believe humans can't learn anything on their own, without divine guidance.
Bible writers knew this very fundamental scientific fact thousands of years ago. Read Leviticus chapter 15.
Oh yeah. A menstruating woman is "unclean" and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the evening. That's cutting-edge science for you, Septic Mind.
I knew you were going to move the goalposts. I won a roll of toilet paper.
Thanks Mr. Predictable
You can layoff the insults part. It speaks volumes about your insecurities and much more.
Septic Mind,
"The way I see it is 3:0 for bible writers"
That's because you're too much of an credulous idiot when it comes to these fantasies.
Skeptical Mind,
"This is not what I’m talking about. We are not talking about one step of the appearance of one or two kinds of life. We are talking about the logical, scientifically proven sequence of events that had to have taken place in the formation of the universe, planets and stars, the Earth and the gradual transformation of the Earth to sustain life."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this statement.... What are you trying to say? I'm just not fully clear on this particular point....
There rest of your sneaky setup doesn't require any comments....
You drove the nail into Gasiorowski's arrogant-pass coffin beautify....
Piotr,
"Oh yeah. A menstruating woman is "unclean" and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the evening. That's cutting-edge science for you, Septic Mind."
That's just a mistranslation. It really really really means "whomever shall perform surgery shall clean their hands with antiseptics before the procedure to avoid infection."
The parts people mistake to be about ejaculates really describe how to perform open-heart surgery, and they describe how to properly open the ribs, etc, and how to do so in a way that the subject will heal the fastest. If you look carefully, it contains procedures against cancer, chemotherapy, and target-specific medication delivery.
photosynthesis,
Exactly. And the part about the Lord stretching out the tent of the sky is a mistranslation of Hubble's Law (which should be renamed Job's Law).
Modern science has found that life on earth was created in several discrete stages, just as described in the Book of Genesis. That part of creation was preceded by a scientifically proven sequence of events (like separating the waters below from the waters above with the dome of the sky. How could the authors of the Bible have known that the sky was a dome and that there were waters above it? We have (re)discovered this amazing fact only recently!
I really enjoy an argument when "cowardionsts" like Gasiorowski, who have no arguments and yet they keep pretending they do, keep posting comments that sink them to the bottom of any kind of rationality.... Why and how would anyone do that?
"Why and how would anyone do that?"
That's a question you should be asking yourself.
Post a Comment