It means that dissent within the ID community is strongly suppressed in order to maintain the illusion that they all agree on the basics (i.e. goddidit). This leads to ridiculous situations where Young Earth Creationists defend Stephen Meyer's attack on the Cambrian explosion in Darwin's Doubt when they don't even believe that the Earth is 500 million years old!
There's no consistency in the arguments from ID proponents so it's almost impossible to have a serious discussion of the science behind their claims. I've criticized ID proponents for not applying critical thinking to their own movement. They almost never dispute each other's ideas for fear that it would weaken their movement.
That fear is justified, but what they fail to realize is that the movement doesn't deserve any respect at all if they don't apply the same standards to their own views that they demand of others.
To their credit, a few members of the movement have started to change this long-standing attempt to silence dissent within the movement. I think they realize that the respect they crave will only come from kicking a few people out of the tent.
One of those people is Vincent Torley. He has posted an excellent discussion of Denton's structuralist views on Uncommon Descent: Denton vs. Moran on structuralism. I don't agree with everything Torley says but I congratulate him for his courage in thinking critically about Michael Denton's position.
It will be interesting to see if the Intelligent Design Creationist movement can deal with critical thinking. I'm watching the comments on the blog post.
Any nascent intellectual movement that lacks an active and contentious internal debate and doesn't work hard to identify the problems of its specific factions is not an intellectual movement at all. It's a collection of people with ulterior motives that are distinct from the claimed focus.
ReplyDeleteCreationists are so often unwilling to state their opinions clearly. Here, Torley first presents Denton's position, then Larry's position, and then says how he would respond to Larry's position if he were a structuralist. I can't imagine why he didn't then go on to present how he would respond to his response if he were a non-structuralist. Or, even better, what his actual position and arguments might be.
ReplyDeleteHow is this any different with evolutionists?
DeleteWhen you ask Dawkins, Coyne, PZ Myers, Moran, and many others about the mechanism of evolution, what will each one of them say? Are they going to agree on much?
Not a chance.
Some like natural selection acting on random mutations. Some like the drift. And without any doubt thay are ALL UNDER THE SAME UBRELLA OF EVOLUTIONITSM.
I would go a step further; the uniting piece is not as much evolution, which obviously helps, but it is the philosophy that drives it ALL-ATHEISM.
The people who drive this philosophy do not, and can not accept any evidence or argument unless it is a naturalistic one.
OK, Eric. I know you are just a dumb creationist, so you need every single simple thing explained to you. So here it goes:
DeleteOpenly acknowledging and debating differences of opinion is not the same thing as pretending that those differences do not exist and trying to hide them. In fact, the two are the opposites of each other.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
>Creationists are so often unwilling to state their opinions clearly.
DeleteI've noticed this as well. I often see old earth creationists use young earth creationist literature, and then when you argue with them about it, they say "I'm not a YEC." Okay, then why cite something if you don't believe it?
They think each of these things (YEC, OEC, even a newer thing called middle age earth creationism) are equally valid and thus show that evolutionary theory is incomplete.
Huh? No scientist claims that evolutionary theory is complete.
Delete"The" mechanism of evolution, as if only one exists. All those individuals mentioned (Dawkins, Coyne, Moran, and Myers) all acknowledge that mutation, selection, and drift all play a role in evolution. They may find one factor more interesting than another or emphasize some over others due to their particular interests and opinions on relative importance, but your representation is inaccurate, to say the least.
Delete-jaxkayaker
No, Eric. Myers, Coyne, Moran and all other evo-biologists worth their degrees all accept that selection, mutation, drift etc. ALL play roles in evolution and that no ONE factor is the ONLY one. Their disagreements are over to what degree a particular factor might, whether in certain contexts or overall, have more influence than another factor. They do NOT favour one factor to the exclusion of all others and their disagreements aren't simply some battle of subjective interpretation.
DeleteAll evolutionary biologists (not to mention anyone else who's made the effort to understand evolution) realise that evolution is a complex, ongoing process that in some areas is yet to be 100% fully understood. Differences of opinion are therefore inevitable among those who make it their life's work to chart the mechanisms that make evolution happen - as you are not someone who's done so, or even someone who's made the slightest effort at educating yourself, your contributions are thoughtless, irrelevant noise.
Your attempts to paint disagreements between working scientists as some kind of slapfight over personal preference when interpreting data are as transparent as they are misguided; what's more, the situation you're describing more closely matches theological schisms than scientific differences.
"No scientist claims that evolutionary theory is complete."
DeleteAnd therefore it is WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Or so I have read many IDCs and YECs and OECs write on the interwebs.
Jerry Coyne:
Delete"The influence of this process (random genetic drift) on important evolutionary change, though, is probably minor, because it does not have the moulding power of natural selection. Natural selection remains the only process that can produce adaptation. Nevertheless, we'll see in chapter 5 that genetic drift may play some evolutionary role in small populations and probably accounts for some non-adaptive features of DNA."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2009/10/jerry-coynes-view-of-random-genetic.html
Yeah, I'm a dumb creationist....
You sure are, Eric, if you think that quote in anyway contradicts what others have been saying here. (The term "dumb creationist" is more than a little redundant, though, don't you think?)
DeleteRichard Dawkins and Random Genetic Drift:
DeleteLarry Moran's blog:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2009/10/richard-dawkins-view-of-random-genetic.html
"I'm interested in the evolution of Richard Dawkins' ideas about evolution; in particular, his ideas about random genetic drift and mechanisms of evolution other than natural selection.
In Chapter 1 Dawkins says, "All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although—as some biologists insist more than others—not the only one."
"...Nothing. (no mention of drift)Not to worry. The other important mechanism must be here somewhere. Is it indexed under "genetic"? No. What about "drift"? No, not there either.
What gives? How can you write a book about evolution in the 21st century without mentioning random genetic drift as an important mechanism of evolution? Even the other adaptationist, Jerry Coyne, has it in the index to Why Evolution Is True.
Maybe Dawkins uses another term for the second mechanism of evolution. I recalled that he often gets mixed up about the difference between neutral theory and random genetic drift. Let's see if "Neutral Theory" is in the index. Nope."
"...It's a shame that Dawkins does not actually mention the mechanism by which those neutral mutations become fixed but instead continuously refers to neutral theory as the alternate mode of evolution. The general public needs to hear about random genetic drift and Dawkins is—like it or not—the most prominent evolutionist on the planet..."
It's a shame, as Larry put it himslef, that on something claimed as a scientific fact (evolution), nobody of the outspoken and influential scientists can agree on the mechanism(s).
I guess it is not a lie, if you believe it...deep, silent sigh
latesuite,
DeleteThe last sentence of my previous post was addressed to you.
Eric,
DeleteYour argument is sad on its face, since you are basically trying to say that "evolutionists" are just as bad as the ID/creationist crowd. Not a flattering argument for your side, is it?
Even sadder, though, is that even this isn't true:
"Some like natural selection acting on random mutations. Some like the drift. And without any doubt thay are ALL UNDER THE SAME UBRELLA OF EVOLUTIONITSM."
You analogy is wrong. Evolutionary biologists may differ in their hypotheses about the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution, for example natural selection vs. genetic drift. But these different ideas are not mutually exclusive, and scientists modify their ideas based on evidence.
In contrast, the different camps within ID/creationism: YEC, OEC, pantheism, etc., are mutually exclusive ideas. The earth cannot be 6000 years old and a billion years old at the same time. And you have no real evidence to show each other to convince each other who is right. You are united only to try and bring down "evolutionists", lacking any evidence in support of your various fairy tales.
See the difference?
Eric,
DeleteThis is also false:
"The people who drive this philosophy do not, and can not accept any evidence or argument unless it is a naturalistic one. "
Science can consider supernatural explanations. It's just that science requires the same standard of evidence that it does for naturalistic explanations. Just provide the evidence.
Poor, poor little Eric. Still needs his hand held by his intellectual superiors if he hopes to understand the things he cuts and pastes.
DeleteWhat do you think Dawkins meant, Eric, when he wrote "All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although—as some biologists insist more than others—not the only one."
To what other driving forces was he referring when he said "not the only one"? Was the world's most famous atheist suggesting that God (or some other "intelligent designer") was responsible? I doubt it. So what, then? Do you need a hint, Eric?
You guys make me laugh out laud each time you've been exposed and have no real arguments. Yet, you still insist that there is no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the mechanism (s) of evolution, which Larry is the one who has pointed it out and continues to point it out on his blog in the first place.
DeleteDo you get it?
Why are you coming down hard on me if Larry, who is an evolutionist and no longer a Darwinist, had done it before me and I'm just the messenger?
Try to address the same arguments toward the host of this blog, and I'm sure you will find a very sympathetic ear.
Chris B,
DeleteI'm not a creationist. Write that down! It doesn't mean that I don't believe in the act of creation, I just want to separate myself from people, like Paul Nelson, even though I agree with the majority of his scientifically accepted claims.
I love science; the real one, not the one that is not really science but it is claimed as such or enforced as such.
Chris B,
Delete"Eric,
This is also false:
"The people who drive this philosophy do not, and can not accept any evidence or argument unless it is a naturalistic one.
Science can consider supernatural explanations. It's just that science requires the same standard of evidence that it does for naturalistic explanations. Just provide the evidence."
You go first. Provide one piece of evidence for the origins of life and I will do my part next.
Diogenes is the only one who agreed to debate this issue by we all hope he doesn't get cold feet....lol
Virtually all evolutionary biologists, including Jerry Coyne and Larry Moran, understand that allele frequencies in populations can change randomly (genetic drift) or because of differential reproduction by individuals having the alleles (natural selection). Virtually all of them know that differences among genomes are more often due to random changes than to selection.
DeleteThe differences you see result from the emphasis they put on each process. Some (e.g. Coyne) seem to view random changes as mostly boring background because they're interested in adaptation and speciation. Others (e.g. Moran) emphasize the importance of random changes in evolving traits that later turn out to be adaptive. They stress that many differences among organisms may be random as a counterweight to careless assumptions that every trait must be adaptive. They don't dismiss the importance of selection, though they talk so much about the random changes that a careless reader could misunderstand them.
Understanding this disagreement within a framework of agreement requires thinking about two thoughts at once (random change, selection) and understanding that people may disagree about emphasis without disagreeing on basics. That can be a far reach for people who seem to have trouble with even single thoughts, but so it goes.
Eric,
Delete"You guys make me laugh out laud each time you've been exposed and have no real arguments. Yet, you still insist that there is no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the mechanism (s) of evolution, which Larry is the one who has pointed it out and continues to point it out on his blog in the first place.
Do you get it?
Why are you coming down hard on me if Larry, who is an evolutionist and no longer a Darwinist, had done it before me and I'm just the messenger?
Try to address the same arguments toward the host of this blog, and I'm sure you will find a very sympathetic ear."
I already explained this to you in this very thread. If you really loved science, you would know that scientists vigorously debate with each other (based on empirical evidence, not emotional wishful thinking) and that may involve some speculation. Discussions of topics on the edge of human knowledge always involve disagreement and speculation. If you loved and understood science, you would know this is a strength of scientific inquiry, while all you do is try to portray it as a weakness.
"You go first. Provide one piece of evidence for the origins of life and I will do my part next."
As a scientist, with regard to the origins of life, I would have to reply we don't know how life started. Of course, this is not under the purview of evolutionary theory, so the state of knowledge on this question doesn't say anything about evolutionary theory. The origin of life on earth is in the sciences of physics chemistry and geology.
Yet, you still insist that there is no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the mechanism (s) of evolution...
DeleteReally? As far as I can recall, everyone who isn't an encephalopathic creotard here has been consistently saying that all competent biologists agree that random mutation, genetic drift and natural selection are the major mechanisms of evolution, but that there is disagreement over the relative importance of each of those factors. Has anyone written differently here? If so, please quote them. Or admit you were lying. Again.
I'm not a creationist. Write that down! It doesn't mean that I don't believe in the act of creation..
DeleteIOW "I'm not a creationist. It's just that I'm a creationist." LOL! At least you were able to go two sentences without blatantly contradicting yourself. That's something.
I'm not a creationist. Write that down! It doesn't mean that I don't believe in the act of creation..
DeleteYou can't spell "creationist" without "creation".
I might actually believe that you weren't a creationist if you weren't here all the time bleating about how stupid and dogmatic scientists are, and mounting this absurd, embarrassing and desperate anti-evolution crusade (in other words: behaving exactly like a bloody creationist).
Exactly how is it that you don't believe in creation but you also do? And how are we supposed to describe this no-but-yeah creationism of yours?
It seems to be a widely shared feature of fringe movements that they happily include completely contradictory positions as long as they agree on the rejection of mainstream science.
ReplyDeleteI once met somebody who believed in one of those alternate historical chronologies, in his particular case that all of history between 3,000 BCE and 1,000 BCE has been invented by an international conspiracy of historians to cover up a mis-calibration of carbon dating.
When I looked into the journal of that movement, where he published a few papers, I realised that each of them believed that different centuries had been invented. But they happily publish away next to each other in the same journal, with no standards at all beyond disagreeing with professional historians.
The irony is that the moment one of them were able to convince the mainstream all the others would turn on him.
"Young Earth Creationists defend Stephen Meyer's attack on the Cambrian explosion in Darwin's Doubt when they don't even believe that the Earth is 500 million years old!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, well we don't believe hadrosaur collagen can last for 80 million years either. But there are people who do think that, and most of them think that space particles or equal, and lots of lucky accidents are responsible for them having an estimated 100 billion neurons to think those thoughts with.
lots of lucky accidents
DeleteActually, we don't believe that. What we know is there were lots of errors (mutations), and lots of contingencies, some of which I suppose you could call accidents, some of which were just the way the universe works (asteroids hitting Earth every few hundred million years). Nothing was "lucky," since that's not needed if there's no goal everything is supposed to strive toward.
One of the results was humans, but we're really pretty much a very, very minor side effect. The primary result was a helluva lot of bacteria and viruses.
txpiper
DeleteCan you tell me the difference between an 'happy accident' and a 'miracle'?
A miracle appears to have a purpose. Also, a "happy accident" could have a low probability density but the probability mass of the hypothetical rejection region could be high. A miracle should have low prob. density, low prob. mass, and the appearance of purpose. Google the Bridge Hand Fallacy.
DeleteJack Jackson,
Delete“Can you tell me the difference between an 'happy accident' and a ‘miracle’?"
I should have listed miracles along with, actually before accidents.
Miracles are breaches of natural law, so the probability of them occurring naturally is zero.
Accidents are unintentional events. The odds of them happening can be circumstantially very low, or very high. Accidental results are normally associated with some kind of failure, which is to be expected, since there is no intent to avoid failure.
The establishment view of how you wound up being able to read this depends entirely on countless miracles, and unimaginable numbers of extremely low probability accidents. There is not one single minute step that can truthfully be described as likely. If you really listen to the narrative about how it all happened, it is by and large a catalogue of canned responses, assumptions. and absurd buzz concepts. ‘Convergent evolution’ is a good example of that. And good examples of miracles is having fundamentally critical things like replication enzymes or machines like ribosome or just ‘evolve’ with no selection fairies, and no replication errors to help out.
txpiper-
DeleteIf a miracle involves intent and an happy accident does not, then I’m understanding you.
I would expect a certain amount of convergent evolution if the current explanations are correct and complete. I’m suspicious that the observed instances are greater than expected.
Your summary of the ‘establishment’ view seems reasonably accurate.
Are you saying that story is-
1) impossible
2) improbable to the point where you won’t believe it
3) in disagreement with the observations
4) ?
If you can give one specific lab result or observation for an example, then we can narrow the discussion.
Jack Jackson,
Delete“If a miracle involves intent and an happy accident does not, then I’m understanding you.”
I don’t think intent makes the distinction. Accidents are possible. Miracles, in natural terms, are not.
-
“I would expect a certain amount of convergent evolution if the current explanations are correct and complete.”
Well, I don’t think those explanations are. I don’t accept that random DNA replication errors could ever under any circumstances result in anything as complex as echolocation. But the idea that it developed in both bats and dolphins because of “numerous convergent amino acid substitutions in genes implicated in hearing and vision” moves the claim from absurd to asinine.
-
“Are you saying that story is-“
1, 2 or 3 depending on the claim.
In regards to 4, I am a creationist, so I could replace the question mark with several things. Some would be intelligent design concepts (like function), and some would be strictly theological (like purpose). I have to say that my theology is comprehensive and tightly developed. But inasmuch as I am a guest here, I try to limit myself to the ID arguments on most issues.
-
“If you can give one specific lab result or observation for an example, then we can narrow the discussion.”
Well, one of my objections is that there isn’t really much lab evidence involved. I reject gene and fossil comparisons because they assume that evolution is true. They don’t constitute proof. They are only interpretations of the data.
"Yeah, well we don't believe hadrosaur collagen can last for 80 million years either. "
DeleteI find it to be an extreme coincidence, or perhaps just miraculous, that the discovery of preserved soft tissues in dinosaurs happened to coincide with the advance of technology that enabled us to detect them.
You don't think that soft tissue preserves? What do you imagine oil is?
Here are some rather unusual things preserved in extremely favourable conditions.
DeleteLink
Christine Marie Janis,
Delete“I find it to be an extreme coincidence, or perhaps just miraculous, that the discovery of preserved soft tissues in dinosaurs happened to coincide with the advance of technology that enabled us to detect them.”
I don’t think the technology was necessarily all that advanced.
”Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
-
“You don't think that soft tissue preserves?”
Oh, it wasn’t my thought. Discoveries like the one in the article turned conventional taphonomic wisdom on its head, as the quote above mentions.
-
“What do you imagine oil is?”
That depends on who is making it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html
Thanks Piotr, that was wonderful.
Deletetxpiper,
Delete"Oh, it wasn’t my thought. Discoveries like the one in the article turned conventional taphonomic wisdom on its head, as the quote above mentions. "
What taxonomic wisdom are you talking about?
txpiper,
Delete"That depends on who is making it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html "
Are you equating biodiesel type products with oil we drill, baby, drill out of the ground?
Delete”Once, when she [Mary Schweitzer] was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor -----. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones.”
Anecdotes are not data.
National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
All that counts is what Schweitzer can demonstrate scientifically, not what her personal feelings might be. Smell is a subjective sense (and I've heard others who've worked at Hell Creek just laugh at this proclamation).
And, what age does Schweitzer say that these bones are?
"Discoveries like the one in the article turned conventional taphonomic wisdom on its head, as the quote above mentions."
DeleteTrue. With more advanced techniques of detection of soft tissues, scientists are discovering that soft tissues can, under exceptional circumstances, be partially preserved for millions of years (as can bone, a partially hard tissue).
Of course, we've had fossilized leaves and fossilized whole body invertebrates for years. It's no real surprise that soft tissues occasionally are preserved.
All of science is about turning conventional wisdom on its head. That's how science advances. But, what the creationists have to explain, is that, if dinosaurs really are young, and that explains why we occasionally find preserved soft tissue, why don't we find that in *all* dinosaurs fossils?
Christine Marie Janis,
Delete"With more advanced techniques of detection of soft tissues, scientists are discovering that soft tissues can, under exceptional circumstances, be partially preserved for millions of years (as can bone, a partially hard tissue)."
Well, I don't think it is necessarily advancements in the techniques. They just weren't looking for it because nobody that I'm aware of ever expected to find dinosaur soft tissue. But if, as you say, they are discovering that it can be preserved for that long, then there should be peer-reviewed literature reassessing the limits, and showing why it can.
How long, based on whatever experimental evidence there is, would you think DNA should last?
These researchers think not so long:
“By comparing the specimens' ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years.”
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
“
-
“But, what the creationists have to explain, is that, if dinosaurs really are young, and that explains why we occasionally find preserved soft tissue, why don't we find that in *all* dinosaurs fossils?”
Well, there are several processes whereby fossils can form, but with dinosaur fossils, we usually have permineralization in mind since the animals were almost always buried in mud. This can happen rather quickly. I would think the more peculiar phenomena is when it doesn’t in tens of ‘millions of years’.
We use that phrase often, but we really have absolutely no frame of reference for it. The Great Pyramid is believed to be about 4500 years old. What would you suppose it will look like at 50,000, or 1,000,000? There is plenty of room to ask questions when someone is claiming that soft tissue remains in a T rex is 68 million years old. But you know as well as I do that no establishment scientist is going to ask those questions, and I think you know why.
How long, based on whatever experimental evidence there is, would you think DNA should last?
DeleteNo preserved dinosaur DNA has been found. Jurassic Park remains a fiction.
I know you and your creationist buddies often claim this, because as a whole you tend not to understand the things you read. But it's simply not true. Provide a reference (from a non-creationist source) if you think I'm wrong.
There is plenty of room to ask questions when someone is claiming that soft tissue remains in a T rex is 68 million years old. But you know as well as I do that no establishment scientist is going to ask those questions, and I think you know why.
DeleteYes. Because they're not incompetent morons. Were you thinking of some other reason?
There is plenty of room to ask questions when someone is claiming that soft tissue remains in a T rex is 68 million years old. But you know as well as I do that no establishment scientist is going to ask those questions, and I think you know why.
DeleteYour careless ignorance has caused you to say something untrue. Do you care about the truth? If so, why did you not do 5 minutes of searching in Google Scholar?
Schweitzer's discovery of collagen proteins (not DNA) has been the subject of academic articles disputing her conclusions, e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483347/ .
Schweitzer and others have defended their conclusions scientifically, in other journal articles, e.g.:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00675
I know all about that, in more detail than I will tell you about here. I read the reactions to Schweitzer's discovery back in 2005, and the materialists were not happy. (You can probably still find some of their reactions at TalkOrigins.) Are you familiar with Tom Kaye? This was the first attempt to sweep this under the rug:
Deletehttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002808
"Materialism" had nothing to do with it. It was a startling and unexpected finding, so a healthy degree of skepticism was warranted. But Schweitzer has provided evidence to back up her claim and, for the most part, investigators have now accepted it.
DeleteCompare that to the conduct of the creationist community, whose response to the mountains of evidence contradicting their position is to plug their ears, shut their eyes, and pretend it doesn't exist.
Oh, and you "know all about it", do you? So why did you type "DNA" if you knew there was no DNA? Just a slip of the keyboard? Or another creationist lie?
txpiper, even more foolish than I first thought, cites back to me the very journal article I gave the link to earlier, where other scientists contend that what Schweitzer said was dinosaur protein was nothing more than bacteria. In other words, they published an article in a wide-circulation scientific journal saying the reports of dino protein were flat wrong. This is in complete contrast to txpiper's statement that "no establishment scientist is going to ask those questions." They not only questioned Schweitzer's results, they flatly disagreed. txpiper then tries to say this is an attempt to "sweep [the dino protein issue] under the rug." Don't know about you, but when I'm trying to sweep something under the rug, I don't go starting arguments about it in major academic journals.
DeleteNo, the only person trying to sweep anything under the rug is txpiper, after being shown his casual science-as-a-cabal-of-conspirators slander is flat wrong. But that's the great thing about science, it's right out there in public where we can see the scientific dispute for ourselves and realize, sadly but not surprisingly, that txpiper is just another liar for Jesus.
Tell me, txpiper, when was the first time you got things so turned around that dishonesty seemed the more moral course to you? Didn't alarm bells go off in your head? I think you're getting the wrong lessons from the "Good Book." Think about it.
judmarc,
DeleteThey've settled down now, and everybody is on board with the idea that the impossible is, of course, inevitable. The reason they were initially upset was because they recognized that someone was trashing their dating paradigm. But, having never posed a single question about that, they can move on. Dinosaur protein and soft tissues, or anything else that pops up, can last for as long as the theory needs it to last.
txpiper, did dinosaurs have striped and spotted offspring because they mated while looking at striped sticks that were placed in front of them by people, or does that only apply to goats and sheep?
DeleteDinosaur protein and soft tissues, or anything else that pops up, can last for as long as the theory needs it to last.
DeleteIt's not theory. It's an observed fact. Or are you now saying that the soft tissue Schweitzer described doesn't actually exist?
BTW, can you tell us how the YEC paradigm is able to explain the fact that we have not found largely intact dinosaur carcasses, the way we have with mammoths?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/woolly-mammoth-autopsy-provides-flesh-and-blood-samples-1.2849875
This is in complete contrast to txpiper's statement that "no establishment scientist is going to ask those questions." They not only questioned Schweitzer's results, they flatly disagreed.
DeleteI might remember you that not only Schweitzer found soft tissue. there are many examples. Also non permineralized fossils.
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1767-carbon-14-dated-dinosaur-bones-and-non-permineralized-soft-tissue-evidences-fossils-are-young
Soft tissue cannot remain non-permineralized for millions of years. That adds to the C14 carbon dating evidence. The best explanation is in my view that the fossils are younger than thought for a long time.
Troy Lawrence Before the global flood, the canopy of water that once surrounded the atmosphere, shielded the atmosphere from UV and other high energy cosmic rays. Thus, the conversion of N2 to C14 was blocked, therefore, the atmosohere had trace amounts of C14 before the flood. And for this reason, C14 dating makes a dead creature that died with trace C14 appear much older than reality.
Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842642/
SEM images of organically preserved muscle fibres in fossils from Grube Messel.
The muscle is preserved organically, in three dimensions, and with the highest fidelity of morphological preservation yet documented from the fossil record.
All specimens are from the collections of the Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt. Samples were picked from fossils under a binocular microscope, mounted on SEM stubs, gold-coated and examined with a Hitachi S-3500N variable pressure microscope equipped with an EDAX Genesis energy dispersive spectrometer.
Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins
Low concentrations of the structural protein collagen have recently been reported in dinosaur fossils based primarily on mass spectrometric analyses of whole bone extracts. However, direct spectroscopic characterization of isolated fibrous bone tissues, a crucial test of hypotheses of biomolecular preservation over deep time, has not been performed. Here, we demonstrate that endogenous proteinaceous molecules are retained in a humerus from a Late Cretaceous mosasaur (an extinct giant marine lizard).
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019445
MICROSTRUCTURE AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF THE ORGANICALLY PRESERVED EDIACARAN METAZOAN SABELLIDITES
Journal of Paleontology, 88(2), 2014, p. 224–239
MAŁGORZATA MOCZYDŁOWSKA,1 FRANCES WESTALL,2 AND FRE´ DE´RIC FOUCHER2
http://www.monash.edu/.../85598/moczydlowska-etal-2014-e.pdf
The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3
The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014
They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensis were still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization.
I might also add something, that is rarely mentioned in the naturalism x id debate, that is, the development of bones ( Osteogenesis ) is a irreducible complex process.
Deletehttp://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2296-origin-and-development-of-bones-osteogenesis
the very precise sequence of OC, as well as the metabolism to form the essential -carboxyglutamyl residues, seems to be yet another example of irreducible complexity, a hallmark of design.11 This means this is yet another component that must be exactly right for the alleged transition from invertebrate to vertebrate. So it is not surprising that proponents of evolution have no fossil evidence for how the transition occurred—this protein alone shows it could never have happened.
...except that "irreducible complexity" was already predicted and explained by evolutionary biologists, over 50 years before Behe used the term:
DeleteThe Mullerian Two-Step (or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly)
lutesuite...except that "irreducible complexity" was already predicted and explained by evolutionary biologists, over 50 years before Behe used the term.
DeleteDoes the Mullerian two step proposal refute irreducible complexity ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2254-does-the-mullerian-two-step-proposal-refute-irreducible-complexity
Even if you end up with an irreducibly complex system by removing parts from scaffolding, you still had to build the scaffolding. How does unguided evolution build the scaffolding by adding parts?
You really don't know? I thought it would incumbent upon those who dispute a theory to at least have a rudimentary understanding of the theory.
Deletetxpiper writes:
DeleteBut, having never posed a single question about that, they can move on. Dinosaur protein and soft tissues, or anything else that pops up, can last for as long as the theory needs it to last.
Another failure to read available references, or another lie for Jesus. Since the ignorance is wilful, it hardly matters which at this point.
Actually, I think the questions that txpiper is saying are not asked are fregarding the claim that dinosaurs didn't coexist with humans just a few centuries ago. He thinks there's a big conspiracy of silence around this.
Deletetxpiper-
DeleteThanks for the reply.
The problem I’m having with what you say is that I’m not so sure the story is impossible. It makes me think you don’t understand the story.
Microevolution has been demonstrated experimentally and observationally. I’m less certain about macroevolution. To make an analogy, I’m not sure we aren’t seeing a step ladder and extrapolating a stairway to the moon. Extrapolation can be misleading.
But when I look at how the lifeforms reproduce and the way DNA alters overtime, I can’t find any impossible barrier to overcome. The story involves random drift over billions of years, plenty of time for some improbable events to accumulate. Anything that can happen can happen by accident, so I’m not sure that’s impossible either.
I would not argue that just because it is possible it could happen that way means it certainly did happen that way.
Is there some barrier completely random luck couldn’t overcome in this case?
Jack Jackson,
Delete“The problem I’m having with what you say is that I’m not so sure the story is impossible. It makes me think you don’t understand the story.”
I think I could probably pass the test if I needed repeat it.
-
“Microevolution has been demonstrated experimentally and observationally. I’m less certain about macroevolution. To make an analogy, I’m not sure we aren’t seeing a step ladder and extrapolating a stairway to the moon. Extrapolation can be misleading.”
I agree, on all points. [Adaptation] Ants can build ant hills. [Evolution] Ants can’t build the Alps.
-
“But when I look at how the lifeforms reproduce and the way DNA alters overtime, I can’t find any impossible barrier to overcome. The story involves random drift over billions of years , plenty of time for some improbable events to accumulate.”
Actually, according standard geology, there aren’t billions of years available:
“Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events
The casualty estimates for the ‘big five’ are as follows:
1) 17% of all families, 50% of all genera and 75% of all species
2) 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species
3) 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects)
4) 19% of all families, 50% of all genera and at least 70% of all species
5) 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species
Looks to me like a lot of hard-to-come-by beneficial mutations went whistling down the toilet. It isn’t hard to run out of time when you have to keep starting over.
-
“Anything that can happen can happen by accident, so I’m not sure that’s impossible either.”
Yeah, but it’s the ‘anything that can happen’ part that I get stuck on. You can’t lose sight of the reality that some things simply cannot happen.
-
“Is there some barrier completely random luck couldn’t overcome in this case?”
I think so, but it is not just a matter of rare, random events. Once, many years ago, I watched the guy sitting next to me flip away a cigarette butt, and when it stopped moving, it was standing on end, fire up, still smoking. This is rare, but rare, unexpected things can happen.
The problem is that it meant absolutely nothing because it didn’t occur in any kind of context that would make it valuable. That is the barrier for any kind of abiogenesis event, and it’s about the same story with the mutations/selection idea.
Looks to me like a lot of hard-to-come-by beneficial mutations went whistling down the toilet. It isn’t hard to run out of time when you have to keep starting over.
DeleteThat's right, txpiper. Nothing gets by you. After an organism dies, it takes all its mutations with it. They don't live on like the Holy Ghost, or something.
Tell me: If T. rex still lived, how do you think all its beneficial mutations were going to get into the genomes of Richard Lenski's E.coli colonies?
lutesuite: I obviously have no crystal ball to see how high atheists have set the bar individually to acknowledge design , and change position. But upon my experience of decades debating with them, i know that most do not change their mind, not because the evidence does not point to design, but because of a emotional commitment and bias, and bad will.
DeleteWhat i wrote about Larry, is what HE answered me at my FB timeline. In other words, unless the creator does a miracle in his life, he will not change his mind.
But i wonder: Lets assume the creator had put a recognition mark in every cell, that was overlooked by science until today, somethink like Gods irrefutible signature, and it was the God of the bible, and you would be confronted now with the same question: accept Jesus as lord and savior, repent from your sins, and convert, or just keep living your life as before. You had free choice as before. What would you decide ?
@El:
Delete"What would you decide ? "
I'd call it blackmail. I'd ask why he'd accept convicted rapists and murderers who 'repent' after their sins and turn to god? I'd also ask why he won't accept atheists who haven't committed murders, who haven't sold hard drugs to minors or who haven't raped little boys? Atheists who in fact have lead an honorable life, helped old ladies across busy streets etc.
What would be your answer el? Knowing the bastard, er priest, who raped little boys in His name, is also among those saved by Jezus?
Ed
Deletethats a theological question ( and i don't know up to what point this can be discussed here ) , but it seems you do not know God's standard of perfection.
No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written in Romans chapter 3:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[b]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
But i wonder: Lets assume the creator had put a recognition mark in every cell, that was overlooked by science until today, somethink like Gods irrefutible signature, and it was the God of the bible, and you would be confronted now with the same question: accept Jesus as lord and savior, repent from your sins, and convert, or just keep living your life as before. You had free choice as before. What would you decide ?
DeleteThat's a non-sequitur of an argument. Say someone believed that Steve Jobs was our lord and savior. Could he prove this claim by demonstrating that Steve Jobs designed the Iphone?
But upon my experience of decades debating with them, i know that most do not change their mind, not because the evidence does not point to design, but because of a emotional commitment and bias, and bad will.
DeleteYeah, that has to be it. It couldn't possibly be that you were using the same shit arguments you are here, could it?
@ txpiper, again:
DeleteIt isn’t hard to run out of time when you have to keep starting over.
I'm a bit puzzled by what you are saying here. You seem to be suggesting that, when a group of species goes extinct, this somehow means that the genomes of all the species that did not go extinct also disappear. I'm not aware of how this would happen. Could you kindly elaborate?
txpiper-
DeleteThere seems to be a style issue.
When you say ‘x’ is ‘impossible’, I think you are making a statement that is objectively true in a more or less mathematical sense.
You could say ‘x’ is ‘implausible’, to make the statement subjective.
In this case you are saying the current story of evolution is impossible, but when it comes time to give an objectively true reason the story is impossible you only have improbabilities and intuitions.
If you are going to say the current story is impossible you will either have to come up with an objectively true reason for the statement or you will sound like you do not understand the theory.
A mass extinction event is not the same as a start over, you overstate the importance of those events.
I think your understanding is more nuanced than your communications would indicate.
I’m not always right, I might need correction.
@Elshamah 777
DeleteI'm trying to be tolerant but I'm reaching my limit. Please don't spam my blog with irrelevant material.
Ants can’t build the Alps.
DeleteAccording to you, neither can plate tectonics and other geological causes. Thus a big sky fairy dunnit. Logic in action!
The problem is that it meant absolutely nothing because it didn’t occur in any kind of context that would make it valuable. That is the barrier for any kind of abiogenesis event
DeleteRight, so the chemistry that made the building blocks of proteins (amino acids) in the cold radiation-seared vacuum of deep space (from which we occasionally get them showing up here in meteorites) couldn't possibly work here on Earth, which indisputably has the most favorable conditions in the universe for life on Earth - oh, wait....
Don't you ever get tired of just writing any old thing that two seconds' thought will tell you is flat wrong?
Ed,
DeleteYour understanding of Christian theology is thoroughly confused. But at least it is common, so you have that going for you.
===
Jack Jackson,
“In this case you are saying the current story of evolution is impossible, but when it comes time to give an objectively true reason the story is impossible you only have improbabilities and intuitions.”
Then I have a question. Why do they think that all living things came from one cell? Not the last universal common ancestor, but the original first cell?
-
“If you are going to say the current story is impossible you will either have to come up with an objectively true reason for the statement or you will sound like you do not understand the theory.”
Well, let me understand your perspective. I believe that there are things that are so unlikely that they can be considered impossible. Evolutionary theory maintains that butterfly metamorphosis is the result of random DNA replication failures, and natural selection….two completely different morphologies packed into a single genetic profile. Do you feel objective in accepting that something like that is possible?
===
judmarc,
“Right, so the chemistry that made the building blocks of proteins (amino acids) in the cold radiation-seared vacuum of deep space (from which we occasionally get them showing up here in meteorites) couldn't possibly work here on Earth”
Oh, they could work, just like the Miller experiment. I’m comfortable with the idea that racemic amino acids are fairly common in the universe. The problem is that you can’t build biological buildings with those blocks.
"Evolutionary theory maintains that butterfly metamorphosis is the result of random DNA replication failures, and natural selection….two completely different morphologies packed into a single genetic profile. Do you feel objective in accepting that something like that is possible?"
DeleteTxppr: If we assumed that butterflies evolved in a single step from some worm-like ancestor that molted, complete metamorphosis might seem to bizarre to evolve. However, we see insects (and other arthropods) with a diversity of styles of metamorphosis. Sometimes the next stage is like the last, just bigger. Sometimes, the next one has proportionately longer legs, or wing buds or other moderate changes. Often the adult is only a little different from the last juvenile instar. And sometimes the adult stage is really, really different from the one before.
Looking at the butterflies in context with other insects, does it look like the genetic background of impressive complete metamorphosis could evolve a bit at a time? Yes.
txpiper,
Delete"Your understanding of Christian theology is thoroughly confused. But at least it is common, so you have that going for you."
What, exactly, did Ed get wrong in his theological explanation? If you feel there are too many mistakes, just pick two, and explain how Ed got them wrong.
"Well, let me understand your perspective. I believe that there are things that are so unlikely that they can be considered impossible. Evolutionary theory maintains that butterfly metamorphosis is the result of random DNA replication failures, and natural selection….two completely different morphologies packed into a single genetic profile. Do you feel objective in accepting that something like that is possible?"
What is your evidence that an intelligent designer or supernatural being made a butterfly? Absent that, all you have is an argument from ignorance, appropriated by creationists as a 'god of the gaps' argument. You understand how this is not a refutation of evolutionary theory, right?
"Oh, they could work, just like the Miller experiment. I’m comfortable with the idea that racemic amino acids are fairly common in the universe. The problem is that you can’t build biological buildings with those blocks."
You have no idea if your assertion is true, and not a shred of evidence to support it. Again, an argument from ignorance, carrying the creationist addendum that god did it.
Tx:
Delete"
Your understanding of Christian theology is thoroughly confused. But at least it is common, so you have that going for you."
What I do find much more interesting is the fact that neither you Tx, nor El, actually answered my question. It's a non-theological question, but rather a question about your own conscience.
Furthermore Tx, El, neither of you have provided any shred of evidence in favor of your favorite creation theory yet. It's still 'evolution can't do this, evolution can't do that'. Is either of you going to be the first creationist with supporting data? I've been holding my breath since last week, when I first asked this question to Tx, slowly turning purple people...
txpiper-
DeleteI don’t understand your question about the original first cell.
You say you believe there are things so unlikely they can be considered impossible.
The dictionary defines the term ‘impossible’ = “not able to occur, exist, or be done.”
You are using the word incorrectly.
It appears you have-
an ignorance of the english language
an ignorance of the story of evolution
an utter disrespect for those who actually study the subject
My guess is you just are not using the words correctly and that you haven’t really considered the consequences of doing so.
That’s my perspective.
txpiper continues to spew ignorantly:
DeleteThen I have a question. Why do they think that all living things came from one cell? Not the last universal common ancestor, but the original first cell?
Perhaps you could explain how all things currently alive could have descended from a unicellular LUCA, yet not have descended from unicellular organisms that preceded that (one of which could be considered the first cellular organism)?
lutesuite-
DeleteI notice you link to the article touting the ‘no big bang’ model.
Have you ever looked at the paper the news article is referring to?
Here is a review that might be of interest-
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/02/has-big-bang-theory-been-disproved.html
“So many things seem so arbitrary and the ease with which they ignore what is actually known (what has been discovered after decades of work to agree with millions of observations) is blinding and suggests that they're as bad physicists – people with incredibly low standards – as the kitty and the puppy as cooks. They simply write random sentence and throw assorted half-baked weird ideas into the mix because they may ask themselves: Why not?”
It appears you are touting bad science in an attempt to bolster your philosophy.
My philosophy, such as it is, has nothing to do with whether the universe had a beginning. That's for the cosmologists to figure out, and I'll abide by whatever the evidence demonstrates to be true. My whole point is that Eric seems to think the issue has been settled, and that is patently false.
DeleteJack Jackson,
Delete“I don’t understand your question about the original first cell.”
Then let me rephrase. It is very widely accepted that all life descended from a single, original first cell as opposed to multiple, unrelated cells which evolved independently. There is a reason why one view is accepted, and the other is generally rejected. What is that reason?
-
“You say you believe there are things so unlikely they can be considered impossible.”
Well yes. Anything that breaches natural law is impossible.
If you’d prefer to use more comfortable language, I’d be fine with that as long as it fairly represents extreme improbability. But the real problem for evolution is that every single minute step is improbable.
It is very widely accepted that all life descended from a single, original first cell as opposed to multiple, unrelated cells which evolved independently.
Delete"Widely accepted" by whom?
Ask Larry.
DeleteEd Tx, El, neither of you have provided any shred of evidence in favor of your favorite creation theory yet.
DeleteEven if that were the case ( it isn't ) , so what? Its enough that abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE, that any alternative , even if remotely compelling or possible, or credible, becomes the better choice. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says : when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improable, must be the truth.
El,
Deleteonce again, you present no evidence. And it's rather amusing you quote a fictional person as your authority.
Anyway, there a lot of different creation myths, of which only one is being credited to your god. You still have to explain why these other myths are less plausible? You haven't eliminated any one of these yet. For example the Edda.
Ed
DeleteFirst we have to establish what explains better our origins, a intelligent , or a natural, non-intelligent cause. To do this we compare ID with Naturalistic theories and hypotheses.
The identification of the intelligent designer is not based on science, but philosopy and theology.
There is no reason to discuss the second step, if you do not acknowledge that intelligence explains best as causal agency what we observe in the natural world.
The capacity of recognition of design is unfortunately strongly influenced and constrained by strong bias, bad will, and emotional reasons of the majority here.
This game happens over and over here. We provide the reasons for design, and the answer is : we don't believe you.
Sad.
El, thanks for the post.
DeleteI think it all boils down to this sentence:
We provide the reasons for design
The main issue here is (your) reasons can be influenced by your own El, your own strong bias, bad will, and emotional reasons.
Let me explain what I mean here.
You have a strong bias towards your/ the god of the bible as the intelligence. But, as I mentioned before the god of the bible is but one of many creation stories out there in the world.
Emotional reasons are also quite clear, you've be told the god of the bible is the only truth there is. Seeing people write that the bible is merely a collection of (conflicting) stories and the Edda is much cooler, arouses a strong emotional response from you. Understandable though.
Anyway back to the discussion. In order for you to compare ID/ creationism with scientific evidence, the first step for you would be to determine which creation story, and thus intelligence, is in fact true. Furthermore, you must give overwhelming evidence why it's the only one which can be true. Argumentation like 'only the bible is true' can and will be countered by people convinced the torah, the koran or the Edda is the true story.
Once you've determined beyond reasonable doubt the god of the bible is indeed the intelligence, step 2 would be finding evidence in favor of design. And up until now, no creationist has given evidence in favor of the intelligence. Au contrair, every attempt to promote ID creationism has been like this: 'evolution can't do this, thus goddidit'.
If and when you have evidence in favor of intelligence, around that time it's interesting to compare it with data from the 'other side' and go into a lengthy discussion comparing notes/experimental data and perhaps then we might come to a different conclusion and adjust theories accordingly.
For you though, it means homework to do first.
Ed: In order for you to compare ID/ creationism with scientific evidence.
DeleteIts a common tactic of proponents of naturalism to create a fals dichotomy. No, Ed, there is no dispute between ID, and the scientific evidence. The evidence is what we discover in the natural world. Philosophy of science provides the interpretation of historical events that cannot be tested, and ID as theory than can be put to scientific scrutiny through testing and falsification, as Minnich exemplified at the Dover trial, and was conveniently ignored by the judge and the decade long, on-going debate afterwards. So there is no dispute between ID/creationism and science, but between world views. Between naturalism , and ID.
ED: the first step for you would be to determine which creation story.
I disagree. Ther first step is to determine if intelligence , or non-intelligence ( aka " natural " mechanisms ) explain best what we observe in the natural world, namely CSI , and IC systems.
Ed: Furthermore, you must give overwhelming evidence why it's the only one which can be true.
Falsify ID theory, and proponents of naturalism win. Unfortunately for your desired scenario, evidence does not point to naturalism.
Ed: Argumentation like 'only the bible is true' can and will be countered by people convinced the torah, the koran or the Edda is the true story.
Thats why ID has nothing to do with religion.
Ed: Once you've determined beyond reasonable doubt the god of the bible is indeed the intelligence, step 2 would be finding evidence in favor of design.
Its the other way around, Ed.
The steps in the progression go as follows.
1. Logical fallacy of Strong Atheism
2. Logical starting point of agnosticism
3. Proper understanding of science and searching for truth and not
eliminating theistic implication.
4. Falsifiable evidence which clearly points to Intelligence
5. Intelligent Causation leads to agnostic theism.
6. Specifics about various evidence leads to the conclusion of Infinite
Creator.
7. Comparative religions and historical evidence points to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
8. Internal evidence gives the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and
born-again Christianity.
The steps in the progression go as follows.
Delete1. Logical fallacy of Strong Atheism
Yes, just as it's the most logical procedure to first marshall evidence to prove there is *not* an invisible pink unicorn standing behind you, rather than not assuming there is one and having to marshall evidence to prove such a thing exists. Right?
What a pity El, I was hoping for a discussion, but it should've known better.
DeleteI really like this one El:
"Thats why ID has nothing to do with religion. "
Which is very amusing coming from someone citing all kinds of bible verses as evidence for the intelligent designer, and coming up with these gems:
"7. Comparative religions and historical evidence points to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
8. Internal evidence gives the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and
born-again Christianity. "
Yes clearly El you're not biased in any way, and you're very open minded. I wonder if you've ever heard about Matthew 7:3 and 7:5? Clearly you're attempting to divert the attention away from the plank in your own eye.
Anyway, thanks for showing your religious bias, as if it wasn't apparent to everybody except yourself.
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997
DeleteWe take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
And oh yeah El, where's the overwhelming evidence in favor of ID? I can't seem to find it in your post...
DeleteThats because your blinkers are on. Take them off first, then we talk.
DeleteAnd on the hipocrisy of Larrys lame position on methodological naturalism, what is happening right now with a paper that was published at PLOS ONE, exeplifies the status quo of mainstream science, and the real position towards ID propositions in scientific papers:
Regular scientic papers never begin with with a agnostic view, permitting the two possible options of mechanisms of origins to be evaluated, namely design, or " natural " forces. They start with the unquestional fact of evolution being true, no matter what. The papers start with evolution, end with evolution, and thats it. If imho a paper starts with the abstract :
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193
the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.
the outcry is high, and outrageous reactions all over are the result , as can be seen here:
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/02/hands-are-the-proper-design-by-the-creator-plos-one-paper-suggests/
Notification from PLOS Staff
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F234ef7cc-d89a-4a9e-92d6-9070b175620d
Intelligent design makes it into Plos One
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/03/intelligent-des-50.html
Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern
http://www.nature.com/news/paper-that-says-human-hand-was-designed-by-creator-sparks-concern-1.19499
the double standard is more than evident.
i know there was no cambrian explosion but defe4nd, and heaps of YEC, Meyer on his attack using the cambrian explosion.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this not logical?
Meyer, I guess, believes in the geology claims and so confounds evolutionism by its own geology and biology claims from fossils found in the cambrian suddenly with not enough heritage.
Its a great point and famous one now.
So YEC can use it for the same reason. it undermines evolutiopnism on its own claims.
Or rather as in court ONE is using the witness own words against their claims.
Even though there was no life beyond 6000 years ago.
It makes short work of some points in evolution for greater audiences while not actually founded in biological evidence.
Why not???
Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebted to Gabby Johnson, sorry, Robert Byers, for clearly stating what needed to be said. I’m particularly glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
DeleteI think a far more pertinent question is this, Byers:
DeleteDo you type with your nose or your elbow?
Or do you only go online after a pint of bourbon?
Could he be actually typing 'in tongues'?
DeleteJ Harshman.
DeleteWell do you argue with it? Whats the illogic I use??
Actually i don't like mel brooks but that frontier line in that movie was always a funny memorable line to me.
I said YEC can use the cAmbrian against evolutionism for the same reasons meyer does even while disagreeing with the geology/timeline stuff.
its like a court case.
we can use the witness claims against them but its not our big claims about the case.
Why not?
This is rich coming from evolutionists. Creationists can't get their story straight?
ReplyDeleteshit larry, the best you can do is ride on the back of abiogenesis and a slew of designed objects (so you need not provide no stinkin' amount of detail..that ring a bell??)...and you have the gall to complain about intelligent design??!!
Thanks to modern technology, the pendulum is swing back toward intelligent design.
That you haven't a clue about the depth and scope of the design embedded in life thankfully won't stop the inquisitive from elucidating what on the surface appears like junk to the uneducated.
So yeah, go ahead and snicker to your hearts content. Time is not on your side though, remember.
jDNA will be your albatrose to wear when the time comes. Better hit the gym now to prep for the extra weight around your neck.
"(so you need not provide no stinkin' amount of detail..that ring a bell??)"
DeleteYes, it rings a bell. That's how religionutters (aka Bill Dembski) respond when asked for details about how, why, when and where goddidit. It's just *POOF* and there it was, in a puff of smoke.
What's it like to know these nutters are the "luminaries" of your movement?
Ignoring the other naive proclamations, this one:
Delete"jDNA will be your albatrose to wear when the time comes. "
was pretty funny - and not just because of the horrible creationist spelling!
Had ENCODE's original, over-hyped, under-evidenced claims been true, that would still leave our genomes with ~20% 'junk' DNA.
Was 20% junk all part of your deity's Grand Plan?
Or haven't ya'll gotten that far in your narrative yet?
"Thanks to modern technology, the pendulum is swing back toward intelligent design. "
DeleteAs reflected in the thousands of ID papers in the scientific literature.
Steve,
DeleteAbiogenesis is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. It's just the gap you hide your supernatural being in, since you lack any evidence supporting the existence of such a being.
Junk DNA is also only a problem for ID/creationists, not evolution. Lots of junk DNA, little junk DNA, or anything in between cannot constutute evidence against evolutionary theory. That is a red herring ID/creationists invented. But you have only succeeded in tying that albatross around your own necks. It is ID/creationists who have a problem with junk DNA, since many of you claim an intelligently designed life form shouldn't have junk DNA because apparently this is displeasing to the intelligent designer. Good luck with that hypothesis.
Chris, just another evolutionary meme. Abiogenesis is extremely relevant to life. Evolution is extraordinarily mute on this phenomenon, which requires you to disown any connection.
DeleteJunk DNA is simply code for 'we are scared shitless the genome is designed. So deny, deny, deny any function whatsoever. Its a good thing scientist are not take Moran's word for it and require experimental confirmation that pseodogenes don't do diddly.
So the future will see pseodogenes get a new, proper name that drops both the 'pseudo' and 'gene'. But in deference to the past his prime Moran, they'll let him retire before the name change.
Indidently, why you think an intelligently designed genome must be and should be perfect from start to finish reflects your attack on a narrow segment of ID supporters. But attacking the weakest link is to be expected from opponents of teleology in nature so nothing new there.
N. Manning,
DeleteOur genome possibly having 10~20% actual, bonified junk (aka stuff that is absolutely useless and cannot be retrofited for any functional purpose whatsoever) would be expected in a genome that is degrading over time. So no, jDNA is expected in a design that is let to run its course.
How does that invalidate a designed genome? But since you all think you are jesus in the flesh, biology wise, please tell us what's the hold up. Why can't you guys come up with anything flashier that what is in a virus or bacteria?
Tell ya why. Because life's design is light years ahead. The concepts, the control mechanisms, the foresight required to understand what myriad potential obstacles need to be overcome due a fluctuating, cyclical atmosphere are all on display.
Not only that, the intelligence that created that design is also embedded in yourselves. You are all just to damn wedded to atheism/skepticism (or what ever label it is that floats your boat) to recognise the potential.
But when that potential is finally realized, you will belatedly understand and grudging accept that..."well yeah, it was in fact designed...i just couldn't bring myself to admit it because i hated the fact that i couldn't understand the 'why' of it all'....
Hey Steve, what is the why of it all, and how do you know?
DeleteSteve,
Delete"Chris, just another evolutionary meme. Abiogenesis is extremely relevant to life. Evolution is extraordinarily mute on this phenomenon, which requires you to disown any connection."
No, Steve, not at all. Evolutionary theory may indeed shed light on abiogenesis. This is an ongoing field of research. That is the only connection. The origins of life, however it came about, does not in any way invalidate the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Regardless of how life originated, evolution still stands on empirical evidence as the best explanation for the diversity of life on planet earth.
"Junk DNA is simply code for 'we are scared shitless the genome is designed. So deny, deny, deny any function whatsoever."
This statement displays a complete lack of understanding of the history of research on functional DNA. I would recommend reading Dr. Moran's cogent essays on this subject as a start. But please, by all means, Steve, delve into the primary literature and examine the evidence for yourself. Junk DNA is a threatening issue only for ID/Creationist fairy tales.
"Its a good thing scientist are not take Moran's word for it and require experimental confirmation that pseodogenes don't do diddly.
So the future will see pseodogenes get a new, proper name that drops both the 'pseudo' and 'gene'. But in deference to the past his prime Moran, they'll let him retire before the name change."
Pseudogenes sometimes gain a new function. There are examples for this, but they make up a tiny percentage of the genome. Most pseudogenes are just that. Broken genes and excellent evidence for evolutionary theory. And the pseudogenes that have acquired a new function are further evidence in favor of the contingency and lack of forethought that characterizes evolution. If you have any evidence that points to a conscious creator making pseudogenes functional according to some plan, please share it with us.
"Indidently, why you think an intelligently designed genome must be and should be perfect from start to finish reflects your attack on a narrow segment of ID supporters. But attacking the weakest link is to be expected from opponents of teleology in nature so nothing new there."
So what is your hypothesis on the amount of non-perfection an intelligent designer would allow? According to your theory. what is the junk DNA tolerance allowed by your designer?
Steve,
Delete"Our genome possibly having 10~20% actual, bonified junk (aka stuff that is absolutely useless and cannot be retrofited for any functional purpose whatsoever) would be expected in a genome that is degrading over time. "
Why would a genome degrade over time?
Abiogenesis is extremely relevant to life. Evolution is extraordinarily mute on this phenomenon, which requires you to disown any connection.
DeleteBiology is the study of life.
Chemistry is the study of the interaction of matter.
You do not need to know how life began in order to study how it operates any more than you need to know where matter came from in order to study how it interacts.
I don't think anyone could deny that life had to have had a beginning - the alternative is that life has always existed, which is nonsensical as far as our understanding of the universe goes.
But the reason evolution doesn't have a hypothesis about how life started is because evolution studies how life changes, not life's origins. Abiogenesis is about life's origins. It is of course relevant to the existence of life - crucial, in fact - but it's not relevant to how life then proceeds. It is entirely possible to study something closely and gain a deep understanding of it without knowing its origin.
In fact, studying things closely without always knowing how they got there is exactly what humans have been doing for thousands of years. It's just that some of us have learned to avoid placeholder explanations and fanciful narcissism, e.g. the broad notion that the entire universe is a bespoke design made *just* for human beings by entities who appear to do their very best to hide exactly how they did it.
"...bonified junk..."
DeleteWhat I'd like to know is where I can learn more about the process of bonification. I've got a truck load of old boating magazines in my garage and I'm worried that they might be bonifying into People or Star or some other kind of junk.
"Our genome possibly having 10~20% actual, bonified junk (aka stuff that is absolutely useless and cannot be retrofited for any functional purpose whatsoever) would be expected in a genome that is degrading over time. So no, jDNA is expected in a design that is let to run its course."
DeleteGiven this assumption, why hasn't ID predicted a date by which the DNA will have become too degraded to allow for life? Seems like an easy calculation.
"You are all to damn wedded to atheism..."
I thought that ID wasn't contingent on a god. Except, of course, when it is. Sounds like a damn big tent to me.
Steve,
Delete"why you think an intelligently designed genome must be and should be perfect from start to finish reflects your attack on a narrow segment of ID supporters."
It also highlights the difference between ID and Creationists. The latter have explanatory proposals for the degradation of the genome, if not the deliberate deactivation of parts of it.
""...bonified junk..."
DeleteWhat I'd like to know is where I can learn more about the process of bonification."
The conversation is really degenerating when people are talking about their junk getting bonified.
Let's try and keep it clean, folks.
So no, jDNA is expected in a design that is let to run its course.
DeleteYou do realize this makes no sense at all, right?
In a design, parts wear out over time. The design itself doesn't turn into junk. This is like saying if I open the drawer that has the blueprints for our house in it, I should expect to see the roof design no longer adequate to keep out the rain.
Steve writes:
DeleteOur genome possibly having 10~20% actual, bonified [sic] junk (aka stuff that is absolutely useless and cannot be retrofited [sic] for any functional purpose whatsoever) would be expected in a genome that is degrading over time. So no, jDNA is expected in a design that is let to run its course.
It is nice that you have provided a strawman definition to try to help your cause. of course, actual junk DNA is "... any DNA sequence that does not play a functional role in development, physiology, or some other organism-level capacity." ("The Case for Junk DNA").
Of course, you are assuming that 'the genome' is degrading and has no ability to adapt or repair itself - I suspect that this cynical view is a product of your belief in 'the fall.' Odd that we would be cursed to go to extinction via mutation and yet be provided with the ability to repair mutations...
How does that invalidate a designed genome?
Retrofitting scientific discoveries into your cynical religious worldview - quaint. How again does it invalidate evolution?
But since you all think you are jesus in the flesh, biology wise, please tell us what's the hold up.
Actually, it is pretty clear that it is people like YOU that fancy yourselves biology-Jesus - what with your repeated proclamations of having disproven claims from actual biologists.
Why can't you guys come up with anything flashier that what is in a virus or bacteria?
Why can't you guys show us your fabled 'designer'?
Tell ya why. Because life's design is light years ahead. The concepts, the control mechanisms, the foresight required to understand what myriad potential obstacles need to be overcome due a fluctuating, cyclical atmosphere are all on display.
Nice question begging. That all you got?
Not only that, the intelligence that created that design is also embedded in yourselves. You are all just to damn wedded to atheism/skepticism (or what ever label it is that floats your boat) to recognise the potential.
Nope - in addition to question begging, you've got some insults and projection, too.
But when that potential is finally realized, you will belatedly understand and grudging accept that..."well yeah, it was in fact designed...i just couldn't bring myself to admit it because i hated the fact that i couldn't understand the 'why' of it all'....
It is nice to have a vivid imagination. Pity that the imagination of the typical IDC is premised on angry fantasies and sundry nonsense.
Thanks for being you, steve.
One question that I've always wanted to address to Intelligent Design proponents is this: Why has it taken so long? Multicellular life didn't appear for more than a thousand million years after single-celled life. Was the designer active during that time? What is the designer trying to achieve?
ReplyDeleteMulticellular life didn't appear for more than a thousand million years after single-celled life. Was the designer active during that time?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it took just one day. Read Genesis.
Hmmm. No mention of single-celled life. It's as if God had no idea that such things existed.
DeleteIt's as if God had no idea that such things existed.
DeleteIt's as if God knew *exactly as much as Bronze Age shepherds* (gasp).
My background is in Physics. I find it impossible to take the biblical chronology literally. I would be more interested to hear what an ID proponent who has no problems with an ancient Earth would say. Thank you for answering, though!
DeleteMy background is in Physics. I find it impossible to take the biblical chronology literally.
DeleteI think txpiper is your man. I'm sure he can tell you why the whole of radiocarbon dating, thus the electroweak force, thus all of quantum physics is wrong, and Genesis is right. (I'm guessing it's all a conspiracy by the Godless Planckists. As you know, we must refer to each branch of science by the last name of the originator - thus Darwinists for evolutionary biologists, Planckists for quantum physicists.)
John says: Hmmm. No mention of single-celled life. It's as if God had no idea that such things existed.
DeleteOh, God knew all about it. That's why Jesus told his disciples how to make bread mold into antibiotics, thus saving billions of lives.
I think txpiper is your man. I'm sure he can tell you why the whole of radiocarbon dating, thus the electroweak force, thus all of quantum physics is wrong, and Genesis is right.
DeleteI don't think so! But I remain genuinely interested in how ID proponents who are not YECs reconcile the enormous, meandering, glacially slow development of life on this planet with the idea of an intelligent designer. Never mind detailed discussions of junk DNA or the Cambrian Explosion: doesn't the history of life on this planet speak out against design in almost every way? If not, what sort of designer is compatible with the way in which things have actually happened? I'd really like to know what ID people think.
How dare you limit the designer to timescales and methods that humans would find comprehensible or sensible? Don't you know that god -- oops, I mean some designer who might even be aliens or whatever -- moves in mysterious ways? He can't be held to any human standard. Nor are you allowed to learn anything about him from what he did other than one thing: that he exists. And he's Jesus. I'll come in again.
DeleteI wouldn't presume to hold the Designer to any human standard! However, I do feel that ID proponents should at a minimum have some ideas about how the Designer has intervened in natural processes and perhaps also some idea of what the Designer is trying to achieve. Without this basic information I find it hard to believe that ID proponents are approaching the subject seriously.
DeleteAre there any (non-YEC) ID proponents willing to join in? I repeat: I am genuinely curious about your opinions.
some ideas about how the Designer has intervened in natural processes and perhaps also some idea of what the Designer is trying to achieve.
DeleteVincent Torley, whose comment you see in this thread, has posited over at an ID blog, "Uncommon Descent," that at least one of the Designer's purposes in creating the universe was to let us know He's here. It's in a blog post concerning physicist Sean Carroll's discussion of the proposition that the universe is "fine tuned" for humans.
Thanks to judmarc for that pointer. In his post Vincent Torley suggests that the initial conditions of the Universe and/or the values of physical constants have been fine-tuned, not just to allow life but to allow the inference of a designer. He predicts (correctly, I think) that if this is the case then any fine-tuning should be much tighter than is needed for life, so that the designer's existence can be inferred. I don't believe that enough is known about the origin or necessary values of physics constants to make or break this argument, but it is exactly the sort of designer-based prediction that I had hoped to see.
DeleteHowever, this still leaves open the question of the designer's interventions in the created universe. I assume Torley believes that these interventions have taken place during geological time. Following Torley's logic we would expect the interventions not to be the minimum necessary (zero?) for intelligent life to evolve but to go far enough beyond this minimum to make the designer's existence evident to anyone studying the history of life on this planet. I am not sure that this is the case.
One way out is to suppose that the designer responsible for the values of physical constants is different from the designer that set off the Cambrian explosion (or whatever), and that this latter designer has different motives. What are these motives? I remain surprised that ID proponents seem to spend so little time thinking about this question. Any serious theory of ID as applied to life's history surely requires at least an attempt at an answer.
Yes. It's almost as if the ID creationists are not actually engaged in a serious scientific endeavour, but are instead merely interested in casting doubt on evolution in order to facilitate religious apologetics. Very strange.
DeleteI remain surprised that ID proponents seem to spend so little time thinking about this question. Any serious theory of ID as applied to life's history surely requires at least an attempt at an answer.
DeleteID proponents haven't fulfilled the requirements of a serious theory, and you're surprised at this?
Hi Professor Moran,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words. There may be some more interesting posts on UD in the next couple of months.
I agree with Larry, a lot of creationists are really not smart. But at least VJ Torley and Behe and a very few others, like Todd Wood, understand what our criticisms are and try to respond. I wouldn't call those guys dumb. But many others...
ReplyDeleteThat may be so. But if they are not dumb, then they are something worse. Did Behe fail to understand Larry's detailed explanation of why the entire argument in "The Edge of Evolution" was fatally flawed? Only if he's dumb. But if he's not that dumb, why has he yet to publicly renounce the premise of that book? As I see it, it could only be because he is too dishonest to do so.
DeleteSame thing with Torley. He will only contradict the claims of a fellow IDiot if he thinks doing so does not threaten ID itself (e.g. with junk DNA). or, as in this case, he thinks the claim actually weakens the ID position. Otherwise, he will faithfully and blindly toe the creationist line.
BTW, before you praise VJ Torley's intelligence too highly, you should have a look at his contributions to the discussion that begins here:
DeleteVincent Torley's theory of whale evolution, it is his and belongs to him.
I respect VJT's intelligence. It is his judgement that I think is suspect. He post OPs on UD knowing that it is run by an arrogant, repugnant, little homophobe who constantly resorts to name calling, editing the comments of others and banning people for the crime of disagreeing with him. And I have never seen a comment by him suggesting that Barry has stepped over the line.
DeleteOn the confusion regarding the the mechanism (s) of evolution:
ReplyDeleteLarry Moran, Richard Lenski, John Harshamn, Richand Dawwkins, Dan Graour, and the rest of the worshipers of Darwin and his religion, were traveling in a spaceship to finally find the purpose of the universe. They land on a plant Q.
They look around and they find a perplexing structure. It has it's elements well organized and yet it seems foreign to them. The structure doesn't resemble anything they have seen before because it not only appears extremely complex, it is also beaming with some kind of action or movement within the structure.
What would be the assumption and the inference regarding the origin of the structure by the authorities mentioned above?
1. Would they agree that the structure came about by itself, meaning that it assembled itself?
2. Or the structure must have been designed?
Which one do you choose? Or which one should you choose?
Here is one possible scenario:
DeleteLarry Moran et al. are initially perplexed but then decide to analyze the object scientifically. They discover this object is an amazingly complex aggregation of mineral crystals and the apparent movement or action within the structure was light being refracted through the crystals. Availing themselves of centuries of scientific research, they conclude this is a object spontaneously formed through natural processes.
Eric, who was also on board the spacecraft, ignores all scientific knowledge and the results of the current investigation and insists for no good reason that the object was designed by a god.
Moran et al. continue their cosmic journey leaving Eric behind on planet Q to worship and sing songs of praise to the crystal.
Hmm.. a complex organized structure with "beaming" internal movement. You just described a star, Eric... the closest example being our Sun. We know from studying stars in all stages of development from birth to death, that all you need is hydrogen and gravity for them to form. My point being that you need more information than just a first glance before you can determine the origin of something you don't understand.
DeleteWhat would be the assumption and the inference regarding the origin of the structure by the authorities mentioned above?
Delete1. Would they agree that the structure came about by itself, meaning that it assembled itself?
2. Or the structure must have been designed?
Larry would believe the structure was designed only, if the ET's would appear in front of him, and assemble them....
As Christ said: happy who believes without seeing.
Part 2.
DeleteOn the confusion regarding the the mechanism (s) of evolution:
Since on the planet Q there is no one or nothing that could explain the origin of the structure, including self-assembly or progressive development from less complex structure (s) the Darwinists decide to bring the structure with them to Earth and study it.
When on Earth, Darwinists observe that he structure appears to be alive; it has all the properties that the living things have and yet, it still doesn't resemble any kind of life on Earth. What should they do? Should they call it life? Or Should they call it a design?
To their surprise, the structure is able to make copies of itself. What should they call it now? And what should they assume the origin of the structure to be now?
When on Earth, Darwinists observe that he structure appears to be alive; it has all the properties that the living things have and yet, it still doesn't resemble any kind of life on Earth. What should they do? Should they call it life?
DeleteYes.
Was that a trick question?
Larry would believe the structure was designed only, if the ET's would appear in front of him, and assemble them....
DeleteIf I came across an artifact that could not have been assembled thru natural processes, but has the qualities of an object that has been put together by an intelligent being, I would conclude that it had been put together by an intelligent being. I presume Larry would to the same.
You two are making an error that most the IDiots also make: They think that those who reject ID claim that it not possible to detect design in any circumstances at all. That is a straw man. What we are doing, rather, is pointing out that the IDiots have not demonstrated that living things have been designed.
If you need the distinction spelled out more clearly, I'm happy to oblige.
Eric, by postulating the absence of a useful context on your hypothetical planet, you are moving your scenario further and further from what exists on earth, making any analogy useless in supporting ID in the real world.
DeleteYou two are making an error that most the IDiots also make: They think that those who reject ID claim that it not possible to detect design in any circumstances at all. That is a straw man. What we are doing, rather, is pointing out that the Idiots have not demonstrated that living things have been designed."
DeleteSince the design argument is for inference not demonstration I think you are also creating a straw man by requiring demonstration.
"As Christ said: happy who believes without seeing."
DeleteYet you reject evolution because yo can't see it happening in front of you. Jesus hated hypocrites.
Actually that's not entirely fair: you reject evolution because it conflicts with your religious beliefs and your ideas of the position of humans in the grand scheme of the Universe.
Since the design argument is for inference not demonstration I think you are also creating a straw man by requiring demonstration.
DeleteOh, is that so? So you are telling me that, according to the IDiots, the the existence of the "designer" can only be "inferred"? And that all of their vaunted research has failed to demonstrate His existence? TBH, I'm not really certain about the validity of the distinction you are making (Does the fossil record "demonstrate" common ancestry, or merely "infer" it?) but if I am, in fact, misstating the ID Creationist position, that is not my fault, but that of the IDiots who insist on overstating their case.
"Oh, is that so? So you are telling me that, according to the Idiots, the the existence of the "designer" can only be "inferred"? "
DeleteYes that is the extent of the argument at this point. If they push beyond this then asking for a testable mechanism is fair game. If you want to work to the most accurate truthful answer, as I believe Larry does, then forcing a level playing field is the right tactic.
Since on the planet Q there is no one or nothing that could explain the origin of the structure, including self-assembly or progressive development from less complex structure (s) the Darwinists decide to bring the structure with them to Earth and study it.
DeleteWhen on Earth, Darwinists observe that the structure appears to be alive; it has all the properties that the living things have and yet, it still doesn't resemble any kind of life on Earth. What should they do? Should they call it life? Or Should they call it a design?
To their surprise, the structure is able to make copies of itself. What should they call it now? And what should they assume the origin of the structure to be now?
That last paragraph is redundant; in the previous para you said "it has all the properties that living things have," which *implies* automatically that it can reproduce. It shouldn't surprise scientists *at all* that something that has all the properties of life can do that.
Anyway...
If something has all the properties of life but doesn't resemble anything on Earth, you still call it life (Jim, but not as we know it [/McCoy]).
You certainly don't call something "designed" unless it bears the hallmarks of being not just designed by another entity, but *constructed* by artificial means: things including but not limited to refined or non-naturally-occurring materials and limited/specific functionality.
And considering they found the organism on planet Q, the scientists could be justified in assuming that planet Q - or somewhere nearby, if nothing like it is found on Q - is its origin. If there isn't enough information for the scientists to base an assumption on, they'd likely say "we don't know where this came from". Like any honest person. Again, if no hallmarks of design are found, invoking a designer would be premature and unjustified. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be there - after all, it could be the product of highly intelligent aliens - but until we can identify the hallmarks, we reserve judgement.
And even if we do, definitively, determine that the organism was designed, that still may not give us any clues as to the identity of the designer/s, much less their dietary preferences or opinions on consensual sexual behaviour.
It looks for all the world like you're engaging in a classic creationist tactic: asking innocuous-looking (to you) questions that are really transparent attempts to trip people up with semantics as you wait for your "A-ha!" moment. But I suggest you just make whatever point your game is meant to illustrate. Experience has taught me that creationists aren't nearly as clever with their hypotheticals or cross-examinations as they seem to think.
Oh, and your other creationist tell of using "Darwinist" as a soft-pejorative is grating. If you're trying to get people to respect your viewpoint, that's a guaranteed fail.
hank_says says: Experience has taught me that creationists aren't nearly as clever with their hypotheticals or cross-examinations as they seem to think.
DeleteI sense an understatement by design.
But, yes, from a scientific perspective to be sure and this is because in general they are a demographic with little scientific education and understanding. Members of the group know so little they cannot conceive of how little they know.
Yet, in their own circles these cross-examinations are thought to be clever, evidently. All the more so when they are obstensibly more sophisticated than the iconic: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys". Which in itself is a challenge that has, as surely history should record, utterly destroyed many an arrogant "evolutionist/Darwinist".
Since the design argument is for inference not demonstration
DeleteYou can say that again.
In other words, if you by predisposition you doubt the past 150 years of science confirming evolution, you infer design, and that is the extent of your argument.
@Bill Cole:
DeleteYes that is the extent of the argument at this point. If they push beyond this then asking for a testable mechanism is fair game. If you want to work to the most accurate truthful answer, as I believe Larry does, then forcing a level playing field is the right tactic.
Then can you explain why one of ID's most prominent advocates and representatives (though he has since moved on to other pursuits) ended a summary of what he considers to be ID research with this conclusion (my emphasis):
Collectively, this research rigorously demonstrates that intelligence, not unguided Darwinian mechanisms, is required to generate new information.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/no_id_research_101741.html
lutesuite
DeleteThis is an ID sales pitch...I agree. Until they have a testable mechanism I think demonstration is unlikely.
"Collectively, this research rigorously demonstrates that intelligence, not unguided Darwinian mechanisms, is required to generate new information."
The bigger problem they have is that life was not intelligently designed.
DeleteIt doesn't matter how elegant a "testable mechanism" one contrives to demonstrate that the earth is flat. If it isn't flat, it isn't flat.
"The bigger problem they have is that life was not intelligently designed"
DeleteBe careful of making polarizing statements that you cannot test. We can test the flatness of the earth but not the intelligence or lack of which was involved in life forming. We understand very little about the detailed workings of the cell at this point.
Bill Cole,
Delete"We can test the flatness of the earth but not the intelligence or lack of which was involved in life forming."
This is the problem with the entire ID/creationist movement. They have yet to produce a single testable hypothesis to demonstrate that ID has ever occurred. They have no scientifically valid evidence to support their ideas.
In any case, whether or not the origin of life was intelligently designed or not, evolutionary theory still stands.
We can test the flatness of the earth but not the intelligence or lack of which was involved in life forming.
DeleteOh. So the entire endeavour of trying to determine this is pointless.
We understand very little about the detailed workings of the cell at this point.
Speak for yourself.
Here's chart showing some of the bioochemical pathways of which we currently know, Bill Cole:
Deletehttp://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1
Does that look like "very little" to you?
One of the biggest problems with the Intelligent Design Creationist movement is their attempt to corral all creationist under the same big tent. This leads to a situation where Young Earth Creationists are afforded the same level of respect as those who accept common descent and an ancient Earth.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you have done enough reading. You claim that you have been debating creationists for over 20 years and you haven't learned a thing? I wonder why?
It means that dissent within the ID community is strongly suppressed in order to maintain the illusion that they all agree on the basics (i.e. goddidit). This leads to ridiculous situations where Young Earth Creationists defend Stephen Meyer's attack on the Cambrian explosion in Darwin's Doubt when they don't even believe that the Earth is 500 million years old!
Can you quote a few creationists who actually have proof that Cambrian expolsion was 500 million years ago?
there's no consistency in the arguments from ID proponents so it's almost impossible to have a serious discussion of the science behind their claims. I've criticized ID proponents for not applying critical thinking to their own movement. They almost never dispute each other's ideas for fear that it would weaken their movement.
If there was any kind of consistency in the Darwinian evolution department, maybe some serious scientists would have serious discussions, obviously if you and many like you didn't mock them first instead of having a civilized discussion.
That fear is justified, but what they fail to realize is that the movement doesn't deserve any respect at all if they don't apply the same standards to their own views that they demand of others.
Give me one real reason why you and your blog deserves respect. Never mind.
To their credit, a few members of the movement have started to change this long-standing attempt to silence dissent within the movement. I think they realize that the respect they crave will only come from kicking a few people out of the tent.
One of those people is Vincent Torley. He has posted an excellent discussion of Denton's structuralist views on Uncommon Descent: Denton vs. Moran on structuralism. I don't agree with everything Torley says but I congratulate him for his courage in thinking critically about Michael Denton's position
There are many, many ID proponents who are not necessarily creationists who openly criticize Denton's structuralism; myself being one of many of them. While Toryley is definitely a quite insightful fellow, he is not a hands on scientistin comparison to someone like D. Axe or M. Behe.
It will be interesting to see if the Intelligent Design Creationist movement can deal with critical thinking. I'm watching the comments on the blog post.
That's good. Too bad you resort to only few comments on your own...But then again...
There are many, many ID proponents who are not necessarily creationists....
DeleteFirst point: Bullshit. Unless by that you mean young earth creationists... but then isn't that always the way? It gets a little difficult for most people to deny all science in maintenance of literalism, doesn't it?
Second point: IDers of any stripe are necessarily creationists, whether you like that term or not. Otherwise, you are merely re-labelling natural processes as "intelligence".
Third point: the odds of finding an IDer who isn't, as chance would have it, also devoutly religious, largely depends on the extent to which IDers will lie about their motivations. It is no accident that every major figure in the ID movement is a devout christian.
Fourth point: the extent to which most IDers care about the scientific investigation of the origin of life (and this is the only investigation that matters after all, as faith is irrelevant) is just about nil. The interest in the topic is maintained only because it serves to maintain belief in a traditional god figure. There are a few, like Behe for example, who likely possess a keen interest in science, but he is an outlier and, in any case, like all the rest is motivated substantially by religious convictions.
I wonder how many IDists are in favour of public funding for scientific research into the natural origin of life?
DeleteWilliam Spearshake,
Delete"I wonder how many IDists are in favour of public funding for scientific research into the natural origin of life?"
It is. But don't tell me, let me guess: Sanders, right?
It is. But don't tell me, let me guess: Sanders, right?
DeleteOh brother, sometimes one can't do anything but sigh and wonder at the intellectual dysfunction in this world. This comment isn't for you txpiper... it would be wasted if it was.
Whether you think your invisible magical friend with cheat codes to the universe literally spoke and *wished* entire biospheres into existence 6000 years ago, or a bacterial flagellum 3 billion years ago, or just sort of caused individual specific mutations to happen gradually over the entire history of life, the fact is that all those positions are forms of creationism where god is invoked to deliberately create with his divine magic cheat-code powers, various physical objects. Those objects are just different and at different points in time. On option one, god creates the whole universe and everything in it in 6 days 6000 years ago. On option two, he created the whole universe 14 billion years ago, then later created the flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade. On option three, he creates individual DNA bases once in a while. All of them involves supernatural and divine acts of creation of physical material objects, in violation of the known laws of physics. Therefore they are all versions of supernatural religious CREATIONISM. They're all also absurd ideas, neither of them any more or less absurd than the other. They simply stretch out the act of creation over a longer epoch of time. Yet they all ultimately invoke divine creation as being responsible for :
Delete1. The universe.
2. The origin of life.
3. The diversity of life.
4. Human consciousness and intelligence.
William,
ReplyDeleteI am, provided that it doesn't turn into a fiasco without any experimental or scientific evidence as the previous "scientific research" had done.
I'm willing to put my own money, which I have done before, to prove your and others point. If you give me 1 (one) example of a scientific experiment that has given us a clue as to how life originated naturally, I pretty sure I can provide you with more than one company that will take you all the way if you have scientific evidence; all the way without any limits.
Can you do it?
BTW: I would give the project 1-2 years and if they don't have one piece of evidence just like Diogenes does, I would not waste my breath on scrapping the project.
Eric, fair enough. Are you willing to apply the same criteria to research into research into a "creator"? If we give you unlimited funds to conduct research into how the creator created life, and you can't find any evidence in two years, you drop that idea.
DeleteBtw, how is that ID research going? How many publications?
In contrast to science, creationist "research" has tonnes of laboratory demonstrations that divine instantaneous creation is not only possible, but definitely happened in the past. Right? What do you mean "no"?
DeleteAll creationists have a hypocritical double-standard with respect to evidence for the origin of life. They blindly and unquestioningly believe intensely that living organisms were wished into existence with divine magic on absolutely no evidence at all, yet at the same time scold scientists studying the origin of life for even bothering to do experiments and making bets on what the results of those experiments will be. Hypocrites.
Will,
DeleteResearch into Creator/ID?
Since you appear no more than a typical Darwinist who is ignorant and suppresses any kind of evidence that may spread doubt to his beliefs, I will not waste much time on you, unless obviously you show some real reasoning.
1. The Christian God/Creator gave us all some clues that he is/may be the One.
In the first chapter of the bible in the first verse it is said:
Gen 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Up until the last few decades the scientists claimed that that the universe had no beginning and have always existed. For centuries the bible was mocked by people like you. I don't have to tell you what it would be like today if science had not advanced and proved without reasonable doubt that the bible time and time again is scientifically accurate. (not in that matter alone)
Imagine what would happen if the Creator who claims to give instructions to the bible writers was dead wrong right in the first chapter and in the first verse. Would the bible be credible with such a huge mistake in the first sentence? How about over 1 billion people.
This tells me only one thing; whoever provided the information to the bible writers must have been not only way ahead of the contemporaties but also over 3500 years of contemporary science.
The Christian God of the bible must be the Creator!
I have many, many more examaples like that but I know you can't handle them. I should say; you don't want to.
Eric, do you really want to get into the inconsistencies within the bible? Within genesis?
DeleteYes, the bible said that there was a beginning. Point for you. When did god create light? It was before he created the sun. Oops. And the whales? Was that the fourth or fifth day? Give or take 3 billion years?
The only thing that the book of genesis got right was that the universe was created from nothing. But, as you IDists are fond of saying, even a broken clock is right twice per day. Unfortunately, you guys were right once in 4+ billion years.
No, Genesis doesn't say that the universe was created from nothing. It was created from chaos ("without form and void") and water ("the face of the deep"), and that was before the first day in which he created light. Then on the second day he separates the waters above from the waters below; note no mention of creating the waters in the first place. And so on.
DeleteWilliam Spearshake--
DeleteI believe that would be more than 13 billion years since the creation of the universe. Incidentally, the age of the earth, 4.5+ billion years, was discovered with uranium-lead dating in the 1950's and that date has now held firm for decades.
"When did god create light? It was before he created the sun."
DeleteThe whole EMS vs the luminary.
Up until the last few decades the scientists claimed that that the universe had no beginning and have always existed.
DeleteWhich it may have:
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
It's a good thing scientists keep investigating things, and don't just assume that bronze age goat herders had figured everything out, like you creationists do.
And what did the lions, tigers and alligators eat during Noah's cruise?
DeleteAnd how did Herod order the killing of all newborns to kill the son of god when Herod died before Jesus was born?
Eric,
DeleteSince you refuse to engage in an honest, rational manner, and have gone fairy-tale theology on us, let's dive right in:
"This tells me only one thing; whoever provided the information to the bible writers must have been not only way ahead of the contemporaties but also over 3500 years of contemporary science. "
Why didn't it tip us off to germ theory and antibiotics? And why did it intelligently design bacteria, viruses, protozoons, etc. to inflict the most horrifying diseases and misery on us and the rest of its creation in the first place?
Such a creature is sadistic and evil, or at least completely indifferent to the suffering of conscious life. If such a monster actually existed, I would not worship it.
@txpiper
Delete""When did god create light? It was before he created the sun."
The whole EMS vs the luminar"
But it doesn't say electromagnetic radiation in the bible, it says light. Because the people who wrote it had no goddamn idea what electromagnetic radiation is, or that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. So when they wrote it, they meant just light, as in visible light, without having a clue about what it really was. And now you're sitting here somewhere between 20 and 30 centuries later after-the-fact rationalizing the findings of science and trying to square them with your ancient myth, and it's patently obvious to any rational observer who isn't deeply emotionally and intellectually biased into the faith.
Eric says: I would give the project 1-2 years and if they don't have one piece of evidence just like Diogenes does
DeleteUh, what's your evidence for the contention that I "don't have one piece of evidence" for a natural origin of life? You were inviting to some debate or something in mid April, right? Seems like you've made up your mind before I started talking.
Eric, do you really want to get into the inconsistencies within the bible? Within genesis?
DeleteI do.
Yes, the bible said that there was a beginning. Point for you.
Will, you must be must be one of the humble ones. My brother thinks that Diogenes is fair and humble, but I can't comment on that for now.
When did god create light? It was before he created the sun. Oops. And the whales? Was that the fourth or fifth day? Give or take 3 billion years?
The context and the language suggest that "the heaves" may very well apply to the heavenly bodies or stars that had been created before the earth. Please notice that the earth was covered with water and there was darkness upon it, after the "the heavens had been created". This leads us to a logical conclusion that the earth wasn't receiving any light until further events.
The only thing that the book of genesis got right was that the universe was created from nothing.
I don't thing the Creator or the modern, reliable science would except the universe created "from nothing". I would bet it was created from something.
But, as you IDists are fond of saying, even a broken clock is right twice per day. Unfortunately, you guys were right once in 4+ billion years.
I'm personally very cautious and reluctant about my support about anything to do with ID. My twin brother is even more cautious. I just do not understand the structure on this movement therefore and I can't fully support it right now...
Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen,
Delete“But it doesn't say electromagnetic radiation in the bible, it says light. Because the people who wrote it…”
The idea concerning the EMS is a theory, and a reasonable one based on the Hebrew. It makes sense that natural law and order would precede the creation of entities requiring governance.
There are plenty of occasions in the Bible where the writers did not understand what they were writing about. Numerous details surrounding the crucifixion were recorded a thousand years before it occurred, but they had no meaning whatever when they were written. Daniel wrote about the time of the end, and when he asked about it, he was told “Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” There are reasons why Newton stayed on it for decades.
Yes yes I know, you're a religious lunatic and when the real world and your fable-book contradicts, you allow yourself no end to the ad-hoc rationalizations and reinterpretations you will engage in to square them. Again, it is patently obvious that this is what you are doing. You'd be able to see it clearly if you were witnessing it from a person of another religion. Religious people change the meanings of their holy texts all the time when they conflict with reality. Have fun with that.
DeleteNumerous details surrounding the crucifixion were recorded a thousand years before it occurred
DeleteAh yes, and such details as that the Messiah must be from the Davidic line, so that was originally traced through Joseph, but after it became Christian doctrine that Joseph was no longer the daddy, all was reinterpreted to run through Mary.
And then there's Luke, where Jesus says "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
So you're on the lookout for 2000-year-old disciples I presume?
The bible is not a text book. According to the most recent research, "'...when the bible makes statements, they are scientifically accurate." If evolutionists make a prediction, it will always fail with the bible predictions.
DeleteMikkel,
Delete“Yes yes I know, you're a religious lunatic and when the real world and your fable-book contradicts, you allow yourself no end to the ad-hoc rationalizations and reinterpretations…”
Oh, I don’t know about all that Mikkel. Not to doubt your evaluative skills, but I’m supposing that Isaac Newton and lots of other people are probably a lot brighter than you. If nothing else, they didn’t deliberately adopt a religion that would tell them that they are no more significant than a termite.
Do you recall just when the space particles deal began to seem normal?
===
Judmarc,
“Ah yes, and such details as that the Messiah must be from the Davidic line, so that was originally traced through Joseph, but after it became Christian doctrine that Joseph was no longer the daddy, all was reinterpreted to run through Mary.”
There are all kinds of problems with this tack. For starters, it doesn’t make any sense. Matthew and Luke both mentions the virgin birth.
-
“And then there's Luke, where Jesus says "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” “
There are very similar verses in Matthew and Mark. He could have easily been referring to the dispensation which would begin a few weeks after the crucifixion. But if He was referring to the Second Advent, John definitely saw that, and wrote about it in the Revelation.
Eric: "when the bible makes statements, they are scientifically accurate."
DeleteThe Bible STATES that when Herod heard of Jesus' birth, he ordered the killing of all infants younger than two. He must have done this posthumously because he died in 4 BC.
@txpiper
Delete"Oh, I don’t know about all that Mikkel. Not to doubt your evaluative skills, but I’m supposing that Isaac Newton and lots of other people are probably a lot brighter than you."
Yes, Isaac newton was a true genious AND a religiouos lunatic, he was right about some things and wrong about others. He did amazing work in mathematics, optics and celestial mechanics. He did lunatic work on alchemy and his lunatic theory about religion doesn't detract from his scientific work, he did a fine job of compartmentalization.
You however is just a religious lunati.
"If nothing else, they didn’t deliberately adopt a religion that would tell them that they are no more significant than a termite. "
Neither did I. Evolution is not a religion, atheism does not make pronoucement on human or animal significance. Everything you say is exceedingly wrong and misguided.
I didn't deliberately adopt any views, I was persuaded by evidence. Persuaded OUT OF religion. You were probably raised to be religious, as I was. I just realized that all the evidence was against it. You can too, just open your eyes.
"There are plenty of occasions in the Bible where the writers did not understand what they were writing about."
Oh, like when Jacob is producing spotted and striped farm animals by breeding them next to dotted and striped sticks put into the ground? How does that work again? Were they sticks of highly radioactive plutonium? Did they mine and enrich Uranium in the bronze-age? This is obviously just lunatic superstition borne out of bronze-age ignorance about how inheritance works and the biochemical processes responsible for producing fur coloration patterns in livestock. Your religion is just anoter ancient myth.
Come now, do it, bring me MORE of your ad-hoc rationalizations and excuses for why Jacob thinks mating his animals next to his sticks will cause them to have dots and stripes.
DeleteIt is so patently, laughably obvious that it is just ancient ignorance and superstition. He thinks his sticks are magic and are somehow creating stripes in his livetock. It's silly and any rational person can see it. But not you, you're neck-deep in superstition and blind faith.
txpiper -
DeleteYou know that thing you wrote about Newton, how he was really smart? Much smarter Biblical scholars than you and I have found problems with the passages you breezed by above.
Then of course there are the two absolutely fundamental problems:
- The Messiah was supposed to bring God's kingdom on Earth, period. But Jesus comes and goes and Rome's still here, so he doesn't fulfill the central requirement for the Messiah. Quick, let's look in the scriptures and find evidence for a Second Coming!
- Jesus and the disciples are Jews, adhering to the First Commandment (there's a reason it's first, right?). When he is dying and cries out to God, to say he's complaining to himself is nonsense. (Hey me, hey me, why have I forsaken myself? - come on.) Early "Christians" consider themselves a Jewish sect, the "Nazarenes." Then Paul the great popularizer to the heathens comes along and says none of that Jewish stuff is necessary, it's all about Jesus being God. But that plainly violates the First Commandment, right? Why no, we've got this Trinity stuff, a single tripartite divinity, whatever that means. So thus Jesus goes from flaming out as the Messiah (until dying on the cross is turned into a triumph) all the way to being God.
Just details, though, to believers.
Well, testing the biblical myth of the goats next to sticks can easily be done. Next time you're visiting a petting zoo Tx, stick some sticks into the ground next to mating goats. Snap a few pics on your smart phone and wait a few months for the baby goats. Compare stick pattern to goat pattern...
DeleteNot sure if this has come up yet, or if it is an accurate quote (got it from antievolution.org) but our intelligent friend appears to have that tried-and-true one-way skepticism:
ReplyDeletevjtorleyMarch 2, 2016 at 8:02 am
Hi kairosfocus,
For my part, I would like to say that I have no trouble believing your story of the levitation that you and 50 other people witnessed. I also have no trouble believing in demonic intelligences. This should be obvious to any thinking person, even arguing on purely secular grounds. After all, there’s a good chance that if intelligent beings like ourselves exist, then other intelligent beings do, too. Some of them would be far ahead of us, mentally speaking, so invisibility would not be a problem for them. The same goes for levitation. Some of these beings would be good and some would be evil, or demonic. The commenters who pronounced your story incredible need to open their minds.
Yes that is an accurate quote. It is in response to Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus) claim that he witnessed human levitation that was the result of demonic possession. A couple people have expressed skepticism about his claim and, true to form, Gordon accuses them of hyper-skepticism.
ReplyDeleteThat UD threat is worth its weight in gold from an entertainment perspective. I fully expect Gordon to next claim that he has witnessed a 90 foot marshmallow man step on a church in New York City.
Yes. Torley has a proud history of being "open minded" on the issue of human levitation. But when it comes to things like whales evolving from land mammals over the course of millions of years well, gee, that's just too improbable to believe!
DeleteAbsolutely incredible. I am forever amazed at the blatant double standards (in terms of evidence and skepticism) that these people have. A hundred transitional fossils and it is "not enough", one kook claiming to have seen something that lends itself to propping up one's religion and it is "Wow! I'm on board! I believe you!"
DeleteCreationism is rearing its head in Poland. A pseudoscientific book entitled Evolution, devolution, science, self-published by Maciej Giertych, a notorious YEC with academic credentials, is being distributed to schools in Poland. Scientists are welcome to protest using an online form. Sorry, it's in Polish, but the data to be entered are (1) the signatory's academic degree/position, (2) first and second names, and (3) affiliation. A tick in the "Tak" box means that you want your signature to be shown on the petition to the Polish Minister of Education.
DeletePetition
I have to retract my statement about Torley being intelligent, if he's going to swallow Kairosfocus' clearly psychopathic spook and magic stories.
DeleteLet me rephrase: Torley is intelligent... for an Intelligent Design proponent. Meaning he can multiply and divide numbers. That's all.
Piotr: Is Maciej Giertych the guy who showed up in "Expelled"?
DeleteYes, the very same. The book he's trying to peddle in Polish secondary schools is a Harun-Yahya-style rehash of the stuff presented by several creationist celebrities at the infamous 2006 "conference" at the European Parliament. The trouble is that we can't trust our present right-wing government to do anything about it.
DeleteIn "Expelled" Giertych explains to a stunned Ben Stein that Poland is the Land of Freedumb where everybody is free to question Darwinism, unlike America, that dark land of Darwinian tyranny where all those who ask too many questions are thrown into the oubliette. Perhaps our fundies should emigrate to this fair land of freedumb in the East?
DeleteDiogenes -- what a cruel thought for Poland! Hmmm. Or maybe they're so busy creating their own that they wouldn't notice the influx of American creationists. Sigh.
DeleteHere's some more delusional Torley.
ReplyDelete"The existence of God is as certain as the fact that our scientific inferences are well-grounded, since it is God Himself Who grounds them. My certainty about God’s existence is roughly on a par with my certainty that an apple thrown up in the air will fall back to Earth in a lawlike fashion, and not fly off into space or zoom around the room." [Cited at Debunking Christianity]
I think he's invoking presuppositionalism, the most infantile kind of epistemology.
When Torley says, ""The existence of God is as certain as the fact that our scientific inferences are well-grounded, since it is God Himself Who grounds them," like all presups, he's invoking circular logic combined with God of the Gaps. He must *assume* scientific inferences (his example is a deduction, not an inference) are "grounded in God", then he uses his assumption of his desired conclusion as evidence for his desired conclusion being true, i.e. God exists.
If you ask him why he makes this assumption, the presup will mumble something about "all other conceivable worldviews" being unable to "account for" scientific inferences, which is an obvious invocation of God of the Gaps, combined with the theist's assumption that he has God-like omniscience and has knowledge of all deductions from all conceivable worldviews.
VJT: " My certainty about God’s existence is roughly on a par with my certainty that an apple thrown up in the air will fall back to Earth in a lawlike fashion, and not fly off into space or zoom around the room."
DeleteYet he has no problem with flying priests and levitating demon possessed Monseratians defying the same laws.
Well, he does say nothing about whether a priest thrown into the air would fall back to earth.
DeleteIn the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: What a maroon!
Ultra.
DeleteMeanwhile, Algorithm Eh (obviously a Canadian) is taking Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus) to school.
DeleteWhy do I get the feeling that if Gordon was in Jonestown he would have the KoolAid concession?
Good Will Spearshake: "Yet he has no problem with flying priests and levitating demon possessed Monseratians defying the same laws."
DeleteAh ha ha ha. Classic.