Things have been a little quiet around here lately... a little too quiet. The deluge of creationist objections to my posts seem to have abated for the moment, but I did notice a new blog here on ProgressiveU today about Intelligent Design. I attempted to comment, but for whatever reason it did not go through so I thought I would dissect it here, being this is a public forum after all. The post entitled "Intelligent Design is Leading Edge Science" by Homunculus is posted below, with my comments dispered throughout, but I would reccomend looking at the original article and give the poster some reads as well (it's only fair right?) Anyway, here we go again...
"It is hard to understand how individuals who fancy themselves progressives are so closed minded to seeing the truth about Darwinian evolution."
Oh deary me, I appear to be non-progressive. It'll be interesting to finally hear the truth about evolution everyone's been talking about.
"Yes, it began several centuries ago as a theory that seemed reasonable. Man's scientific technology at that time was little better than stone age."
The idea of evolution can be traced as far back as some Greek thinkers like Artistotle, but Darwin's theory of natural selection was not proposed until On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Stuggle for Life was published in 1859 (only about 150 years ago). Granted, we have advanced much in the past 150 years but I wouldn't say we were just barely beyond the discovery of fire either.
"But in the 21st century we know better. Today we have really good microscopes, telescopes that view the cosmos from space and computers that can do calculations impossible by the old methods. The reality, no matter how much it galls secularist, is that Darwinian evolution (and the "neo" form for nit-pickers) is flat-earth science; or maybe the example of the homunculus is better."
Just to clarify, the new evolutionary synthesis (often called Neo-Darwinism) was an attempt to merge Mendel's discoveries about genetics, Darwin's theory of natural selection, the role of random mutation, and mathematical population genetics. This new synthesis was in the making between the time Darwin published and the 1940's, and we have come a long way since that time. More than dogma, it was an attempt to integrate interrelated fields like anatomy, population studies, genetics, etc. to get a fuller picture of evolution. Even so, there are parts of agreement and disagreement, but it would be foolish to lump all scientists together under the name neo-Darwinists as this is misleading unless you provide the proper background on the evolutionary synthesis.
"The homunculus was considered to be the proper explanation of how sexual reproduction in humans worked; there was a "little man" inside the sperm. At fertilization, the little man entered the sanctity of the female egg, grew into a baby and was born into the world. Leading edge scientists believed this many moons ago. But obviously science has proven otherwise. Science is full of countless other firmly believed theories now on the ash heap of history."
There have been various forms and interpretations of homunculi over time, including a golem-like creature thought up by an alcehmist or sensory/motor homunculi. The one you're referring to here was conjoured up in 1654 by Nicolas Hartsoeker and has long since been rejected. If anything this shows us that science should NOT invoke the supernatural when we don't understand something and it applies more to the pseudoscience of ID than to evolution.
"So why is Darwinism so hard to shake? Because it is not just about science; it is because it carries with it metaphysical ramifications that stir the cultural pot; theism versus atheism. And in today's world, once you start down the road of "religion", politics is not far behind. So unlike the days of decorum, when polite company did not discuss religion or politics, discussions on evolution inevitably lead to a culture war food fight."
This is a pretty muddled statement, but once again, evolution does not make any demand of atheism. You can be a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever you like and still agree with evolution. Evolution is a natural explanation that does not require one prior belief or another. If it didn't have anything to do with mankind, it would be a non-issue, but man has always been trying to elevate himself about the rest of life on the planet and believe he is a special creation. I do not have a problem with calling such a belief philosophy, but it is not science.
"Darwinism has more problems than it has proofs."
Ok, I'll bite. What are some of the many problems? What are the proofs? Why are the inconsistent? This is a blind statement with nothing to back it up unless you provide some examples.
"Just read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells."
I have, and I'm still apologizing to my brain for it. The book is one of the worst polemics against science I've ever seen, with Wells essentially claiming that all evolutionary scientists are stuck in the late 1800's. Also, it's important to keep in mind Wells has stated that he decided to make destroying evolution his life's work because of the crazy church he goes to; The Unification Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_church) Just a preview of the craziness that goes on there from their leader Sun Myung Moon->
"In early July I spoke in five cities around Korea at rallies held by the Women's Federation for World Peace. There, I declared that my wife, WFWP President Hak Ja Han Moon, and I are the True Parents of all humanity. I declared that we are the Savior, the Lord of the Second Advent, the Messiah." -- Reverend Moon, Unification News
Yes, that's the same Rev. Moon that raised money to send Wells to get his PhD with the specific aim of using the three letters after his name to give him credibility and attempt to "destroy evolution."
"Regardless of the bile and vitriol spouted by those gored by Well's proofs of Darwinian hoaxes, his book is untouched by relevant criticism. In other words, it is true, and has been acknowledged as such even by terrorist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins."
Wells has been thoroughly discredited again and again. I would suggest checking out the latest dissection of Wells' new piece of garbage at The Panda's Thumb (www.pandasthumb.org)
"Ultimately the point is this: Darwinism is bad science, full of errors. These problems are called "gaps" by evolutionary apologists."
What are the errors? Also, I assume you're talking about the fossil record here. Well, guess what? 99% of anything that ever lived has gone extinct, and we're lucky to have fossils as it is. We will never have a 100% complete fossil record of every creature that ever lived, but we work with what we've got and DESPITE the gaps we can still make connections and see evolution occurring. Perhaps the best contemporary example is the evolution of tetrapods, as in the last 20 years scientists have filled many gaps (and are continuing to do so as we speak!)
"But for open-minded scientists without a metaphysical axe to grind,"
Hahaha, that's too funny. ID advocates don't have a metaphysical axe to grind? Just read the Wedge Document put out by the Discovery Institute. It's full of statement about destorying materialism in order to change the philosophy of America (and then, the world).
"the problems with Darwinism are proofs of its failure. If the "Theory of Evolution" were new science today, it would never get past the metal detectors at the peer review board, so great are its errors. Again, Darwinism survives today because it is the last platform for naturalism and ultimately atheism."
Once again, you offer no proof and this is blind assertion. Science is always up to resteting and verification. We're not obligated to keep anything that doesn't work, and guess what? As we get more information the ground for evolutionary change keeps getting firmer. It's not going anywhere.
"Meanwhile, two years ago the worlds most influential atheist, Antony Flew, renounced his 50 plus years of atheist beliefs in favor of...Intelligent Design! Flew's rationale is the same as that of all open-minded people (true progressives)."
Who are you to define who is or isn't progressive? Is it possible to have an open mind and (gasp) disagree about things? Also, I have not previously heard about Antony Flew, but he now seems to be a deist more than anything else, doubting supernatural intervention. How is this compatible with intelligent design? I shall look into this further, but just because Antony Flew changed his mind about the existence of God doesn't mean ID is any better off.
"Flew follows Aristotle in "going where the evidence leads". Flew changed the forward of his seminal work God and Philosophy last year, explaining that Intelligent Design scientific analysis had demonstrated the necessity of an intelligent designer that he described as "god". He states in the forward that God and Philosophy must now be viewed from an historical perspective, given atheism's demise and the necessity of a Creator.
Those blinded by their paradigms of naturalism will not see the empirically clean work of the scientists working in the field of Intelligent Design."
Um, they haven't done any emprically clean work and they refuse to tell scientists if there is any. It's emprically dirty because it's basing its findings on a God of the Gaps philosophy, expecting to find complex structures and then not explain them.
"Intelligent Design is about identifying design in nature that cannot possibly be a product of neo-Darwinian mechanisms and theory."
Nature made such designs, and scientists are trying to explain how through natural means. I have yet to see any ID argument that does not refer back to something we KNOW is designed (like Mt. Rushmore, a car, a motorcycle, etc) as an example. It's a philosophical assertion with an intended philosophical end; just because they throw some big words around doesn't mean there's real science to back it up.
"In the real world, such design only comes from an intelligent source. Flew calls the designer "god". ID scientists call it "designed by an intelligent source". Paradigm-bound political zealots shout "creationists", then cover the proven hoaxes of evolution shamelessly (see Icons of Evolution)."
You're right that ID doesn't name a designer, and that's one of its biggest weaknesses. Could it be aliens? God? Scientists in the future with a time machine? Your mother? Nobody in the ID camp knows, all they can say is that intelligence is involved at some point (we can't say at which point). It's also ironic that the major ID advocates are all Christians or Jews of one denomination or another and that creationists have co-opted ID arguments. ID is useless as it says that we are designed, so we should feel better about ourselves, but without a paradigm of religion to pair ID with it's utterly useless.
"Open minds will allow ID to have its say and let it stand or fall of the veracity of its science, instead of being shouted down by ideologues."
Like I said, I philosophically have no problem with ID and I read every new thing they come out with, but I'm still not convinced. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean accepting every ill-formed criticism someone comes up with because of their worldview.
"If the science is good (as it has been to this point), people will follow where the truth leads. If it is problematic, those will be exposed. If it is false, it will be rejected."
It's already been thoroughly rejected by biologists, genetecists, paleontologists, geologists, mathematicians, etc. I would encourage ID researchers to try and come up with some REAL data if they think they're right, but ID is by no means on equal footing with any real science.
"Of course, evolution must be held to the same high standard; to date evolution gets a pass on empiricism. Progressive minds should always want to know, never to cover simply for the case of ideology. I recommend everyone to follow the long-established principle of genius and insight: learn the facts and change your straight-jacket paradigm to line up with them. That is progressive and that is reality."
And I would reccomend that you research both sides of the argument rather than just go along with Wells or Behe or Dembski or anyone else because the idea appeals to you. Until you can read something by the other side of the argument and say why it's wrong, then what good is your opinion? You are certainly entitled to it and I urge people to speak out about what they're passionate about, but it doesn't seem like you've done your homework on this debate and just made some assertions based upon prior assumptions from your worldview. In any case, the debate will continue I'm sure, but just because I don't accept the condescending paternalism of ID as science doesn't mean I'm not "progressive" either.
Nice dissection the arguments here. I especially liked your reasons why, since ID doesn't name a designer, it's a pretty useless philosophy.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Thanks for the encouragement, as always. What I've said really isn't anything new (actually I'm tired of typing the same things over and over) but I felt it needed to be done. Thank you once again :)
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
I'm new here. Can we start at the beginning? What ontological view do you take of the universe? Are you a materialist (or physicalist), an idealist, or a dualist? This would help since if we have different views of what actually exists and we can't come to agreement on that, then any further agreement on any other topic of import is impossible. Thanks very much.
p.s. Also what would you say is the ultimate arbiter of what is true of and in the universe? I say reason and empirical evidence. Thanks.
I'm a former "evolutionist", chemistry minor with a full year of graduate level biochemistry. I changed my mind (like many real scientists; I'm not one although I did some of the study) when Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box. I'm really busy right now but I will be glad to reply when I get a chance. Apparently the paradigms of ideology are so overpowering that their delusions can't be seen.
Science shouldn't take such enormous effort to persuade. Either the facts are there or they aren't. I don't have the time to tell you how wrong you are on the fossil record, or Dembski's truly genius original work in specified complexity. There is an enormous body of work on ID out there, NEVER claiming to have a unified theory but absolutely having foundations for powerful hypotheses. Your posts are simple recitations of the talking points of Panda's Thumb and other ideologically based publications.
Gotta go for now but I'll be back.
Way to be snide in your reply there. It doesn't really matter very much to me wether you have a GED or a PhD; credentials don't make the man. Since you shared, I should as well; I'm an ecology and evolution major, hopefully to head off to grad school shortly after graduating in another year and I've been following this debate closely for some time, snapping up every bit of ID, creaitionist, and evolution literature that I have time to. You say you were a former "evolutionist" but that doesn't mean you had the right idea of what evolution is or how it works; just that you agreed with the idea for some amount of time (unless you've had some interest in reading Darwin, Gould, Mayer, Goldschmidt, etc. in your free time and haven't mentioned it).
"Science shouldn't take such enormous effort to persuade." Hmm, from what I see various scientists are asking questions and doing their work to find out how the natural world works, where as ID advocates are doing everything they can to bypass peer-review and get ID into schools, attempting to persuade lots of people with popular books that are philosophy masquerading as science. I agree with you that the facts are there or they aren't, and as for ID, they just aren't there. All that exists is the zeitgeist that can't even be named. You don't have time to tell me how wrong I am huh? Funny, I take plenty of times to constructively argue and criticize ID claims all the time on my blog, spending hours on posts to correct bogus and baseless assertions when I would much rather be doing something else. If I'm really wrong about the fossil record, please, illuminate me. You said you've studied biochemistry; how that relates to paleontology and what authority you have in that area, I have no idea, so if I'm soooo out of line it would behoove you to tell me why, otherwise all you've got is a baseless claim. As for Dembski, I've read his work and seen nothing compelling whatsoever, nor have many other people. His thesis may have been peer-reviewed, but by the philosophy department (not mathematics or any science department). The idea that since we can tell a book was written by a person, therefore we can infer design in natural processes is a philosophical argument and relies heavily on prior assumptions and worldviews- there is nothing scientific about it. Further, how can you calculate the probability of something if you don't have all the data? You can't calculate the probability of something happening or not happening (like the origin of life) if you don't count in all the variables, especially when we don't have a complete picture of what the world was like during its beginnings. You can call it genius, but I just see it as a lot of posturing.
"There is an enormous body of work on ID out there." Where? I'd love to see it. There are scientists who may be ID advocates that have published papers, but none have been peer-reviewed scientific papers explaining ID. No, instead the Discovery Institute keeps spewing out popular books to avoid the peer-review process. Have you ever even read the Wedge Document? It doesn't say the Institute's goal is to accurately report science, but instead do away with what it sees as destructive materialism by innoculating the public with bad theology. There's this constant claim that there's all this secret ID work out there other scientists aren't allowed to know about; is that the way to do research or studies? Where is this enormous wealth of knowledge you speak of?
Hmm, my posts are just recitations of other people's work huh? And "ideologically based publications" is a bit vague, so unless you give me an example I really don't know what you're talking about. I've read the books, blogs, articles, etc. from all the different sides of this debate and come to my own conclusions; I just happen to ally with evolutionary scientists because I think they are correct. If it seems like I'm parroting assertions of others, it's merely because the failings of ID are so painfully obvious that they are easy to pick out. You've done nothing to back up your claims I don't appreciate the insinuations that I'm just some poor brainwashed soul, blind to the wimpy theology and bad science that is Intelligent Design. Anyway, I hope you do post again and somehow find the time to tell me where I'm wrong about the fossil record and everything else you mentioned, otherwise you haven't got a leg to stand on.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
And I have a 5:30 AM meeting in the morning. Since you're an avid reader and have interest in the subject, I'll give you plenty to dissect.
Try these:
http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/8/31/234056/414
http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/9/4/182535/5829
http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/12/20/234438/38
http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/12/22/122057/61
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/22/03445/0668
Be sure to read the respsonse; there are genuine scientists and intellects arguing both sides of this issue. Ultimately it comes down to bile and vitriol.
Darwinism is the pipe dream. ID is NEW SCIENCE in it's infancy. You are long on belicosity and short on substance. I'm sure reading the above will not change your mind, but it will provide a far greater education on Darwin and ID than you currently possess.
It is also bracing reading for the most part, although some of it gets a little ethereal, as academic posing sometimes disintegrates into.
I gotta go to bed. I'm not interested in repeating myself twice, so read carefully for comprehension, take notes and then ask me something I've not already knocked out of the park in 600+ posts on Red State.
later
Thank you for the links, I shall look at them promptly. I am sorry about your mother, and I was not demanding a response "right this instant." I never said that there were not scientists who supporrted ID, but rather that they have failed to actually do any actual science. I also, again, don't appreciate the snide "I'm more wise than you" tone you take in here. The only thing you have said so far is "I'm right, you're brainwashed," but hopefully the links shall be better. If there's anything worth replying to, then I shall in a new posting. Otherwise, thank you for the links, I am sorry you are so busy, but should you find the time and have the desire to do so I'd like to see a clarificaiton (with substance) of what you've accused me of.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
is replying in the tenor that I am addressed. Grace doesn't come naturally to me. Sorry. I'm an old coot, probably older than your dad. I also teach part-time and am used to holding uppity upstarts in check. Let's agree to be civil and "follow where the evidence leads". That's what I've been doing since I first became interested in ID shortly after Behe wrote Black Box. So far, the stonewalling and name calling, the character assassination and intellectual terrorism are clearly on the evolution side. I realize the evolution side has its own claims that ID isn't science, but that is a straw argument; just talking points for Joe and Betty Sixpack.
A closed mind is not the evidence of a progressive. Rather than taking on this issue as a culture war battle, it should be addressed as a scientific endeavor. To say that guys like Behe and Dembski (as well as David Berlinski, Nancy Pearcy, Edward Sisson, James Barham, Cornelius Hunter, Roland Hirsch, to name a few) are not "high scientists" and scholars of the first rank is either ignorant or stupid. It is not possible for us to dismiss their insights, even as we cannot dismiss the insights of guys like Dawkins. We can analyze what they offer and consider where the truth resides. But dismissal falls on the side of stupidity rather than ignorance.
Those the have been proponents of ID historically include Einstein, Hubble, Jastrow, Francis Crick, and many other genius intellects of the 20th century. I side with them. One other point. To say the evolution doesn't postulate atheism is mistaken. Just ask Dawkins.
All of this you will find in my posts on Red State. There is enormous information in the debate on each post. Be sure to read the attachments. You will learn much; I did.
Don't hesitate to ask questions or make comments along the way. I'm a busy business guy, family man, and civic-minded volunteer. My Red State posts demonstrate my interest in the topic and the time I've devoted. But I have to catch as catch can.
Let me hear from you.
David
Actually, atheism and evolution are not inherently the same thing. Enthusiasts, like Dawkins make it so, for themselves personally, but to use that science to push atheism on others is what's wrong--not the science itself. Professor Howard J. Van Till said promoting atheism as a part of evolution as the "misemployment of science in a religious agenda." ID and other creationist philosophies are just that--philosophies. Evolution, the idea that life has changed over time, is supported by science; mostly people just quibble over how. Science should not be the same as atheism, and anyone who makes it so has a problem just as big as those who say philosophies, like looking for a creator, is a science. It all depends on how you interpret the science. The science is there whether we like it or not, naturalistic atheism and ID are just two different interpretations of that. That doesn't mean the science inherently supports either philosophy. There are plenty of evolutionsts who are believers, and plenty of informed laypersons who support evolution and are believers.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Thank you, once again, for being the "voice of reason" on my threads. :)
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
...Intelligent Design. Naturalism is the underpinnings of all evolutionary study. Naturalism is a popular term for what evolutionists call methodological materialism (mm). Only matter, energy and their interaction can be considered, instead of putting no limits on empirical observation; or as Bill Dembski puts it, let nature speak for itself.
MM has no place for God. Stephen Hawking, an atheist, is convinced his elusive "theory of everything" (melding quantum theory with general relativity) will undo the necessity of a creator that Einstein's general relativity unveiled. He has not been successful, and the consensus is he will fail.
The primary proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution (the gold standard) are atheists. They point out rightly that if naturalism is true, there is nothing for God to do. MM leaves no place for God.
Geek continues to harp on a straw argument that ID is philosophy and evolution is science. That is poppycock. MM is a philosophical construct. It is by definition atheistic. On the other side of the coin, if you are a theist and an evolutionist you are by definition a contradiction in terms; a creationist/evolutionist. That dog don't hunt.
There is no non-atheistic theory of evolution. Darwin, who wasn't an atheist, acknowledged that if his theory was true that it would be a death knell for religion. Even though evolution is pretty-well debunked, western Europe has gone predominantly atheistic due in large part to the teachings of naturalism/evolution.
This issue, including sources from Bill Dembski and others, is found on my Red State diaries listed above.
ID starts from the premise that a Creator is out there, and seeks to prove how science shows that Creator exists. The existance of a Creator is a philosophical viewpoint. Evolution, without all the trimmings atheists like Dawkins add, is the idea that life has changed over time. (How is the part people quibble about.) That's science. No philosophy attached.
I am not a biologist, so I'm not concerned with the technicalities of the science; what does interest me is the philosophical arguments. However, under your arguments, people like me, and evolutiongeek, can't exist, because we both support evolution and our faith in God. Alvin Plantinga, vehement anti-evolutionist, broke down the theory of evolution into five main points, or theses. Four of these concern the science involved, the fifth is what you seem to be refering to: the Naturalistic Origins thesis, the idea that evolution occured without God being involved.
If you don't want to accept evolution because you think it leaves no place for God, that's your opinion, and while I don't agree I can't fault you for it--but saying the ideas of evolution and God are incompatable because of a few outspoken, out of line atheists is what's poppycock.
The non-atheistic theory of evolution is the one I, and the great thinkers whose ideas I agree with, like Ivan Zabilka and Van Till, all agree on. Science does not cancel out God unless you say it does.
If evolution destroys people's faith in God, then their faith isn't very strong, or, once again, people are preaching atheism instead of teaching science. My favorite biology teacher is both a Christian and an evolutionist. The two points of view are not incompatable. Perhaps for some people--and that's fine. But don't tell the rest of us faith and science are incompatable when they're not.
I also don't see how evolution is pretty well debunked when it has continuously stood up under examination. It is ID, rather, that in court cases and the science classroom is continuously being turned down. You can't make people believe in a Creator, but you can give people the facts of science and leave how to interpret those facts up to them.
Edit: One last thought. Mark Ridley put it really well, however, in his book How To Read Darwin. He said Darwin argues against separate creation, not the existence of God. And this is where religious evolutionists like Zabilka come in--saying God created us through evolution, and other such arguments. Just because all life is related doesn't cancel out God. In fact, if you read my posts on the subject, I explain fully why in fact its such a beautiful idea.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
"ID starts from the premise that a Creator is out there, and seeks to prove how science shows that Creator exists."
This is the very important difference between Creationism and ID which darwinists fail to recognise. The above statement is true of Creationism, it is not true of ID. ID starts with empirical evidence, and based on that, concludes there is a designer. Darwinism, on the other hand, start with the premise that the natural world has a natural origin, and stick with it no matter how much evidence there is pointing the other way.
Now, darwinists may claim that its all just religion, hidden agendas and malreported facts. Such arguements might convince the uninformed person that Darwinism is still rock solid, but for someone who exposed themselves to an unbiased investigation of ID, these type of arguements only serves to proof the weakness of the Darwinist case.
PS. You'll notice that I'm talking about "Darwinism", not "evolution". I agree 100% with you that evolution is a empirically observed fact. However, this is "micro-evolution". Darwinism takes the observed ant hole of observable evolution, and turns it into the mountain of an origins theory, which is unsupported by empirical evidence. Evolution can only change that which already exists, it can not create anything new and beneficial. It can make you larger or smaller, give you 12 fingers, and things like that. But I have yet to see conclusive evidence that evolution can turn a primordial soup into life, or a virus onto a bacteria or turn a reptile into a mammal. It's all just thought experiments, and the fossil record is, at best, unconclusive.
is saying that the fossil record is at best unconclusive. Grammatically "inconclusive" would work better, but I don't agree with that statement either.
The fossil record as of 12/04/2006 is:
1. There are ZERO "Darwinian" intermediates, i.e. fossils of transitional species that lead from one species to the next, for example, the intermediate from which allegedly branched monkeys and men. The story of Archaeopteryx is just that, a story. It was really not a transition from reptile to bird, just a bird that went extinct. Java Man and all the other "intermediate" men are either homo sapiens or monkeys (oh, yeah, I forgot; Java Man was a pig!).
2. The Cambrian explosion record as well as recent (2005) new fossil finds demonstrate no transitionals, with plenty of fossil record pre-dating the Cambrian period, with only more primitive, pond-scum, bacteria and worms as "transitionals" to hefty, somewhat intelligent critters. Nothing that even vaguely resembles macro-evolutionary theory.
3. I do agree with your phrase "thought experiments". Darwinism / neo-Darwinism / macro-evolution is nothing but a thought experiment, with nothing to empirically see in the first place. Bill Dembski and others refer to it as a "just-so" story. The ball is in the Darwinists court to prove otherwise, because if you read their stuff, it's all just conjecture, taking easy to validate micro-evolution and trying to long-jump the Grand Canyon to the hoax of non-existent and biologically impossible macro-evolution.
Excellent post, Han! Unfortunately, the true believers have run "once more out of the breach". They're obviously reading, but have been embarrassed by the facts that Darwinism is flat-earth theory, and their shoddy, Kool-Aide cover stories.
PS: Great comment on the nonsense about ID starting with the premise of a Creator. ID's most notable work has been in unveiling the hoax of Darwinism. But in it's original scientific work, there is no premise of anything except empirical observation. ID says that certain biological structures "look designed". That's all they say. Dembski has run the math with his brilliant "specified complexity" work. Without trying to explain math that is beyond all but high-end PhD's, Dembski can demonstrate that Darwinian theory cannot account for the enormous complexity of even the simplest life forms or even the basic pre-cursors of life forms. At this time, the scientific answer is, "it looks designed by an intelligence", like computer software is obviously designed by an intelligence, or an outboard motor. The ID guys acknowledged that there might be some science we don't understand to account for what they are seeing, but they KNOW 2 things:
1. many biological structures look intelligently designed
2. they could not have been developed via "macro-evolution"
They make no claims about a Creator or Intelligent Designer, ever. Leave it to the Darwin Youth to fabricate another mistruth.
Good point, Han.
Evolution is supposed to be the study of life changing over time, whether you talk about micro or macro, yes? Darwin started with the premise that life existed, and sought to show how and why changes took place over time. Darwin was trying to account for the diversity and similarities of life. He never said, "Evolution is the atheist answer to how we got here," and those that preach evolution as such, like Dawkins, are sadly mistaken. If that's their personal opinion, fine, but evoluiton does not start from a naturalistic origins premise unless you are using it as a philosophy instead of a science. The only people who say the "primordial goo" or whatever you want to call it became life that eventually became humans without the need for any divine assistance are atheists; naturalistic atheists, really. Philosophers, of a sort. When evolution is studied as science, there are no preconceived philosohpical assumptions. (On the other hand, I don't see why "goo" couldn't have become peope--if you believe in God. God made man out of mud, after all, according to the Bible.) ID mixes faith and science. The science is there, but they draw a philosophical conclusion--God at work. There's nothing wrong with that. But even Behe admitted, under oath, the conclusiveness of the evidence depends on how much you believe in God. Ergo, that conclusion is an opinion, and not "proveable" with science.
ID is not an unbiased science. Have you ever heard of the Wedge document? Yes, the Discovery Institute is real unbiased, they don't start from any preconceived philosophical assumptions.
I think people overplay the fossil record card. There's all kinds of other evidence out there. I'm not a biologist; I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what that is. That's why people like evolutiongeek make their posts. ;) But I for one am not going to get hung up on the fossil record as the ultimate support or downfall of Darwinian evolution.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Voice of reason.
Once again, evolution means many things. That's why I prefer to talk about Darwinism instead.
I have no problem if you say white Rhino's and black rhino's has a common ancestor. Evolution does exists.
I do have a problem if you're trying to extend that argument, and say people and snails have a common ancestor. That's not empirically provable evolution. That is pure atheistic, unsubstanciated, philosophical darwinism mascaraded as "scientific fact". AND THAT'S WHAT ID HAS A PROBLEM WITH.
I'm no biologist myself, but here's a little laymans insight I have. The common cold is one of the most adaptable diseases known to man kind. It changes so often that you can have a cold more than once a year. BUT!!! After thousands of years of evolution, mutations and natural selection, the common cold has evolved into .... the common cold. There is no empirical evidence what so ever that evolution can take one thing, and turn it to something totally different. The only place where something like this could've been observed, is the fossil record, but we don't see it there either.
In science, when the real world contradict the theory, we say the theory has been falsified. Therefore, darwinism - not (REAL) evolution, mind you - has been falsified. Only a religious commitment to naturalism can justify the continued view of darwinism as science. It is therefore not suprising that the most promonent people who pushes the case for evolution, are also naturalist agnostics of atheists. If ID is a mixure of science and philosophy, then Darwinism is much worse.
Here's another insight I have. I've seen the IMAX documentary on the Kalahari Lion. They showed a lioness hunting springbuck at a water hole. She ignored all the springbuck that was already fleeing, and picked the one who hesitated just that one bit too long at the water hole. In this scenario, Natural selection had nothing to do with preserving the best genes. In fact, it probably destroyed it. Why else would that springbuck stay while everyone else is fleeing? Overconfidence from past experience? Natural selection is not magic.
ID see corrolations between things designed by people and the historical and biological data of life, and conclude that the only agent that can explain lifes origin, which we know of, is intelligence. That is a valid, empirically based observation, which is more than we can say of darwinism. If you don't like the conclusion, that is fine too. But you can not ignore the scientific evidence it provides against the theory of Darwinism. If you don't like ID's conclusion, the most scientific awnser to the origin of live today would be "We simply don't know yet". That's something naturalistic scientists hate to admit in public.
PS. Please keep in mind English is my second language. It do my best to keep it pure.
Almost forgot. Yes, I know about the Wedge document. I've read it before I've heard the darwinist propaganda about "The Big Bad Wedge Document!". In fact, Discovery makes no secret of the document. Like one of their articles justly says : "The Wedge Document - So what?" There's nothing sinister about it, except ofcause, if you're an orthodox darwinist who reject ID simply because it concludes that empirically, no "blind watchmaker" exists in the laws of nature that can explain the origin life as we know it today. Have you heard of the unscientific purpose of the NCSE? They want to hide all evidence against evolution from students. There's a word for that: it's called "dogma". Now there's something to worry about!
so bear with me, Darwiniacs. Han, you've done it again. Outstanding post, old boy; really put the other side in it's place (out of the science books and into the history books!). I'm glad to see we have our stories straight. Your English prose, by the way, is excellent for a second language.
The problem is they already KNOW we are wrong and they are right. They won't address your points. They are culture warriors fighting on the secular progressive side. I used to believe exactly as they do, so I understand how they feel. But it's so refreshing when the blinders come of and the truth is in view.
I'm going to be as brief as possible.
People and snails having a common ancestor: Yes, that's Darwin's idea of evolution. Everything evolved from a common ancestor, which began as some kind of porimordial matter. Why do fundamentalist Christians have a problem with this? A literal reading of the Bible reveals God made man out of mud. What did He make the animals out of? Probably more mud. How is that incompatible with primordial matter?
Atheism says matter became man and all life without God's help. The standard Christian acceptance of Darwin's evolutionary science rests on the notion that God created everything, and since we don't know how God created us, it's entirely possible He chose to do so through evolution. No conflict. It is possible to believe in a common ancestor and not be an atheist. That's the ponit you seem to be missing.
Empirical evidence: Most science has to have inference at once point or another. If you want total see-it-done proof of everything, half of modern science won't exist. And no, not just evolution.
Second: the common cold. It's a virus, right? Not exactly life. I don't know how to refute your statement, but I'm pretty sure it's an invalid example. Evolutiongeek has probably addressed such things in his posts, but my opinion is, first, it probably didn't need to evolve, why change what works; second, it's not really life, and evolution is about life; third, you can't say it hasn't evolved. For all we know the common cold virus started out as something totally different. You have no empirical evidence to prove it's forever been the way it is, and none to prove it won't become something else.
Invalid theories and pushy atheist evolutionists: If they're prominent, it's because they have lots to say. If they have lots to say because of their religious opinion, well then, you can say religious proponents of ID show ID isn't a science and can't be upheld without a religious perspective as well. And as for invalid theories--that's all a matter of opinion, in the evolution debate, which is why we're having this argument. That's not a reason to support your case; it's just a restatement of your opinion.
IMAX film: Who said natural selection was foolproof? Why did the slow one have the best genes? I'd say the fast ones probably have "fast" genes, so how is that a mark against natural selection?
The watch example: There's a lovely refutation of the watch analogy. I don't have the time to type it out all here--stealing a moment between classes to write this--but if you check out Mark Ridley's book How to Read Darwin, it's in there. I'll see if I can post or something about it later if you want. I haven't read that entire book, but I skimmed parts of quite thoroughly researching for a paper.
English: Your English is great. I would never have known it was your second language. I wish I spoke my wanna-be seocnd langue, Spanish, half as well.
Wedge document: Um, I have a problem with the Wedge document and I'm a Christian, not an "orthodox atheist", or whatever term you're using now. It's "sinister" to SCIENCE, because it's trying to present itself as science while trying to indoctrinate religion into people who odn't want it. And as for evolutionists who are trying to make atheism an inherent part of evolution--that paper I mentioned I turned into a post, and the whole thesis is that we need to take the atheism out of evolution, and then we'll be just fine. You can find it here: http://progressiveu.org/190000-evolution-verses-id-the-misplaced-debate
Some other posts of mine you might of interest include:
http://progressiveu.org/184029-the-idiot-s-guide-to-reconciling-god-and-darwin
And I'm out of time. Hope I responded to everything, but if I didn't, I'll be back when I have more time.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. You have some interesting ideas. I have no problem with those who don't like evolution, but to tell the rest of us it's inseparable from atheism is an insult to me and those like me, who are both Christians and supporters of modern science. And if I didn't bring up the empirical evidence for evolution in this comment, well, it's long enough, first, and second evolutiongeek has already done that. He's the scientist, with all the proof; I'm more concerned with the philosophical implicatons.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
All the other bucks ran away when they became aware of the lion. Only one thought he'd take only a few more sips before responding. Why such wreclessness? Probably because from past experience, he thought he can always out run a lion. It is likely that he was the fastest of them all, with the best genes, but this made him over confident and wreckless, which cost him his life.
Natural Selection was double crossed by phycology. In this case it didn't eliminate the weakest genes, it simply eliminated an animal in a moment of stupidity and overconfidence.
I think you can't make a claim that the reason it stayed was because "natural selection was double crossed by psychology." I'm unsure what's wrong with that phrase, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. But the biggest reason such a claim is illogical is because you can't prove it. There's no evidence to show the animal was "overconfident." Maybe it didn't have as good of survival instincts as the others, didn't notice the predator coming. Who knows? We don't. So you can't offer that instance as an example of how natural selection fails or works against itself.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Yes, I know I can't say for sure what happened in the springbucks head, but its body language gave me a good idea.
So I said the animal was overconfident because that's the way it appeared. Isn't that what evolutionary science is doing as well? It looks as if these two animals could be related, so they are?
None the less, what this example does proof is that, in this instance, natural selection had nothing to do with the best genes. What ever the motivation, the springbuck made an error in judgement. Does this mean it was more stupid than the rest? Well, no, it doesn't. Even Einstein made stupid mistakes. In this case, a stupid mistake just happened to have cost this animal its life. Natural selection does eliminate the very weak, but it does not necesarrily promote the strong.
Natural selection is an odds game. Not every individual with more fit genes survives. They simply have an observed tendeny to do so at a higher rate than those with less fit genes. Many less fit animals also survive, but they tend to survive at a lower frequency than more fit animals. Evolution and natural selection works on the population level, not the individual level.
Natural selection is an observed tendency that has been described by evolutionary scientists, not a guarantee that every weak individual and every strong individual is selected to reproduce or not according to fitness.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
The post column is getting ridicilously narrow!
Voice of reason. You used a straw man. Read my post again. I never made any assertions about your religious believes. I talked about an "orthodox darwinist". No mention of atheism what so ever. With "orthodox darwinism", I mean an insistance that live's origin and development must have been a completely natural process, even when evidence to the contrary is provided. Granted, that evidence is not convincing to you, but it is convincing to quite a number of scientists.
Also, to call ID religion, is a straw man too. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again : ID scientists did not start with an a priori commitment to creationism. In fact, many of them used to be evolutionists themselves before studying the evidence. After studying the subject matter, they became convinced that no known natural process could've created it and that design is the only remaining alternative. That is a conclution based on the study of the empirical evidence, not based on a religious text. Therefore, I fail to see why it is not science. If you do want to critisize it, do it as if there is no such thing as a theistic religion.
I believe you insist ID to religion, because you are suspicious of their motives. I can certainly understand this line of thinking, given the long fight with creationism. Moreover, few people know the history of the ID movement, so they make false assertions about them. (read "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward) However, just because you suspect that ID scientists have dishonest motives, is no reason to assert that that is in fact the case. The fact of the matter is that there are agnostics in the ID movement as well. Agnostics have no religious commitments against evolution. Behe himself never had any religious issue with Darwinism. To now say that they are inserting a religious agenda into science, is simply unconvincing and wrong.
You said: "an insistance that live's origin and development must have been a completely natural process, even when evidence to the contrary is provided. Granted, that evidence is not convincing to you, but it is convincing to quite a number of scientists."
My point is this:
The "insistence that life's origins must have been a completely natural process" is an idea inherent to atheistic naturalism, not evolution. I believe you're misunderstanding my point. I believe God created everything. I believe God used evolution to do so. But I still don't support ID, because it is advocating exactly such a religious viewpoint. Some people don't want to believe in a designer. A "designer" is theology. Arguments like irreducible complexity are pretty much the core of ID hypotheses, and Behe admitted the extent to which these arguments is convincing rests in a large degree on how much you personally believe in God. So to say that the evidence is unconvincing to me shows me you've missed my point. ID is not as science because it advocates a metaphysical opinion: the existence of God. Naturalistic evolution is also not a science, because it advocates a metaphysical opinion: The non-existence of God. The science that actually exists in the middle, without any metaphysical opinion, is what constitutes real evolution science.
You said the conclusion a designer exists is "based on the study of the empirical evidence, not based on a religious text. Therefore, I fail to see why it is not science."
My point: again, it's a metaphysical opinion. Another interpretation of the data has shown why the "watch" argument is invalid, why the "but you can't calculate the odds of such randomnes suceeding" argument is wrong, why the "irreducible complexity" argument fails. And these are interpretations by believers who are against ID, who say it isn't a science. The existence of a creator cannot be proven empirically, and science rests on empirical data. Ergo, ID is not a science.
You said: "I believe you insist ID to religion, because you are suspicious of their motives...However, just because you suspect that ID scientists have dishonest motives, is no reason to assert that that is in fact the case. ...To now say that they are inserting a religious agenda into science, is simply unconvincing and wrong."
How can I not be suspicious of the motives of a "scientific" institute who's real goal is to convert the world? (Please note I'm equally suspicious of atheistic evolutionists.) I have no problem with converting people, provided it's done in a good way and they're willing converts, but a science institute has no business espousing a religious point of view and then claiming it's still an institute of pure science. In the same way the atheistic motives of evolutionists cast doubt on the scientific validity of their studies, so the religious presuppositions of those who claim there is a creator cast doubt on the validity of their scientific studies.
You say it's wrong to claim they have a religious agenda, but God/creators/etc are the center of religion. If it's wrong to say that, then it's also wrong to claim that those who support evolution must inherently be atheists. You can't say ID is pure science and then turn around and say evolution isn't and expect to be taken seriously, because it's completely illogical.
ID is an interpretation of data, that's all. Interpretatinos of data that draw conclusions which cannot be proven by the scientific method are opinions, not science. Atheism supported by evolution is still an opinion. The existence of a creator supported by evolution is still an opinion.
The reason I brought up my religious beliefs is because that is what the conclusion of your arguments is pointing to. When you say evolutionists have to be atheists, then you're saying I'm not a believer, when I most definitely am.
There would be no need for ID if two very separate debates had not gotten confused. Debating evoultion is not the same thing as debating the existence of God, but loud mouthed people who say it is have complete confused the issue. And by those people, I'm referring to those on both sides of the fence. The only reason ID has had any success at all is because people think accepting evolution means denying God. The proper way to teach evolution is to teach the facts both for it and the areas that are still a shady, and why we can't say for certain, etc. But instead, dogmatists on both sides have gone and turned it into a battle for proving the existence God--which can't be proven. That is a matter of opinion and always will be.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
The "insistence that life's origins must have been a completely natural process" is an idea inherent to atheistic naturalism, not evolution. I believe you're misunderstanding my point. I believe God created everything. I believe God used evolution to do so."
Voice of Reason, to me, this is a pa-tey-to pa-tah-to arguement. Darwinism insistence that life's origins must have been a completely natural process does not exclude the believe that God guided it. Naturalism is naturalism, be it with or without God.
"But I still don't support ID, because it is advocating exactly such a religious viewpoint. Some people don't want to believe in a designer. A "designer" is theology. Arguments like irreducible complexity are pretty much the core of ID hypotheses, and Behe admitted the extent to which these arguments is convincing rests in a large degree on how much you personally believe in God. So to say that the evidence is unconvincing to me shows me you've missed my point. ID is not as science because it advocates a metaphysical opinion: the existence of God. "
I disagree. ID demonstrates that you need more than just natural processes to create life, you need design. (See my post regarding the origin of life at http://www.progressiveu.org/155822-blood-clots-panspermia-ediacarn-fauna-and-empty-black-boxes) As long as you don't make any assertions about the designer, you are still within the limitation of science. Just because the designer falls outside the realm of science, does not mean the detection of design itself falls outside the realm of science as well. If you want to judge whether ID is science or not, you should be judging their process, not their conclusion. As for people who do not WANT to believe in design. Just because I do not want to believe in gravity, does not mean it's not science. VOR, what you're basically saying is that, since we can not know what caused the big bang, it is not a valid scientific explaination of the universe. This is just wrong. Just like the empirical evidence suggest a big bang, it also suggest a designer. To object to that because it implies God, is a religious arguement against ID, not a scientific one.
Naturalistic evolution is also not a science, because it advocates a metaphysical opinion: The non-existence of God. The science that actually exists in the middle, without any metaphysical opinion, is what constitutes real evolution science.
VOR, the awnser is a boolean. Live was either designed, or it formed naturally without the need of design. If nothing in science can explain the natural formation of life, you're left with design. It's that simple. As for the real science of evolution, there is no evidence that evolution can morph a species into something totally different. I've covered this on the other page with my example of dog breeding. If darwinian evolution is true, it should be possible to take a lizzard and breed it until it becomes a bird. Evolution exists, but there is no empirical evidence that it can do half the darwinist claim it can. They're attributing the same magical powers to it than the scientists of the 18th century attributed to electricity.
You said the conclusion a designer exists is "based on the study of the empirical evidence, not based on a religious text. Therefore, I fail to see why it is not science."
My point: again, it's a metaphysical opinion.
So is macro evolution.
Another interpretation of the data has shown why the "watch" argument is invalid, why the "but you can't calculate the odds of such randomnes suceeding" argument is wrong, why the "irreducible complexity" argument fails. And these are interpretations by believers who are against ID, who say it isn't a science.
Just because those against ID argue against these concepts, doesn't mean they're right. They deny what the empirical evidence clearly states, but offer very little in return, like "Punctuated Equilibrium" and "Primeval soups". Arguements against IC are all failing. I've actually read arguements against IC which actually does more to promote it than to refute it. If this is about preconcieved ideas, why does darwinism count as science, and not ID?
The existence of a creator cannot be proven empirically, and science rests on empirical data.
Why not? Suppose the Hubble telescope finds a collection of stars spelling out the words "HEY STUPID, HOW MUCH MORE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED???" - no reference to you here. Just added for comic effect - would you still believe a designer can not be deducted from empirical evidence? Anything that can not be explained with natural processes, HAD to be designed.
How can I not be suspicious of the motives of a "scientific" institute who's real goal is to convert the world?
Suppose I had a religion deifing gravity. Would that exclude gravity from science too? Would the clasification of empirical evidence supporting gravity as science also be an "attempt to convert the world"?
(Please note I'm equally suspicious of atheistic evolutionists.)
Good for you. However, this does little to cure the hipocracy in the scientific community. Promonent scientists are allowed to mix their philosofical ideas with their science, sell it all as science, and nobody cares. Do the same with God, and they crusify you.
but a science institute has no business espousing a religious point of view and then claiming it's still an institute of pure science. In the same way the atheistic motives of evolutionists cast doubt on the scientific validity of their studies, so the religious presuppositions of those who claim there is a creator cast doubt on the validity of their scientific studies.
I disagree. Prominent anti-religious scientists continuously mix their religious vies with science, and they barely get a tap on the wrist. Critisism against people like Richard Dawkins do not come close to the critisim of ID. We clearly have a double standard for science.
You say it's wrong to claim they have a religious agenda, but God/creators/etc are the center of religion.
So? What are you saying? If science confirms religion, then it must be bad science???
If it's wrong to say that, then it's also wrong to claim that those who support evolution must inherently be atheists.
I never said that.
You can't say ID is pure science and then turn around and say evolution isn't and expect to be taken seriously, because it's completely illogical.
Why not? If ID is wrong, then darwinists must be able to demonstrate naturalist solutions where ID says there is none. Otherwise, their assertions are valid.
ID is an interpretation of data, that's all.
So it Darwinism. I think it's a pretty poor interpretation, given the latest discoveries. It might've worked in Darwins time, but today there is just too many loose ends. (coated over with thought experiments)
Interpretatinos of data that draw conclusions which cannot be proven by the scientific method are opinions, not science.
Darwinism can't be proven. ID can be falsified. What is the problem?
Atheism supported by evolution is still an opinion. The existence of a creator supported by evolution is still an opinion.
Unless a plausible naturalistic explaination does not exist.
The reason I brought up my religious beliefs is because that is what the conclusion of your arguments is pointing to. When you say evolutionists have to be atheists, then you're saying I'm not a believer, when I most definitely am.
straw man alert! I never said any of this. Please quote me!
There would be no need for ID if two very separate debates had not gotten confused.
Wrong again. That's what creationism is there for. ID exists because the explainations of darwinism do not add up, and no natural alternative is available.
Debating evoultion is not the same thing as debating the existence of God, but loud mouthed people who say it is have complete confused the issue.
The theological objection to evolution is more complicated than this. It has to do with the origin of sin and imperfection, which evolution cancels out. ID is not concerned with these matters.
And by those people, I'm referring to those on both sides of the fence. The only reason ID has had any success at all is because people think accepting evolution means denying God.
Creationism, not ID. You obviously never read an ID book before. Behe himself was a christian evolutionist. Your arguements against ID fly in the face of what ID really is. Yes, it might be true that this is the reason for ID's popular support, but it is not the basis of the theory.
The proper way to teach evolution is to teach the facts both for it and the areas that are still a shady, and why we can't say for certain, etc. But instead, dogmatists on both sides have gone and turned it into a battle for proving the existence God--which can't be proven. That is a matter of opinion and always will be.
You are closer to ID than you might think. ID have NEVER suggested that evolution should be banned from the schools. It has always promoted the idea of teaching both the evidence for and against - or as you call it : shady areas - evolution. All ID is attempting to do, is to expose learners to the evidence proving that evolution is not a fact but a theory. It is the Darwinian camp that is misrepresenting evidence, hiding evidence and misrepresenting ID. To them, any education that does not indoctronate students with "evolution is a fact", is a thread. Why are they so affraid of showing the evidence for ID if they're so confident that they're right? Why are they so affraid of students taking a critical look at darwinism? Just now I asked a darwinist to give me some evidence that Punctuated Equilibrium is actually possible. This after I gave him the oppertunity to judge whether my idea of it is a straw man. He burst out in vulgar insults. Is it then any wonder that ID suspect Darwinists of having an anti-religious agenda?
Voice Of Reason, your ideas are commendable, but you are the minority. If all darwinists was like you, we could've had a meaningful, scientific debate between darwinism and ID, instead of this mess we have now. I must agree with you on this point : it is unfortunate. The fact of the matter is, most darwinists have invested too much emotionally and philosophically to allow the empirical evidence to knock it down.
First: Darwinism does NOT insist life's origins came from a completely natural no-God-involved process. THAT is what NATURALISM is, insisting that life arose without the aid of God. All Darwinism says is that the life, whether it came from God or naturalistic processes, came from a common source.
Second: If design was done, there has to be a designer. ID advocates the existence of some kind of higher power that created us, whether it's God, medling aliens or who knows what. If there is design, there is a designer, and you cannot force the acceptance of a designer on people because those who don't want to believe in a designer can prove the same bits of evolution WITHOUT arguing design was done.
Third: How evolution, whether you're talking micro or macro, can be explained without any reference to God or the supernatural whatsoever. This is science. Trying to explain that it could or could not have happened with or without a designer is theology, and not science. Saying that if science can't explain something, you're left with God--that without hard proof of total naturalism, a designer must be the answer--is a "God of the gaps" argument. God or no God are two different metaphysical opinions, and neutral science is interpreted to explain both viewpoints. Macro evolution is only a metaphysical opinion to you because you disagree with the evidence, say there is no evidence, whatever; people say ID is a metaphysical opinion because the data it uses to support its conclusions are just as easily explained with an atheist viewpoint. As for scientists attributing magical powers--again, no. Those scientists who do that have a nonreligious agenda, and then it's no longer pure science, and, again, not something I support.
Fourth: "How much more empirical evidence do you need"--Even if that happened, atheist scientists would probably attribute it to a humerous intelligent species we have yet to discover. I'm convinced; I know God created us all. I just also know that, as pure science, macro evolution does not affirm or deny this.
Fifth: Hypocrisy/double standards--you're preaching to the choir. I have a BIG problem with people who mix evolution and atheist viewpoints. And it's true, people don't pay attention to that, because most suffer from the misconception that science is religious-bias-free. That's something that needs to be rectified, and I'd fix it if I could. People like Dawkins are wrong for teaching atheism as science, and people like Behe are wrong because they teach belief in a designer as science. It is too bad I'm in the minority, because if more people listened to me we could fix a lot of this problem.
Sixth: No, I'm not saying science that confirms religion is bad science. My entire scientific outlook confirms my religion. My point is you said I was wrong in thinking the IDers have a religoius agenda, yet the clearly do, because they espouse the existence of a designer. The existence of such a being is the basic core of religion. Ergo, they have a religious agenda. Yes, many evoultionists have an atheist religious agenda, but that doesn't make either viewpoint correct. You are wrong in assuming evolution, or darwinism, as you call it, means accepting a natuarlistc--noGodinvolved--creation of life. This is incorrect.
Seventh: Demonstrating natuarlist solutions--again, evolution verses ID is NOT supposed to be atheism/naturalism versus Christnaity/existence of designer-God. The pure science of evolution doesn't say you can't prove the existence of God empircally, OR deny it. it's about HOW it happened, not who's behind it. anything else, atheist or pro-designer, is religion.
Eighth: Interpretation/loose ends--Loose ends are what I mean by "shady areas" of evolution. Most scientists agree it happened. What they have difficulty agreeing on is how, why, and when. Darwin's original theory of evolution is actually mud, because of genetics, but the general theory is still there. Just the how and why (genetics, heredity) has changed in our undersatnding.
Ninth: Interpreations aren't science--You missed my point. Any time you bring God into a discussion, it's a matter of opinion. Science cannot prove or deny God, or a designer, or whatever, except through personal interpreations. People can't force these interpreatations on the other. If people would stop equating darwinism with atheistic naturalism, there wouldn't be a push for ID to be called a science.
Tenth: Unless plausible natural explanation doesn't exist--again, God of the gaps. It's not about the existence of God. Evolution as science makes NO claims about the existence or nonexistence of a designer.
Eleventh: Quoting you (well, paraphrasing)--darwinism points to a naturalistic explanation of the development of life. Everything you say pits evolution as atheism against ID as belief in a designer. If evolution could not be separated from a natural, that is, no-God-involved, view of the beginnigns of life, then my opinion--that God and evolution work perfectly well together--could not exist.
Twelfth: ID exists because darwinism deosn't add up--ID advocates the existence of a designer. Evolution as science has no opinion on whether or not God exists. ID and creationism are more similar than anyone wants to admit.
Thirteenth: Theological objections to evolution--I've never heard those objections fully explained or even discussed much, but in my opinion, they're pretty shallow objections. Again: as a Christian, I see no conflict between evolution and my faith, including the whole fall-from-grace bit, etc. ID may not be concerned with that, but it says life didn't develop on its own. NATURALISM says life developed on its own, not evolution. So ID has misplaced its debate. It should be fighitng naturalistic atheism, not evolution, and hard-line literal Bible reading creationists should be left to deny the science behind evolution. Please don't ask me, in response to that statement, to bring up the proofs for evolution. I'm not a scientist, and evolutiongeek has done a more than adequate job of already tackling that issue. On the other hand, I will reccomend the book Scientific Malpractice by Ivan L. Zabilka.
Fourteenth: No, I haven't read an ID book, but I haven't read any evolution books or naturalistic atheist books either. But you missed my point and misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about what ID says or what I think it says, but about how the public perceive the debate. ID advocates a designer; in most people's mind, this means God. They think that accepting evolution means denying God, so they're willing to accept ID. But ID is not science because it advocates the existence of a designer. This is opinion b/c, as I said before, the same data is used by atheist to prove God doesn't exist. Evolution is the sceince in the middle that merely says "here's what we think happened" without denying or advocating the existence of God. Yes, some scientists have issues that need to be atken care of, confusing atheism and science, but the same goes for IDers who mix God and empirical data.
Fifteenth: I never said ID wanted evolution banned from schools, I know perfectly well that's not what they say. But perhaps I worded it poorly--I don't think there's any real evidence showing evolution hasn't happened, but how, where, when, and why, as I said before, are issues that are still shrouded in mystery, and purely scientific inquiries can accept them. If there are dirty tactics of misrepresenting, hiding, etc, information, it goes on in BOTH camps, and ONLY in those camps that have religious or antireligious agendas. You don't seem to believe there is any pure science involved at all, but there is. Please don't use a darwinist's bad beahvior as an example of why the whole evolution camp is "wrong". There are good and bad tactics and biases on both sides, but once again, that's separate from the pure science.
I will always believe that ID and atheistic naturalism evolution are two sides of a THEOLOGICAL disscussion. Evolution as pure science remains purely in the scientific arena. If you want to prove a designer exists, do so, but you can't expect everyone to look at the data and accept that conclusion when the same data is used to prove the opposite. Whether evolution happened or not has, by the best non-biased scientists, been decided; what's left is the how, why, when, and wheres.
You said: Most darwinists have invested too much emotionally and philosophically to allow the empirical evidnece to knock it down.
But it's not empirical evidence. It's an INTERPREATION OF empirical evidence.
And your sentence holds true also when you rpleace "darwinists" with "IDers".
I think your ideas are commendable as well, but it grealty frustrates me you consistently present darwinism as evolution meaning naturalistic origins, because this is false. naturalistic atheism professes naturalistic (no God invovled) origins; evolution just says we all came from the same source, instead of springing up totally separately. I really odn't mean to sound brusque or rude in this comment I hope I don't but it is late I'm tired and I'm just trying to brief. Thank you for continuing to respond to my ideas, this is a very interesting debate and I appreciate that you're interested enough to continue sparing with me. :)
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
The heart of the problem. Hanno, this is the point where you go wrong:
"...a study of the empirical evidence."
There is NO emprical evidence for ID (at least not in the timeframe you're considering).
Nothing.
Dembski's 'empirical evidence'? CSI. Which has never been demonstrated.
Behe's 'emprirical evidence'? IC. Which even Behe admits isn't empirical evidence. So it's worthless.
WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT YOU KEEP RAVING ABOUT!?
The existence of complexity and function doesn't count: we can generate those via programs like avida and fractal software.
IC isn't good enough (Behe admits that).
CSI hasn't been demonstrated.
So what, precisely, is left? What? Be specific. 'cause at the moment ID looks very much like the Black Knight, "Come back you cowards and I'll bite your kneecaps off!"
..."When evolution is studied as science, there are no preconceived philosophical assumptions. "
This is just incorrect. The foundational premise of Darwinian science is methodological materialism. Please study my posts about that. Also see Bill Dembski's comments which can be found here:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Defense_of_ID.pdf
Why do people earn PhDs? The degree is a doctor of what? Science? No, it is a doctor of Philosophy. To truly understand anything, even hard science and mathematics, you must understand the philosophical assumptions. There are ALWAYS philosophical assumptions. If there are no philosophical assumptions, THAT is a philosophical assumption. This matters because it enormously effects the way empirical evidence is analyzed. With Darwinism, when you see something that looks remotely like something else, it is considered a transitional because Darwinism says transitionals exist. But saying it doesn't make it so. There is ZERO empirical PROOF of Darwinism. Just stories.
Read the Dembski article and learn (the specific comments on Methodological Materialism are on page 8).
If methodolical materialsm means the same thing as naturalistic atheism--evolution without God--then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Evolution is separable from atheism. And if it's not, then Ivan L. Zabilka, Howard J. Van Till, my biology teacher, evolutiongeek, myself, and countless other scientists/supporters of evolution who are also believers, and/or who say you can support evolution AND God, are off their rockers or simply don't exist. The latter is obviously not true. And I refuse to accept the former. Evoution and atheism ARE two different things. They can be combined, in the same way belief in God and evolution can be combined. Mark Ridley, who I mentioned in my other reply comment, said it: Darwin denied the theory of separate creation, not the existence of God, in constructing the theory of evolution. Whether Darwin himself believed or not is actually immaterial. It's all in how you apply the science.
And yes, it is an error to assume there are never any philosophical assumptions--that's one of the points I make in the post I linked to in the other comment. But either way, it's forcing either God or atheism on people, which is wrong. It is possible to just teach the science. And yes, even the holes and doubts and conflicting theories and all the "details" concerning the subject.
Evolution is not a science where it is preached as atheism-is-correct. ID/creationism is not a science hwere it is preached as Christianity/belef in God-is-correct.
EDIT: Besdies which, if you can't study evolution without being an atheist, then you can't study any other kind of science that doesn't stop and say "but of course God is really behind it all" without being an atheist either. Belief in God is neither necessary nor a hindrance to the study of science.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Dave,
Thank you for your comment. I apologize if I came off as rude in my first posts; sometimes wit and sarcasm come off more mean-spirited than I would like, but I am by no means suggesting that you aren't smart or anything of that nature. You're used to holding uppity upstarts in check? I'm not an 18 year-old who gets his every opinion from the Daily Show. As my wife could tell you I spend most of my free time reading books from all sides of this debate, scientific papers, and writing/replying on here, so I'm not just some kid brainwashed by the "liberal agenda" with something to prove. I love evolutionary science and figured at 23 it was time to throw my hat into the ring.
As for stonewalling and name calling, you seem to do a fair bit of that on your blog. Most of what you say seems to have a political base, founded in the assumption that liberals were born of Darwin's theory of natural selection and systematically destroying America. From what I read, there was far more political "vitriol and bile" (to borrow your phrase) than scientific inquiry. The posts largely consist of negative arguments from a socio-political standpoint againt what you deem a morally corrupt belief system, but you offer nothing to prove ID is science other than repeats of "ID is good science." Once again, where is the research? Where are the papers? The Discovery Institute (home of Wells, Behe, Luskin, and Dembski) has spent over $4 million on ID, but they have nothing to show for it in terms of science. ID isn't new at all either, and has it's roots as far back as Paley's Watchmaker analogy in 1802 (if not further back). If you want to talk about ID as philosophy or theology, that's one thing, but there isn't even any science to argue about. ID states that intelligence was involved in the process of life or the universe at some point; we don't know when, we don't know who, we don't know why, but it just couldn't happen any other way. That's not a scientific statement, and yet that is Michael Behe's admission when we was on the stand during the Dover trial.
Again, I never said that ID advocates are not smart fellows; many of them are. Even so, just because someone with a doctorate, say, believes the moon is made of cheese doesn't make it so because of the authority of their degree. I respect that ID advocates are smart, but I am still not convinced by them. I have kept an open mind to their work and read it many times over and had the same arguments over and over again with people like yourself and I am still not convinced ID is real science; I did the research and came to my conclusion. Constantly accussing me of not being progressive because I don't agree with you isn't productive or accurate.
Also, you invoke Dawkins a lot in your posts, and even here in this reply. Just because Dawkins is an atheist and agrees with evolution doesn't mean that I have to renounce my faith too. Richard Dawkins is entitled to his beliefs (or non-beliefs) but his faith or lack thereof is as relevant as Ann Coulter's ideas on ID being science because she doesn't like the alternative- they don't matter to me and are merely opinion.
Again, I'm sure I've read many of the same books and such about ID as you and I've come to a different conclusion. I've read your posts on RedState and you have yet to answer any of my questions whatsoever. If there is scientific evidence for ID, please point me to it so that we can dicuss it in a constructive manner, otherwise this argument is purely political and we're bound to go in circles. Please, tell me why I'm wrong about the fossil record. Tell me what empirical study has shown that ID is real. Back up your assertions with the data and we can discuss. I'm going to be doing a post about tetrapod evolution this weekend and you're more than welcome to correct me about the fossil evidence there if you want. Otherwise, all I've had to say on why I see ID as bad science and bad theology can already be found on this blog. Thanks,
Brian
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Regrettably, the links provided by Homunculus consist almost entirely of unsupported assertions, inaccurate statements, erroneous conclusions, and retreads of various creationist websites. As a place to begin discussion, they are generally valueless. As with most material of this sort which ignores both history and science, they are slow to fisk - but I wouldn't waste much time on them.
I had a look over them myself earlier this morning and I didn't see anything I had not seen or heard before from the ID camp. Plus, what good can ever came from Ann Coulter? And why should her opinion on evolution matter if she couldn't even do her own research on the subject and needed pro-ID tutors? Ugh. The questions I've raised previously still stand, and like you said, there isn't really any place to start good discussion because there's no actual empirical data or proof of ID we can discuss, hence we're likely to go 'round and 'round (just what I don't need). Thanks for the tip
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
For years National Public Radio has been covering for Ethel & Julius Rosenberg; that they were not spies and that they didn't sell nuclear secrets to the KGB in the 1950s. Then with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the USSR, and the unveiling of the Venona documents straight form the Kremlin, the Rosenberg's guilt was proven. Nevertheless, this information was buried by the mainstream media until finally Ann Coulter blew the lid off the cover-up in her book Treason. Now NPR has dropped that part of their agenda.
That is one good thing that Ann Coulter has done. You kids have been indoctrinated by liberal ideology in government schools your entire lives. Insight is not an option. Your comments about the Red State posts indicate just that. You haven't read them. There are more evolution-defending scientists from Panda's Thumb defending evolution and trashing ID on those Red State diaries than you can shake a stick at. My first diary was dissected on one of the evolution blogs, line by line, and attacked as ignorant every step of the way by some of your ideological fellow travelers. But you've not read enough to find that. These diaries were trumpeted on Discovery Institute site as well. Both side of the argument followed them.
Pearls before swine, or just don't like reading things that blow up your paradigms?
Dave, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I am somehow some brainwashed liberal. I sat here and read each of the posts, line by line, and I found nothing new in them. Most of them either repeated each other and the statements you made in your first post. As for Ann Coulter, I've read Godless and I've seen some of her interviews. I don't know much about the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg issue, but that's not relevant to the topic- Ann Coulter isn't a scientist and deferred to pro-ID scientists to tutor her for her book. She hasn't come up with anything new or insightful on the topic, and it seems like a rehash of Icons of Evolution more than anything else. Beyond that, I consider her an insufferable harpie and one of the meanest people I've ever heard of. Her section on paleontology (especially the bits on Achaeopteryx and Tiktaalik) were especially laughable. I'll probably dissect the entire passage at some point in the near future, but one thing I found interesting was this
"You also never see the mutations that turned out to be clunkers, like the dog that mutated webbed feet or the fish that mutated feet. To the contrary, all the changes always seem to follow a straight line."
Guess what? There ARE dogs with webbed feet, both wild and domestic. Amazonian bush dogs have webbed feet and Newfoundland dogs have webbed feet. I guess she didn't bother to check? I'm going to do a post on tetrapod evolution after I get back from the American Museum of Natural History tomorrow and can look at the fossils myself. Especially in the past year there have been at least 2 discoveries that fill in holes of tetrapod evolution. And all the changes of evolution don't follow a straight line, and what evidence she has for this straight line, I don't know.
I've tried very hard to be polite here Dave, but where is the data for any support of ID? You have not successfully refuted anything I've said, instead opting to accusse me of being a brainwashed liberal who's not "open-minded enough" to be duped by ID. I've read Icons of Evolution, Darwin's Black Box, No Free Lunch, Godless, and seemingly countless other popular books that have no real empirical data to support anything they have to say. Just because a scientist can throw a lot of fancy words around doesn't make him correct. Plus, I try my best to be skeptical; not only look at what someone is saying, but why they're saying it. Just because I listen to something that doesn't make any sense doesn't mean I have to believe it, nor does it make me "less open-minded." There are people who are are convinced the Holocaust never happened, and even though I may listen to what they have to say, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be skeptical (even critical) of their belief.
I've read the Red State blogs at least twice Dave, and I've devoted a lot of time out of what would otherwise be a relaxing Friday evening to reading them and replying to you. You can accusse me up and down all you like, but you have yet to answer any of my questions or give me ANY evidence whatsoever that ID is actually science other than your say-so. Where's the data? Where's the empirical study? The arguments you make are largely negative and offer nothing up for ID positively other than Einstein was a deist.
You ended your comment with a little colloquialism insinuating that I am somehow just not understanding your "pearls" of wisdom. I've got one to share with you too. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Like I said previously, give me something, ANYTHING empirical to talk about or discuss here. What evidence are you working from? How is the transitional series of tetrapods indicative of ID rather than evolution (as an example, you can pick another transitional series if you like). What actualy\ evidence is there for Intelligent Design? I would love to have an intelligent debate about something empirical, but everything you've had to say has been highly politicized and contained no real substance. I've said what I've had to about my asessment of ID, and you disagree; fine, such is the nature of debate. Still, unless you give me some sort of empirical evidence to dicuss, we're just going to keep going around in circles over topics both of us have covered in the past. In any case, unless you come up with some sort of evidence we can constructively discuss, I'm going to end this thread and move on. I'm sure we both can find better uses for our time.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
ID is a new line of scientific endeavor. It is science. Biologist Behe examines the blood clotting mechanism and demonstrates, line and verse, with ZERO valid refutation, that it is impossible that it could ever develop under any possible form of "evolution" (random changes and survival of the fittest). By making this determination he is going through all the chemical steps. It makes Microsoft Windows XP look like Tinker-toys, so great is the complexity and so impossible is it to "evolve".
Nobel laureate Francis Crick does the math on the odds of DNA self-starting. He gets 1x10x2billion. The odds of anything happening since the Big Bang is 1x10x152. Crick dies believing space aliens seeded the planet 3 billion years ago. Nanu-nanu. (The theory is called Panspermia). In case you can't think through this, Crick acknowledged there had to be a Designer.
If you're really a credentialed scientist, read Dembski's answer to the detractors you claim to agree with in The Design Revolution (2004). Also essential is Dembski's collaboration Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (2004). Deep water and irrefutable to all but the indoctrinated. Remember, those that are indoctrinated don't know they are...
Speaking of which, you keep bringing up the Cambrian fossil record as though you've got the answer. Well, you better tell Richard Dawkins. I've already covered this on Red State and you say you've read it twice, but I'll repeat myself once and give you the 411:
Dawkins calls the appearance of the Cambrian critters "a planting", as though they were planted. He agrees it appears as though they appeared fully formed, without any intermediate precursors; but because we all know evolution is true, it cannot be so. Just not enough fossils survived.
The fact is there have been numerous pre-Cambrian fossil finds in recent years. Most notable in China (don't remember the region; I'm doing this in bed all from memory). There were Cambrian rocks and pre-Cambrian, and rocks from the period before the pre-Cambrian. It was perfect; in fact, the older fossils were better than anything Cambrian that have been found. Unfortunately for your paradigm and Dawkin's pipe dream, there were ZERO intermediates in those amazing fossils. Just primitive stuff, soft-bodied stuff (that supposedly wouldn't fossilize), and some worms. No precursors to the Cambrian critters; ZERO intermediates, and if there had been any, they would have surely fossilized. This was widely reported, Time, NY Times, etc. Did not help Darwin's so-called Tree of Life one bit; it fact, it is uprooted and turned upside down.
You are exercising in a form of group delusion. You are certain you are right. While I think ID has interesting things to say (Dembski's Specified Complexity is genius work according to even the hardest-core ID doubters and evolution believers), I don't fall on the ID sword. The critical thing ID has done is review the literature and demonstrated that evolution is a fraction from being totally IMPOSSIBLE. All the "great work" you cite is all based on the false starting premise of methodological materialism, something I'm sure you've never heard of because your posts are kindergarten level. See my posts on Red State where real PHD professor goes wild because I won't address his evolution "proofs", just like all yours, that are based on flawed, WRONG foundations. But he is a professor and working biologist. You're just citing Panda's Thumb rhetoric (I'm repeating myself, but you are) that is doctrinaire claptrap for the Darwin youth (I'll bet you've got a Darwin intermediate emblem on the back of your car). You claim to be well studied; read Uncommon Dissent. Maybe that will break the straight-jacket loose.
Anybody can write a blog, write with cock-surity and find mindless fellow indoctrinees to follow with the AMEN chorus. I'd be much more impressed with original thinking than self-congratulation and ad hoc dismissal of things you know not.
As I've had to tell so many before, stop relying on "Evolution for Dummies" or Kool-aid sites you find on Google. Read some real books that do not rely on studies with a priori commitments to a pre-determined outcome; that is what the majority of recent "evolutionary science" amounts to.
Finally, if you believe God did it, you believe in Intelligent Design. God is intelligent and He designed it if He exists. You cannot have it both ways. The guys you're reading are luke-warm believers with nothing but personal philosophy to back them up. By admitting there is a God, you're a Creationist and believe in ID by default.
Better get your story straight.
evolutiongeek.
I'm no scientist myself, but I have yet to hear a good arguement against Behe's Irreducibly Complex bacterial Flagulum. Not to mention the incredibly complex process of cell repair, without which it will surely die. Behe, himself a molecular biologist all his life, had always believed in evolution untill he read Denton's "A theory in Crisis". He decided to do research on what darwinist theory actually has to say about molecular biology. In an interview, he said the best he could find was "Gosh, it's amazing how natural selection could've put all of this together." Ever since he wrote his book, he did not hear a single solid arguement against IC.
If you found his criticism of Darwinist theory in molecular biology and his concept of Irreducable Complexity unconvincing, I think it is you who needs to explain on what grounds you say that. Otherwise this discussion is reduced to "You have no basis for what you say".
I am well aware of Behe's past and inspiration on the topic, as his model of the bacterial flagellum. I've recently started a new thread dealing specifically with the blood clotting cascade, but I could do one on the flagellum if you would like. I'm no microbiologist, but the fact that the TYPE III Secretory system has some (but not all) of the parts for the flagellum in question (there's more than just one kind) reduces Behe's model of IC to nothing. I also review Behe's definition of IC in the new post and why it lets him dismiss anything he wants to and how he has no back-up for his claims. He claims that certain systems did not arise through steps selected naturally, yet he can't say what those steps are, when they happened, why they happened, who the designer is, how the designer did it, etc. Instead we're left in the dark with the assertion that intelligence was involved in the process, but there's nothing to back that up. I also disagree with your definition of "Darwinist" stated earlier, and the way you delineated between "microevolution" and evolution between, say fish and tetrapods. In fact, such a statement is reminiscent of creationism more than ID, but that's another story. As for "Junk DNA," I think we can learn a lot from it and the work that people like Sean B. Carroll is doing will help give us a better genetic understanding for how life has changed. Agagin, I encourage you to read my new post ("Blood Clots, Panspermia, etc") as many of your questions are covered there. Thank you.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Evolutiongeek.
First of all, the fact that some of the BF components is used in other places as well is often repeated, but it does nothing to reduce the arguement of IC.
You still need to explain exactly how these perfectly well adjusted components decided to leave their place in the cell, and come together differently in just the right configuration to form the BF. And ofcause, also produce those subcomponents that doesn't exists anyplace else.
Your arguement is like saying, A bike has weels, a car has weels and is more complex, therefore cars evolved from bikes. The process? That foggy and magical mutations and natural selection, and presto. The theory of Darwinism is defended once again.
Sorry. That's not good enough. You need to do better than that. Finding subcomponents of the BF hardly explain HOW it evolved to a BF.
"I also review Behe's definition of IC in the new post and why it lets him dismiss anything he wants to and how he has no back-up for his claims. He claims that certain systems did not arise through steps selected naturally, yet he can't say what those steps are"
So? You can't proof a negative. He says IC structures can not come into existance via evolution, darwinists say it can. The burden of proof therefore lies with you, not with Behe. Proof that the BF could've evolved. He says evolution does not provide a sufficient explaination of how the BF evolved, and your responce is "proof it!" ???
"yet he can't say what those steps are, when they happened, why they happened, who the designer is, how the designer did it, etc. Instead we're left in the dark with the assertion that intelligence was involved in the process, but there's nothing to back that up."
Once again. So what! Empirically, there are similarities between biology and engineered systems, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude a similar origin: Intelligence. Modern geology does the same thing : we say a certain feature is a ancient river bed, because it looks exactly like the river beds we can observe today. It's a perfectly valid scientific deduction. As to the how, who and where, this is totally irrelevant. Unlike Darwinists who like to pretend they can deduct practically everything from almost nothing, ID makes no further claims than can be empirically deducted. There's nothing unscientific about admitting we don't know. It is more scientific than the naturalistic fantacies of darwinism which are presented as "facts". ID's conclution on the origin of life, is based on empirical observation. Darwinist conclusions are based naturalist philosophy, with no known natural agent to back it up. I do not know how my car was made, and I don't know who made it. Does this mean that evolution is a better explaination than ID for the origin of my car as well? Wait! we can't say that, that is not science. Once you say a human made something, what prevents you from saying a human made everything? There must be a natural explaination to the origin of my car. That's how science works.
Your objection of ID is therefore not based on the empirical evidence, but because you don't like it's possible implication.
Here is what I don't understand. The empirical evidence point to the fact that the universe had a beginning, and therefore allows the "God did it" arguement. You don't have a problem with that. Yet, if the empirical evidence of the origin of life exclude any natural formation of life, then all of a sudden it is a problem, because this brings God into science. I really don't see the difference.
But, before I get carried away. I will now fall silent for a while and listen, for we were given two ears, but one mouth.
As I said earlier, I need some more time to construct a full entry on the bacterial flagellum as it is a complicated topic (and there is even more than 1 kind of flagellum, so that's a lot of research to do). I'll post one as soon as I find the time.
"ID's conclution on the origin of life, is based on empirical observation."
There is little on origins based on empricial observation as no one was there to see it. ID has simply run some numbers and said their statistics didn't show a great possibility, hence there must have been a designer. This is hardly scientific at all. Even if they are right, then we need to know the details of how and why life emerged. You hold evolutionists to that standard, so why not ID advocates?
"Darwinist conclusions are based naturalist philosophy, with no known natural agent to back it up. I do not know how my car was made, and I don't know who made it. Does this mean that evolution is a better explaination than ID for the origin of my car as well? Wait! we can't say that, that is not science. Once you say a human made something, what prevents you from saying a human made everything? There must be a natural explaination to the origin of my car. That's how science works."
I'm sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. We know cars are made by people because we can see it done, get the information about how, when, etc. and cars are not alive so they are not subject to natural selection. Once again, relating biology to making a car doesn't do anything for the ID argument and saying that "We just know there was intelligence, but that's all we can say."
"Your objection of ID is therefore not based on the empirical evidence, but because you don't like it's possible implication."
I'm sorry you've come to that conclusion as it is incorrect. You're assuming that I have some other agenda to stamp out ID, but I just do not find it convincing for the reasons I have stated. If ID advocates could even BEGIN to prove any of their claims, I'd pay attention, but so far they haven't come up with anything other than "Intelligence was involved because we know cars are made by intelligence and that's all we can tell you." That isn't scientific.
"Here is what I don't understand. The empirical evidence point to the fact that the universe had a beginning, and therefore allows the "God did it" arguement. You don't have a problem with that. Yet, if the empirical evidence of the origin of life exclude any natural formation of life, then all of a sudden it is a problem, because this brings God into science. I really don't see the difference."
Philosophically, I don't have any problem with saying that God did it. I have no idea how the universe started and how it began is still undergoing study. What I'm concerned with is biological life, past and present, and even though I think of God as the "why" I still dont' know how He did it (nor do I think I'll ever know). What I take issue with are people saying "Our philosophy is science" and offering no evidence to back it up. If you say that something was designed by intelligence, then the designer becomes subject to science and we should be able to find out all the details of how that designed feature came to be. It's not good science to say "Well, it was designed, that's good enough for me." What part? When? How? By what process? How many parts? These are all important questions that ID refuses to answer that evolutionary scientists ARE trying to answer. Once again, from everything I can see ID is a pseudo-science based in religiously-anchored philosophy.
But, before I get carried away. I will now fall silent for a while and listen, for we were given two ears, but one mouth.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Hanno, this:
"Your arguement is like saying, A bike has weels, a car has weels and is more complex, therefore cars evolved from bikes. The process? That foggy and magical mutations and natural selection, and presto. The theory of Darwinism is defended once again."
is not at all what evolgeek is saying. Your analogy is inapplicable.
Cars and bikes are not self-replicating (with variation).
Cars and bikes do not have an established chronological sequencing.
Cars and bikes do not have internal replication instructions that show genotypic similarity.
A major problem I have noticed among creationists and those who cannot understand evolution is that they continue to use analogies whose veritude has not been established.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/junk_dna_and_sciencestopping.html#more
Darwinists postulating "evolution" as a fact and then taking something that will never be proven by evolution and saying it is. It's simply propaganda. They're already firing professors who even question macro-evolution, and denying them tenure. Next it may be burning at the stake.
Meanwhile, we hear of Geek's workmanlike efforts on clotting and flagellum, as though he understands any of it. Read "Science and the Evidence for Design in the Universe", 1999, by Behe, Dembski and Meyer; paperback available on Amazon.com. Instead of spending time rebutting Geek, you can read Behe devastating Kenneth Miller and Russell Doolittle's advanced scientific efforts at falsifying intelligent design.
I spoke with Behe 2 years ago (when Antony Flew renounced his atheism based partially on Behe's work). At that time Michael was confident his answer to Miller et al in the above book stood untouched to that date. It's worth the few bucks the book costs, with other fascinating articles by Dembski & Meyer.
Really good science.
Another good job there, Han.
Sorry Dave, I had to take a day off to make up my lesson plan for the lecture on ID I'll be giving to an evolution course here at my university, so I couldn't respond to all the new comments. Even if I did have time, I don't find much that's notable other than you and Han congratulating each other over agreeing with each other. It's funny how you're invoking a conspiracy on the part of college professors to keep out ID as during discussions with some faculty today it seems that ID is becoming more popular in college circuits; what the truth of the matter is remains to be seen, but invoking a Salem Witch Trial type atmosphere doesn't add any credence to your claim.
And I fully admit that I'm not a microbiologist or genetecist, but I've done my best to review at least some of the relevant papers that have come out since Behe published his book 10 years ago (as well as Doolitte's work, which Behe dismisses just because he feels like it) and it seems from the response I've gotten so far on my new post that I at least have some understanding of the evolutionary significance of the blood clotting cascade and its antecedents. In any case, at least I put some effort into backing up what I have to say from a few different sources and papers, and you've come up with nothing but vague assertions.
Behe can be confident his work hasn't been refuted all he wants; that doesn't make it so. There's still a flat-earth society, but as vehemently as they might believe they're correct, it doesn't make it so either. As for your claim about transitional fossils, even Behe recognizes macroevolutionary changes and does not say such things never have happened, yet, you do. That seems more like a creationist standpoint than intelligent design to me. I'll discuss some of the wonderful fossils examples of "intermediates" in the near future, and I would be interested to know how you can say that they don't exist or don't mean anything if you claim to be so interested in empirical evidence and following the "truth" in science. It is becoming more and more apparent that you have your own conservative agenda to put forward with nothing to back it up; I have called you out several times (as have other commenters on the threads) to provide any actual evidence or even empirical support for your claims, but you have yet to do so. If macroevolutionary change never occurred, then what happened? How did they come to be in the fossil record? You've been very careful not to invoke creationism thus far, but your recent comments about the Cambrian explosion and Archaeopteryx point out the further implications of your ideas. In any case, if you have some real data (and not just glowing book reviews for Behe; what have you read that hasn't come straight from the mouths of the DI?) then please enlighten me, otherwise all you're basing the argument on is "because I said so."
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Evolutiongeek, I must congratulate you. You seem to be one of the few evolusionists that can actually recognise that there's a difference between creationism and ID.
Please take it in good spirit when I say, you have "evolved" to the next level of understanding :)
I appreciate the compliment, and I agree that there is a difference between ID and young-earth creationism. However, it seems to me that some of the arguments are often interchangeable, with some ID advocates borrowing age-old creationist arguments and many creationists co-opting ID to support their ideas, so there is definite interplay between the two ideas since they are both characterized by belief in a designer of one kind or another.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
The Cambrium explosion IS a clear refutation of darwinist theory. What is so "creationist" about it?
If you don't believe this to be the case, please explain.
Well, first I need to know what your definition of the "Cambrian explosion" is. All the variety we see in the Cambrian does not show up all at once (or even at the base of the time period). The argument that there are no intermediates between worms, sponges, etc. and the vast array of Cambrian fauna is one of special creation; how did these creates get there if they did not evolve, or at least become modified from creatures that existed earlier? It is a mystery to be sure, but the votes aren't all in and there's still a lot to learn about the Cambrian and the Ediacaran. A full explanation of the "Cambrian explosion" is going to take a full post in of itself to fully explain, but saying that evolution did not happen and these creates popped out of nowhere, fully formed is a creationist interpretation of the fossil record; not an empirical study from intelligent design.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Evolutiongeek
I think the big arguement with the Cambrium explosion is the inconsistancy in the evolutionary process.
In a very short time, geologically speeking, 99% of all phylia - I think that's what it's called - was formed, and since then, not much else.
If life formed naturally with natural processes, does it not follow that there should be some consistancy in the development of new family groups?
As I understand it, scienctific theories should be able to make predictions which can be tested. What predictions can be made from mutation-natural selection darwinism? It is so vague that it can be used to explain just about anything that already happened, but can't make any future predictions.
Here is a prediction I made in my ignorance. Darwinian theory will favour the most robust and adaptable creatures. Those with the most avenues for survival, are more likely to survive. Yet we see species that are so specific in their requirements, that it is hard to believe that blind natural selection could've resulted in it. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/36664/ These creatures shouldn't exist : they should've evolved more adaptability, or gone extinct a long time ago. It just doesn't add up.
You see, that's why Darwinism is non-falsifable. No matter what nature dishes out, darwinism will find a way to include it in their theory. Nothing can be presented as evidence against it, because darwinism is not a solid theory, but a liquid idea which can flow in any direction you want it to flow. It has the same explanetory power as "God did it", but is considered science because it does not invoke God. But it's kind of a naturalistic god: it can do whatever it damnwell please. Yes, I must agree, darwinian explainations are more sophisticated and developed than ID's Designer, but in the end, it remains guesswork. It can't even be proven if the explainations presented is even possible. That's all fine. My problem with this becomes when the general ignorant public is being told that this is "not a theory but a fact". Many darwinists present evolution in such a way as to make you look stupid if you don't buy it. THAT'S my problem with most darwinists. (You're not included, though. You haven't treated me like a medieval idiot for daring to not believe in ortodox darwinism. That really counts in your favour.)
...on the metaphysical underpinnings of macro-evolutionary theory, i.e. methodological materialism. MM is contrived to get the results evolution is looking for; rigging the game to always win. MM is a giant step away from the gold standard of all scientific inquiry, i.e. empiricism, which is governed by experimental observation, NOT THEORY (with Darwinism the THEORY is the dog that wags the evidential tail).
Above, one of your posse commented about not being concerned with fossil evidence. That is because it proves no transitionals. You can claim transitionals until you are blue, that doesn't make them transitionals. The problem with all of your "evidence" for macro-evolution is that the process for evidence gathering is rigged (via MM) to yield the result hoped for: that Darwin was correct. Darwinists have a priori commitments to this metaphysical world view inherent in MM. Citing "proofs" of anything that are divined through error or bias is foolishness. Another way to say it is that the "proofs" of Darwinism that you and others cite are "intelligently (and fraudulently) designed".
Conversely, you're not listening or trying to understand my comments regarding ID, because for you it is a religion and you are indoctrinated; you don't have an open mind, nor does your posse. I'm not arguing in favor of ID or saying it is proven; far from it. I've never said anything other than it is a new area of study that was not possible prior to the advent of hi-res microscopes and other techniques key to empirical evidence gathering, so they can actually SEE (empirical) what they are talking about instead of making up JUST SO STORIES like Darwin's, because you cannot see any of their "proofs", it's all just a story. Like the above referenced Java Man, who was supposed to be a human intermediate (because the intermediates MUST be there because the theory SAYS they are there) but wound up a cross between a man's skull and the teeth and jaw of the pig he was eating.
So for now, going forward if there is to be any of that, I'm not interested in discussing ID anymore; I've said all I need to. It's new, it's interesting and it's at times compelling. But first of all it's new, with much work by the real scientists before a unified theory is even available, if that ever happens. We do not need to teach ID in public high schools, except maybe as an aside or in philosophy class; at least for now. This has always been my position.
What I'm interested in, passionate about and virtually certain is correct (based on empirical evidence, my readings of both sides of the argument and seeing the contrivance and bad will of the Darwin side of professional "science") is that macro-evolution has never happened, there is a controversy and apparently erroneous methodology associated with Darwinism, and we must teach that controversy in public schools. The bottom line is (and Dembski, Meyer, David Berlinski, and several others are my sources for this information) that macro-evol theory is based on MM, as I keep pointing out. When you make scientific theories on unfounded and unprovable philosophical postulates, you're into the world of religion. Darwinism is the atheistic religion of secular "progressives"; the reason the debate on this is so intense is because Darwinism is religion for many; just look at the Darwin religion emblem on the back of your car; you've probably even got the t-shirt or maybe even a necklace! It's a copy of the Christian sign of the fish, which dates back to the first century; a way for persecuted Christians to covertly identify each other. Darwinism is religion for many, including the head honchos of academia.
The problem with our argument is that Darwinists believe their religion and defend it with religious fervor. Notice our absurd argument. You are SURE of your position. I'm not sure that ID is correct or not; it's certainly not MY religion; it doesn't invoke my God. I do find ID compelling based on it's empiricism. But certainly not a sure thing. But your crowd is absolutely certain that you're right, yet you're basing it on a theory founded on an atheistic philosophy that is not empirical. Any evidence you may claim is just a mirage. To say that Darwinism in not founded on pure atheistic, philosophical underpinnings rigged to give the results it desire is either ignorant of the facts, blind to them or and unstudied.
Look at this example of scientific deck-stacking. General relativity has, since the documentation of the Red Shift of galaxies, proven powerful empirical evidence to the Big Bang theory, and it's corresponding necessity for an intelligent designer (convinced Einstein, Hubble, Jastrow, et al). Atheist Stephen Hawking frantically works his invalid life away trying to disprove the theological ramifications of the empirical proof of general relativity via Red Shift. Red Shift verifies GR and it's theological necessity (corroborated by Hawking, see one of my later RedState threads for line and verse). Hawking is a hardline atheist (he's mad at God for his disability; interestingly, his first wife is a strong Christian who nursed him through his illness and saved his life; of course, Hawking later divorced her). He hates the theological necessity of GR. So he feverishly works on the quest for the Nobel prize on the Theory of Everything that doesn't' exist. GR is proven (don't quibble; it is) by empirical evidence.
But with macro-evolution it all works in reverse. Here the Kool-Aid drinkers say "since we KNOW macro-evol had to happen (because of MM), when we find certain empirical evidence, we will only see that empirical evidence in the light of our certainty of macro-evolution, because due to methodological materialism, no other option is open for consideration. It's called cooking the books!
Here's a practical example. According to the top astrophysicists, if they were able to pick up an interstellar radio transmission of a series of prime numbers, that would be conclusive evidence of intelligent life outside of earth. The complexity and statistical odds of getting a series of prime numbers off some distant pulsar or other interstellar engine is so remote as to be deemed impossible. Yet the odds of getting DNA started, or a bacterial flagellum forming via macro-evolution, or the blood clotting mechanism, are all enormously greater than the prime number example. Why is one accepted (cosmology) and another rejected (biology)? In cosmology, scientists WANT to find intelligent life out there; so exceeding impossible statistical odds (1x10x72) become a proof of their theory. But because of methodological materialism operating as the foundation in biological theory (which limits the interpretation of what empirical results can mean), statistical odds are rejected in the Darwinian studies. It doesn't matter that the odds of a bacterial flagellum occurring by macro-evolution are impossible (beyond 1x10x72). Darwinism says it must happen, that's the theory so we will disregard statistical odds; "Because I Said So" (BISS epistemology) (tm).
So no amount of "proofs of macro-evolution" will ever carry any weight with those educated to understand the stacked deck used by "scientists" in the field. They further hurt their cause by not being open to debate, rather saying it's not debatable, then using the distraction of demanding proofs of ID, which is not the point.
I saw on the news today a similar situation. Now we're told that "global warming" is also not debatable; it is true BISS. Orwell was a prophet.
I am a Christian, but apparently so are you; or you at least believe in God. That makes us both creationists and by necessity believers in Intelligent Design. You seem to overlook that point. But my faith has nothing to do with this debate. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" that the Cambrian fossils are compelling. Check Redstate for the exact quote and page number. I'm already deep into repeating myself; you're out there wasting your time studying phony science; I'm just trying to show you what your indoctrinated professor will not (the indoctrination has been going on for a lot of generations of scientists).
And don't try to turn my BISS ("Because I Said So") argument against me; that's my original, trademarked and copyrighted statement and intellectual property. I originally intended it as tongue-in-cheek; I see you have read some of RedState. BISS epistemology. That is a founding principle of Darwinism, and now global warming caused by man. You and your buddies are rejecting everything I write based on BISS. And again, I'm not claiming ID is proven; I'm just claiming that macro-evol is not proven and is almost certainly false, due to all its "proofs" being based on flawed, metaphysical foundations.
If you can answer that effectively, have at it. But you can't, so you'll just give another ad hoc dismissal, claim intellectual superiority, cite other studies you're deep into (based on flawed science) and go off to preach to the choir. Because the Darwin marching orders are to NOT address arguments like mine above because Darwin loses. Just say there is no controversy except with religious nuts. Then smugly claim victory and go on with your self-congratulation.
"Kool-Aid, Kook-Aid, tastes great! Wish I had some, can't wait!"
PS I studied biochem at the graduate level in the 1970s; before you were born. I've been studying this Darwin debate stuff since '96, before you went to high school. You are indoctrinated by government schools and culture war ideology, of which Darwinism is an icon. But you claim a belief in God, which is a sign of hope. You are a robust young man; I hate to see those energies wasted for too long (we all waste energies along the way and learn from those; one day I will learn not to try to persuade those who refuse to hear the truth; one day.
Try this: if the Christian God is real, then you should seek to find the proofs of Him. There is only one proof of Him; either Jesus rose bodily from death or he didn't. If he didn't, Jesus was just a smart (and deranged) man and Christianity is just an ideology and fiction. If HE did rise, then HE is God Almighty and every word of the Bible certainly must be true (how impossible is it to rise from the dead?). That certainly doesn't mean we apply the Bible as a science book, but it is a good reason to only view science from an empirical standard, not MM. If Christianity is true, all true science is of God's making. If it's not true, then anything goes. But whether Christianity is true or not, Darwinism is still based on a rigged game, not empiricism.
No mas!!!
See, it's this kind of thing I'm pointing out:
"General relativity has, since the documentation of the Red Shift of galaxies, proven powerful empirical evidence to the Big Bang theory, and it's corresponding necessity for an intelligent designer (convinced Einstein, Hubble, Jastrow, et al)."
This statement is completely and factually wrong. General relativity has not provided 'evidence to the Big Bang theory'; the 'BB theory' does not 'need' an intelligent designer; Einstein never claimed that such a designer was necessary.
Your scientific illiteracy is appalling. How can we have a rational discussion if you keep making inaccurate statements?
Einstein (his authorized biography, 1949; I have an first publication copy!). OF course the Big Bang requires a creator. What happened before the Big Bang? What happened before the singularity? Why do the laws of physics dissolve nanoseconds after it appears? If you can answer those without a creator, you can win the Nobel prize; but get in line behind Hawking.
And don't give me multiple universe acid trips; they are fantasy; no Nobel prizes, but that theory may win a Nebula award for science fiction. Meanwhile, your "illiteracy" comments are a fine example of the psychological defense mechanism of projection.
Not to mention, the last time I checked a scarlet seraph is a red devil; either a deceiver or one already deceived. You show strong signs of the second option. Try some Prolixin for about a year and maybe you'll find reality.
"Please allow me to introduce myself; I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
The seraphim and Cherubrim are the two highest orders of angels; first described by Dionysis (sp?). Also described by Dante. And a few dozen other folk.
Here - have a reference: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13725b.htm.
Ignorance is not your friend - you shouldn't hug him so tightly!
Homu, this:
"They're already firing professors who even question macro-evolution, and denying them tenure." is false.
This:
"hen Antony Flew renounced his atheism based partially on Behe's work" is out of date. Flew has announced that he no longer accepts that ID is a valid argument.
Do try to keep up. I realize that you are not a scientist, and your understanding of the field is highly limited, but it is important not to let your irrational prejudices get in the way of clear thinking.
I am concerned that Homu is unable to reply in any substantive fashion to the very valid points that evolgeek has raised:
Neither CSI nor IC has ever been demonstrated in any living structure.
No scientific experimentation underpins Dembksi and Behe's argument from ignorance.
You'll have to deal with these points, Homu, if you wish to regain any intellectual credibility.
Otherwise you continue to be simply offensive, and your posts intellectually vacuous.
Do try, please - conversations like this are more fun when you bring facts to the table, rather than unsupported assertions.
Perhaps if you attempted to provide some actual discussable content; say, an example of CSI in a biological entity, or an actual argument why IC structures cannot be created, we would take you seriously.
At the moment, you're content free.
But really - do try.
Why Miss Scarlet! If you'd permit me a moment of your time I'd like to respond to the second part of your first statement in reply to Mr Homunculus. (Replying to the first part would take a little more time that I do not have right now.)
Here is the statement so we're all on the same page. "Neither CSI nor IC has ever been demonstrated in any living structure."
This is a very bold claim to make. In fact, I would say it is breath-taking in its audacity, but be that as it may, I offer the following examples of IC for your reflection and consideration.
Human beings are IC in any number of ways. We don't work very well without hearts, livers, lungs, or brains (that appears to be debatable but give me the benefit of the doubt on that one). Remove the heart and the human dies. Remove the liver and the human dies. Well, you get the picture. In other words, human beings are irreducibly complex. As are all living creatures, by the way. At a more basic level, individual cells are also IC. Cells don't work, for example, without mitochondria. That means they are IC. If these examples don't help, perhaps you could consider an automobile. Remove the battery and voila, the car no longer works. This is irreducible complexity. Why this is "controversial" in "scientific" circles absolutely astonishes me but then again, perhaps I am just easily astonished. Modern biologists remind me more of eastern mystics than they do of hard-headed, pragmatic, scientists out to figure out how things work. But what do I know? (Probably not much but I do know that some things are irreducibly complex and people that say otherwise generally turn out to have a philosophical rather than a scientific agenda.)
Kindest Regards.
I couldn't say it better.
Darwinists produce Prolefeed (For definition of "prolefeed", look at Geoge Orwells Nineteen Eighty Four) for school book textbooks. When someone with a mind actually investigate the so called "evidence", they realise that it's false. Angered by the fraud, they confront a darwinist with the evidence falsifying the "evidence" for evolution. The poor critic is greeted with, "well DUH, you stupid uninformed anti-science creationist, we've known that for years." The same darwinists who claim to be so concerned with the quality of science education, never made a peep about the decades old discredited evidence in the textbooks.
Then the deeper you dig into this mystical darwinian theory, the less it makes sence, but you're the one who never "understands". Even when live long scientists who has always kept the party line, such as Behe, discovers that he is not convinced, he is labeled as a ignoramus creationist with a religious agenda.
You can study all you like, as long as you're not convinced of darwinism, you're an ignoramus who "do not understand what evolution actually is".
Here's an idea. Maybe Darwinism apears like some eastern mystical philosophy, because it's simply wrong. Or maybe it is a complete coincidence that of all the scientific dissiplines, evolutionary biologists just happen to be the worst at explaining their theories in a comprehensable way? Who knows.
Anyway. That's the impression I'm getting. My apologies if it offends anyone.
Since you didn't actually say anything relevant.
Remember: your ignorance of science does constitute evidence for the inadequacy of any particular scientific theory.
Just thought you should know.
I see that you very conveniently avoided dealing with CSI. Smart choice.
Behe uses IC when he wishes to claim that something cannot have evolved. Since almost everything in the universe (made or unmade) has IC, it becomes a meaningless distinction, and cannot be used (as Behe would like to use it) as an indicator of intelligent design.
Since I'm willing to admit when I've made an error (unlike Homu, Ransom, et. al.) I'll concede that there are things that possess IC.
But possessing IC doesn't have anything to do with intelligent design.
Even Behe admits in DBB that things with IC can evolve. Sorta blows his entire point away, doesn't it? But then, Behe's not really very bright. His nonsensical speech that FTK links to here: http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006/12/behe-lecture_07.html demonstrates that pretty conclusively.
Evolutiongeek.
I missed the link to your bloot clotting article. Could you please provide it again
Thanks
Here's the link to the new article. It address a lot of what you, Dave, and I have been talking about here and I hope it proves to be informative (of course you don't have to agree with it, but it's at least an attempt towards constructive debate).
http://www.progressiveu.org/155822-blood-clots-panspermia-ediacarn-fauna-and-empty-black-boxes
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Here is a very good arguement for design. It's a picture of the water buck :
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/waterbuck-female_blog.jpg
In Afrikaans, it's also known as "kring-om-die-gat", or "ring around the ass"! From this, we can deduct that the Designer had a sence of humor!
I would really like to know how "blind" evolutionary processes formed that very perfect circle around such a very strategic body part of this species! - Yes, they all have them.
Maybe their males don't have good eye sight, so nature had to evolve a bullseye for them.
Lol
I'm not going to argue this point, just something I've read somewhere.
Appearantly, darwinists have their hands full with fraudulant fossils. There is a whole black market out there producing and selling false fossils, and they're getting better and better.
Now I must ask myself, why would anyone make and sell false fossils? Maybe because darwinists would pay good money for any fossil that proofs what they want it to proof. To their credit, nowadays they don't take as long to discover the frauds. The first fraud took 50 years to be discovered. (Pilt down man?)
I have to ask myself. If the empirical evidence was allowed to speak for themselves, without having preconceived ideas forced onto them, would this market for fraudulent fossils have existed?
This has to do with the much-maligned Archeoraptor fossil that National Geographic purchased and highly touted as the next big transitional form in the dinosaur/bird evolutionary lineage. It was discovered to be a fraud (half bird, half dinosaur) and the magazine published a retraction, getting a lot of criticism from professional scientists and the journal Nature in the process. The problem mostly came out of Nat. Geo. thinking they found something amazing and rushing it into press without doing proper study; hardly professional at all. And indeed, there are a lot of fake fossils out there (just look at eBay, yikes) but that's because dinosaurs sell; just about every major discovery I can think of came out of the ground by a paleontologist or someone who knew they had something special and brought it to a scientist (like with the first Neanderthal bones).
The issue with Piltdown man was one of bias, and I think the UK-centric view of many of the scientists at the time contributed to the problem. OF COURSE modern man evolved on English soil, because they were the smartest and best and most arrogant, right? There will always be fraudulent fossils, and anything bought from a trader in a street should go under heavy scrutiny, but most fossil material is coming right out of the ground and going into the lab (there's a HUGE backlog of material that hasn't even come out of the plaster jacketing yet, all over the world), so I don't think paleontologists have to worry about frauds in those cases. Then again, there are people who are convinced Archaeopteryx is a fraud, but I would reccomend them (if they find themselves in New York City) to see the collection of Archaeopteryx fossils on display at the American Museum of Natural History and to look closely; they are genuine.
In any case, yes, scientists should be careful with fossils but the black market has always been around because dinosaurs (and other extinct creatures) bring in good money, not because of evolution.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett