What neo-Darwinists get wrong
Picture is courtesy of Overwhelming Evidence
=========================================================
An article titled "What neo-creationists get right" by Gordy Slack in The Scientist magazine says,
Two and a half years ago, in what is so far the "trial of this century," federal district judge John Jones III ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school board in Dover, PA to teach intelligent design (ID) theory in a public high school science class. The decision was stunning; the ID movement lost on every front. When Jones called the school board's efforts to introduce ID into the curriculum "staggering inanity," the anti-ID chorus roared its support. Jones declared the ID movement's science bogus, their tactics corrupt, and their religious motivations transparent. Intelligent design, Jones said, is the most recent species in the highly adaptive lineage known as American Creationism.
A few comments:
.
The correct terms are "scientific creationism" or "creation science" -- not "American Creationism."
Intelligent design was not actually taught in the Dover school district -- only Darwinism was actually taught.
I don't think that it is still regarded "so far as the 'trial of this century'." For example, none of the books about the trial have done terribly well.
It was "breathtaking inanity," not "staggering inanity."
Judge Jones overstepped his authority by issuing a judicial opinion on the scientific merits of intelligent design. He showed extreme judicial activism by arrogantly and presumptuously deciding perplexing questions that have baffled millions of people. We have theistic evolutionists, atheistic evolutionists, young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, intelligent-designists, and what-have-you-ists. There are also combinations of these -- for example, ID-proponent Michael Behe believes in an old earth and common descent. The courts should declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable. A question is non-justiciable when there is "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question." Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004)
The article continues,
.
The Dover trial seemed, for a brief moment, to be a wooden stake driven into the heart of creationism. But ID is once again back up and on the march. So far in 2008, legislators in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan, and Missouri have tried to require that classrooms teach both "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," code for unteaching evolution. Similar legislation passed both houses of the Louisiana legislature this month and is coming perilously close to passing in Texas.
This guy makes the common mistakes of (1) equating ID and creationism and (2) assuming that creationism and "ID creationism" are the only criticisms of Darwinism. There are also several non-ID, non-creationist criticisms of Darwinism -- e.g., issues concerning co-evolution.
American creationism's resilience is tied mostly to its cultural and religious roots, in particular the Religious Right's conviction that scientific naturalism promotes cultural relativism. But in the debate over evolution, I also think creationists' doggedness has to do with the fact that they make a few worthy points. And as long as evolutionists like me reflexively react with ridicule and self-righteous rage, we may paradoxically be adding years to creationism's lifespan.
There we go with that "American creationism" again. Is this guy a Brit or what?
Regarding the statement "creationism's resilience is tied mostly to its cultural and religious roots" -- I strongly disagree. Most religious people accept heliocentrism because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it and probably would also accept evolution if it were also overwhelmingly supported by evidence. But evolution is not overwhelmingly supported by evidence.
"Ridicule and self-righteous rage" are not the biggest problems -- censorship is the biggest problem. I have experienced this censorship firsthand, e.g., I have been barred from discussing co-evolution on Panda's Thumb and the blog of the Florida Citizens for Science.
Panda's Thumb has related links and a discussion of the article.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/04/2008 03:39:00 PM
42 Comments:
The correct terms are "scientific creationism" or "creation science" -- not "American Creationism."
You miss their point. Creationism in America has transformed - evolved, if you will - from outright creationism to "creation science" to "intelligent design." That is what they were referencing, not the single step of "creation science."
Judge Jones overstepped his authority by issuing a judicial opinion on the scientific merits of intelligent design. He showed extreme judicial activism by arrogantly and presumptuously deciding perplexing questions that have baffled millions of people. We have theistic evolutionists, atheistic evolutionists, young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, intelligent-designists, and what-have-you-ists. There are also combinations of these -- for example, ID-proponent Michael Behe believes in an old earth and common descent. The courts should declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable. A question is non-justiciable when there is "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question." Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004)
That would be true except for the fact that it was shockingly apparent to pretty much everyone who is not on the religious right that ID is creationism, which is religion and accordingly not allowed in school science classrooms. Ceding jurisdiction would turn a blind eye to that.
I mean, it's hard to get more conclusive than "cdesign proponentists" and Behe's "Well, yes, astrology would also be science."
This guy makes the common mistakes of (1) equating ID and creationism and (2) assuming that creationism and "ID creationism" are the only criticisms of Darwinism. There are also several non-ID, non-creationist criticisms of Darwinism -- e.g., issues concerning co-evolution.
(1) That's the blatant truth, not a common mistake. If you think differently, I invite you to explain exactly the difference to me.
(2) Those criticisms are astonishingly weak, and generally don't imply alternatives, only attack individual items. For example, there is a division between Punctuated Equilibrium adherents and Neo-Darwinians, but they're all scientists.
Regarding the statement "creationism's resilience is tied mostly to its cultural and religious roots" -- I strongly disagree. Most religious people accept heliocentrism because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it and probably would also accept evolution if it were also overwhelmingly supported by evidence. But evolution is not overwhelmingly supported by evidence.
As I asked and you have decided to run away from, what would be required for you to believe in evolution? What would be sufficient proof?
Because I assure you, it already is supported with overwhelming evidence. Paleontology, biology, botany, taxonomy, genetics, and a dozen other branches of study have provided enormous amounts of evidence.
Phae wrote, "Because I assure you, it already is supported with overwhelming evidence. Paleontology, biology, botany, taxonomy, genetics, and a dozen other branches of study have provided enormous amounts of evidence."
This is where Larry turns into a mole or the story commonly told about the ostrich (apparently not true): he buries his head in the sand. Or he makes like Behe in the trial and says, "it's not enough," making a fool of himself in the process (as did Behe).
I have much better things to do with my time than to respond to the rude stupid comments of trolls.
You said that pretty well with that mouthful of sand, CowardLarry.
>>>>>I have much better things to do with my time than to respond to the rude stupid comments of trolls.
Thank you for proving my point.
> I have much better things to do with my time than to respond to the rude stupid comments of trolls. <
And you lack the ability to respond to intelligent comments from Phae and others.
Yet you still wonder why you are a laughing stock on the net.
These Darwin-fan buffoons are usually so dumb that they think that Behe is a creationist, even though he believes that humans are descended from ancient monkeys. Insofar as the history of life is concerned, Behe's views are the same as those of the conventional "evolutionary biologists."
And they are so amazingly ignorant that they frequently think that "Darwinism" is an improper term for the conventional theory of evolution: PZ has evidently told them that the IDists hatched the term to discredit the Darwinists! And they believe whatever he says!
Can you imagine the scene in the homes of these ignoramuses?
"Ma! Pa! That creationist Behe is on the TV! He says that we are descended from monkeys!"
The fund of misinformation that these guys have is astonishing. They are evidently taken in by the propaganda put out by Eugenie Scott et.al. Trying to correct all of their incorrect notions would take a long time.
How does one deal with those who have been heavily indoctrinated in that manner? The answer is, not very easily. So this controversy is certain to keep intensifying, for many years.
"You're a Christian, a Christian!" (A shout
From a 'Darwin,') "I'll ferret you out!
Don't tell me you're not
From Robertson. Rot!
You're his tunneling mole, no doubt!"
>>>>>>These Darwin-fan buffoons are usually so dumb that they think that Behe is a creationist, even though he believes that humans are descended from ancient monkeys. Insofar as the history of life is concerned, Behe's views are the same as those of the conventional "evolutionary biologists."<<<<<<
Then why does he have such problems accepting evidence of evolution, and why is he such a hard-core defender of ID? I suggest you consult the transcripts of the very trial CowardLarry is talking about. Behe's evidence in there, including being presented with a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution and dismissing it as 'not enough, and, as Phae mentioned, redefining 'science' in such a way that, not only would it include ID, it would also include such things as astrology, might make you reconsider what he actually believes.
>>>>>>And they are so amazingly ignorant that they frequently think that "Darwinism" is an improper term for the conventional theory of evolution<<<<<<
Because it is. The modern evolutionary synthesis (to give it the most accurate term I have heard, from my understanding) is extremely different from the original theory proposed by darwin, but follows the same basic idea. Why is it different? Because we have discovered a great deal more evidence about the world and universe in which we live that gives us a better understanding of what happened in the past and is still happening today. And that is exactly what ID/creationism is lacking - solid evidence.
>>>>>>PZ has evidently told them that the IDists hatched the term to discredit the Darwinists! And they believe whatever he says!<<<<<<
Well, put it this way - it is predominantly creationists/IDists who use that term, and it is fairly common for them to basically attack evolution by attacking Darwin's original theory (instead of the modern evolutionary synthesis), and, indeed, Darwin himself, so that is a solid hypothesis.
>>>>>>How does one deal with those who have been heavily indoctrinated in that manner? The answer is, not very easily.<<<<<<
Well, it's been, what? Almost 150 years since Darwin first published the Origin of Species? Upon publication, it had a very significant amount of evidence backing it up (as Darwin wanted to be sure to have a solid case, given that he was not only going against established science, but religion, too), and, since then, we've discovered a great deal of evidence that back up the general idea of evolution (whilst indicating he was maybe wrong in the details), and we still have people who cling to the previously accepted model, which was that a supremely powerful, mythical being flashed the world into existence in about a week. So, yes, I would say that is perfectly accurate.
Larry, there's an interesting interview with Ben Stein in the Toronto Star, which is available online. Excerpts:
"I had no feelings whatsoever about Intelligent Design before starting this film," admits Stein. He pauses and corrects himself. "Well, I had read a long article in the New Yorker about the Dover, Pa., court decision"..."and I thought to myself that this is a bunch of bullshit."
"You cannot tell me for one minute that a court is competent to tell me what is science and what is not. A court is not divinely inspired. It's just some guy in a black robe."
"...in the course of making the picture, I was astonished to learn about the extent of academic suppression in the U.S. and so we decided to make that the focus."
Interesting, eh? I thought that something like that probably happened in the course of making the film. By persecuting dissenting academics and hiding behind the robes of a Darwinist judge, the Darwin-zealots have evidently become their own worst enemies.
Incidentally, I changed "bull----" to "bullshit."
Actually Ben Stein said "started" to make that the focus, not "decided." My minor error.This was evidently published on June 28, but I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not, Larry.
Awesome. Time to flame some darwinists.
I mean, it's hard to get more conclusive than "cdesign proponentists..."
Rational people can see that the term you cite isn't what you think it is:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html
http://www.fteonline.com/pandas-creationism.html
I can't find audio formats for these links but I think someone can help you see what it is they say.XD
...and Behe's "Well, yes, astrology would also be science."
You do realize that Behe was pointing out that there is no basis for all of science to be strictly from material viewpoints right?
That's the blatant truth, not a common mistake. If you think differently, I invite you to explain exactly the difference to me.
You cannot explain your own case so why should he? Such a claim requires proof before you insist Larry is wrong.
Those criticisms are astonishingly weak, and generally don't imply alternatives, only attack individual items. For example, there is a division between Punctuated Equilibrium adherents and Neo-Darwinians, but they're all scientists.
They're weak? Please, provide a case for the claim and I might just agree with you.
As I asked and you have decided to run away from, what would be required for you to believe in evolution? What would be sufficient proof?
What would you consider to be evidence of design? What would be sufficient proof?
Because I assure you, it already is supported with overwhelming evidence. Paleontology, biology, botany, taxonomy, genetics, and a dozen other branches of study have provided enormous amounts of evidence.
So is design, and if what you say is true then please enlighten us on this mountain of evidence you speak of.
This is where Larry turns into a mole or the story commonly told about the ostrich (apparently not true): he buries his head in the sand. Or he makes like Behe in the trial and says, "it's not enough," making a fool of himself in the process (as did Behe).
Looks like people are still mindlessly swallowing Ken Miller's talking points, that was not at all what Behe stated. See page three of the following link:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186
Now feel free to cover your eyes, you won't like what you see.
You said that pretty well with that mouthful of sand, CowardLarry.
Well pee, fay, or whatever your name is, I think the merits of that statement speak for itself.
neo-Darwinists? Only creationist shitheads use that word.
Aside from the negativity that is surely going to dissuade anyone from agreeing with you, you're also flat out wrong. The term Darwinist was coined by the very founders of evolution. They include but are not limited to:
T.H. Huxley (known as "Darwin's Bulldog"), Harvard Botanist Asa Gray, Alfred Russel Wallace (a co-founder of the ToE), and get this, even modern "evolutionists" used the term, such as Ernst Mayr, and Stephen Jay Gould. I also came across a pretty cool article entitled "Darwinism and Immunology" but don't feel like subscribing to Nature.
Oh, and one last thing:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/darwinist_or_darwinian_theyre.html
Why don't you grow up asshole and stop living in the Dark Ages. Your ID is nothing more than magic. Only fucking idiots believe in it.
Why don't YOU grow up (I think your choice of words indicates how far you have to go on that one), look at the evidence, and realize that only the most isolated self-centered people hold neo-darwinism or evolution as rock solid truth.
And you lack the ability to respond to intelligent comments from Phae and others.
Boy if those are what you consider to be intelligent comments then I'd hate to see what you would consider to be massive evidence for your case.
Yet you still wonder why you are a laughing stock on the net.
I would to, no one has explained why, but then again there's a lot that remains unexplained in the case against ID.
Who is the designer you fucking moron? Who is the magical sky fairy that makes creatures out of nothing?
Bobxxxx stop making a fool of yourself. Try and take a few deep breaths and imagine the smell of lavender and vanilla before posting if that helps to calm you down.
The identity, nature, or mechanisms of the designer are no more relevant to ID then abiogenesis is to evolution.
We don't need to know the sculptor of Mt. Rushmore to know it was sculpted, so your question means nothing.
There is nobody more stupid than a creationist, and there is nobody more dishonest than a stupid "intelligent design" creationist.
Well gee, you're one to talk. The very nature in which you present that statement pretty much does more to damage your case then it does to support it.
How fucking hard is it to study science instead of lying about it? Perhaps creationists don't bother to educate themselves because they know they're too bloody stupid to understand anything.
How tough is it to actually read up on what ID is before speaking on something you know nothing whatsoever about? Maybe Behe among others should release Darwin's black box in audio format so you can understand what he wrote.
Science hard. Hurts brain.
Intelligent Design isn't that hard to understand. Just give it a few weeks and it starts to sink in.
God easy. No think.
Why drag religion into the discussion if one of your top complaints is that critics of evolution do the very same thing?
By the way, LARRY FAFARMAN, you are the laughing stock of the internet.
I can make a conversation piece out of you in 30 minutes or less on Uncommon Descent. That would sure be fun. XD
Then why does he have such problems accepting evidence of evolution, and why is he such a hard-core defender of ID?
Evidence of evolution? Please do tell.
I suggest you consult the transcripts of the very trial CowardLarry is talking about.
I suggest you consult the following link to find out why that case is irrelevant:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879
Behe's evidence in there, including being presented with a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution and dismissing it as 'not enough, and, as Phae mentioned, redefining 'science' in such a way that, not only would it include ID, it would also include such things as astrology, might make you reconsider what he actually believes.
Already addressed those points above so no need to say more.
Because it is. The modern evolutionary synthesis (to give it the most accurate term I have heard, from my understanding) is extremely different from the original theory proposed by darwin, but follows the same basic idea. Why is it different? Because we have discovered a great deal more evidence about the world and universe in which we live that gives us a better understanding of what happened in the past and is still happening today.
Hence the reason it is now known as Neo-Darwinism to make the distinction between small scale changes and those large scale ones that we have yet to observe.
And that is exactly what ID/creationism is lacking - solid evidence.
Speaking of Neo-Darwinism, that is exactly the solid evidence it lacks, the fact that evolution has yet to provide any evidence of undirected large-scale changes:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6071
Well, put it this way - it is predominantly creationists/IDists who use that term...
...even though your side was the one who came up with it and still continues to use it to this day.
...and it is fairly common for them to basically attack evolution by attacking Darwin's original theory (instead of the modern evolutionary synthesis), and, indeed, Darwin himself, so that is a solid hypothesis.
Please enlighten us on what these straw man arguments are, what mistakes they make in their critiques, and why the new interpretation is so different.
...and we still have people who cling to the previously accepted model, which was that a supremely powerful, mythical being flashed the world into existence in about a week.
That certainly does not include the majority of Design advocates, so try a better strategy then building monsters out of straw and knocking them down. ;)
Hmm.
>>>>>>"You cannot tell me for one minute that a court is competent to tell me what is science and what is not. A court is not divinely inspired. It's just some guy in a black robe."<<<<<<
So somebody needs to be 'divinely inspired' to decide what is or is not science? And 'just some guy in a black robe' isn't good enough to make a decision in a court of law? So, what does he suggest instead, a robot in a black robe? Not to mention, of course, that the first quote is basically Stein saying that he had no feelings about ID, then immediately saying something that suggests he actually did.
Wow, f2xl, such a long comment that says so little. As for the 'non-existant' evidence for evolution, try most of modern biology. Try absolutely everything that has ever been discovered about DNA. In fact, try picking up any proper science book and actually reading it sometime.
As for your comments about the evidence presented by Behe in the case, if you are you really trying to argue that science is not about material things and solid evidence, then you must accept, as Behe was forced to, that, under your definition, astrology is science.
As for your claim of the term 'Darwinism' not predominantly being used by creationists instead of 'evolution', instead of trying to prove your case by linking to...erm...creationist websites, try linking to, for example, scientific papers that uses 'Darwinism' as a synonym for 'evolution' or 'the theory of evolution'. Your assertion about Neo-Darwinism is actually wrong, by the way (I suggest you look up how the term relates to a theory by August Weismann), but, even if it were correct, what is the term that is repeated, ad nauseum, by creationists? 'Darwinism', not 'Neo-Darwinism'.
As for your request about what the arguments attacking 'Darwinism' are, if you genuinely don't know, you aren't really following the creation/evolution debate very well.
Oh, and, yes, I agree, Intelligent Design is very simple - it says that a magical Sky-Daddy poofed all life in the world into being with magic. It just doesn't say what this Sky-Daddy's name is.
Wow, f2xl, such a long comment that says so little.
Well, you're half right.
Aside from your claim being a misnomer I guess the later applies to you as well.
As for the 'non-existant' evidence for evolution, try most of modern biology.
Very little of which actually has anything to do with evolution. If I do a search on various biology papers, exactly how many will explain something by means of random mutations acted upon by natural selection?
Try absolutely everything that has ever been discovered about DNA.
Excellent point! In fact, DNA carries a key aspect which we know comes from an intelligent cause: information. Of course when you have a coding region in the human genome that could come in 10 to the 270,000,000th power combinations......
(I'll take a sec to elaborate on this, we IDers like to show our work when we make claims, something you might not be familiar with. If you want to take my word for it, fine)
3,000,000,000 base pairs in the human genome. Only about 15% is known to have any function, which whittles it down to 450,000,000 base pairs. With 4 different nucleotide pair combinations (at, ta, cg, gc), the number of combinations that 450,000,000 base pairs can come in is calculated by taking 4 (number of different base pair options) to the 450 millionth power (number of places to fill). This leads us to a result of 10 to the 270 millionth power, or 1 followed by 270 million zeros.
...........no rational person will say there are that many outcomes to which selection can act upon and preserve, if there were then evolution of any given system would be a piece of cake.
With a 30 letter sequence, you have 26 to the 30th power combinations, but no one in their right mind will say there are that many meaningful sentences.
In fact, try picking up any proper science book and actually reading it sometime.
That's been taken care of.
As for your comments about the evidence presented by Behe in the case, if you are you really trying to argue that science is not about material things and solid evidence...
Which I'm not (straw man). I'm saying that the implications of a theory shouldn't matter.
...then you must accept, as Behe was forced to, that, under your definition, astrology is science.
Under my definition? Please tell me what you think I define science as, and how astrology fits into that domain.
As for your claim of the term 'Darwinism' not predominantly being used by creationists instead of 'evolution'...
Straw man after straw man you keep misrepresenting me. I stated that the term originated from the founders of modern evolutionary theory and that's it. Of course it's used more often by critics of the theory since it distinguishes between small and large scale changes.
instead of trying to prove your case by linking to...erm...creationist websites,
Which link did I give to a creationist website, why was it a creationist website, and explain to me how the premise was wrong.
...try linking to, for example, scientific papers that uses 'Darwinism' as a synonym for 'evolution' or 'the theory of evolution'.
You obviously have trouble reading or did not read my post. I took care of that challenge a few hours ago. Here's a link this time:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=darwinism+and+immunology&btnG=Google+Search
See that link to Nature? I thought I made it clear what one of the articles was that I was citing, but I guess I needed to repeat myself.
Your assertion about Neo-Darwinism is actually wrong, by the way (I suggest you look up how the term relates to a theory by August Weismann),
What assertion did I make and how is it wrong? Can you be more specific please?
...but, even if it were correct, what is the term that is repeated, ad nauseum, by creationists? 'Darwinism', not 'Neo-Darwinism'.
I guess if we're talking creationists, then you would at least be halfway right, but I'm referring to ID theorists, who in fact used the term numerously in the video "Icons of Evolution."
As for your request about what the arguments attacking 'Darwinism' are, if you genuinely don't know, you aren't really following the creation/evolution debate very well.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what some of them are but I was asking specifically for examples from phae regarding "non-ID, non-Creationist criticisms" of modern evolution, along with justifications for why they are "astonishingly weak."
Oh, and, yes, I agree, Intelligent Design is very simple - it says that a magical Sky-Daddy poofed all life in the world into being with magic.
For someone who criticizes others for knowing nothing about biology and evolution, you sure seem to be guilty of the same thing when it comes to ID. Here's the real definition:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-01-01T16_23_44-08_00
It just doesn't say what this Sky-Daddy's name is.
Or if it even was a sky-daddy for all that matter. Mainly because such claims would be untestable, limit inquiry, and are irrelevant.
Like I said before, since we don't need to know the sculptors of Mt. Rushmore to know it was sculpted we don't need to know anything about the teleological force at hand to know something was designed.
Hey Larry I know you're against censorship on blogs but if you don't mind (and if you really respect the rights me as a commentator), I would like to police some of the comments on your posts so as to make sure your perspectives are as heavily defended as possible.
Dissent without criticism is as pointless an idea as descent with modification.
Jim:
These Darwin-fan buffoons are usually so dumb that they think that Behe is a creationist, even though he believes that humans are descended from ancient monkeys. Insofar as the history of life is concerned, Behe's views are the same as those of the conventional "evolutionary biologists."
Behe is an advocate of intelligent design, he just happens to have a different definition of it than you and many other advocates. See, you have here highlighted a very interesting point: IDers can't even agree on their theory. Some say it occurred with "guided evolution," wherein Jesus helped improve the odds. Others believe it was a big hand out of the clouds molding some dudes out of mud. There isn't even a coherent theory in the mess, and what is usually presented as the theory is solely attacks on evolution by natural design, rather than support for any actual thesis.
Thanks for the help! :)
And they are so amazingly ignorant that they frequently think that "Darwinism" is an improper term for the conventional theory of evolution: PZ has evidently told them that the IDists hatched the term to discredit the Darwinists! And they believe whatever he says!
No one calls relativity "Einsteinism." That's because the study of relativity has advanced past Einstein's initial insights, although he was responsible for the major breakthroughs. This is exactly analagous to evolution by natural design, yet do you insist on calling physicists who adhere to relativity "Einsteinians?" Of course not, because that's not the name of that body of thought. Similarly, "Darwinism" is not the name for any body of thought in biology, it's just a smear tactic.
Wow, you're worse than Larry at this, if that's even possible.
The fund of misinformation that these guys have is astonishing. They are evidently taken in by the propaganda put out by Eugenie Scott et.al. Trying to correct all of their incorrect notions would take a long time.
Advocates of ID often do a little hand-wave of this type. "Oh ho, old boy, they sure are wrong. Let us go off and huff each other some, while declining to actually explain why ID is science." Swell!
How does one deal with those who have been heavily indoctrinated in that manner? The answer is, not very easily. So this controversy is certain to keep intensifying, for many years.
"Oh ho, yes, just like that! How foolish they are, even though I can't really explain why in such detailed terms as they have used to point out my own idiocy! Oh ho!"
"You're a Christian, a Christian!" (A shout
From a 'Darwin,') "I'll ferret you out!
Don't tell me you're not
From Robertson. Rot!
You're his tunneling mole, no doubt!"
Your limericks are seriously awful. Not only is there supposed to be at least a semblance of meter (not just AABBA), there's also traditionally some vulgarity. Here, I'll show you how.
"You are wrong, sir, quite wrong indeed.
No, I cannot explain why, no matter your need.
So if you'll excuse me,
I'll get back on my good knee,
And continue on choking Dembski's seed."
"You cannot tell me for one minute that a court is competent to tell me what is science and what is not. A court is not divinely inspired. It's just some guy in a black robe."
"You cannot tell me for one minute that a court is competent to tell me what are civil rights and what are not. A court is not divinely inspired. It's just some guy in a black robe."
Hey, wow, look at that. Handwaving rhetoric works for everything.
"...in the course of making the picture, I was astonished to learn about the extent of academic suppression in the U.S. and so we decided to make that the focus."
Interesting, eh? I thought that something like that probably happened in the course of making the film. By persecuting dissenting academics and hiding behind the robes of a Darwinist judge, the Darwin-zealots have evidently become their own worst enemies.
Of course, I'm sure he was entirely open-minded and without an agenda. That's why when he went to interview people like Dawkins, he told them they were doing a film called Crossroads, about the intersection of science and religion. Yet mysteriously they never registered "crossroadsthemovie.com," but they DID register "expelledthemovie.com" weeks before the interview.
And of course there's implying that Sternberg lost his position because of his beliefs, whereas his contract had expired and he was rehired to a new and better job, and his office was moved at his request.
Yup. They really have the moral high ground.
f2xl:
Rational people can see that the term you cite isn't what you think it is:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html
http://www.fteonline.com/pandas-creationism.html
Reading those, I see nothing about the term cited, only an argument that draws from some of the earlier drafts to imply that they were never about creationism. To my understanding, if you actually check the timeline, you will see them already shifting from "creationism" to "creation science" mode as these were written, and thereafter shifted to the new version of "intelligent design."
Plus, there's the whole fact that the definition of creation science given in an early draft is verbatim for the published version, but for the words "intelligent design." I never said they weren't already trying to weasel the idea through at the time with mitigating language elsewhere. I have infinite confidence in the capacity of the religious right for intellectual gymnastics of that sort.
You do realize that Behe was pointing out that there is no basis for all of science to be strictly from material viewpoints right?
That's absolutely true, shame on me. You just find me an angel I can run some repeatable tests on to actually follow the scientific method, and we'll pop that sucker right in the evolutionary tree.
Oh, shit, I am out of Davis Minimal Broth Quintessence. Someone pop on over to Yahweh and borrow some, in order that we can get on with our nonmaterialist experiments?
You cannot explain your own case so why should he? Such a claim requires proof before you insist Larry is wrong.
Wait... so when Larry claims that ID and creationism are the same thing, he is free not to supply anything other than that bald assertion? That is an interesting method you have there.
I notice you can't explain the difference between ID and creationism, either.
They're weak? Please, provide a case for the claim and I might just agree with you.
Provide a case for the claim... of what? He said there were criticisms, I said they were generally weak. You want me to disprove every possible thing he might say before he offers an actual specific point?
Is this your first time using your brain? You must just have hooked the keyboard up to your autonomic, since there's nothing conscious coming from you.
What would you consider to be evidence of design? What would be sufficient proof?
Wow, it's almost like he ALSO answered my question with that question in the first post in which I asked it, and I actually answered it by stating what would be sufficient! The Lenski experiment could have yielded no results, for example, and that would have been evidence against evolution.
Now I invite you to answer the question you dodged, just like he did.
So is design, and if what you say is true then please enlighten us on this mountain of evidence you speak of.
Design is not backed up by anything. It has had a single peer-reviewed paper published, which was a review of the literature rather than an experiment and would have served only as evidence AGAINST evolution and not in SUPPORT of ID. Not to mention the review was slid in under the radar into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington by an editor on his last issue who did the review himself.
You have almost no substance to your flame. Couldn't you at least TRY? You guys are embarrassing yourself.
Now feel free to cover your eyes, you won't like what you see.
Not really sure what was supposed to shock me. Quit linking things and actually make points, if you have anything to say for yourself.
Well pee, fay, or whatever your name is, I think the merits of that statement speak for itself.
You have amply proven that you actually don't think at all, you just link to other people's thoughts.
We don't need to know the sculptor of Mt. Rushmore to know it was sculpted, so your question means nothing.
The arguments from design/incredulity. Wow. That is so totally new. The internet community is devastated. Abandon ship. Help. Help.
See, you have here highlighted a very interesting point: IDers can't even agree on their theory.
Neither can evolutionists, but apparently that doesn't matter. The only claim ID makes is that some aspects of physics, cosmology, and nature may have been the result of design; nothing else, so even if there are different perspectives on ID that really proves nothing about it's validity. Though it does show how diverse and open-minded the movement is.
There isn't even a coherent theory in the mess, and what is usually presented as the theory is solely attacks on evolution by natural design, rather than support for any actual thesis.
I've made the definition of ID loud and clear a few times now, but aside from that of course there is some critique of evolution in the process. Particularly the claim that all life around us was the result of purely undirected processes.
Similarly, "Darwinism" is not the name for any body of thought in biology, it's just a smear tactic.
I've presented a link which shows that Darwinism is in fact a term used by supporters of the theory to distinguish large scale evolution from minor adaptations. So no need to repeat what I already said.
Wow, you're worse than Larry at this, if that's even possible.
Keep it up and you just might become worse then bobxxxx at this, which I didn't think was possible.
Advocates of ID often do a little hand-wave of this type. "Oh ho, old boy, they sure are wrong. Let us go off and huff each other some, while declining to actually explain why ID is science." Swell!
ID critics (such as yourself) often do this mindless repetition sort of thing where they keep saying ID is pseudo-science without elaborating on why this is even the case.
"Oh ho, yes, just like that! How foolish they are, even though I can't really explain why in such detailed terms as they have used to point out my own idiocy! Oh ho!"
Your debate style can be summed up as follows:
"Oh ho hum yeah just like that! How out of touch they are, even though I continue to spout claim after claim with virtually nothing to back it up except through a rampage of straw man arguments, and various rhetorical thrusts! And there can't be any way F2XL could just sit back and rebut every last fallacy I spout!"
Moving on...
Your limericks are seriously awful. Not only is there supposed to be at least a semblance of meter (not just AABBA), there's also traditionally some vulgarity. Here, I'll show you how.
"You are wrong, sir, quite wrong indeed.
No, I cannot explain why, no matter your need.
So if you'll excuse me,
I'll get back on my good knee,
And continue on choking Dembski's seed."
Thanks for proving our point! :D
Now I'm assuming it would be fair to say that all you'll ever do is insist upon choking and devouring the random ejaculations from that godless liberal PZ Meyers, correct?
Hey, wow, look at that. Handwaving rhetoric works for everything.
Now you've confessed that all you do is spout rhetoric without evidence. I sure would like some proof that ID violates ones civil rights.
Of course, I'm sure he was entirely open-minded and without an agenda.
Of course I'm quite sure Dawkins has the sack to actually face IDers in open debate.
That's why when he went to interview people like Dawkins, he told them they were doing a film called Crossroads, about the intersection of science and religion...
That's why no one has to go to such great levels in order to expose Dawkins for who he really is and prove that he believes ID is scientific.
Yet mysteriously they never registered "crossroadsthemovie.com," but they DID register "expelledthemovie.com" weeks before the interview.
And I'm totally sure that IDers never get misrepresented by the media or by publically funded documentaries either.
(sarcasm off)
And of course there's implying that Sternberg lost his position because of his beliefs, whereas his contract had expired and he was rehired to a new and better job, and his office was moved at his request.
Funny, I thought Sternberg was never an employee at the Smithsonian, at least that's what PR officials for Darwin say.
Now if he really was rehired to a new and better job why is it that all information I can dig up indicates that because he was disbanded from the Smithsonian, he was forced to join the ISCID?
Reading those, I see nothing about the term cited, only an argument that draws from some of the earlier drafts to imply that they were never about creationism.
So you've admitted that they address the issue of the creationist drafts that have caused such a stir which are the reason "cdesign proponentists" is even brought up by people in the first place. Good.
To my understanding, if you actually check the timeline, you will see them already shifting from "creationism" to "creation science" mode as these were written, and thereafter shifted to the new version of "intelligent design."
To my understanding they make it explicitly clear that even when they used those terms they meant something entirely different from what Jones insisted they meant.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=795
Plus, there's the whole fact that the definition of creation science given in an early draft is verbatim for the published version, but for the words "intelligent design."
Which clearly shows that even when they did use the term "creation science" they did not in any way advocate the terminology defined in the Edwards case.
I never said they weren't already trying to weasel the idea through at the time with mitigating language elsewhere. I have infinite confidence in the capacity of the religious right for intellectual gymnastics of that sort.
So you agree that they never advocated a faith-based concept in any way whatsoever. Good, but please provide proof that this was a form of intellectual gymnastics by the religious right.
That's absolutely true, shame on me. You just find me an angel I can run some repeatable tests on to actually follow the scientific method, and we'll pop that sucker right in the evolutionary tree.
Dodging the argument isn't going to do you any good. If you can provide any reasons for why science must be entirely from material viewpoints, then please, do tell.
Oh, shit, I am out of Davis Minimal Broth Quintessence. Someone pop on over to Yahweh and borrow some, in order that we can get on with our nonmaterialist experiments?
I don't know if there's even any arguments in that to agree with or refute, hard to tell what you're even attempting to say. Nonetheless until you can provide a basis for why science must be from a material view, I will simply embrace the fact that materialism has no testability with anything other than itself. ;D
Wait... so when Larry claims that ID and creationism are the same thing, he is free not to supply anything other than that bald assertion? That is an interesting method you have there.
Actually no, that's you're method. I totally agree that if someone wants to say they are the same thing they should provide proof of this.
I notice you can't explain the difference between ID and creationism, either.
I did post a link explaining the difference, but here's another one which has the statements in audio format so you can understand what they are saying:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-01-03T00_27_59-08_00
No reading is required, so I think it'll sink in.
Provide a case for the claim... of what? He said there were criticisms, I said they were generally weak. You want me to disprove every possible thing he might say before he offers an actual specific point?
In a way, yes. I would like for you to cite an example of a non-ID, non-Creationist argument against large-scale evolution and explain why it is false to give us a sense of why those arguments are weak. Larry claimed there were such arguments, you agreed with him, but said they were "astonishingly weak," so please give us insight.
Is this your first time using your brain? You must just have hooked the keyboard up to your autonomic, since there's nothing conscious coming from you.
Then why do you feel so compelled to even respond in the first place???
Wow, it's almost like he ALSO answered my question with that question in the first post in which I asked it, and I actually answered it by stating what would be sufficient! The Lenski experiment could have yielded no results, for example, and that would have been evidence against evolution.
Alright, good, while you simply showed how you would express doubt over evolution and not what would convince you of design thus you dodged the question, at least it's a start. Unless of course you're admitting that evidence against Evolution automatically equates to design. Now if I did in fact dodge your question I'll fix that. Prove to me that there are enough functional outcomes for all 10 to the 270 millionth power possible combinations of DNA base pairs in the effective coding region of the human genome (see one of my previous posts for elaboration on where this is derived from), and I will promptly switch sides.
Design is not backed up by anything. It has had a single peer-reviewed paper published, which was a review of the literature rather than an experiment and would have served only as evidence AGAINST evolution and not in SUPPORT of ID.
This has two fallacies: argument from consensus and appeal to authority. Not to mention that it has more then just one peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
And if falsifying the notion that chance and necessity cannot explain the complexity and diversity of life isn't evidence for design, then is there some other explanation that you have in mind?
Not to mention the review was slid in under the radar into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington by an editor on his last issue who did the review himself.
An editor has the right to decide what goes in and what goes out, hence their job title. On a lighter note I must admit that the article was pretty serious stuff indeed.
You have almost no substance to your flame. Couldn't you at least TRY? You guys are embarrassing yourself.
I think I'll let the merits and the irony of that statement speak for itself.
Not really sure what was supposed to shock me. Quit linking things and actually make points, if you have anything to say for yourself.
The links actually do come with points, the one I was referring to explicitly refuted the claim that Behe simply looked over several dozen papers on the evolution of the immune system and said they weren't good enough.
You have amply proven that you actually don't think at all, you just link to other people's thoughts.
Surprise! You haven't linked to anything at all! And let's not forget that you seem to have copied a wide variety of talking points from ExpelledExposed, not to mention the fact that pretty much every design critic I've debated mindlessly rips arguments from talkorigins to make their case.
The arguments from design/incredulity. Wow.
Excellent. Time to explain why the claim that we are pulling off an argument from ignorance doesn't apply here. Now let's stick with what I brought up in the first place: Mt. Rushmore. If someone says they can't possibly imagine wind and erosion creating such historical pieces, therefore wind and erosion must not have, this is not an argument from incredulity. This is an argument base on the evidence at hand and personal experience.
That is so totally new. The internet community is devastated. Abandon ship. Help. Help.
I've been in countless debates with design critics before, and so far they have all ended the same way: the person I debate eventually resorts to more and more swearing, more and more simplified arguments on how it's the consensus that counts, more and more arguments that the order of cards in a shuffled deck is improbable, more references to some PR presentations by ken miller... I could go on for quite some time about that, but for the most part they've always ended by declaring me a bulkhead, leaving, and bringing up the same tired arguments elsewhere.
Good night (if you and I live in the same time zone then good morning).
"I notice you can't explain the difference between ID and creationism, either."
Here, let me try:
Creationism is the belief that there is no such thing as creativity, unless it is supernatural.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the belief that there is no such thing as intelligence, unless it is supernatural. (The believer is generally determined to prove this by personal example.)
See the difference?
"You must just have hooked the keyboard up to your autonomic ..."
Q.E.D.
I guess the above comments fit you're complaint about not being able to make such distinctions don't you think?
One last thing...
Darwinism- The belief that if someone makes the most insults, and repeats the same message as many times as possible, then whatever they say is true has to be. XD
'nonymous, don't make the same mistake that bobxxxx did and dig yourselves a deeper hole.
F2XL said (Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:34:00 PM) --
>>>>>> Hey Larry I know you're against censorship on blogs but if you don't mind (and if you really respect the rights me as a commentator), I would like to police some of the comments on your posts so as to make sure your perspectives are as heavily defended as possible. <<<<<<<
No way. Avoiding censorship was one of my main reasons for starting this blog (afterwards I found that blogging has many other advantages).
However, I have sometimes found it necessary to draw the line. One thing that I don't tolerate here is gossip about my private affairs. Something else that I don't tolerate is blatant, clearcut lying about objective facts. For example, ViU has claimed that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he would follow the law in making his decision whereas Jones actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision.
Also, please don't always assume that you are defending my perspectives -- you might sometimes be defending something that I don't agree with.
> No way. Avoiding censorship was one of my main reasons for starting this blog <
But you didn't avoid it.
> One thing that I don't tolerate here is gossip about my private affairs. <
Or corrections of lies that Larry tells about himself.
> Something else that I don't tolerate is blatant, clearcut lying about objective facts. <
Then why do you practice it?
> ViU has claimed that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he would follow the law in making his decision whereas Jones actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <
What is your point here? If Judge Jones said that the school board election would not affect his decision, that meant that he would follow the law. You lied and said that this was giving legal advice. Why was your lie not censored?
Neither can evolutionists, but apparently that doesn't matter. The only claim ID makes is that some aspects of physics, cosmology, and nature may have been the result of design; nothing else, so even if there are different perspectives on ID that really proves nothing about it's validity. Though it does show how diverse and open-minded the movement is.
"Neither can evolutionists?" I assume you will actually back that statement up?
And it's very nice that a religion is so diverse and open-minded, but generally in science it is advisable to be open only to what can be verified through experimentation. I guess that's WHY there are so many different kinds of ID... none of them can be proven, so it doesn't really matter what one says about it.
That's why I'm a Last Thursdayist. I believe everything is too complex to have evolved, but was instead created last Thursday, around three in the afternoon. And look - I have the same evidence for my perspective that any other IDer has!
I've made the definition of ID loud and clear a few times now, but aside from that of course there is some critique of evolution in the process. Particularly the claim that all life around us was the result of purely undirected processes.
You have defined it, but you haven't come up with a testable coherent theory. That's kind of important in science. But don't worry, you can just call your brand of ID Reformed ID, and someone else can be Pentecostal, and so on.
You do realize that an attack on evolution doesn't prove ID, right? Even if evolution was proven wrong, it wouldn't prove intelligent design was correct.
I've presented a link which shows that Darwinism is in fact a term used by supporters of the theory to distinguish large scale evolution from minor adaptations. So no need to repeat what I already said.
You posted eight links or so, and have refused to actually point me to any items. If you think you can just keep linking me to essay after essay on creationist places, you are sadly mistaken. If you have something to say, you're going to have to actually say it.
ID critics (such as yourself) often do this mindless repetition sort of thing where they keep saying ID is pseudo-science without elaborating on why this is even the case.
You must be having trouble, then, since I have repeatedly said that it's pseudoscience because it's not testable. Please tell me how it could be tested.
"Oh ho hum yeah just like that! How out of touch they are, even though I continue to spout claim after claim with virtually nothing to back it up except through a rampage of straw man arguments, and various rhetorical thrusts! And there can't be any way F2XL could just sit back and rebut every last fallacy I spout!"
I guess you just can't follow. I'll help you, by listing out two of the points I have consistently made. If you need any other help reading things, please feel free to ask again.
(1) Intelligent design is clearly just creationism. When asked for the differences between the two theories, no one can provide an answer aside from saying that the designer might not be god. Who else it could conceivably be, they can't answer.
(2)ID is also not science, because it cannot be tested or falsified. There is no conceivable result that could disprove the "theory" in an experiment.
Thanks for proving our point! :D
Thanks for proving my point!
Wow, see how that works? I didn't even have to think of anything clever, I just waved my hand like you! Neat.
Now you've confessed that all you do is spout rhetoric without evidence. I sure would like some proof that ID violates ones civil rights.
I'm not sure how much stupider you could be. I mean, I thought Larry had the bar pretty low, but this is a pretty impressive new feat.
I was demonstrating how that absurd little handwaving works for every concept, and how it was not actually backed up in any reason. If a guy in robes can't decide, based on prolonged evidence and hearings from expert witnesses, whether or not something is religious in nature, then how could he decide whose civil rights are being violated in a trial? It's a matter of equal importance.
Of course I'm quite sure Dawkins has the sack to actually face IDers in open debate.
Science doesn't work by debating. It works by... well, doing science. Naturally IDers prefer the former, since they can't do the latter.
That's why no one has to go to such great levels in order to expose Dawkins for who he really is and prove that he believes ID is scientific.
Since you have ceded the point and admitted it was a deception and that Stein was biased from the start (we'll assume you're an analog for Jim), I guess I have nothing to reply if you think Dawkins believes ID is scientific. How you concluded that, I have no idea.
And I'm totally sure that IDers never get misrepresented by the media or by publically funded documentaries either.
Yeah, remember that huge blockbuster movie exposing ID as a creationist fraud? Oh, shit, neither do I. It's almost like the scientists are more interested in science, instead of PR like the IDers.
Funny, I thought Sternberg was never an employee at the Smithsonian, at least that's what PR officials for Darwin say.
Not at the Smithsonian as such, but he was with an associated institution for which he had a medium-level research position.
Now if he really was rehired to a new and better job why is it that all information I can dig up indicates that because he was disbanded from the Smithsonian, he was forced to join the ISCID?
Here we go. I was somewhat wrong, but pretty much accurate in my point. "Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian ... After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected."
From here. Incidentally, see how you are supposed to use links in a discussion? Actually quote or paraphrase the relevant parts in the future, when you spam your links at me.
So you've admitted that they address the issue of the creationist drafts that have caused such a stir which are the reason "cdesign proponentists" is even brought up by people in the first place. Good.
To my understanding they make it explicitly clear that even when they used those terms they meant something entirely different from what Jones insisted they meant.
I agree that they were already trying to mitigate what they had written, sure. But I can't help but notice that you address the issue of the identical language throughout much of the document, such as the description of creationism being identical to the description of intelligent design - only with a pretty new hat.
Which clearly shows that even when they did use the term "creation science" they did not in any way advocate the terminology defined in the Edwards case.
Uh, no, not really. It shows they never even bothered to change their definition from creationism's definition. It's not a hard leap to thus conclude that the two "theories" are identical. Unless you'd care to point out a difference?
So you agree that they never advocated a faith-based concept in any way whatsoever. Good, but please provide proof that this was a form of intellectual gymnastics by the religious right.
Nope, they were advocating a faith-based concept. They were just also lying about it. The proof is in what we have already seen: the definition they had for creationism was identical to that of intelligent design, and that definition is nontestable. It's trying to sneak religion in. The gymnastics comes when they attempt to wiggle around it by elsewhere putting a disclaimer that it's not religious. I can't wait for the next edition, which will talk about how an unnamed individual must have died on the cross while stating it's definitely not religion.
Dodging the argument isn't going to do you any good. If you can provide any reasons for why science must be entirely from material viewpoints, then please, do tell.
Sorry, not so good with the thinking, are you? I was indicating that it's kind of hard to run repeatable empirical experiments on the nonmaterial. Unless you have managed to put God on a slide.
I don't know if there's even any arguments in that to agree with or refute, hard to tell what you're even attempting to say. Nonetheless until you can provide a basis for why science must be from a material view, I will simply embrace the fact that materialism has no testability with anything other than itself. ;D
Sure, I'll agree with that. The only thing that can test an empirical conclusion is an empirical method. If you sat down and prayed about it, you wouldn't be doing science.
I am still waiting, endlessly, for an example of how ID can be tested.
Actually no, that's you're method. I totally agree that if someone wants to say they are the same thing they should provide proof of this.
Good. So when he says they are different, it is reasonable for me to ask how they are different. That's what I did, you complete moron, and it's what you protested. You have serious trouble with the thinking.
I did post a link explaining the difference, but here's another one which has the statements in audio format so you can understand what they are saying:
I'm seriously not following your continual blind links. If you have something to say, you need to say it, I'm not going to hunt down what you MIGHT be saying on other websites. If you can't state the difference coherently and concisely, I think you'll agree that indicates that it's a point you can't make.
I guess an argument could be made that I'm hiding from your point by refusing to hunt it down through your links, but one hardly sees me just replying to you by linking to talkorigins archive.
In a way, yes. I would like for you to cite an example of a non-ID, non-Creationist argument against large-scale evolution and explain why it is false to give us a sense of why those arguments are weak. Larry claimed there were such arguments, you agreed with him, but said they were "astonishingly weak," so please give us insight.
Okay. The main argument Behe proposed for this is the flagellum, which he claimed would not work without any of its components, and that those components couldn't have had any other prior use. And indeed, if you remove the shaft, for example, the flagellum doesn't work. That would conclude, under your logic, that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.
However, another biologist has pointed out that the flagellum, absent one of its motor parts, is functionally almost identical to another cell's mechanism that serves as an injector. The rigid shaft, fastener, and so on are all present, but there are a few motor components missing (please excuse all the analogy language, but it's the best I can do). Accordingly, it would be entirely viable absent a part or two.
Then why do you feel so compelled to even respond in the first place???
Larry has asked the same thing, and I told you: you are my dancing toy. You especially, now, since you showed up all "time to flame some darwinists" but lost your footing about one post into the discussion. I like watching you caper.
Alright, good, while you simply showed how you would express doubt over evolution and not what would convince you of design thus you dodged the question, at least it's a start. Unless of course you're admitting that evidence against Evolution automatically equates to design.
That's actually a good point, you're right. I provided an example of evidence against evolution, not for ID. Sorry about that, I was wrong.
It's hard to think of some testable evidence for ID, you see. You can't even do it, so I am hard-pressed to imagine one. But here is an example: if the Human Genome Project found a lengthy line of code in a human gene that expressed an intelligible message that was enormously improbably by the statistics (taking into account the law of large numbers), or that gave us a new piece of technology explicitly, or something similar, that would be a great start of evidence for ID. It's not an experiment, admittedly, but that's because I can't think of any experiments that can be done with ID. Can you?
Now if I did in fact dodge your question I'll fix that. Prove to me that there are enough functional outcomes for all 10 to the 270 millionth power possible combinations of DNA base pairs in the effective coding region of the human genome (see one of my previous posts for elaboration on where this is derived from), and I will promptly switch sides.
Why does each possible combination have to be viable? Humans didn't appear out of a soup of nucleotides, they evolved from slightly less complex animals. You're asking the absurd, and it's scarcely even relevant to evolution.
This has two fallacies: argument from consensus and appeal to authority. Not to mention that it has more then just one peer-reviewed paper:
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when that authority is not warranted. But we're talking about biology by biologists, so that appeal is not just valid, but necessary.
Argument from consensus is predicated on the understanding that an untrue statement cannot be made true even if everyone just agrees. But everyone doesn't agree, and ID would be welcome in journals if it could produce any decent papers. Every scientist dreams of overturning the status quo and making their names last forever, even just as peer-reviewer or editor.
And if falsifying the notion that chance and necessity cannot explain the complexity and diversity of life isn't evidence for design, then is there some other explanation that you have in mind?
No, but then, I'm not a biologist. I just wanted to see you understood (as you appear to) that you couldn't even attempt to provide evidence for ID.
An editor has the right to decide what goes in and what goes out, hence their job title. On a lighter note I must admit that the article was pretty serious stuff indeed.
The editor customarily follows the procedures. He did not, which is why the journal immediately disavowed the paper, which was not up to their standards, and indicated that he had breached the usual procedure by reviewing it himself.
The links actually do come with points, the one I was referring to explicitly refuted the claim that Behe simply looked over several dozen papers on the evolution of the immune system and said they weren't good enough.
I'm seriously not chasing your blind links. Quote it here. Maybe this is me stonewalling, but I don't think it is unreasonable for me not to follow links to large essays and try to guess what your point might be.
Surprise! You haven't linked to anything at all! And let's not forget that you seem to have copied a wide variety of talking points from ExpelledExposed, not to mention the fact that pretty much every design critic I've debated mindlessly rips arguments from talkorigins to make their case.
You're right, I didn't link anything. It was all from my own head, except for this post with expelledexposed. I have read talkorigins, certainly, and it is also a valuable resource. But notice that every time I smash your arguments to flinders, I do so in my own words or a quote, rather than by spamming links at you and trying to make you do my work for me? Funny how that is.
Excellent. Time to explain why the claim that we are pulling off an argument from ignorance doesn't apply here. Now let's stick with what I brought up in the first place: Mt. Rushmore. If someone says they can't possibly imagine wind and erosion creating such historical pieces, therefore wind and erosion must not have, this is not an argument from incredulity. This is an argument base on the evidence at hand and personal experience.
But you were analogizing to the universe/life, were you not? If it had no relevance to the topic at hand, why did you bring it up? If it does have relevance, then it is the argument from incredulity, since it simply says you can't believe it could have happened that way - you didn't have much firsthand experience at millions of years, did you?
I've been in countless debates with design critics before, and so far they have all ended the same way: the person I debate eventually resorts to more and more swearing, more and more simplified arguments on how it's the consensus that counts, more and more arguments that the order of cards in a shuffled deck is improbable, more references to some PR presentations by ken miller... I could go on for quite some time about that, but for the most part they've always ended by declaring me a bulkhead, leaving, and bringing up the same tired arguments elsewhere.
You must argue this topic a lot. I do not, unfortunately; Larry's blog here was brought to my attention from Rationalwiki and this is the first internet discussion on the topics I have had. You have a significant leg up on me. So why are you doing so badly?
This is sad to see. Every time I return to this Blog I see that Larry's mental deterioration has progressed even further.
Why do you people continue to torture an obviously helpless creature? You know that he will never admit to the error of his "arguments". He doesn't even admit when he makes factual mistakes and they are pointed out to him. His redefinition of words and belief that his "interpretations" are actually facts are clearer signs of his malady.
Ed Brayton laid off of Larry once he realized that Larry was clinically insane. What good are arguments against his delusions? Nothing will change Larry's mind. Why not take your arguments to places where they will be understood?
So, F2xl, in short, your response to me is basically, that:
1) The Discovery Institute is not a creationist/ID website.
2) That the only non-creationist/ID source you can seemingly provide uses 'Darwinism' to refer to Darwin's original theory, not as a synonym of 'evolution'.
3) That you basically hold that vast swathes of modern biology is not based on the precepts of evolution, contrary to the vast majority of actual biologists.
4) That DNA holds 'too much information' for evolution to be true by, basically, making an argument from incredulity (because you don't understand how it can work, it can't) and completely misunderstanding what 'information' actually is. I'll see if I can educate you on this one. 7504. That number probably means absolutely nothing to you. Does this mean it is not 'information'? No. It means something to me, so it is, indeed, information. Think about why that is.
5) That saying 'You do realize that Behe was pointing out that there is no basis for all of science to be strictly from material viewpoints right?' is not saying that science is not about material things and solid evidence. Well, actually, you're right. I misread what you wrote. However, what Behe is essentially saying, according to you, is even more absurd - that anything that pops into his head, regardless of whether there is any material evidence to support it, is solid science, basically, because he says so.
6) That calling creationism 'Intelligent Design', and, instead of saying,'God made all life', saying,'an Unknown Designer made all life', makes it something different.
7) That you were quoting me, but actually responding to Phae, somehow, in some sections.
I think the above summary actually speaks for itself.
Sherry D said...
>>>>>>Why do you people continue to torture an obviously helpless creature? You know that he will never admit to the error of his "arguments". He doesn't even admit when he makes factual mistakes and they are pointed out to him. His redefinition of words and belief that his "interpretations" are actually facts are clearer signs of his malady.
Ed Brayton laid off of Larry once he realized that Larry was clinically insane. What good are arguments against his delusions? Nothing will change Larry's mind. Why not take your arguments to places where they will be understood?<<<<<<
Because I find it absolutely fascinating seeing to what lengths Larry will go to in order to try to justify his own warped reality and delusions.
Anonymous barfed (Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:07:00 AM) --
>>>>>>< ViU has claimed that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he would follow the law in making his decision whereas Jones actually told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <
If Judge Jones said that the school board election would not affect his decision, that meant that he would follow the law. You lied and said that this was giving legal advice. <<<<<<<<<
You idiots don't just need to be spoonfed, you need to be tube-fed while being tied down to prevent you from pulling out the tube.
Let's forget about this "follow the law" crap, because whether or not Jones thought that he would be following the law is of no consequence so far as the effect of his statement on the school board is concerned.
Please answer the following questions:
(1) Did a newspaper report that Jones said that the school board election results would not affect his decision? (you said "if," so you have not even conceded this)
(2) Was repeal of the ID policy the only way in which the school board election could possibly affect his decision?
(3) If the only way the election results could possibly affect his decision was by repeal of the ID policy, was Jones not therefore also implying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision? Is it not possible for Jones' statement to be interpreted in that way?
(4) Was implying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision giving legal advice? By legal advice, I mean anything that could affect the actions of the school board. I am including good legal advice as well as bad legal advice.
(5) Is it proper for judges to give legal advice to litigants?
(6) Was Judge Jones aware that repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment was a strong possibility because the new school board members had campaigned against the policy?
(7) Could Judge Jones speak for other judges?
(8) Did an attorney prepare a report advising the school board that repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment might result in dismissal and avoidance of an attorney fee award?
(9) Did I not present a Supreme Court precedent (Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources", 532 U.S. 598 (2001) ) where voluntary cessation by the government resulted in dismissal of the case and denial of an attorney fee award to the plaintiffs?
Anyway, what does all of this have to do with the fact that ViU lied when he said that Jones told the newspaper that he would follow the law, when what Jones actually told the newspaper was that his decision would not be affected by the school board elections?
No matter how soundly you Darwinists are refuted, you will continue to kick a dead horse.
Oh, Phae, just to address something I noted in passing:
>>>>>>I guess I have nothing to reply if you think Dawkins believes ID is scientific. How you concluded that, I have no idea.<<<<<<
You see, in that piece of propoganda, Expelled, Dawkins does actually say that it was theoretically possible that life was seeded by an alien intelligence. Unfortunately, what F2xl has done is typical of creationists/IDists - he leaves out the parts of what Dawkins said that he doesn't like, for example, that the alien intelligence would, in turn, have to have come about by some method, with evolution, or something very much like it, being the most likely explanation. He also qualifies what he says by saying that IF someone came up with unequivocal evidence that life was designed, blah, blah blah. And that hasn't happened.
zmidponk:
You see, in that piece of propoganda, Expelled, Dawkins does actually say that it was theoretically possible that life was seeded by an alien intelligence. Unfortunately, what F2xl has done is typical of creationists/IDists - he leaves out the parts of what Dawkins said that he doesn't like, for example, that the alien intelligence would, in turn, have to have come about by some method, with evolution, or something very much like it, being the most likely explanation. He also qualifies what he says by saying that IF someone came up with unequivocal evidence that life was designed, blah, blah blah. And that hasn't happened.
Yeah, I remember that. I am fascinated with the film, and thoroughly enjoyed how laughable it was. It was simply astonished when people stood up and clapped... they seriously bought into all of this Berlinski "Darwin-was-necessary-but-not-sufficient" Godwin crap? Very sad, but fascinating.
If you read Dawkins' account of the interview, it is very entertaining. They kept him waiting, of course, so that they could do the scene with Stein riding there in a cab to face the Big Bad Atheist heroically. And even though he never wears makeup to his interviews, they insisted on applying some on him and taping the application - which they put into the film to make it look like he was, I don't know, primping? And of course they lied to him about the premise of the movie.
What's funny is that panspermia is one of the proposed ID ways in which there might be a non-God Intelligent Designer. Dawkins thinks it's ludicrous - and apparently so does Stein, since they made fun of it - but many IDers such as Behe have seriously proposed it as an example. So when they asked Dawkins for a way ID might be true, he honestly tried to think of the best possible answer for them by using one of ID's proposed "theories."
In the film, of course, they cut it so that it looked like he was (to quote Stein) "so desperate that there might not be a God that he proposed aliens might be the designers." Then they cut it with stock footage of old monster movies. I could hardly watch for laughing - they devoted all that time to making fun of an ID proposal that Dawkins offered in good faith! Priceless.
O.K. Larry, Let's see if you can read this before you respond.
> 1) Did a newspaper report that Jones said that the school board election results would not affect his decision? <
Yes. Judges are not supposed to be affected by election results, so Judge Jones was affirming that he would follow the law.
> (2) Was repeal of the ID policy the only way in which the school board election could possibly affect his decision? <
A meaningless question. The school board election should not affect his decision.
> (3) If the only way the election results could possibly affect his decision was by repeal of the ID policy <
Another meaninless question. The school board election should not affect his decision.
> was Jones not therefore also implying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision? Is it not possible for Jones' statement to be interpreted in that way? <
Yes. In other words, he was saying that he would go by the law, not a popularity contest.
> (4) Was implying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision giving legal advice? <
Of course not you blockhead. I don't know how this could be made any clearer. Even an idiot, such as yourself, should see this without being spoon fed. You have been spoon fed and you still don't understand it.
> By legal advice, I mean anything that could affect the actions of the school board. <
Since you seem to finally see that you can't support your position you are trying to redefine words. Sorry. Nobody will buy that. By legal advice I ment what a sane person would take to be legal advice. This of course differs greatly from what you may redefine legal advice to be.
> (5) Is it proper for judges to give legal advice to litigants? <
No. Perhaps that is why Judge Jones refrained from doing so.
> (6) Was Judge Jones aware that repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment was a strong possibility because the new school board members had campaigned against the policy? <
Irrelevant.
> (7) Could Judge Jones speak for other judges? <
Yes he could to the extent that any competent judge would do as he did, they would not consider the outcome of any election in their decisions.
> (8) Did an attorney prepare a report advising the school board that repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment might result in dismissal and avoidance of an attorney fee award? <
Irrelevant.
> (9) Did I not present a Supreme Court precedent (Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources", 532 U.S. 598 (2001) ) where voluntary cessation by the government resulted in dismissal of the case and denial of an attorney fee award to the plaintiffs? <
Irrelevant.
> Anyway, what does all of this have to do with the fact that ViU lied when he said that Jones told the newspaper that he would follow the law, when what Jones actually told the newspaper was that his decision would not be affected by the school board elections? <
As I have shown, you seem to be the only liar here.
> No matter how soundly you Darwinists are refuted, you will continue to kick a dead horse. <
How would you know that? So far you have never successfully refuted any argument anywhere that I can see and you consider to hide from Phae's question and you censor some other questions for which you have no answer.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
ViU has shown that under the Social Darwinism that he loves so much, he would be among the first to be euthanized to help improve the overall intelligence of the human race.
Larry driveled, "ViU has shown that under the Social Darwinism that he loves so much"
But ViU has never made any statement in favor of Social Darwinism. Please point to one if I am mistaken.
Evolutionary theory and social darwinism are two different things, hence the necessity of 'social' when referring to 'social darwinism,' although too many make the mistake of equating the two (Larry, religious fundamentalists, other morons).
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>Evolutionary theory and social darwinism are two different things, hence the necessity of 'social' when referring to 'social darwinism,' although too many make the mistake of equating the two<<<<<<
True. Indeed, if you read Darwin's writings, even Darwin was against 'social Darwinism'.
>>>>> But ViU has never made any statement in favor of Social Darwinism. <<<<<<
Why should I tell the truth about ViU, dunghill? He never tells the truth about anything here. He doesn't deserve to have anyone tell the truth about him.
>>>>> if you read Darwin's writings, even Darwin was against 'social Darwinism'. <<<<<<
But Hitler was not against Social Darwinism -- and he practiced it.
Why should I tell the truth about ViU, dunghill? He never tells the truth about anything here. He doesn't deserve to have anyone tell the truth about him.
Well, I guess that about settles it. Larry thinks that two wrongs make a right.
I am archiving this page for posterity, so I can remind him of this, just in case he decides to censor all the comments.
> Why should I tell the truth about ViU, dunghill? He never tells the truth about anything here. <
While you have just admitted your lies, I haven't seen anywhere where ViW has lied. You think that understanding something that you don't and explaining it simply (yet still over your head) makes one a liar. Sorry Larry, ViU has won yet another in spite of your lies.
It looks like Larry has been treed and is getting desparate.
>>>>>While you have just admitted your lies <<<<<<
OK, dunghill, it wasn't a lie -- it was just a sarcastic comment about ViU. But ViU's lies were real lies.
Sheeesh -- what a jerk.
Larry mooed...
>>>>>>But Hitler was not against Social Darwinism -- and he practiced it.<<<<<<
You've been watching too much Ben Stein. Try actually doing a little research into what evolution actually says about 'purifying the race' like Hitler advocated (I'll give you a term to look up that'll start you off - 'gene flow'), and also do a little reasearch into what kind of texts were seized by the Nazis for burning. Given that you seem to utterly believe the pile of crap that Stein spouted in Expelled, you will be very suprised to learn that, on that list is 'Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.'
Oh, and I should actually point out that there is a rather massive difference between a lie and a 'sarcastic comment'. What you said was a lie.
Post a Comment
<< Home