Skip to comments.Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
Actually the common yeast falls into this category also. There are very few microbes that don't have some sort of sexual cycle and acquiring it or losing it happens all the time.
Good article. Thanks for posting it. I'd like to get my hands on the piece in the February issue of Commentary.
Then you unequivocally reject much of modern science. Given that, why should we take seriously any scientific arguments you might make?
I may be wrong in some of the arguments I present. For all I know it is possible for the very beginning asexually-reproducing creatures to produce a sexually-reproducing creature. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
But then, you reject the ordinary, demonstrable-in-a-laboratory processes of radioactive decay. Why would we argue something as complex as sexual reprodcution with you, when you don't accept well defined, well understood, basic physics?
How so? IMO it addresses Wells' disinformation piece rather nicely.
The initial charge stands, even though the article tries to dance around it. Exposed bark is key to the study.
Which initial charge? That peppered moths never rest on tree trunks?
Well, that's not true. They do rest (occasionally) on tree trunks. They also rest (more often) on branches or twigs which are also covered with bark that in turn has also been darkened with a layer of sooth. And they don't have to rest on exposed bark in order to be seen by birds. If birds were that bad at detecting prey they'd have died out a long time ago.
However, it's also true that they can spot the light moths better than the dark ones which means that on average they eat more light moths than dark ones.
Those staged photos were only taken to illustrate the detectability of lighter and darker moths. The fact that those photos were staged doesn't change the fact that the lighter moths are better to spot than their darker brethren no matter where they rest.
I just chose the paramecium because there was such a nice web page explaining how it works.
Wait until someone brings up parthenogenesis and we get to discuss lizards that sometimes mate the two sexes, but mostly the female lizards reproduce with no need of males. Now that one often creates a real problem of understanding among people ignorant of the variety of animal reproductives strategies.
No, it's not. This is basic logic. The equation F=ma does not assume a god. It does not assume there is no god. The question of the existence of god is irrelevant to the truth of F=ma.
The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped.By the way, our new word for the week is lacunae!
Biologists often affirm that as members of the scientific community they positively welcome criticism. Nonsense. Like everyone else, biologists loathe criticism and arrange their lives so as to avoid it. Criticism has nonetheless seeped into their souls, the process of doubt a curiously Darwinian one in which individual biologists entertain minor reservations about their theory without ever recognizing the degree to which these doubts mount up to a substantial deficit. Creationism, so often the target of their indignation is the least of their worries.
Unable to say WHAT evolution has accomplished, biologists now find themselves unable to say WHETHER evolution has accomplished it. This leaves evolutionary theory in the doubly d*amend position of having compromised the concepts needed to make sense of life complexity, adaptation, design while simultaneously conceding tha the theory does little to explain them.
Berlinski, David, The Deniable Darwin, Commentary, vol. 101 (June 1996), pp. 19-29)
|la·cu·na ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-kyn)
n. pl. la·cu·nae (-n) or la·cu·nas
Yes, indeed, that's a good question. As far as I know the first who said: "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." was Laplace, an astronomer ;-)
No, I don't. I may interpret it differently than you do, though.
But then, you reject the ordinary, demonstrable-in-a-laboratory processes of radioactive decay.
Yes, you do. Science is not art or literature, where matters of opinion and interpretation count.
Hermaphrodites are also a good example of procreation before the male/female specialization.
Yes, I am. However, starting with the assumption that there is no God is just as wrong. Is it possible to restate the TOE without either assumption?
The theory of evolution starts with neither assumption, but, consistent with the fact that it is science, with a methodology that looks to natural phenomena and facts in the natural world. Since no natural phenomena or facts in the natural world establish the existence of a god or gods (or anything else supernatural), the theory of evolution does not contemplate them. It simply looks at the facts established in nature and the natural world, and draws the conclusions that are consistent with those facts.
Well, hermaphroditism developed, perhaps, after sexual reproduction, but it's still interesting.
The most common example of it is the common Garden Snail. Each snail has both male and female sexual organs. Two snails mate, and both end up laying eggs. Very nice.
Another interesting variation is in some fish, which begin their adult lives as males, then become females later in their lives.
Thank you for effectively saying, "I refuse to learn anything that may contradict my religious beliefs. As a result, I will not be taken the least bit seriously when I yelp, 'Evolution is dumb!'"
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IS SPAM
What you are doing here is denying any assumptions while making a major one in the same sentence. Methodolgies cannot be employed without subjective, philosophical underpinnings. Undertaking science with the assumption that only natural phenomena can be considered or observed is undertaking science with a particular philosophical point of view. It is a choice you and other observers have made from your own experiences. It is a stance incapable of objective, emprical testing in and of itself.
The equation F=ma does not postulate random mutations and natural selection as sole causes for the speciation observed today, either.
Hey, Prof, that's my mask, where did you get that? ;-)
PatrickHenry, science is not spam. I'm sure you're aware that the term "spam" involves heavy or excessive posting of articles or links not composed on your own, but rather as part of an effort to overwhelm or inundate the opposition, knowing full well that they do not have time to refute all the links which merely make points already contradicted by Creationists.
That is essentially what certain folks are saying when they refuse to consider organizer matter as potetially indicative of intelligent design. What kind of belief would refuse to consider or address how intelligent humans are capable of discerning and commenting upon intelligible data in terms of intelligent design?
Could you tell me where the evidence of mutation can be found in the peppered moth? If the dark moths were already in the population then the slection was simply environmentally directed. The birds liked white meat ans since white meat shows up better against dark trees, the light moths got the horns, no?
You are mistaking the definition of science with its methodology. Reaching conclusions based only on natural phenomena and the facts of the natural world is what science does; it's what science is. It is oxymoronic to say that one can do "science" but consider supernatural elements.
You can reach conclusions by including supernatural elements in your reasoning process, but you are not doing science. You are doing something else; theology, probably.
The methodology of science has been, over the last 500 years or so, so effective in producing tangible results that it has developed a cache of a type that it appears that any statement of fact must at least attempt to disguise itself as science or risk losing credibility with the public. But calling non-science "science" doesn't make it science. (You can call a "tail" a "leg", but that doesn't mean that dogs have five legs.)
It is not uncommon for the devotees of non-theistic science to confuse or change the arguments under consideration. For whatever reason, they feel inclined to paint proponents of intelligent design as religious boobs rather than 1.) address the nature of organized matter that performs specific functions and 2.) admit they bring as much subjective baggage into science as anyone else. This is unfortunate, because there are some benefits in the details uncovered through non-theistic science that are lost when proclaimed as dogmatic support for a shaping principle that has little or nothing to do with the details themselves.
My understanding, learned in mmy diving days, was that goosebumps are not vestigial but simply an effect of the body removing blood supply from the body surface to minimize heat exchange with the surroundings.
DEFINITION OF SPAM placemarker
Not that it has anything to with the post, but I think Newton actually said that F=d(M*V). It was just reduced because it was assumed that mass was constant.
No. You are assuming a philosophical definition for science that science cannot methodologically validate. You are free to proceed with your assumption as to what defines science. In most cases your methodology and conclusions will not suffer. But when you argue from the details of your methodology into the bigger scheme of things your philosophical stance, for better or for worse, will guide the explanation.
Sandage told a 1985 conference on science and religion that the Big Bang was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it, and that science had taken us to the First Event, but it cannot take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy pointed, Sandage said, to the need for some kind of transcendence.
What has either got to do with the existence of a deity?
ReligousBoob1, ReligiousBoob2, ReligiousBoob3, NewReligougBoob, ReligiousBooblurkin', SeniorReligiousBoob...
If you have some evidence the articles he posts are not of Ichneumon's authoring, please present it.
You couldn't resist, could you. You had to end your post with an insult.
Good luck. When I challenged him to produce page numbers for the usual quote-mined extracts from Feduccia he was posting, he couldn't.
Loosey-Goosey Intellectual Relativism alert!
As another freeper asked, do you really think we should "always" dialog in "opposing viewpoints" in curricula (for example when presenting the historical reality of the holocaust)? Or is this just antievolutionary special pleading falsely disguised as a general principle?
Education certainly can, and often should, at least in some number of illustrative cases, include "a dialogue between opposing viewpoints;" but only when genuinely contending viewpoints, each with some measure of objective viability and merit in the relevant domain of scholarship, actually exist.
Of course this is not the case with creationism or ID. Whatever you may personally believe about their truth value, it is a simple fact that neither has (at least yet) achieved substantive standing in the market place of scientific ideas. Certainly neither has achieved a standing remotely comparable to evolutionary theory. This is an objective fact confirmable by consulting the professional literature of science. To present creationism or ID on one hand, and evolution on the other, as comparable "opposing viewpoints" is to flat out lie to students.
Your rhetoric simply attempts to deny or avoid this uncomfortable FACT. This is the usual role of intellectual relativism and intellectual affirmative action, but it's unseemly for a conservative. Let the liberal-left engage in word magic: pretending that saying something is so makes it so.
Any good conservative should be willing to let ideas compete -- ACTUALLY COMPETE -- in the intellectual marketplace, where they can succeed or fail on their demonstrated merit or lack thereof. Conservatives should sneer at calls for the sham, non consequential psuedo-competition of contrived "balance" in textbooks and curricula, failure-free and carefully measured to appease identity groups and salvage their delicate self-esteem.
After all, creationists in these threads regularly inform us that evolution is teetering on the brink of collapse. I happen to think that's B.S. and bravado which even the claimants don't believe (not deep down). But if it's so then LET evolution collapse, and if it's genuinely surpassed and replaced by some superior scientific theory then let evolution be removed from science textbooks and curricula. Why do those who (supposedly) consider their ideas on the verge of victory wish to establish the precedent that substandard ideas -- ideas that can't cut the mustard in PRACTICE -- should be dishonestly presented as competitive in curricula? I think the answer is obvious.
Behe may be emotional about the subject, but he does not paint his opponents as idiots.
The philosophical definition of science doesn't have to be methodologically validated. The definition of science is the definition of science. Philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism are not the same.
A desire to consider the supernatural within the rubric of science in now way changes the definition of "science" any more than the homosexuals' desire to marry each other changes the definition of "marriage."
I believe that you are proceeding from the misconception that "science" is something more than it is, or that a scientific statement or conclusion is more than it is. A scientific truth, for lack of a better word, is merely a conclusion reached through the scientific method; i.e., it makes a statement about the natural word, as informed by natural phenomena and facts of nature. By definition, it cannot say anything about the supernatural.
Science is not a search for ultimate Truth, or the meaning of life, or some such. It is just the application of the idea of the scientific method to the natural world. That's it. If I were to conclude that this means that there is no God, or that there is a God, or anything like that, then that conclusion is as unscientific a statement as they come. Once you add anything supernatural in there, it ceases being science. Maybe you are doing a scientific-theology, if such a beast is even cognizable, but it is not science.
There's no requirement that "vestigial organs" be "completely useless". They may merely represent a "vestige" (and/or a shift of function) with respect to their former function.
For example the known functions of the human appendix (AFAIK releasing a few useful enzymes, which might btw be released by any handy bit of mucous membrane along the intestinal tract) is clearly vestigial with respect to the function of the organ in, say, gorillas: holding large amounts of course vegetable matter that requires additional time to be digested.
Please, enough of claiming to 'know' the truth. Guys like you have been wrong time and time and time again, and yet that doesn't stop you from spouting some new cockamamie theory as gospel truth, and doing it with a straight face. Some of us are smart enough to understand how much we really dont know.
For example... It was thought up until very recently that a person could not grow brain cells. BZZZ- WRONG! Now we know that is not true. "The appendix serves no purpose". BZZZ- WRONG! "Tonsils serves no purpose". BZZZ- WRONG! And on and on.
Why did an alleged "designer" give us the exact same mechanism that furred animals use to erect their fur for heat-retention and threat displays, despite the fact that due to our sparse body hair, it serves neither of those functions for us? For what "design purpose" do we get goosebumps?
Some believe that goosebumps in humans act as an aid to amplify the sense of touch. This of course would makes perfect sense, as an additional 'fight or flight' mechanism.
The former is a mathematical expression denoting an understanding of physical forces. The latter by default postulates a sole cause that omits intelligent design. This is due to a philosophical stance that defines science as incapable of, or disinterested in, anything beyond what is physically observed.
The omission of intelligent design on the part of devotees to materialism is not due to a lack of evidence so much as an aversion to religious implications, which implications may or may not be necessitated by the presence of intelligent design. If it is objectively true that an intelligent being designed the DNA molecule, for example, science will blind itself to this truth not because there is lack of evidence or possibility, but for other reasons with which you are intimately familiar. Emotional, philosophical reasons, not empirical ones.
Very well could be, and as an added benefit, your fur (if you are an animal with fur) stands up straight as a result of the muscles tightening around the hair folicles which also minimizes the heat exchange you refer to. Sounds like pretty effecient design work to me.
When an evolutionist testified in the famous 1925 Tennessee Scopes Trial that are "no less than 180 vestigal structures" in the human body, was he correct?
I would not say such things if I were you.
The more you tighten your grip, PatrickHenry, the more primes will slip through your fingers.