-----------------
Nice to see that no matter how long this story lingers, reporters never tire of treating arguments as equivalent when they do not have equivalent weight. <<
---------------------------------------------
Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Verbal irony aside…
I would not conclude that if you gave me a computer program and I did not know who programmed it, then the program simply was. Even if the program had no credits whatsoever (i.e. no mentioning of any lead programmer, teams, etc.), it would still not make sense to claim, “This program is not the product of any mind or minds.” Not only would it not make sense, it would also not be scientific.
So, what’s the difference between this and intelligent design ideology? Nothing, really. As you saw in your quotation, I acknowledge the possibility that an intelligent designer exists. Really, he might. But, it’s not scientific to say, “Well, I – RussP – am too smart to see the massive amount of evidence that is in favor of natural selection and mutation being sufficient to account for natural diversity, so God did it all. And, the burden of that proof is on you, not me.” I’m sure you agree with me on that. The only way your creationism can be considered scientific is if science is expanded to include supernatural phenomena. As James Randi has demonstrated, supernatural phenomena has a nasty habit of not working under controlled lab conditions. Wonder why.
I ask that you please keep the context of the controversy in mind. Judge Jones ruled in Kitzmiller that you can’t teach intelligent design in the public science classroom. He didn’t rule that you couldn’t teach it in another class; it just can’t be a science class.
I’m all for any of your attempts to strengthen the role of creationism in history or composition classes. Go ahead. But, if you try for one second to add creationism to the science classroom, then I won’t offer you an iota of support.
Good programs are written in many small modules. A change to one can make a program suffer or perform better, or do little or nothing to the functioning of the overall program. The function of a module often does change to essentially become a new feature. And often change over time becomes so much that the interface between the newest module (that's in the latest version of the program) and the old, original program doesn't work anymore (speciation).
Any case they make is not what I'm talking about. It's the willingness of the Discovery Institute to always try to put a new face on its theology to make it more acceptable in science classes. Their goal is to market it by any means necessary, not to let it compete on the merits.
We've tested both micro- and macro-evolution with bacteria. Remember, "macro" refers to a change in species, not to the size of the subject. We've accomplished or observed it mainly in plants though.
Our ears? Yes, quite evolved, but then we are higher animals. I suggest you start looking at a far less evolved ear, which is nothing more than a taught membrane with a chordotonal organ behind it. Such organs are a set of a several nerves that detect stretching, and they're found in many places in the bodies of various animals to detect, for example, the stretching of a limb. But one behind a taught membrane results in primitive hearing as the impact of sound waves on the membrane stretches it (stretch detector, remember?).
>>
http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html
To make a long story short -— The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is 1 in 10^10123.<<
Those kind of arguments generally work to missing something in the calculation. Like all the engineers who said supersonic flight was impossible.
Well, since the tip of a bull whip is supersonic a rational person might argue it more likely that the engineers were making a math error or false physical assumption than thew God intervenes when a whip is cracked.
Likewise, it is more likely that this mathematician made a mistake than that God intervenes each time there is evolution.
What I find much more believable is that God created the first life. There is no science or other evidence to contradict that.
>>Irrelevant to the discussion. The theory of evolution only addresses the development of life, not its creation.<<
Not to mention that what he actually said was that the know principles of physics are insufficient and worked on improving physics principles rather than giving up.
Also he did his work extra-solar planets were unknown and we think there are likely at least billions of planets,
But no matter how good the math work, without knowing what variables one is missing, an accurate probability estimate cannot be counted on.
Nice to see that no matter how long this story lingers, reporters never tire of treating arguments as equivalent when they do not have equivalent weight.
There is no need for "an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be." Evolution does not purport to explain how the universe came to be. It's like looking for an alternative to chemistry to explain the Pythagorean theorem.
He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.
For the record, I would also oppose the Declaration of Independence, the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades being used as an authority in science classes.
==========
This will be based on arguments FOR and AGAINST Darwinism.
Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?
When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence.
The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?
Those are his calculated odds for life as we know it existing. Those are not the odds of some life existing. If I roll a theoretical die with 1099999 sides, the odds are 100% that it will land on one of the sides. Any one possible outcome is equally as likely as any other.
To put it another way, if I shuffle a deck of cards and look at the result, the probability is 1 that they are in that order (after all, they are). The odds go way down to one in 52! only when I bet a priori on that particular sequence of cards occurring after a shuffle (actually, 7 shuffles to get sufficient randomness). But if I bet on any sequence occurring? Probability is 1.
"An intelligent guy" did it is not a scientific argument by any means.
Neither are tectonic shifts or many other phenomena that take longer than the span of human experience. They are inferable. And they are subject to a better, more grounded, better-backed explanation being presented.
If ID has a better case and a better body of evidence, it's being awfully coy about it.
And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.
Okay. And?
I have never made and will never make the case that science is incompatible with Christianity, or with any religion. Faith and science are two areas of life that compliment each other, but neither should supplant the other.
For every evolutionary biologist -- Richard Dawkins is pretty lonely out on that limb -- who attack religion, there are at least a hundred wannabe theologians attacking science. I won't belabor it.
This is also a dead giveaway. You are equating belief in INTELLIGENT DESIGN with Holocaust Denial.
No. I am making the point that just because two theories exist, it does not make the two theories equivalent in weight and value. Holocaust denial is not equivalent to established, documented history, because it is wrong. Because the facts speak otherwise. There is no obligation to "teach the controversy" just because some fringe group has an alternate theory.
I apologize for pushing an emotional button. The Holocaust exists in living memory; I have met survivors. I have seen the tattoos. None of us have such an intimate connection with a T. Rex. But to teach as if it were science that his razor-sharp incisors and vestigial forearms were designed to crack coconuts -- are you kidding me?
Heh.
I hate to add such a lightweight post, but that about sums it up.
>> Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word “Darwinism” is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?
FYI, if you hear a scientist use the term Darwinism he is almost certainly using the term to mean Darwin’s philosophy in the 1800’s to avoid confusing that philosophy with modern evolutionary theory which is not considered to have begun for at least 70 years after Origin of the Species.
Even “survival of the fittest” is more Lamarckian than Darwinian and Lamarck fell out of favor in the West while in the Soviet Union if became Lysenkoism and almost destroyed Soviet agriculture.
That’s a long winded way of say Darwin was a brilliant scientist (and recognized in his time) but didn’t begin, much less complete modern evolutionary theory.
Darwinism is not evolutionary theory.
Read The Privileged Planet then see if you can repeat that.
The problem here would be the number of base pairs that are required to code for even a small protein. Even simple proteins are made up of many Amino Acids placed in the correct order by the DNA. I am actually alreadying breaking down the DNA into small subroutines - the codings for individual proteins. However, even these smaller chunks are incredibly complex and to code for them requires many base pairs to be in the correct order.
I've read the "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution" Wedge Document, which years ago confirmed DI's strategy when it was leaked. The main author of the book mentioned by SirLinksalot confirmed its authenticity.
Any of the books they publish afterwards are towards this end. If they appear scientific-sounding, that means their strategy is working. The Privileged Planet was written by two people from the very same Discovery Institute.
A protein to do what?
quote:
The burden of proof is on you to show that intelligent design was required for the ear to develop. Your refusal to do so is irresponsible and childish - “I believe it, now you prove it.” Does that make sense? No. If it’s your belief, then don’t ask others to do the hard work for you. Do it yourself.
my reply:
No, if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened. You are the one who claims to have a “theory,” genius.
And “explaining” it doesn’t mean just waving your hands and saying that natural selection can do amazing things. That’s called “begging the question,” a classic logical fallacy. Nor does it mean pointing out simpler ears in other animals, unless you can demonstrate in detail how one evolved into the other, with all the intermediate steps (which must also be functional lest the animal die off due to deafness).
Here’s what real scientists have said about ID:
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Any idea who those guys were, genius? Do you suppose they had some inkling of the “scientific method”?
Oh, I’m sure you are much wiser than they were.
I realize that I shouldn’t be so sarcastic and hostile, but I am just sick and tired of the crap that passes for scientific wisdom these days.
Okay for you, all knowing.
...if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened
That's worded with much more clarity and far less hostility than the last one. Thanks. I am not smart enough to develop a way to explain it without resorting to "God did it." I admit this.
Your ending statements show the difference between a creationist and a scientist.
The creationist uses old ancient words of wisdom from "real scientists" to show that modern developments are false. By doing so, he reflects his religious background. "The Bible intones, therefore it is. Do not think, just accept."
Science, on the other hand, is different. If words of wisdom from "real scientists" are shown to be false, then they are no longer held as dogma. They are discarded. Newton was indeed a genius, but the motion of our planets around the sun puzzled him and he never reconciled his explanation with the problems. In the end, he said, as you quoted, This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. It took another genius, Johannes Kepler, to show that our orbits are elliptical.
Were Newton and Kelvin luminaries in science? Oh, absolutely. I do not compare whatsoever to them. Does that mean that what they said disproves modern science? Uh, no.
This is where your religious background hurts you.
"God did it" has no place in science. It's not my business if you think he did it, but it is my business if you try to pass that off as science. If you want to teach it in history and literature classes, I'm with you. Just avoid the labs.
For one, I'm not going to put any money in the DI's coffers by buying the book. Secondly, whatever the book states on the motives of the DI doesn't matter since DI has already stated its motives. The book will, at most, be another whitewash attempt. Their stated intent is to have ID as the accepted "theory" not by competing in science, but by redefining science, political pressure and taking over school boards to have the change forced.
IOW, I don't have to be all knowing, I just have to have read the DI's own document that they did not want the public to see. This was supposed to be a stealth campaign (read: deception and lies), but the cover was blown.
Reason as we see reasoning? Right and wrong? We can't even nail down the definition of that within our species. And you're off by several orders of magnitude on the timeline.
Sounds like a statement of faith to me.
It's a statement of probabilities. A priori probabilities of a specific outcome often look improbably large. Yet, somehow, some outcome always occurs. Shuffle a deck of cards, chances of your specific card order is 1 in 8x1067, but guess what, a valid card order happens every time you shuffle -- just not the one you were looking for.
But, since it's so "obvious" to you that this is proof of "intelligent design," why don't you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?
I mean, if it's really so clear to anyone who has more than half a brain, as you wrote, then your intelligence should be more than enough to write a paper that shows why our ear is the product of intelligent design.
Oh, that's right. My mistake. You can't because you're invoking the supernatural, which makes it impossible for you to get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I first read it from a library. But, as you will.
The billions timeline or the millions timeline?
This sounds like the tautology --- They survived because because they are the fittest
You're having a hard time with probabilities. Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result. With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory, it is almost impossible.
But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view. The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome, and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.
IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled, not that are shuffled in a particular order.
Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 (Professor Department of Biological Science Lehigh University)
This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?
Evidence also points to zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism and its descendant, intelligent design.
It could be true that mutation and natural selection are not the only two mechanisms. Since you believe that they aren't, write a paper arguing that a higher being is involved and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.
If you could do it, you would benefit creationism immensely.
Not exactly sure what you are asking. Proteins are used in the cell for all kinds of functions - for example one protein might be used in the process of breaking down a particular chemical.
The question of odds assumes first that proteins are even necessary for life, that the arrangement of molecules is even important. The a priori odds always assume life as we know it on Earth is the desired outcome. Proteins could be junk in the petri dish for another life form, and they wouldn't be caring what the odds were that it occurred.
quote:
But, since it’s so “obvious” to you that this is proof of “intelligent design,” why don’t you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?
my reply:
I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is to note that no paper has ever been published that even remotely explains how the ear could have evolved *without* ID. That doesn’t “prove” ID for the ear, but it sure suggests it rather strongly.
I urge you to open up a physiology text some day and study the ear so you have a vivid idea of the level of complexity we are talking about here. (I have a funny feeling you don’t even *care* about the actual complexity of the ear. I’ll bet your mind is made up, and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.)
But if the ear doesn’t impress you, how about the first living cell. I sincerely hope you are not so ignorant as to believe that modern science has explained the formation of the first cell by purely naturalistic mechanisms. It hasn’t even come close — and that is an understatement.
So what is it that you believe? Do you believe that ID *must* be ruled out for evolution *after* the first cell — even though it *cannot* be ruled out in explaining the first cell? If so, that’s some funny kind of science — where the rules change dramatically at some apparently arbitrary point in time.
Oh, and please don’t give me the usual crap about how we just don’t “yet” understand the formation of the first cell, but it is just a matter of time. If you think you can “predict” what science will find, that is nothing more than a bias in favor of a certain result.
So, yeah, you don’t need to write a paper explaining how design is so patently obvious that only guys with “half a brain,” like me, can’t see it. It just so happens that your refusal to do so doesn’t advance your cause by one inch. You can type away all day long about how I’m not as smart as Mssrs. Kelvin and Newton, but you’re not helping those high school kids who you believe are being deluded by their teachers that there is no peer-reviewed paper that confirms intelligent design ideology, despite its “obviousness.”
My mind is not made up. Although I believe you are trying to pass off creationism as science in the guise of “intelligent design,” you can convince me if you become the first to have a paper supporting creationism in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, you might be able to convince high school students that a wizard is behind it all. Can you imagine the repercussions of such an event? You’d be in the history books as the man who single-handedly changed the face of biology forever. I can see it - Russ Paielli, an aerospace engineer by training, demonstrated the importance of education when he wrote a paper that convincingly showed the role of an intelligent designer in guiding life. By strictly adhering to the scientific method and eschewing any reference to the supernatural in his paper, Paielli opened up new fields in biology.
I urge you to write that paper. You have a good grasp of the ideology, and as long as you refrain from the acerbic sarcasm and hostility that characterized your first few posts, you have a good chance of helping our kids gain a better appreciation of the “truth.”
Do your part to help our country. Spread your “truth” through the channels of the oppressor – peer-reviewed journals.
In your opinion. Given the state of the universe, maybe life tends to appear and evolve just as the orderly crystals in ice form.
No. YOU have a hard time with probabilities.
You keep missing the point. If there is one possible form of life, the odds that life as we know it happening are still low. But the odds of some form of life, especially when the test is made possibly trillions of times (or more) under different conditions, are good.
I'll make it really simple, something you've probably done before: You have a coin. Bet on heads. Flip it. You have about a .5 probability of achieving heads. It is only your desire for heads that gives you a .5 probability. Tails was desirable to another person, and he also has a .5 probability.
But looking from the outside there was a probability of 1 that someone would win.
Also, you flipping the coin a few hundred times also gives you a probability of heads approaching 1.
Mathematicians like David Berlinski, Granville Sewell ( not to mention William Dembski )
BTW, you would do well to not mention Dembski. His "Law of Conservation of Information" has been repeatedly shot down, even on a purely mathematical basis. He's a moving target to scientists, as he always changes the argument when his math gets blown out of the water.
I do have to hand it to you, you've gotten better. You used to trot out a very ignorant, warped interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to say essentially the same thing, but even the DI has abandoned it, asked people not to use it, because it made ID proponents look stupid.
Yep, they are valid in YOUR MIND. No wonder the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.
Valid in your mind. I was talking about the supposed low probability of life evolving.
You seem to think that only theists doubt Darwinism. David Berlinski and Michael Denton aren't even believers, yet they have openly expressed their doubts.
Doubts are fine. Darwin himself had doubts. The Theory of Evolution couldn't have advanced as far as it did without doubts. But generally to displace a scientific theory you have to provide a better one. Until then we go with the one we have, flaws and all, and keep working on the flaws.
But since we are the outcome, and since by everyday observation ( a basic tenet of science ), we do not see complex things happen without intelligent input
Weather is an extremely complex, interconnected system.
Shuffled is a verb. WHO DID THE SHUFFLING ?
When a metaphor refutes a person's point, he often tries to take it literally as a distraction.
Ahh yes, the same canard that keeps circulating.
And for good reason. Astrology had as part of it components of astronomy. He could have said astrology wasn't science, but the astronomy component was (you know, the part that was actually based on observation, not "The alignment of Mars will cause your baby to be a boy.").
The state of science back then also was not rigorous, yet he would allow that lax standard to be used today. "God of the gaps" isn't acceptable today, especially with the central tenet of the hypothesis being one big gap.
Newton knew this was right, as contrary to popular belief he refused to assign holes in his gravitational theory to God. Of course, he didn't think anybody could figure it out scientifically either, but Einstein did.
I take it you mean the revisionist literature that seeks to distance ID from its father, Creation Science, and its grandfather, Creationism.
Just as the literature tries to make it sound scientific and on the level, hoping people forget about the Wedge Document that showed the theological, and not scientific, basis of ID.
Just as the creation textbook Of Pandas and People (initial title: Creation Biology) was edited in the late 80s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, replacing the word "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Intelligent Designer."
There are too many examples of blatant lies, perjury, conspiracy and deception in the ID movement to believe it when they try to say they're being scientific or don't already have the Christian God in mind as the "Designer."
Hey, SirLinksalot, I really appreciate your effort to enlighten this guy, but I think you and I are both wasting our time with him. He is one of those people who just keeps regurgitating all the old canards that have been demolished time and again in the past. My hat’s off to you if you wish to keep trying, but I have more important things to do.
Ok, I said I was finished with this, but one more post.
quote:
My mind is not made up. Although I believe you are trying to pass off creationism as science in the guise of “intelligent design,” you can convince me if you become the first to have a paper supporting creationism in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, you might be able to convince high school students that a wizard is behind it all. Can you imagine the repercussions of such an event? You’d be in the history books as the man who single-handedly changed the face of biology forever. I can see it - Russ Paielli, an aerospace engineer by training, demonstrated the importance of education when he wrote a paper that convincingly showed the role of an intelligent designer in guiding life. By strictly adhering to the scientific method and eschewing any reference to the supernatural in his paper, Paielli opened up new fields in biology.
my reply:
I suggest you apply the same standard to the theory of evolution. I suggest you pound your fist on the table and *demand* that evolutionists publish a peer-reviewed paper explaining how the ear evolved by purely naturalistic mechanisms.
And if you think such a paper has been published already, I suggest you track it down, because I’ll bet dollars to dimes it hasn’t. What biology and biochemistry papers usually do is to simply *assume* evolution as the default and don’t even *try* to corroborate it in any specific terms.
OK, I’m done wasting my time with you. Let me know when you find that paper.
I just can’t seem to quit. One more point.
This guy were debating with mindlessly regurgitates the claim that zero peer-reviewed papers have been written that “support” ID. Who else uses that very tactic?
That’s *precisely* the tactic that Al Gore used in his crockumentary on global warming. Toward the end of it, he boldly asserted that zero papers had been published that argue against man-made global warming.
In both cases it’s a grotesque distortion of reality, of course.
Dr. Shelby Steele recounts how he was approached by a gender studies professor following one of his speeches. The professor asked him why he was not a supporter of gender studies. If I recall correctly, Steele asked if the professor was studying anything that cannot already be studied in existing departments. The professor responded that what she studied could very well be studied in other departments, but “institutional bias” made it oh-so-difficult. Steele then asked why she didn’t choose to publish in an existing department just to fight the good fight. The professor scoffed and left.
Doesn’t that “institutional bias” the professor blamed mirror the “witch hunt” you speak of?
That’s the key. You think that science wrongly brands creationism as a false science, even though creationism, creation science, and intelligent design all invoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. So, why not fight the good fight and show that current science is wrong in its judgment? Use the weapon of the status quo, peer-reviewed journals, to create a new status quo, one that places creationism in its rightful place as a science.
Unless, of course, you’re afraid of being ridiculed for attempting to revert science back to pre-Renaissance standards.
You say that it’s not impossible for our ear to have developed through mutation and natural selection. You say that there’s no evidence. You challenge me to find a paper that addresses this issue. I admit that I can neither think of a paper that answers your question nor come up with an experiment on my own. The discussion is ripe for a coup de grace - your contribution to science through the publication of the first peer-reviewed paper that supports creationism without resorting to supernatural explanations. You’ve already won your challenge. If you publish that paper, you can win the war.
Based on how entrenched your beliefs are that creationism has a rightful role in the public science classroom, a thousand scientists could laugh at you in an auditorium and you’d still be the same old preternaturally intelligent Russ Paielli.
But who cares about these thousand un-“enlightened” scientists? Your successful publication will result in an automatic senior fellowship at the Discovery Institute. It’s win-win for you as you get in the history books and a comfortable salary. Heck, you might even get a Nobel Prize.
Do it. Challenge science. Enlighten the unenlightened.
Judging by your latest post, you apparently haven’t yet found that peer-reviewed paper that explains in detail the evolution of the human ear in purely naturalistic terms.
Oh, wait... you weren’t even looking for it? I’m disappointed.
I’ll check back again tomorrow and see if you’ve found it. Until you do, please spare us your regurgitated baloney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.