Crux Magazine Off to Bad Start

Posted 8 February 2005 by Ed Brayton

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/crux-magazine-o.html

Crux magazine is a new publication with a virtual who's who of ID advocates as contributors and editors. It also has three blogs associated with it, with contributions from those same people. While declaring itself the "last bastion of Truth" (yes, they even capitalized it), their contributors seem to have a little difficulty grasping the non-capitalized variety of truth in two articles about the Sternberg/Smithsonian situation. The first, written by Crux senior editor Bobby Maddex, repeats the accusations in the David Klinghoffer WSJ piece as gospel truth, but adds one bit of falsehood to it:

Though still an employee of the museum, Sternberg, who is not even an advocate of Intelligent Design himself, has since been shunned by former colleagues throughout the United States, and his office still sits empty as "unclaimed space."

But in point of fact, Sternberg is not an employee of the museum and never has been. He is an employee of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is an agency of the National Institutes of Health, not the National Museum of Natural History, which is under the Smithsonian. He is a Research Associate at the NMNH, an unpaid position that merely allows access to the Smithsonian's collections without staff supervision. That was his position there before all of this brouhaha, and that is his position there now. As for his office sitting empty as unclaimed space, that is only because Sternberg's office is now in another part of the museum.

The second article, by John Coleman, is even less accurate in its portrayal of the situation. He says:

Sternberg, something of a postmodern Catholic received even worse treatment when he allowed an article proposing the possibility of Intelligent Design (a prominent anti-Darwinian theory of origins) to appear in the Museum of Natural History's journal. Sternberg lost his post at both the museum and the journal, as noted by Bobby Maddex; his crime--allowing a theory considered unscientific by the academic mainstream to make it through the process of peer review.

There are several inaccuracies in that one paragraph. First, he did not lose his post at either the museum or the journal as a result of publishing the Meyer article in PBSW. As noted above, and as Sternberg himself admits, he is still a Research Associate at the museum and his tenure as editor of the journal was already set to expire. He published the Meyer article in the last edition of the journal he had editorial control over, I suspect quite intentionally. So it is simply false to assert that he was fired from either position because of the controversy surrounding that publication. He still retains the only position he would have even if it had never happened.

Second, the claim that ID is "a prominent anti-Darwinian theory of origins" is also false. ID is, by the admission of its most forthright advocates, not yet a theory at all. Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute, regarded by me and others as both the brightest and most honest of the ID proponents, said only a few months ago, "We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." This also points up the straw man nature of another statement made by Klinghoffer and repeated by Maddex in the post linked to above. He said:

Klinghoffer goes on to point out the single most frustrating aspect of the case for Intelligent Design advocates. "Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal," he writes. "Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."

But that is nothing more than a straw man. The argument about the unscientific nature of ID was never premised upon the fact that it had not appeared in a peer reviewed journal, but upon the fact that there simply was no theory of intelligent design from which one might derive testable hypotheses and spur research that might confirm or disconfirm the theory. The Meyer article does nothing to change that, as it was solely a review article and the arguments made in it are of a purely negative nature. The argument is essentially, "not evolution, therefore God". But that is an illogical conclusion for many reasons, and it is certainly not anything like a testable theory. What no ID advocate has done, as Nelson admits, is develop an actual theory of intelligent design that could be tested in some way. The only thing they have done is tried to poke holes in evolutionary explanations on the assumption that showing the insufficency of evolution proves that God must have done it. As Nelson had also said in 2002, "There is something deeply dissatisfying about establishing the bona fides of one theory by debunking another. Design simply must put novel predictions of its own on the blackboard."

Until ID advocates actually come up with a theory that makes positive predictions (as opposed to "I predict evolution can't explain this") that can be used to test the veracity of the theory, it will not be taken seriously as a genuine scientific model. Nor does it deserve to be. As another ID advocate, Bruce Gordon has also noted, "inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quality research and publication." That is a process that has barely begun, as Gordon says in that same article, and as a result ID had been "prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."

Given the inaccuracies in just the first few posts on the supplemental blogs written by contributors and editors, I'd say Crux is not off to a very good start. Perhaps they should spend more time worrying about the truth and less time declaring itself a "bastion of Truth".

115 Comments

Great White Wonder · 8 February 2005

Sternberg lost his post at both the museum and the journal, as noted by Bobby Maddex

Maddex likely has some insight into museum operations since his daughter, Alison Maddex, is the well-known parnter of Camille Paglia who serves as the director of the Museum of Sex in NYC. Isn't that interesting? I bet Phil Johnson finds it interesting. I saw him wandering Berkeley the other day muttering something about "naturological methodism" into his drool cup. http://www.salon.com/books/it/col/pagl/1999/04/07/camille_MIT/print.html http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wScnWwC---gUJ:www.jobriath.org/paglia/chrono.html+%22robert+maddex%22+alison&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Ed Brayton · 8 February 2005

Great White Wonder wrote:

Isn't that interesting? I bet Phil Johnson finds it interesting. I saw him wandering Berkeley the other day muttering something about "naturological methodism" into his drool cup.

You know, sometimes I wonder why we haven't just banned you from leaving comments here. More often than not, you offer nothing but vitriol and insults and are an embarrassment to our side, but this one is unnecessarily vicious even for you. The completely pointless reference to Phil Johnson and a "drool cup" is just totally uncalled for, and especially repulsive given the fact that he recently suffered another stroke. We can argue forcefully against the arguments of our opponents without demeaning and dehumanizing them. Consider this your first, last and only warning. Keep up this sort of nastiness and you will no longer be commenting here.

SteveF · 8 February 2005

I guess its early days and the mag isn't on the shelves yet but it hardly looks promising.

Having a quick read of some of their articles and it seems they are pretty desperate for something to say; the 'Ten Films that Ask the Right Questions' is a case in point. Completely pointless waste of time evidently bashed out by some hack because they couldn't think of anything else to write.

If they try and keep up this attempt at 'being meaningful' and 'thinking deep thoughts about important issues and the meaning of life' kind of posturing stance then it will get tiring pretty quickly. I reckon they need to take themselves a little less seriously and inject some fun. Otherwise their target demographic will switch off quicker than you can describe the current scientific output of the ID movement.

Oh and for a mag that claims to go against trendy orthodoxy, they have a pretty trendy and orthodox looking magazine design. Maybe it has a common ancestor.

Rilke's Grand-daughter · 8 February 2005

The thing that strikes me about this magazine is it's naïve view of the audience they're trying to reach. We're a heck of a lot more saavy and, dare I say it, cynical that these guys appear to think.

Or maybe it's just me....

Adam Marczyk · 8 February 2005

It's interesting to see how this story gets progressively more distorted as it makes its way from pro-ID writer to pro-ID writer. By the time someone is citing Coleman as a source, they'll probably have added something about how Sternberg was chased out of the museum by a mob of scientists wielding torches and pitchforks.

Great White Wonder · 8 February 2005

The completely pointless reference to Phil Johnson and a "drool cup" is just totally uncalled for, and especially repulsive given the fact that he recently suffered another stroke.

Ooops! Next time I'll consult Phil Johnson's medical charts before making a joke about his intellect and his paranoid beliefs about scientists and their "agenda"! That was my sole intent. Seriously, I had no idea the guy had a a second stroke, or even a first stroke. Was it reported here? When? I missed it. My bad. A classic faux paux. And by the way, who else can't I make jokes about? Which other toxic fundamentalist charlatan creeps must I treat "respectfully" while they work religiously to spread lies about people like me, i.e., scientists who worked their butts off trying to learn something about biology so that we can stop the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of children? My view is that the real embarassments for "our side," Ed, are the scientists and non-scientists (e.g., Nathan Newman) who meekly blame the whole "ID" controversy on teachers and teachers for not teaching biology adequately to Americans. The creationism problem has far less to do with ignorance of biology and far more to do with excessive coddling of religious fundamentalists in this country. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find a reliable snake handler in my area.

Steve Reuland · 8 February 2005

It's interesting to see how this story gets progressively more distorted as it makes its way from pro-ID writer to pro-ID writer. By the time someone is citing Coleman as a source, they'll probably have added something about how Sternberg was chased out of the museum by a mob of scientists wielding torches and pitchforks.
— Adam Marczyk

We'll still be hearing about this years from now, even if it turns out that none of Sternberg's allegations were even remotely true. It will appear in one creationist article after another, each of them borrowing it from an earlier creationist source, going all the way back to Crux. Like Darwin's death bed confession, it'll never die. Some passion for Truth, no?

Steve Reuland · 8 February 2005

Second, the claim that ID is "a prominent anti-Darwinian theory of origins" is also false. ID is, by the admission of its most forthright advocates, not yet a theory at all.
— Ed Brayton

Nor is it prominent, except in the minds of its own advocates. By my last count, ID had a significant following at (checks calculator...) zero secular universities.

Don T. Know · 8 February 2005

The thing that strikes me about this magazine is it's naïve view of the audience they're trying to reach. We're a heck of a lot more saavy and, dare I say it, cynical that these guys appear to think.

They are trying to reach like-minded people. Except that most people like them aren't very savvy or cynical. Hmmm.

Don T. Know · 8 February 2005

Ooops! Next time I'll consult Phil Johnson's medical charts before making a joke about his intellect and his paranoid beliefs about scientists and their "agenda"! That was my sole intent.

This reminds me of the last scene from Inherit the Wind where Hornbeck is berating Henry Drummond for being nice to Matthew Harrison Brady (recently deceased creationist): Is this "Be-Kind-To-Bigots" Week? Since Brady's dead, we must be kind? God, how the world is rotten with kindness."

Don T. Know · 8 February 2005

The creationism problem has far less to do with ignorance of biology and far more to do with excessive coddling of religious fundamentalists in this country.

Sounds a lot like "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason," where Sam Harris argues that religious "toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists...Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another."

Ed Darrell · 8 February 2005

Mr. Reuland noted:

By my last count, ID had a significant following at (checks calculator . . . ) zero secular universities.

Why do you limit it to secular universities? By my count, ID has a significant following at zero Christian-affiliated schools, too. I've surveyed Southern Methodist, Texas Christian, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Canisius, Wake Forest, Baylor, Chapman, Vanderbilt, Brigham Young, Marquette, Gonzaga (and looked at Bing Crosby's Oscar), Abilene Christian, Wheaton, Dallas, Denver, Creighton, Temple, Holy Cross, all the Loyolas I can find, and a couple dozen others -- and I have yet to find any of them who teach anything other than Darwin in the biology department. There is no ID course in any biology department in any school I have found, including the lesser religiously-affiliated schools. Here's the sad fact: Dover, Pennsylvania's school board is ordering their high school teachers to pay homage to an idea that no one has fleshed out for teaching to any non-college class, and which is so spectacularly absent on college campuses that no teacher could possibly have been trained in the stuff. Maybe there is a future for a cold fusion textbook after all!

Ed Darrell · 8 February 2005

Does Behe teach ID at Lehigh? Dembski didn't teach it at Baylor, and I'll bet it's not in the catalog at Lexington (or whatever seminary he moved to), either.

If the poobahs and brahmins of ID don't teach it at their colleges, why should any public school system do what they won't?

Steve F · 8 February 2005

Its not being taught? Must be some sort of naturalistic/atheistic/establishment (delete as appropriate) conspiracy.

David Heddle · 8 February 2005

GWW wrote

people like me, i.e., scientists who worked their butts off trying to learn something about biology so that we can stop the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of children?

Are you working to ban abortion? Oh no, that would be stopping the unnecessary deaths of millions of children.

Art · 8 February 2005

Hi Ed,

I didn't look at every program, but I couldn't find anything that might contain ID-related materials in the Lehigh catalog. I wonder if Behe is involved with the new bioengineering efforts at Lehigh. If there was ever a "place" for ID,...

Also, Dembski will be working in Louisville, not Lexington.

For the record.

Great White Wonder · 8 February 2005

Heddle, my response appears on the Wall.

Steve Reuland · 8 February 2005

By my count, ID has a significant following at zero Christian-affiliated schools, too.
— Ed Darrell

Well, there is Biola, where the IDists have seemingly staked out a home base. And there's one more college whose name escapes me. And if you include the YEC schools, that adds several (mosty non-accredited) institutions.

Grey Wolf · 8 February 2005

David Heddle, since you're trying to gain the upper hand, I'll raise it even more (in what is known, in a popular card game around here, as "órdago"). I claim that scientists working from the predictions and studies on the theory of evolution, are working to prevent the deaths of hundreds of millions of people (most children) by using that fearful theory of evilution to develop cures for Malaria and AIDS, responsible between them for that huge number of deaths in poor countries. And to prevent any kind of stupid answer, I worked under Pedro Alonso, who is leading the studies of a promising Malaria vaccine, and I can assure you that without the theory of evolution, that vaccine would have never been developed.

Actually, I don't know if abortions even get close to the numbers Malaria and AIDS work with, although I rather doubt it. Of course, I doubt abortions get close to road deaths. Or cancer. But since I am not American I won't get into a fruitless argument over numbers. The theory of evolution saves lives. Certainly far more than the theory of relativity or quantum theory. And an infinite bigger number than ID could save, since the number is 0 (the aliens wanted it so, after all - if the design is flawed, the aliens must have had a reason).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Dr Zen · 8 February 2005

One notes that these crusaders for truth do not allow commenting on their blogs, presumably to ensure that said truth never sullies them.

Bill Gascoyne · 8 February 2005

Are you working to ban abortion? Oh no, that would be stopping the unnecessary deaths of millions of children.
— Dave Heddle

What color is the sky where you live? Since when has banning something done anything but push it beyond society's control? Banning alcohol spawned Al Capone, banning cocaine spawned Pablo Escobar, what might an abortion ban spawn?

No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.
— Thomas Jefferson

David Heddle · 8 February 2005

Grey Wolf,

I doubt abortions get close to road deaths. Or cancer. But since I am not American..

Not from America? You must be from another planet. The number of abortions reported to the CDC is on the order of one million per year. This dwarfs the number of children killed by road deaths, AIDs, or cancer.

The theory of evolution saves lives. Certainly far more than the theory of relativity or quantum theory.

Have I argued that genetic research doesn't save lives? Oh, and by the way, unless all this research is carried out without the use of any solid state devices, including computers, electron microscopes, etc., then QM deserves quite a bit of the credit. Bill wrote

What color is the sky where you live? Since when has banning something done anything but push it beyond society's control? Banning alcohol spawned Al Capone, banning cocaine spawned Pablo Escobar, what might an abortion ban spawn?

Just to confirm you are consistent, will you acknowledge that you are gainst a ban on fully automatic assult rifles?

Great White Wonder · 8 February 2005

Heddle

Have I argued that genetic research doesn't save lives?

No, and that is sort of the point. It'd be nice if you pointed that fact out to the anti-science rubes who troll here on a regular basis, but I very rarely hear you chiming in with irrefutable facts about anything. Women who intentionally abort their own pregnancies are not considered to be child killers, last time I checked. You might be interested in discussing why that is, but I certainly am not. Not here anyway. So please take your irrelevant abortion statistics to your own scarcely read blog, okay, or at least to the Bathroom Wall (where this post belongs as well, I suppose).

NiceTry · 8 February 2005

Why would the tools deserve the credit? Should I be telling your computer it's completely wrong instead of you?

Grey Wolf · 9 February 2005

David Heddle, I can see that you've very carefully omitted what was, in fact, my main point: Malaria. Why don't you do some research and tell us how many children die from Malaria? Oh, and I am going to call your numbers on AIDS, as I am at it. Best guesstimates I've heard give the number of people with AIDS in Africa as 1 in 5 (although goverments are reluctant to give official numbers or even allow studies). AIDS *will* kill all those people. Yes, probably most won't be children, but they're still human. While I am touched by the fact that you only care about children, I believe that thousands of millions dead, even if they're over 14, should be stopped.

In fact, it is certainly you the person who lives in another world, inside your protective coccoon. Please, tell me why I should bother about legal abortions in other countries which I can do nothing about and help you fight the one science that is working on providing a better life for most of the poor world.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: while QT helps build modern computers, I am pretty sure neither of them were really around when Darwin worked, so giving QT the credit for evolution work is not only false, it is stupid beyond words. Might as well say that photography is saviour of mankind because optic mice use it to work and without mice you can't use a computer, which is always involved in modern work.

ts · 9 February 2005

The theory of evolution saves lives. Certainly far more than the theory of relativity or quantum theory.

Quantum theory makes modern electronics and chemistry possible.

ts · 9 February 2005

Why would the tools deserve the credit? Should I be telling your computer it?s completely wrong instead of you?

Grey Wolf compared the theory of evolution to the quantum theory on the basis of how many lives they save. To be consistent, you would have to deny that the theory of evolution deserves any credit either.

while QT helps build modern computers, I am pretty sure neither of them were really around when Darwin worked, so giving QT the credit for evolution work is not only false, it is stupid beyond words. Might as well say that photography is saviour of mankind because optic mice use it to work and without mice you can?t use a computer, which is always involved in modern work.

Modern medicine and genetics weren't around when Darwin worked, either. These comments are disingenuous -- you should leave that sort of thing Heddle, rather than stoop to his level. The fact is that both the theory of evolution and quantum theory contribute significantly to saving lives, and for a biologist to deny the role of QT/QM is rather provincial.

Grey Wolf · 9 February 2005

ts said:

Quantum theory makes modern electronics and chemistry possible.

Quantum processes are indeed at the bottom of everything, and so QT explains this - but when you want a working vaccine, you go looking for a biologist/doctor who understands evolution and how to adapt it to your purposes. This is not meant as an attack on QT or even trying to put it down, ts. QT is extremelly important in many fields - including my own - but from the strict "saving lives" point of view, I hope you agree with me that evolution theory has so many scores on his side of the board that every other modern theory (and even most of the old ones) has nothing to do *in that particular arena*. If you disagree, however, so be it. I'm not here to discuss the relative importance of modern theories, but to learn about evolution. If I bought it up is because any number of trolls are so desperate to destroy evolution theory that they're willing to condemn most of humanity to death in the process. And that "pisses me off", I think is the expression you would use. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf · 9 February 2005

The fact is that both the theory of evolution and quantum theory contribute significantly to saving lives, and for a biologist to deny the role of QT/QM is rather provincial

I concede the point. As I said above, I know QT is important. We could split hairs and get heated up about their relative importance, but it would not only be improductive, it would be downright stupid. Oh, and by the way, I'm sorry if I sounded provincial, but that's probably because I'm not a biologist. I worked under Pedro Alonso, but not in the labs. I did manage to pick up a little biology here and there, but I do not claim to be an expert (my field is scientific, but not really related to biology). As I said, I'm here to learn. Unfortunately, trolling gets in the way. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes there is no bad feeling between him and ts

jonas · 9 February 2005

Grey Wolf,

being a physicist myself, I do not think that playing one scientific discipline against the other is very helpful. But, although QT and relativity are used to directly safe lives (imaging SQUIDS for magnetic scanning or particle accelerators for killing tumors), I doubt that many of my collegues have chosen their field of work due to their wishes to safe lives - curiosity seems to be the main driving force. I would guess that this might be different for biologists studying, say, the evolution of resistant bacteria or antibiotic molds, so you are probably right on this.

About Daves quip concerning anti-abortion activism: The moment so-called pro-lifers invest the same amount of energy in preserving the lifes of disadvantaged children already born as they put into railing against abortion, I will take their claim of caring about anybodies life serious - but even then history does still show that the criminalization of abortion is probably the least effective way possible to actually prevent abortions. Until they do this, they will come across as activist caring only about being right and not about helping anybody.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Great White Wonder

You and your incivility don't fit in here. Why not do the right thing and either grow up or take a hike?

And how many children did you save by believing that mutation/selection is the mechanism behind macroevolution? Spare me. That has absolutely no bearing on any practical applications.

David Heddle · 9 February 2005

Greywolf wrote:

I'm not here to discuss the relative importance of modern theories

That's funny, because you were the first person to bring up this topic, in comment #15429 above.

any number of trolls desperate to destroy evolution theory that they're willing to condemn most of humanity to death in the process.

Please tell me where I have done anything along these lines? Can you point anywhere where I have said that evolution should not be taught? Can you point out where I have said that ID should be taught? My arguments on this blog have been rather specific: (1) pointing out the circular arguments presented about ID peer-reviewed publications and (2) design is so evident in cosmology that almost all physical scientists agree on the appearance of fine-tuning, and look for ways to explain it--a minority (like myself) via cosmological ID and the majority via new theories and (3) The stickers everyone is willing to go to the mat for are meaningless. Way, way back I also argued that evolution is not falsifiable in the same way as physics. Some biologists make the same point. So how have I tried desparately to destroy evolution? Where have I stated that genetic research should come to a halt? Where have I stated that genetic research does not save lives?

David Heddle · 9 February 2005

Jonas wrote:

but even then history does still show that the criminalization of abortion is probably the least effective way possible to actually prevent abortions.

You can make all sorts of arguments for and against abortion, but this one is false. The number of abortions in the U.S. exploded after Row v. Wade. Oh, and does the "criminalization is the least effective to prevent it" argument apply only to abortion? How about to fully automatic assault rifles?

The moment so-called pro-lifers invest the same amount of energy in preserving the lifes of disadvantaged children already born as they put into railing against abortion, I will take their claim of caring about anybodies life serious

I don't even know what this means. Are you arguing that anti-abortion Christians do not help other children? That is so demonstrably false as to be ridiculous. There are very large Christian organizations active in charitable work throughout the world, even as repulsive governments like that of Indonesia work to keep them out.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

The fear you boys have of even the mention of ID in a one-minute advisory statement to biology students is it might make them wonder about the appearance of design and if anyone gets it into their head to check out just how much of an appearance that is they're going to get an inkling of just how complex the machinery of life is.

The appearance of design that Dawkins disputed has in the last 20 years has become an overwhelming appearance of design. You know it, I know it, and you're all afraid everyone is going to know it. Most people do not put ideological materialism ahead of common sense. If they see something with the overwhelming appearance of design they're going to believe it is a design until proven otherwise. And that's the sticking point. There's no proof it isn't a design. It's not a falsifiable concept.

Stop fighting it. You're just giving yourselves a bad name in the eyes of the public by such zealous behavior that you won't even allow a stupid sticker in a backwoods biology text. Geeze Louise. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill - this takes the cake. I wonder how much good could have been done if all the energy over this had been put to better use.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Ed Darrel

One of my daughters is taking Biology 101 this semester at Austin Community College.

Imagine my delight when I found out there was a writing assignment wherein the students have to compare and contrast standard evolutionary theory with intelligent design.

If you think this isn't being taught anywhere you have another think coming.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

What's to teach in intelligent design?

ID Lesson one:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

ID Lesson two:

If it looks like a design and acts like a design it's probably a design.

End of ID lessons.

Big deal.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Jonas

The problem with abortion on demand is it cheapens human life. It reduces something precious to something disposable. Another problem is it discourages personal accountability for one's decisions. Why bother worrying about pregnancy when you can just kill any child that starts growing to spare the parents responsibility for their actions. And it's not really a human being with a life ahead of it, it's just a fetus and they're cheap. And it would probably have a bad life because it's unwanted. Rationalize, cheapen, escape responsibility. That's no basis for civilization.

The first argument, cheapening of life, can be applied to unbending materialism in the origin of life. Hey, it's all just a cosmic accident that doesn't mean anything. The universe doesn't care if shoot my classmates. The universe cares about nothing, especially me, so why should I care about the universe or anything in it?

That's why the same crowd that opposes abortion tends to also oppose materialist evolution being taught as undeniable fact.

Jeff Low · 9 February 2005

The Meyer article does nothing to change that, as it was solely a review article and the arguments made in it are of a purely negative nature. The argument is essentially, "not evolution, therefore God". But that is an illogical conclusion for many reasons, and it is certainly not anything like a testable theory. What no ID advocate has done, as Nelson admits, is develop an actual theory of intelligent design that could be tested in some way. The only thing they have done is tried to poke holes in evolutionary explanations on the assumption that showing the insufficency of evolution proves that God must have done it. As Nelson had also said in 2002, "There is something deeply dissatisfying about establishing the bona fides of one theory by debunking another. Design simply must put novel predictions of its own on the blackboard."

Since there are only two possible ways that we could have arrived here, proving that one way is impossible automatically proves the alternative to be true. It's kind of like proving that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. First, we assume that there a finite number of primes. Then by showing that this is impossible, we prove that there are an infinite number of primes. I know that somebody will reply that there is some unimaginable "third way". Please don't waste board space with such garbage.

Ralph Jones · 9 February 2005

DaveScot,

First of all, you conflate evolution, which began after life started and so has nothing to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Second, no science should be taught as undeniable fact. Scientific facts are by definition tentative. I wish anti-evolutionists would at least get the easy stuff right.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

I've been designing computer hardware and software most of my adult life. Before that it was radio and TV. I soldered together my first ham radio in the 1960s. Very little that I can think of in modern electronics was designed with QT in mind. GPS uses general relativity, which might be first for relativity & electronics. Flash ROM was designed based upon quantum tunneling which is probably the first deliberate use of QM effect in a computer. Tunneling microscopy, SQUID, there's some but I wouldn't say a whole lot. The fabrication technology to bring feature sizes down into the realm where quantum effect is relevant is recent. It's mostly just plain old ohm's law and wave propagation just like Newtonian physics got us to the moon.

On the other hand, I can't think of any practical result the concept of mutation/selection driving macroevolution has brought about. Microevolution, sure thing. That's relevant and practical because it's happening right now not millions/billions year old history that doesn't repeat itself. That's what explains things like bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But unless I've missed something antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria. No macroevolution occured there.

So what practical difference does it make what mechanism brought about the first cell 4 billion years ago and what practical difference does it make what specific mechanism turned single celled organisms into a hundred phyla in the Cambrian Explosion? Life still works the same now no matter how it came to be.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Ralph Jones

If you don't think "evolution" cares about abiogenesis just try out the hypothesis that the first cell was a result of design and there was no design input from that point forward.

Evolutionists care very much about that the origin of that first cell was materialist.

And ID proposes nothing testable? How about we assume that the first cell was a design and it contained all the preformed information necessary to diversify itself in response to various challenges from the environment.

What would that predict? I should think one prediction is that we'd see the genomic information in extant critters whose ancestors had never expressed that information. Let's take the easter lily for example. Its genome is some 190 billion base pairs long. Seems kind of excessive for a flower when 3 billion base pairs makes a human being, wouldn't you say? I wonder if in all of that huge storage capacity of the water lily there's some animal design information in there that was never expressed in a plant. Or how about amoeba dubia with 670 billion base pairs. That's a lot of base pairs for a silly little amoeba. That's a lot of baggage. That much DNA causes reproduction to take a lot longer. Natural selection it seems should have pruned that down unless there's something buried in there that's critical. Maybe that amoeba has all the information in it needed to build a water lily - or a mammal - if the proper challenges arise.

So there's a major prediction for the design argument. We should be able to find anticipatory information in the genome of organisms that have never needed or used that information. Anticipation is the unmistakable hallmark of intelligence and evidence of it should be rather unambiguous and well within the reasonable bounds of discovery.

jonas · 9 February 2005

Sorry to not fit the stereotypes here,

I am very much opposed to abortions actually being carried out in most cases nonwithstanding my support for strict naturalism in science. This is because I subscribe to the sanctity of human life - and to some degree all life - above all other religious or philosophical principles.

But both my personal experience and the history of abortion in several European countries have led me to the conclusion that no embryo can be saved against the will of his or her mother. During e.g. the Weimar republic era not only was the rate of illegal abortions high, but also the rate of suicides and infanticides by poor, young mothers unable to afford paying off a physician. Both occurences did not scale with the amount of effort to stamp out abortion and the latter scaled prfectly with the overall economic situation. After the legalization of abortion under certain circumstances by the FRG later in the twentieth century it turned out, that the number of until then undocumented abortions had been much higher then estimated before and no significant increase caused by the change of law could be documented afaik.

Therefore it would be interesting to know, how good the correction of the before and after Roe vs. Wade data for undocumented cases is and whether there had been any research into this. The situation in countries like Spain and Ireland, which uphold an abortion ban seems not to be so different today to pre-law change Germany in the middle of the 20th century.

Things I know about actually helping mothers to decide in favour of their child-to-be is counseling, financial and psychological support without any ideological strings attached, creating a society supporting children and single mothers in a better way and the affirmation of the dignity of both the mother and the embryo, without taking the decision out of the mother's hand.

This is one of the reasons why I miss more action by so-called pro-lifers to help the already born, and I men in the form of tough political action and not just charity. Why not for a change picket politicians wanting to cut healthcare, social security and
education for young children and industries forcing young women to labour indecent hours for a minimum wage?

Maybe my stance that I can not force my ethics on every pregnant girl in dire straits is akin to my conviction that I can not demand of nature to function in a way especially philosophically pleasing to me. Maybe this is a moral flaw of mine, or maybe - as I hope - it is a way of showing respect to live and its ultimate meaning even beyond my wishes and comprehension.

P.S. this whole abortion thing sounds to me like a bit of a red herring on this board, so I would prefer to not clutter up the space here with it any longer.

Ed Darrell · 9 February 2005

DaveScot said:

On the other hand, I can't think of any practical result the concept of mutation/selection driving macroevolution has brought about. Microevolution, sure thing. That's relevant and practical because it's happening right now not millions/billions year old history that doesn't repeat itself. That's what explains things like bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But unless I've missed something antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria. No macroevolution occured there.

Nothing practical from macroevolution? I suppose that depends on whether one regards eating as "practical." Stroll down the produce and meat aisles at your local supermarket. Grapefruit didn't exist much prior to the 20th century. Red grapefruit resulted from a sport mutation in the middle of the century. Broccoli, radishes, and canola are all new species out of mustards. Modern beef is the new species that replaced aurochs. Etc., etc. Bacteria are still bacteria? Well, yeah. Humans are still primates, as are chimpanzees. We're closer to chimps, some have argued, than some mutations of bacteria are to their parents. Do you think humans and chimps the same species? Or are you nervous when Jared Diamond refers to humans as the third surviving chimp species?

Ed Darrell · 9 February 2005

On evolution's work to save lives:

1. Every list I've seen puts malaria as the world's top killer in most years.

2. Recent statistical arguments claim four kids are orphaned by AIDS every minute. HIV/AIDS is a disease whose understanding is entirely derived from evolution theory -- which may be part of the reason there is so much misunderstanding by those who don't understand evolution.

3. Diabetes' understanding, diagnosis and treatment are all evolution-based. Especially now, with genetically-engineered Humulin as the chief treatment for diabetes, every diabetic alive owes survival to applied evolution theory.

4. Modern surgery's advancements are based on animal experiments. Those experiments are done because of the evolutionary linkages between mammals. If procedures work in dogs, they can be made to work in humans, for example.

There are dozens of other examples, I'm sure.

Ed Darrell · 9 February 2005

Steve Reuland,

Does BIOLA actually offer courses in ID in the biology department? Do they even have a biology department?

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Mutation + natural selection being the driver of higher taxonomic diversity is about as important to practical applications in life science as the origin of the element silicon is to me in the practical application of semiconductors. It doesn't matter to me whether silicon was formed in supernovae or if God created it 6000 years ago ex nihilo and sprinkled it on the earth like fairy dust. It doesn't matter how it got here. It works the same in practical applications either way.

I really want to hear one of you tell me with a straight face that you need to know that mutation/selection and not design turned protists into plants in order to advance medicine, or genetically corn to fix its own nitrogen, or find a new antibiotic, or anything. I want to hear it. How does it effect the price of tea in china, so to speak. I've an open mind but it isn't open to malarky.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Jonas

>But both my personal experience and the history of abortion

I was a teenager in the United States before Roe v. Wade and I can assure you that here many pregnancies were avoided in the first place because abortion was illegal, painful, and dangerous. I can also assure you that the unplanned pregnancies that did occur were seldom aborted because abortion was illegal, painful, dangerous, AND carried an intense social stigma if anyone found out about it.

These days it's hard to swing a dead cat without hitting a woman who's had an abortion.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Ed...

Red grapefruit is still a grapefruit. No macroevolution occured there.

Nobody designed modern beef cattle. They were bred long before anyone put forward the idea that mutation/selection turned protists into parrots.

Feel free to try again. Here's the question a little more refined:

What practical benefit is a direct result of knowing that mutation/selection and not design causes the emergence of higher taxa?

jonas · 9 February 2005

Dave,

this is actually a question cutting to the core of the principle of naturalism. Surely, there is no logical or a priori empirical reason why, say, oil shouldn't have been put into the ground by some intelligent unknown process or some of the mammalian species should have been specially created or tinkered with by the same being. But only if we assume certain naturalistc rules how oil deposits or new species form can we make testable predictions which , if verified allow us to search for oil in the right place and predict the overall anatomy of a new species from similar know species. With miraculous intervention as our hypothesis we can only arrive at any sound prediction, if we either describe or miracleworker in testable detail, thus turning it into a natural cause, or demand of it to mimick a testable natural cause, thus casting it as a philosophical claim not adding any scientifically relevant factor.

Thanks for pointing this out.

David Heddle · 9 February 2005

Every list I've seen puts malaria as the world's top killer in most years.

Malaria is obviously worth fighting, and I applaud all your efforts, but there are between 20-50 million annual abortions worldwide, and about 3 million malaria deaths. So, as far as the top killers, Malaria is at best a distant second.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Ed,

No malarky. No unsubstantiated claims.

How exactly does the sure knowledge that mutation/selection and not design drove the emergence of higher taxa aid help in the understanding of AIDS, malaria, diabetes, or any kind of surgery, etc?

Whether by design or mutation/selection the relationship between extant species is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Or from another POV... if you found out tomorrow that mutation/selection was not responsible for the emergence of higher taxa, what would it change in the way medical research is conducted?

Would we abandon doing animal tests before testing on people? Of course not. Why not? Because it doesn't matter whether mutation/selection or divine intervention caused the relationships to be the way they are. They are the same relationships either way.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

jonas

Speaking of core principles, one of mine is Copernican Mediocrity.

I know for a fact that genetic engineers exist on the earth.

Copernican Mediocrity insists that I must thus assume genetic engineers are a common, average thing in the universe. This is the core principle behind the enlightenment. Darwin was a long time past Copernicus. It was the idea that there's nothing special about the earth that's brought science where it is today.

Ergo, since I know that genetic engineers exist, and I follow the principle of Copernican Mediocrity, I cannot a priori rule out the possibility that when I see something that looks like a design that there might be a designer behind it. There is nothing at all unscientific about that. In fact, the a priori assumption that no designers preceded human designers is in fact so anthropocentric that I wonder if the next step is going back to the belief that the earth is the center of the universe and intelligent life arose nowhere but on this very special place which makes us observers most special indeed. Copernicus is spinning in his grave.

jonas · 9 February 2005

Dave,

I am not saying that the non-existence of a designer has to be true, just that to make any predictions work, we have either to find out much more about the designer (and testable, observalbe stuff, please) or make do without it. If I ruled out life on other planets out of hand, I would violate the Copernican principle. But assuming the possibility of this life, without some direct or indirect evidence for its existence and nature, a hypothesis mainly relying on it would appear pretty dubious and not helpful to solve any problems.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

What predictions change if a designer created the first cell or whether it arose spontaneously?

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen. I'm not arguing against common descent. It's fairy obvious from the fossil record that evolution happened. It's also painfully obvious from the commonality of just the standard coding table (codon->amino acid) that all life descends from a common ancestor. Some creationists will argue that also supports a common designer and while I can't refute that I don't happen to buy it for a number of good reasons.

What I'm arguing is that design of the first cell with preformed information needed to diversify fits the observed evidence better than any other hypothesis. Information theory is insulted by the creation of so much organization without design input. That insult goes away with a designed first cell. Dembski's arguments to specified complexity, which are not without merit, are satisfactorily addressed. The abbreviated period of time from formation of earth to evidence of first cell (~500my) is addressed. The long periods of evolutionary stasis followed by the abrubt emergence of new higher taxa evident in the fossil record are addressed.

In fact I, after much diligent effort, have yet to find any empirical evidence at all that doesn't fit the designed first cell hypothesis. As to where that first cell came from - who knows, it's a big old universe. Maybe SETI will find the source. There's a long future discovery still ahead of us (if we don't self-destruct first). Copernicus isn't offended by an other worldly designer since we already know designers exist on one world. It's all very scientific. Of course the bible crowd doesn't care much for that idea. I'm not at all motivated by religious belief. I'm just going where the evidence is leading and if design is the best way to fit all the pieces together then so be it. A designer isn't unscientific - just ask Copernicus.

Dave S. · 9 February 2005

What I'm arguing is that design of the first cell with preformed information needed to diversify fits the observed evidence better than any other hypothesis.

What observed evidence is that?

Information theory is insulted by the creation of so much organization without design input.

But you just finished saying "It's also painfully obvious from the commonality of just the standard coding table (codon->amino acid) that all life descends from a common ancestor." Isn't the amount of organization added since the last common ancestor of a concern to you as far as insulting information theory is concerned?

Bob Maurus · 9 February 2005

DaveScot,

Seems to me the Designer concept is a complete cop-out. It can be postulated ad infinitum, always delaying the final reckoning with the proposal of yet another Designer, to explain the presence of the Previous Designer. Why isn't that unscientific?

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Let's revisit the evolution of man's best friend again. I like using dogs because it's the longest running experiment in mutation/selection that I know of. We've been unnaturally selecting them for specific traits for about 20,000 years starting out with wolves, coyotes, and jackals. In that time we've gotten some truly remarkable diversity in true breeding varieties from chihuahua to wolfhound. But in all time selecting for specific and/or unusual traits they're still all dogs. The only changes we've accomplished are in scale, not in kind. We've changed the ratio of leg length to spine length, jaw size to chest size, color of coat, length of coat, etc. etc. But they ARE ALL STILL DOGS. Not a single unique new anatomical feature emerged in 20,000 years of teasing out possible new traits.

What does that tell us? Well, it should tell us that quick evolution is possible WITHIN VERY LIMITED BOUNDS. We were able to change the size of dogs very quickly such that the smallest are a hundred times lighter than the heaviest. But they're both still dogs by every measure, different in scale but not in kind.

This is the limit of change that mutation/selection has been empirically demonstrated. Anything more is an extrapolation based on nothing at all except want for some explanation materialist explanation lest a divine foot move into the vacuum otherwise filled by an egregious extrapolation of mutation/selection far beyond the bounds of any experimental evidence of its diversifying power.

NiceTry · 9 February 2005

So you agree with common ancestry, but then argue that mutation/selection can't cross your imaginary kinds boundary? How do you then argue for common ancestry? Do you think that everything was preprogrammed to evolve at some predetermined point? Where is there any evidence for that?

I think you're just confused and are throwing up any argument you can get in the hopes that one will stick.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Dave S.

What observed evidenceis that?

All of it. Name something you think doesn't fit. Fossil, ontogenetic, phylogenetic, induced mutations, Cambrian Explosion, extinctions, limited range of variation from breeding, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, commonality of coding tables, chromosomal reorganizations, the works. The question isn't what does fit, the question is what DOES NOT fit. I haven't found anything that doesn't fit. In fact I even found a great candidate extant organism with far more DNA than its complexity warrents and it's from a very ancient phyla - protists. The candidate is amoeba dubia with 200 TIMES the DNA of a human. I predict that somewhere in that huge collection of genetic information are things that are anticipatory - the blueprints for structures that were never expressed by amoeba dubia or anything in it's ancestry. Say for instance we find the instructions for building a neuron in dubia's genome. Isn't the amount of organization added since the last common ancestor[/uote] Which common ancestor and what information? One of the intractible problems we must deal with is that DNA doesn't last long in the fossil record. We pretty much only have DNA from extant organisms to analyze. What was the last family to appear in the fossil record? Is it possible to get an intact genome from a member of it to compare to a modern sample? Actually I was snooping about for a date when the most recent new family evolved in fossil record. It would appear we're either in one of those long periods of stasis where nothing majorly new in body plans has popped up OR macro evolution has stopped altogether and nothing but variation amongst extant body plans is happening i.e. plenty of new dogs but nothing radically different from what already exists. The oldest DNA I could locate was some disputed bits of possibly insect DNA from amber fossils that might be in the low millions of years old and some 20,000 year old fragments from a neandertal bone. The empirical data even from the old amber bug isn't really old enough. Nothing much has happened, evolution wise, in the last 20 million years of insect evolution and certainly hardly anything at all has happened in the last 20,000 of hominid evolution. You'd have to go back 5 million years just to get to the emergence of the hominid family. Someone here can probably name a date. Hopefully there won't be much dispute over it. Another thing I've been looking at is the possibility of horizontal gene flow through retro-virus infection. I know that they cross major barriers like bird-mammal. And I know that evidence of past retro-viral infections have been found in plants whereas for a long time it thought to be limited to vertebrates. I wonder about the possibility of horizontal gene flow amongst phyla and kingdoms which could provide a mechanism for getting some anomalous genes where you don't expect them. For instance, various flavors of hemoglobin exist in plants and animals. The ostensible explanation for it being in plants is that a common ancestor for plants and animals had need of oxygen transport. The way I know of that hemoglobin is used by plants today is in a couple of isolated cases of symbiotic relationships with nitrogen fixing aerobic bacteria that appreciate some assistance in o2/co2 transport deep underground.

Russell · 9 February 2005

The question isn't what does fit, the question is what DOES NOT fit. I haven't found anything that doesn't fit

In much the same way as the hypothesis that god created the entire universe yesterday with all this evidence of an apparent past and our "memories" of it already in place. What seems unreasonable about both hypotheses is that they're WAY more complicated than the alternative. (It's that Occam's Razor thing).

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Bob Mauris

If you ask a series of questions "where did that come from" the need for a first cause is at most just a few questions from the time the first cell appeared on earth.

Say the first cell was not designed.

Where did the cell come from? Chemical soup.

Where did the chemicals come from? Supernovae.

Where did supernovae come from? Gravitationally compressed hydrogen.

Where did hydrogen come from? Big Bang.

Where did the big bang come from? First cause.

First cell in any case is only four steps removed from the logical need for a first cause. It's specious to push the need for a first cause back onto the poor tortured theoretical physicist plate just because it's unsavory to you.

At any rate there is nothing unscientific about a first cell that was designed. Copernican Principle of Mediocrity says that if genetic engineers exist on earth we should assume they are not unique in the universe. Anything that humans can do we must assume is not unusual, unique, or special according to Copernican mediocrity and Copernicus is the real father of modern science and enlightenment. Darwin came along over 300 years later.

I'm not about to throw over the Copernican Principle just so atheists can find intellectual fulfillment in Darwinian materialism. I'm agnostic and I don't give a fig what offends either atheists or deists. I'm following the evidence wherever it leads in a most enlightened fashion that would make Copernicus proud.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Bob Mauris

If you ask a series of questions "where did that come from" the need for a first cause is at most just a few questions from the time the first cell appeared on earth.

Say the first cell was not designed.

Where did the cell come from? Chemical soup.

Where did the chemicals come from? Supernovae.

Where did supernovae come from? Gravitationally compressed hydrogen.

Where did hydrogen come from? Big Bang.

Where did the big bang come from? First cause.

Right · 9 February 2005

DaveScot: I find your ideas interesting and would like to read your peer reviewed works documenting and describing this evidence you have so faithfully followed.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Nice Try Hiding behind freshly created IDs already? Gosh, it usually takes me longer to provoke that response. No matter.

Do you think that everything was preprogrammed to evolve at some predetermined point? Where is there any evidence for that?

Preprogrammed. Possibly. Intelligence is anticipatory of future needs. That's the difference between intelligent design and unintelligent design. Offhand I'd say the initial job was to oxygenate the earth's atmosphere to enable faster metabolism and when oxygen level reached a certain point it triggered the next stage. Oceans retreating to expose land might've triggered the next stage. Global castastophes might reset the clock and cause a new burst. It appears that larger organisms that produce few offspring don't last long before they go extinct. Maybe there's something like a hayflick limit that operates over much longer intervals of time that cause species to go extinct. One thing's for sure, mutation/selection didn't predict long periods of stasis followed by abrupt explosions of macroevolution. It failed miserably. Yet Darwinists don't seem to mind. So what if the biggest prediction made by mutation/selection, the GRADUAL accumulation of small changes, didn't pan out. Some tortured explanation of punctuated equilibrium was contrived and mutation/selection, however unlikely, remains the all-powerful mechanism that provides intellectual fulfillment to atheists. Gag me with a spoon. It's time for mutation/selection to move into the dustbin of falsified theories. It's failed enough already. Ideology is the only thing keeping it standing.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

Does BIOLA actually offer courses in ID in the biology department? Do they even have a biology department?
— Ed Darrell

Looking on the web, it appears that Biola does have a department of Biological Sciences, and one can major in that discipline (with an emphasis in Pre-Chiropractic, if one wishes). I'm not sure how big Biola is, but with 20 new Bio majors last year, it can't be among the most popular subjects. Here's all I could find about evolution:

- An ability to discuss theories of origins and evolution within the context of a Scriptural view of creation.

That could mean anything. Their curriculum chart (pdf) for Bio majors says nothing about evolution or ID. In fact, their biology requirements are kind of thin. I believe I was required to take at least 15 more hours of biology than what they've got listed. I have heard (meaning take this with a grain of salt) that the IDists have kind of taken over Biola in order to establish a home base of sorts. I'm sure that there are professors there who are pro-evolution, but they're probably coming under increasing pressure. This is similar to what sometimes happens in the social sciences or humanities, where certain "schools of thought" congeal around specific universities, except in this case it's probably a bit more heavy-handed given the culture warrior mentality of the IDists. Of course one doesn't often see such schools of thought in the natural sciences, because they're primarily data driven, but the IDists haven't figured that out yet.

Colin · 9 February 2005

I'm following the evidence wherever it leads in a most enlightened fashion that would make Copernicus proud.
— DaveScot

It is ludicrous to suggest that you are following in a Copernican tradition by suppressing science and propogating ignorance in order to force acceptance of narrow religious dogma. At least, it is ludicrous to suggest that you're playing the role of Copernicus. There is nothing novel or revolutionary about your theories; you have taken the role of the hidebound defender of the orthodox ideology. Why do creationists love to compare themselves to famous scientists of old? I suggest that it is because they cannot compare themselves to recent scientists, having constantly failed to either understand or replicate their successes. Perhaps, Right, that is why DaveScot will never be able to give you evidence or publications. Being a scientist in the modern tradition would be difficult, and it wouldn't confirm his theology. It is so much easier, and more fun, to pretend to be Copernicus or Gallileo or the Isaac Newton of Information Theory; you aren't supposed to question the logic or credentials of any thinker great enough to compare himself to those notables.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Right (another new anonymous ID?)

I detect a note of sarcasm there. In my world we don't publish although we do patent and I've a number of those in the computer field. We make and sell. Success isn't getting peers to agree but rather customers to buy. If you use a Wintel PC (80x86 CPU, Windows O/S) then bits of it are things I invented and I thank you for your purchase. I spent 25 years working to make PCs and networks cheap and ubiquitous. No fame but the money was real good and the job was a screaming success because they sure are cheap and ubiquitous.

Publishing is now super easy and just about cost free. My words here are dated, archived, and easily found in a web search. If they have any merit they will be reviewed by far more than just a few biased people in some or another obscure technical journal. Judging by the response so far there must be some merit as I'm getting more comment than I have time to respond to. But maybe I'm being hasty and you guys like to waste your time rebutting baseless notions.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

e changed the ratio of leg length to spine length, jaw size to chest size, color of coat, length of coat, etc. etc. But they ARE ALL STILL DOGS.
— DaveScot

Dave, I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before, but all you're doing here is invoking the typological fallacy. The simple fact is, there is no essentialism that separates various groups of organisms. The lines we draw are arbitrary. If you believe otherwise, simply explain precisely what makes a dog a dog, and why nothing else could ever be considered a dog. People have attempted this sort of thing since Plato, but it's never worked. Groups of organisms blend into each other, especially when one takes the fossil record into consideration. When organisms diverge, they become progressively different over time. It is only in retrospect that we place them in different groups based upon their level of divergence. (And even this is mostly arbitrary.) Obviously, we don't see enough divergence within the average human lifespan to justify dividing organisms into larger taxa that represent millions of years of divergence. Trying to shoe-horn organisms into uncrossable barriers is circular reasoning at its best. If you declare, a prori, that it's impossible to go from one "type" to another, then you've assumed your conclusion. What you would need to demonstrate is that these "types" are real and not imaginary. Only then could we test your assertion. Unless you can do so, pretty much all of the arguments you've tossed out here, in typical shotgun fashion, are bunk.

Actually I was snooping about for a date when the most recent new family evolved in fossil record. It would appear we're either in one of those long periods of stasis where nothing majorly new in body plans has popped up OR macro evolution has stopped altogether and nothing but variation amongst extant body plans is happening i.e. plenty of new dogs but nothing radically different from what already exists.

Once again, "families" are human inventions created in retrospect only after a large amount of divergence has taken place. You have a categorical misunderstanding of taxonomy if you think that families should be observed to evolve right before our eyes.

I wonder about the possibility of horizontal gene flow amongst phyla and kingdoms which could provide a mechanism for getting some anomalous genes where you don't expect them. For instance, various flavors of hemoglobin exist in plants and animals.

Globins appear in all organisms. Some plants have what is called leghemoglobin, whose job it is to sequester oxygen. This is to keep anaerobic bacteria from being poisoned. It is a different (but related) protein than myoglobin or hemoglobin. I'm pretty sure this has also been explained to you.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Hey Colin,

What about the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity don't you understand?

Genetic engineers are a proven commodity in the universe. There's probably a few posting to Panda's Thumb in fact. The Copernican Principle says that there's nothing special about the earth. If there are genetic engineers here then there's nothing special about them either. To insist otherwise, a priori, is anthropocentricity not quite as egregious as the earth in the center of the universe but close to it.

As far me being a scientist - no, I'm not. I'm an engineer. A designer. I may not understand the work of other designers but I sure recognize design when I see it. Cells were designed. I've no doubt of that. They reek of anticipation and purpose embodied in complexity that is mind bending. No individual will ever be able to true expertise in more than tiny chunks of it. An 30,000 foot view requires a very broad knowledge base in many areas of science and engineering from information systems to cosmology and everything in between. And science isn't about unbending materialism. It's about Copernican mediocrity. No special observers and that includes us. ESPECIALLY us. Darwin didn't get religion out of science, Copernicus did, and admitting that the overwhelming appearance of design might actually be a design is not unscientific at all. It's common sense. It's the most rational assumption.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Steve,

Yes, I've heard many mutations (pun intended) of the taxonomic artifact argument that boils down to there really aren't any different forms of life if there were no artifical rules of demarcation.

I ain't buying that argument. It's ridiculous on the face of it. There's a deep and fundamental difference between a protist and a dog, a plant and a dog, a fungi and a dog. It's not an artifact of the classification system. Please don't insult my intelligence with such lame arguments. I'm having a difficult time trying to find time to respond to those that aren't quite so lame.

Tara Smith · 9 February 2005

How exactly does the sure knowledge that mutation/selection and not design drove the emergence of higher taxa aid help in the understanding of AIDS, malaria, diabetes, or any kind of surgery, etc? Whether by design or mutation/selection the relationship between extant species is EXACTLY THE SAME. Or from another POV . . . if you found out tomorrow that mutation/selection was not responsible for the emergence of higher taxa, what would it change in the way medical research is conducted?
— DaveScot

and

Would we abandon doing animal tests before testing on people? Of course not. Why not? Because it doesn't matter whether mutation/selection or divine intervention caused the relationships to be the way they are. They are the same relationships either way.
— DaveScot

See, but that's what you're missing. How do we know they're the same relationships if we accept that some unknown "designer" tinkered with everything along the way? If you think that this designer can just poof up a flagella, or abracadabra an entire organ system, how can you, with any confidence, say that the genetic relationships we see among organisms, phenotypically or genotypically, are then valid? How do we then know that chimps are the closest living relative to humans? Maybe your Designer just fooled us into thinking that, by "designing" them to be very close in anatomical appearance and genetic sequence.

I really want to hear one of you tell me with a straight face that you need to know that mutation/selection and not design turned protists into plants in order to advance medicine, or genetically corn to fix its own nitrogen, or find a new antibiotic, or anything.

Yes, I do think it would change medicine if it were shown that many things were "designed." I think it would eliminate a lot of waste. For example, why would we even bother monitoring antibiotic resistance if a "designer" could just poof up a new antibiotic-resistant bug out of thin air? So screw SENTRY--it seems like a big waste of time for us to track resistance and look for new mutations (which, of course, are then subject to natural selection) if a Designer can just do an end-run around the whole process and sprinkle some fairy dust on some bacteria, resulting in a new Superbug that we'd not anticipated. Seems like a big waste of time to me to design vaccines against pathogens, when a Designer can just decide to create a novel antigen out of whole cloth and give it to these dangerous bugs, rendering the vaccines ineffective. So yes, I think it would change how things were done if we didn't think that mutation/NS were the driving force behind evolution, and we just shrugged our shoulders and said "the Designer didit." I think it would render all of biomedical research pretty useless.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

Their curriculum chart (pdf) for Bio majors says nothing about evolution or ID. In fact, their biology requirements are kind of thin. I believe I was required to take at least 15 more hours of biology than what they've got listed.
— Steve Reuland

On my first reading, I missed the fact that they require about 3 additional Bio electives, which makes their requirements fairly rigorous. Their course listing has several upper-level Bio courses in addition to the basics. None of them deal with evolution or ID specifically, although some are about "natural history" of this or that. Here is about as close as they get to mentioning evolution specifically so far as I've seen, and it's for the introductory Bio class:

Introductory course for majors emphasizing the principles of cellular and molecular biology, genetics, development, systematics and natural selection.

Maybe Dave Scot can sit in on the systematics section. Anyway, there's no indication from the course descriptions that they teach ID or any other anti-evolutionary viewpoint, although it's clear that they take pains to avoid the "E-word". It could be that ID is surrepitiously slipped into various classes (that being the case, I'd love to sit in on the parasitology class). Or they could try to teach it as part of a special topics class. But they definitely don't have anything resembling an "ID curriculum".

Engineer-Poet · 9 February 2005

It's about Copernican mediocrity. No special observers and that includes us.
— DaveScot

Please list one other observer and another kind of genetic engineer, so that we can compare and contrast. (You did say "proven commodity", so back it up.)

Colin · 9 February 2005

What about the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity don't you understand?
— DaveScot

I find that many creationists are enthralled by Big Concepts and use them as talismans, as if as if by mentioning them something significant has been proven. This often gets in the way of thinking critically about those Big Concepts and how they should be applied. The principle is obviously irrelevant as you apply it. "Genetic engineers" may be a "proven commodity," but they are not what is required for intelligent design to prove its fitness as a theory. Off of the very top of my head, you need to show that genetic engineers with magical powers are a proven commodity, and that it is possible to encode all subsequent evolution into the original ex nihilo creation of secondary life. You might also want to show the original divinity that sparks your genetic engineers, since they couldn't have evolved on their own. Moreover, you should be able to show motive for the designers' original design, as well as their abdication of any role in the development of life since then. Finally, it would help to support your assumption that more than a century of biological science, including testable predictions and useful results, are merely lies and conspiracy designed to . . . I don't know. Divert faith from God and/or magical aliens? Before all of that, and this is the most important failure of the 'science' of ID, you need to show that design can be detected, and detect it in a biological organism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that not only has this never been done, but that there is no tool in the creationist toolbox with which to do it. Conversely, you could shave with the Razor and look to science instead of building castles in the sky.

I'm an engineer. A designer . . . I sure recognize design when I see it. Cells were designed. I've no doubt of that.
— DaveScot

To borrow your logic, I am an attorney. I sure recognize illogical arguments when I see them. Your conclusion does not follow from your profession or your observations. I've no doubt of that. How do you make your observations? By following the latest research, or reading journals? By reading creationist websites? By doing your own research? How much time have you spent at a microscope? I assume that you do none of the above. You assume design, and then you see exactly what you need to in order to confirm your presuppositions, and your experience with utterly non-analogous devices is somehow more compelling than the work of thousands of talented and experienced biologists. That's how religion works, but not science. It may be comforting and reassuring, but it is not intellectually honest.

And science isn't about unbending materialism. It's about Copernican mediocrity.
— DaveScot

Are you sure? You don't think that maybe it's about making predictions and testing them, and eschewing rhetoric for evidence?

admitting that the overwhelming appearance of design might actually be a design is not unscientific at all. It's common sense.
— DaveScot

Here is the core of the problem. "Common sense" is just a rhetorical trick - what I want and believe is common sense, and everyone should agree. If you don't, you have somehow failed to follow my correct and common reasoning. But that is not science, and to suggest that it is, after so much discourse, is frankly dishonest. The task of intelligent design is not to force others to "admit" that the movement is scientific. It is to be scientific, by appealing to evidence rather than politics and magic. If the evidence does not exist, then the failure is not in the method, it is in the theory.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Steve,

I haven't explained this to you before but I don't know where the ability to change is limited in mutation/selection. What I do know is that no one has directly observed its power to do more than cause variation in scale without causing any major change in body plan.

No one has observed it changing an invertebrate into a vertebrate. No one has observed it changing a single celled organism into a multi-celluar organism. No on has observed it producing an exoskeleton. No one has observed it changing a prokaryote into a eukaryote. The list of non-observations is far longer than the list of observations. The variations it has been empirically observed to do are insignificant compared to the novelty it has ostensibly created. And the biggest job of all - no one has observed it going from non-living to living.

Every time I mention abiogenesis I get first response of mutation/selection doesn't attempt to explain that. Yet then when I put the point of design input at the first cell, so that the question of abiogenesis is someone else's headache, all hell breaks loose. I'm sure you know why. You aren't defending a theory. You're defending an ideology - materialism. Plain and simple. We'll never find common ground unless you first give up the ideology. I'm not ideologically bound. I don't have a vested interest in either materialism or supernatural cause. All I know is that humans ARE a supernatural cause and where one is possible another is possible. Humans may not be the first kids on the block to have acquired the ability to intelligently tinker with natural evolution at the genetic level. Admit it so we can move forward.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Tara,

You don't know now that a supernatural agent didn't poof up a flagella.

You don't need to know the origin of a design to figure out how the design works. The flagella won't change no matter what you believe about its origins. You can believe babies come from a stork and it won't change the nature of the baby one iota.

The plain fact of the matter is that the cell exhibits overwhelming appearance of design and the more we know about the more the appearance grows. At some point you admit the obvious and move on. At those point few are even willing to admit the POSSIBILITY of design even when the appearance has become overwhelming. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

There's nothing unscientific about admitting the obvious. Designers exist in nature. We are living proof of it. The Copernican principle of mediocrity, which is the underpinning of the enlightment, is not compromised by an unknown designer. In fact it dictates that we assume designers exist elsewhere in the universe because THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE EARTH.

If you believe, a priori, that there's something special about the earth or the life on the earth, including human life, then you are practicing a religion - secular humanism - not scientific inquiry.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

Yes, I've heard many mutations (pun intended) of the taxonomic artifact argument that boils down to there really aren't any different forms of life if there were no artifical rules of demarcation.
— DaveScot

It is not an argument, it is a simple fact of taxonomy. Taxonomic categories are necessarily human inventions. And as anyone with the slightest familiarity with systematics knows, new ones are constantly being created, and old ones are constantly being consolidated.

I ain't buying that argument. It's ridiculous on the face of it. There's a deep and fundamental difference between a protist and a dog, a plant and a dog, a fungi and a dog. It's not an artifact of the classification system. Please don't insult my intelligence with such lame arguments. I'm having a difficult time trying to find time to respond to those that aren't quite so lame.

In other words, you cannot defend your argument at all. I expected no differently. I even tried to make it easy for you by descrbing exactly what you'd have to do. Just tell us what makes for an essential "kind" and your job is done. You'd become a hero of the Baraminologists, because despite their best efforts, they haven't been able to do it either. No one deines that there are differences between species. Simply saying, "Of course these things are different, even I know that" is missing the point completely. The fact is that there is no recognizable essentialism that allows organisms to be differentiated into distinct "types" or "kinds". Indeed, the examples you picked out are all eukaryotes. Are they the same "kind"? There's no reason why they shouldn't be. They all have far more in common with each other than they do with bacteria. And none of them wears a sign saying, "I am of the dog kind," or "I am of the mammal kind," or "I am of the chordate kind". You know why? Because those are categories we invented. There is nothing special about them. If you wish to remain ignorant about the basics of taxonomy, it's your choice. But your mish-mash of arguments which assume an uncrossable barrier depend absolutely on being able to show that "kinds" are real entities, that they can be described with precision, and that it is somehow impossible to evolve from one to another. So far, you (and the rest of creationism) have yet to establish the first part. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you actually address the issue.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Engineer-poet

I can demonstrate that genetic engineers exist. Got links to their work online. It's up to you to demonstrate there's one and only one instance of genetic engineers in the universe.

The Copernican Principle of Mediocrity states that the a priori assumption is that nothing is special about the earth. Ergo, if you're going to be faithful to Copernican mediocrity, the a priori assumption is that genetic engineers aren't special.

If you insist that the a priori assumption is that humans are unique in the universe, that's religion not science. Get thee behind me with the bible thumpers - they think we're unique in the universe too. You have far more in common with them than me.

Engineer-Poet · 9 February 2005

All I know is that humans ARE a supernatural cause and where one is possible another is possible.
— DaveScot

Oh, really? How do you know that humans are a supernatural cause (I assume you mean, having arisen supernaturally)? Do you have any examples of designers which have arisen naturally, so we can compare? You did say they were a commodity, what's keeping you from illuminating us with this amazing revelation?

Humans may not be the first kids on the block to have acquired the ability to intelligently tinker with natural evolution at the genetic level.

Indeed, they may not. Is there any evidence that others have done so here, and by what process did they arise?

Engineer-Poet · 9 February 2005

I can demonstrate that genetic engineers exist. Got links to their work online.
— DaveScot

Quit equivocating. Post 'em here, so we know what you're talking about.

YetAnotherName · 9 February 2005

Here's what I don't understand. Why shouldn't the cell appear to have been designed? It has been poked and proded by various natural forces over hundreds of millions of years to allow us to survive right now. Isn't the probability that our cells work well inside us, given that we exist, equal to one?

Jim Harrison · 9 February 2005

DaveScott writes "All I know is that humans ARE a supernatural cause and where one is possible another is possible." This is a remarkable notion that will certainly improve everybody's self esteem. Who knew that we were supernatural causes? I always figured myself for a symbol-using animal.

I've been in many research and engineering facilities but I've yet to see a scientist or engineer perform a supernatural act. Heck, they didn't even claim to have superpowers. I must have encountered them in their Clark Kent disguises.

Tara Smith · 9 February 2005

No one has observed it changing an invertebrate into a vertebrate.
— DaveScot

True. So? No one's observed a dog changing into a seal. Do you think that would be compatible with evolutionary theory?

No one has observed it changing a single celled organism into a multi-celluar organism.

Technically true, as far as I know (though there has been a cited instance in algae, but I don't know enough about that area to testify to its validity). But of course, many single-celled bacteria have the ability to exist in a (multicellular, specialized) tissue form, as biofilms.

No one has observed it changing a prokaryote into a eukaryote.

Technically true, as far as I know. However, you surely must be familiar with modern examples of endosymbiosis, such as that of Amoeba proteus and its "X-bacteria."

Russell · 9 February 2005

No one has observed it changing an invertebrate into a vertebrate.

A short list of things no one has observed: The Indian subcontinent slamming into Asia. A neutron The causative event in a particular cancer A dinosaur Any evidence of intelligence in the universe outside of earth's biota.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Colin,

I can just as easily adopt your standards and demand that you must demonstrate to me how abiogenesis occured before the possibility can be admitted. I'm certainly not asking that you do that nor am I saying that design is the only possibility. I'm saying that in light of what we know design is a possibility. I believe design is almost a certainty in the cell, know it's a possibility, but don't entirely discount the possibility of serendipity being the originating agent.

Steve,

You're being unreasonable insisting that diversity is purely an artifact of taxonomic rules. If you can't see the difference between a dog and protist without a formal rule to rely on then I just don't know what to say except that's ludicrous and you can talk to the hand about it from here forward.

And drop the smug attitude. It's unbecoming and undeserved in my company.

David Heddle · 9 February 2005

YetAnotherName wrote

Isn't the probability that our cells work well inside us, given that we exist, equal to one?

Only a posteriroi which is meaningless, like saying that, given the patriots scored more points, then the probability they won the super bowl is one.

DaveScot · 9 February 2005

Poet

Genetic Engineers:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22genetic+engineering%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

Copernican Mediocrity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Connect the dots.

Great White Wonder · 9 February 2005

Way about David Scott Springer, a proven liar, wrote about me

You and your incivility don't fit in here.

You make me laugh, Dave. It's dissembling lying trolls like you that don't fit in here. You see, without people to point out directly that you're a moron, a liar, and a troll someone might get the impression that your arguments are bona fide. Of course, we know that they're not because every one of them is ripped right from the usual crusty creationist apologist script.

No one has observed it changing an invertebrate into a vertebrate.

Do arguments get any stupider? There are a lot of things that either (1) happened in the past or (2) take a very very long time to happen that "no one has observed". But no honest reasonable person who looks at the evidence doubts that they happened. Can you name some of those things, Dave? Or must we do it for you? And hall I change your diapers and wipe your red behind afterword or do you insist that your mother do that for you?

I don't have a vested interest in ... materialism

Another lie. Of course you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be typing your troll comments. You'd be dead by now. Or you'd have people taking care of you in the lunatic asylum.

All I know is that humans ARE a supernatural cause and where one is possible another is possible.

Now you're starting to sound like another retired non-biologist crank who trolls here, a certain Charlie Wagner. You two should get together. That way neither of you would have to apply your own grease. Are there mysterious alien beings "out there"? Maybe, although there is zero evidence that such beings exist. Did these beings visit earth repeatedly over the course of 5 billion years to design and create every life form that ever lived on earth? David Scott Springer thinks so. Shall we give David Scott Springer a cookie for his boring sci-fi story that fails to describe the details of a single space ship? No, because his story isn't original. As a matter of fact, it's hundreds of years old. Night-night, David.

386sx · 9 February 2005

Tara Smith said: No one’s observed a dog changing into a seal. Do you think that would be compatible with evolutionary theory?

Well, if, as a lot of folks say, theism is compatible with evolutionary theory, and if deities can turn dogs into seals... then a dog changing into a seal would not be incompatible with evolutionary theory. That's the thing about theism - it gets to be compatible with whatever it wants.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

Steve, You're being unreasonable insisting that diversity is purely an artifact of taxonomic rules. If you can't see the difference between a dog and protist without a formal rule to rely on then I just don't know what to say except that's ludicrous and you can talk to the hand about it from here forward.
— DaveScot

Dave, I have apparently wasted my time trying to explain to you, in careful detail, what my point was. I would be glad to explain in even greater detail, but you do not appear even willing to entertain the possibility that I might be saying something quite different than the strawman you have erected. That's fine, I know a lost cause when I see one. Just be warned that no informed person will take you seriously.

And drop the smug attitude. It's unbecoming and undeserved in my company.

Please look up the definition of irony.

Tara Smith · 9 February 2005

Tara, You don't know now that a supernatural agent didn't poof up a flagella.

Indeed I don't. But the evidence suggests one didn't.

You don't need to know the origin of a design to figure out how the design works. The flagella won't change no matter what you believe about its origins. You can believe babies come from a stork and it won't change the nature of the baby one iota.

No, but it would change the nature of the events surrounding the birth and delivery of the child. To take that (bad) analogy and run with it, what if people truly belived that? Then why bother giving the mother prenatal care? Why study pregnancy at all? That's my main quibble with those who say intelligent design doesn't hurt science--it makes studying natural phenomena an exercise in futility, if we are to assume that a "designer" can just step in at any point and perform a 180.

The plain fact of the matter is that the cell exhibits overwhelming appearance of design and the more we know about the more the appearance grows. At some point you admit the obvious and move on. At those point few are even willing to admit the POSSIBILITY of design even when the appearance has become overwhelming.

As has been mentioned, the appearance of design is hardly surprising. What's lacking is any evidence of design.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

Wow, how original.

There's nothing unscientific about admitting the obvious. Designers exist in nature. We are living proof of it.

Natural designers exist in nature. There is nothing obvious about the existence of the supernatural designers that would be necessary for ID.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

Here's what I don't understand. Why shouldn't the cell appear to have been designed? It has been poked and proded by various natural forces over hundreds of millions of years to allow us to survive right now.
— YetAnotherName

You're quite right, the cell should appear "designed" according to Darwinian theory. Cellular features should exist to perform functions that facilitate survivial and reproduction. If they don't, then natural selection must not have been working very well. That's the basic problem with the whole "it looks designed" argument. If it was designed by natural selection, then it darn well ought to look designed!

Great White Wonder · 9 February 2005

You don't know now that a supernatural agent didn't poof up a flagella.

Wow! For a second there I thought DaveScot was arguing the enterocraftic theory of life. Darn.

Russell · 9 February 2005

If it was designed by natural selection, then it darn well ought to look designed!

And, indeed, astonishingly, mindbogglingly, WELL designed, given the amount of time and the number of "trials" involved.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

No one has observed it changing an invertebrate into a vertebrate.
— DaveScot

No one has ever observed a Frenchman changing into a Chinaman. No one has ever observed a beagle changing into a Great Dane. No one has ever observed brussle sprouts changing into cabbage. Clear evidence that these organisms could not have evolved into their present forms from common ancestors.

Colin · 9 February 2005

Connect the dots.
— DaveScot

That is as fatuous as it is smug. The 'dots' are only connected by wild fantasy; the fact that humans tinker with evolved genomes does not, in any way, imply (even with the magical mention of Copernican Mediocrity) that alien genetic engineers, created by supernatural forces, in turn created life on earth. For CM as you mean it to apply, you would have to show that humans create life encoded with all the information necessary to evolve over millions of years, and even then there wouldn't be anything to connect the dots with. There is no logical connection between those dots. There is no empirical evidence of a connection between those dots. There is only your preconception that design exists, and your layman's perception that you can see it. Of course, a huge mass of science, replete with evidence and observations and falsifiable (but unfalsified) theory, contradicts you, but faith endures. If you want your faith to be called science, though, you have to do more than insist that other people "connect the dots" for you. At some point you need evidence other than "I can just see it, and scientists are either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing with me."

Engineer-Poet · 9 February 2005

DaveScot: You said that genetic engineers were "a commodity". From the "evidence" you have posted, it's obvious that there were no genetic engineers on Earth before the late 20th century. You haven't shown any evidence for non-human engineers; while the existence of both human and non-human selection agents has been proven, there are no examples of self-aware selection agents other than humans.

You shall simply have to do better if you hope to out-wit even a junior-high earth sciences class.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 9 February 2005

You can believe babies come from a stork and it won't change the nature of the baby one iota.
— DaveScot

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the theory of Scientific Storkism is ready for K-12 science classes. More humor at the Evolutionary Humor page.

Homer · 9 February 2005

Great White Wonder,

Are you Dr. Scott L. Page by any chance? Your nastiness reminds me of the posts of pantrog, pangloss, and other aliases he has used on the web. Just wondering.

Great White Wonder · 9 February 2005

"Homer" wonders

Are you Dr. Scott L. Page by any chance?

I've been reading and writing on the Internet for years and Usenet before that. I might have used that Page alias in the past on some other blog. Can you provide me with some examples where "Dr. Page" ripped some uninformed ID peddling creationist rube a new one? That would help to refresh my memory!

Your nastiness reminds me of the posts of pantrog, pangloss, and other aliases he has used on the web. Just wondering.

Since the topic is deja vu and memories of trolls past, Homer, maybe you can you tell me whether DaveScot's paranoid dissembling unintelligible uninformed dreck reminds of you any other posts you've seen on the web? Oh, and if you have anything to say to rebut my comments as to DaveScot's honesty and the validity of his arguments in support of so-called "ID theory", you are welcome to post them now. I won't hold my breath, "Homer". Surprise me by showing that you understand why.

Ed Darrell · 9 February 2005

Well, now this is really ironic. DaveScot said:

Yes, I've heard many mutations (pun intended) of the taxonomic artifact argument that boils down to there really aren't any different forms of life if there were no artifical rules of demarcation. I ain't buying that argument. It's ridiculous on the face of it. There's a deep and fundamental difference between a protist and a dog, a plant and a dog, a fungi and a dog. It's not an artifact of the classification system. Please don't insult my intelligence with such lame arguments. I'm having a difficult time trying to find time to respond to those that aren't quite so lame.

On the one hand, DaveScot insists that there are real divisions between groups of living things, although earlier he had insisted that those divisions don't make species if there isn't some pixie dust from a source he didn't identify ("bacteria are still bacteria"). I've seen this objection often with regard to the rock-solid evidence of speciation that the Grants, Peter and Rosemary, found among birds on Daphne Major in the Galapagos. The birds changed body size, color, beak shape and length, song, food supply, mating habits, nest style, etc., etc., but were still "just finches." Incremental changes in birds cannot qualify as speciation, DaveScot's allies say. So if we stretch finch's legs a lot, increase its body mass considerably, change its wing shape, change its feathers, lengthen its neck -- it's still a finch. Similarly, if we were to take that finch the other direction, shrinking its size by a couple of times, color it green, lengthen its beak, pitch the wings slightly differently, and shorten the neck, it would still be a finch. So we get a creationist definition of finch that takes in ostriches, on the one hand, and hummingbirds on the other. All "just finches." But if we point out that all birds are in fact related, and that the species lines are somewhat arbitrary, DaveScot will tell us that any fool can see that hummingbirds are not ostriches. And that reveals the real claims of creationists: No matter what the evidence is, whatever an "evolutionist" says is wrong. Sometime, perhaps, we should pull a Bugs Bunny on creationists and deny that evolution occurs. They'd contradict that, probably under oath, to every schoolboard in the land.

Colin · 9 February 2005

Sometime, perhaps, we should pull a Bugs Bunny on creationists and deny that evolution occurs. They'd contradict that, probably under oath, to every schoolboard in the land.
— Friz Freleng

Afterwards, Dembski's bow tie would spin around in circles, and steam would shoot out of Behe's ears.

Great White Wonder · 9 February 2005

http://stephenville.tamu.edu/~fmitchel/insects/t_1176.htm

Look at the bee that just flew out of DaveScot's bonnet.

Shirley Knott · 9 February 2005

I notice that DaveScot also makes the interesting claim that he knows design when he sees it.
In which case I challenge him to partition the English countryside into the designed and the undesigned.
It cannot be done, because, as has not yet been emphasized in these threads, some designed things do not show any 'evidence' of being designed.
In all cases, we either see the designer and thus verify that we have design or we infer design from having previously noted the output of known designers.
There are no, repeat no, guaranteed markers of design other than the existence of a designer.

cheers,
Shirley Knott

Homer · 9 February 2005

GWW,

Your colleagues at Norwich might be interested to see what a nasty sob you are. I remember a similar, discustingly tactless comment you made at www.arn.org some years back about a person shortly after his death. That comment got you banned there. Remember? You should be banned from here as well. However, you are good for the ID camp.

Frank J · 9 February 2005

If it looks like a design and acts like a design it's probably a design. End of ID lessons. Big deal.
— DaveScot

Exactly. However there are two ways one can go from that point. One is to ask how the designer does it, in which case we are back to evolution. The other is to ignore the important, and only scientifically meaningful, questions about how the designer does it, and see how many ways one can use "design" to misrepresent evolution and get the audience to infer their favorite discredited origins myth.

Great White Wonder · 9 February 2005

"Homer" sidesteps the straightforward comments and calls me an sob! Granted, name-calling is far easier than rebutting the evidence that DaveScot has an unfortunate tendency to dissemble, fabricate, and recite creationist gobblygook. But please, if you are going to resort to name-calling, at least you could try to stray from the toothless names you hear on prime-time network TV. And maybe make sure you have the right woman first! God forbid that "Dr. Page" and I aren't wearing the same high heels.

However, you are good for the ID camp.

Really? I suppose that's true if the "ID camp" enjoys having its fires stomped out and its tents torn apart into postage-stamp size pieces. Because that's what's happened over the course of the last year or so, at least from my perspective, and it's not because anyone here was "respectful" to the ID campers. Try visiting your closest National Forest and dumping your toxic waste on the campground, then lighting it on fire. You'll learn very quickly how "respectfully" certified nuts are treated in the United States. Oh, but Phil Johnson is just a nice guy minding his own business, right? He never wanted to start any fires or upset any apple carts, right, "Homer"? Again, I look forward to reading a substantive comment from you which supports the claim that "ID theory" is not a bogus unscientific mysteroius alien-invoking pile of rhetorical garbage. That is one of the subject's of concern to this blog. That, and the fact that the people who peddle ID theory to children are dissembling slippery cretins funded by a conservative thinktank. Just because their HIV-denying philosophical leader had a couple strokes doesn't change the fact that his ideas reek of dead-end religious fundamentalism. If Johnson paid any attention to what his alleged messiah allegedly said, he'd apologize to Americans for his ill-considered lies about science. Do you suppose that's going to happen, "Homer"? I doubt it. These guys are rotten to the core.

steve · 9 February 2005

In What Evolution Is, Mayr says that he decided there was something to the species concept when the natives had the same number of names for the birds in a large collection of his, as he had species names for them, give or take 1.

Steve Reuland · 9 February 2005

In What Evolution Is, Mayr says that he decided there was something to the species concept when the natives had the same number of names for the birds in a large collection of his, as he had species names for them, give or take 1.
— steve

Stephen J. Gould had an essay titled, A Quahog is a quahog, in which he makes the same point. Indigenous peoples often have unique names that correspond nicely to species as determined by biologists. This is, I think, a valid argument for saying that species, unlike higher taxa, are real entities. At least when it comes to common animals -- it's much harder to justify with bacteria and such. However, since creationists identify "kinds" as being at some (who knows what) higher taxonomic level than species, this doesn't help them any.

buridan · 9 February 2005

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Wayne Francis · 9 February 2005

DaveScot says in Comment # 15532

If you don't think "evolution" cares about abiogenesis just try out the hypothesis that the first cell was a result of design and there was no design input from that point forward. . . . I wonder if in all of that huge storage capacity of the water lily there's some animal design information in there that was never expressed in a plant. Or how about amoeba dubia with 670 billion base pairs.
— DaveScot

along with other comments like DaveScot says in Comment # 14221

For instance, if a big enough asteroid hits the earth and makes a new asteroid belt one of the few things that might survive is spores from an amoeba and if those spores contain all the information needed to make everything from trees to the dogs that piss on them well than that makes good sense.
— DaveScot

So we have DaveScot saying that he believes the first cell had ALL the genetic info in it for ALL life and and over billions of years most of the species just shed the unneeded extra genetic information while the Amoeba it the savour ready to recolianate the world when a metor or other global disaster hits. DaveScot ignores the and information that controdicts his ideas like the fact that eukaryotes are known for large amounts of tandemly repeated genes. Anyway DaveScot clearly, despite contradictory evidence to his hypothesis, believes that all organisms share a common ancestor.. DaveScot says in Comment # 15553

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen. I'm not arguing against common descent. It's fairy obvious from the fossil record that evolution happened.
— DaveScot

But then says in Comment # 15558

What does that tell us? Well, it should tell us that quick evolution is possible WITHIN VERY LIMITED BOUNDS.
— DaveScot

So in one case he says that evolution can occur from early life to everything we see now then turns around and says "evolution is possible WITHIN VERY LIMITED BOUNDS." Seems that "LIMITED BOUNDS" means everything from a virus to all the multicelluar life we see. Just like he denies the exsistance of computer programs that have been built with no "human design" he denies any evidence that doesn't fit with his hypothesis. He can't distinguish design from controlling factors. If I have a system to write and a choice of 2 databases and flip a coin to pick which database to use he'll call that "design". It isn't design...it just matches the fitness function. The fact that UPenn have courses on how to use Genetic Programming to produce programs that are not designed but evolve doesn't stop him from going "la la la not listening" He's to busy writing real-time voice compression for AT&T, inventing and patenting things he won't give specifics on for the 8086 to realise he's flip flopping. First he says that all life had a common origin then he says life can not pass that "LIMITED BOUNDS" that he can't explain to us. DaveScot, Simple question for you. What makes a Dog a Dog and a Cat a Cat. What is the difference between their "major body plans". Define your "Kind" boundry. replace "user" with "waynefrancis" in email address

Great White Wonder · 9 February 2005

All DaveScot knows is that he is so impressed by what he believes that scientists have discovered that he simply can't believe that scientists have actually discovered what scientists claim to have discovered.

Lacking the English skills to articulate his knowledge, Dave instead just makes up the garbage as he goes along. It's therefore no surprise that he has trouble keeping track of what things he finds too incredible to believe verus what things he believes are known but which make other things too incredible to believe.

Dissembling well takes a lot of practice. Allegedly "retired" patronizing hacks like Dave need to work extra hard to keep their chops up. We all agree that is tiresome watching them flounder. Maybe Dave should practice debunking the heliocentric theory on physics blogs before playing his hand here where we've seen the schtick so many times before.

Dave, let me know if you need printouts of these threads to mail to your family, your "friends" in your neighborhood association, and of course your high school alums! I've got extras. "LOL"!!!!!!!!!

ts · 15 February 2005

Since there are only two possible ways that we could have arrived here, proving that one way is impossible automatically proves the alternative to be true.
— Jeff Low

Evolution, God, and space aliens makes at least three ways, and there are many others. But no one has any proof that any of these is impossible.

It?s kind of like proving that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. First, we assume that there a finite number of primes. Then by showing that this is impossible, we prove that there are an infinite number of primes.

No, we do no such thing. First we assume that there's a greatest prime. Then we show that, if so, there's an even greater prime. From this we can conclude that there is no greatest prime. And this is a deductive proof, whereas origins are an empirical matter.

I know that somebody will reply that there is some unimaginable ?third way?. Please don?t waste board space with such garbage.

That's funny coming from a worthless piece of troll garbage like yourself.

Tony B · 15 February 2005

That is a crushingly bad web site.

ts · 17 February 2005

Tony, I bet you practiced that line for weeks before getting up the courage to post it.