Crowther's spin on the DI blog is all wrong

Dear Mr. Crowther: I do not know what you wish to debate. To my knowledge, there is no "Intelligent Design Theory" Michael Behe attempted to formulate one, and failed badly. William Dembski attempted to repair it, and his notions have been completely discredited, including in some comical ways, such as when David Wolpert commented on Dembski's use of Wolpert's NFL theorems. Until anyone develops an actual ID theory, there's just nothing to debate. Biologists don't seriously discuss Discovery Institute biology, any more than physicists discuss Jay Richards's Discovery Institute relativity. It's nonsense.

One point Crowther makes is that the minority report isn't asking to include intelligent design in the standards. He's right. Just because John Calvert, founder/leader of IDNet, subcommittee members' campaign contributor, is counsel to the minority surely doesn't mean that ID is being given any preference. Just because the list of witnesses is chock-full of ID proponents can't mean ID is on the way into the standards. Just because "teaching the controversy" is a political strategy endorsed by the Discovery Institute (the Seattle ID hotbed) doesn't guarantee ID will make its way into science class. And, just because the three subcommittee members were elected on anti-evolution platforms doesn't mean they can't be objective in this matter. Now, if you honestly believe this stuff (and it would be an irrational, untenable, fly-in-the-face-of-evidence belief), then I'd really like to sell you a bridge or two. Scientists are among the most prideful, arrogant, rude people I've ever known. Any organization that would "tell" them or "order" them to adhere to any irrational action or "papal bull" would be met with derision, rebellion, and perhaps the verbal equivalent of a common gesture. As noted elsewhere, there are few things scientists enjoy more than knocking down another scientist's arguments in the scientific arena. Note that this arena is made up of other experts in the field, NOT the court of public opinion. This boycott is being supported because it's right, not because of any orders from on high. Like it or not, becoming a scientist takes years of study and education, and some folks just won't make it, just as others will never become concert pianists or NBA stars. Will the anti-science board members next set themselves up as arbiters of classical music, or as NBA referees? The pro-ID proposal has been reviewed by scientists and wholly knocked down. These Kansaroos have an overtly political agenda, one that is less concerned about the education of Kansas' kids than it is the solidification of an anti-science attitude in the general public.

P.S. "Kansaroos" is an excellent neologism.

No Comments/Trackbacks/Pingbacks for this post yet...

...if they do refuse trackbacks, then our side can make sure the people are informed that the Discovery Institute does not want anyone to find out what the other side of the so-called "controversy" has to say.

...the Darwinian high priests at the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued a sort of scientific papal bull, a gag order to scientists, telling them not to debate the flaws in Darwin's theory before the Kansas State Board of Education.

— Rob Crowther

Resting Microglial Cells Are Highly Dynamic Surveillants of Brain Parenchyma in Vivo Axel Nimmerjahn 1, Frank Kirchhoff 2, Fritjof Helmchen 1* 1 Abteilung Zellphysiologie, Max-Planck-Institut für medizinische Forschung, Jahnstr. 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. 2 Abteilung Neurogenetik, Max-Planck-Institut für Experimentelle Medizin, Hermann-Rein-Str. 3, 37075 Göttingen, Germany. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fritjof Helmchen , E-mail: fritjof@mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de Microglial cells represent the immune system of the brain and therefore are critically involved in various injuries and diseases. Little is known about their role in the healthy brain and their immediate reaction to brain damage. Using in vivo two-photon imaging in neocortex, we found that microglial cells are highly active in their presumed resting state, continually surveying their microenvironment with extremely motile processes and protrusions. Furthermore, blood brain barrier disruption provoked immediate and focal activation of microglia, switching their behavior from patrolling to shielding of the injured site. Microglia thus are busy and vigilant housekeepers in adult brain. Published online 14 April 2005 Science Express

Do you want to get answer? You are so naive.
I challenge Darwinists to falsify NS or geographical isolation in role of speciation six months ago, nobody steps out.

Charlie - I'd be glad to discuss it with you. (Perhaps the After the Bar Closes would be a better venue than here - which is really all about Kansas.) Looking forward to it!

I thought Panda's thumb would find this exchange of interest. A Kansas creationist psychoogist, Paul Ackerman (Wichita State University), just sent me the pictures of the T Rex soft tissue recently discovered adding his own comments, "If you haven't seen these, here are the pictures of the recently announced T-Rex dinosaur tissue samples. Obviously these bones and tissues are not 70 million years old as portrayed by the rule-governed ('only-natural-explanations-allowed') constructions of earth history by the Darwinists."

My response was, "How do you know how old this tissue is?"

He responded, "I don't know how old it is, but surely you don't suppose it is 70 million years old, unless, of course, you have a philosophical based rule that forces you to believe it is millions of years old. Or, unless, your professional reputation would be in the toilet if you don't go along with the idea it is millions of years old."

To which I added, "Paul: Since dinosaurs are millions of years old, their remains must be also. Let's see what the dating reveals...oh, I forgot -- you believe all dating techniques to be flawed and part of the "science conspiracy." So, if I understand it, since you (and creationists) say it's not millions of years old, that must be the truth.

Come on, Paul...last week you said you were not dishonest!"

Scientists are among the most prideful, arrogant, rude people I've ever known. Any organization that would "tell" them or "order" them to adhere to any irrational action or "papal bull" would be met with derision, rebellion, and perhaps the verbal equivalent of a common gesture. As noted elsewhere, there are few things scientists enjoy more than knocking down another scientist's arguments in the scientific arena. Note that this arena is made up of other experts in the field, NOT the court of public opinion. This boycott is being supported because it's right, not because of any orders from on high.

— csadams

Trackback to the DI blog added.

Charlie Wagner: Excellent work in completely evading the issue. Now try actually responding to the points Jack Krebs actually made.

You're not being singled out, charlie. The NCSU physics department weekly gets letters, calls, emails, from laymen explaining their breakthrough ideas. In the case of the physics dept, the ideas are not about how evolution is wrong, they usually are about how Special Relativity is wrong, General Relativity is wrong, here's a machine which can run perpetually, here's an engine which doesn't generate any waste heat, here's how you make cheap and easy fusion, here's why the Big Bang is wrong, here's why Quantum Mechanics is wrong, etc. Researchers in all the sciences are contacted by cranks who don't understand the fundamentals of the science, and think they've discovered deep flaws. Like you. Ignoring such people is the only way to get work done.

Hmmmm....

I'm a member of AAAS and I haven't yet been ordered to boycott the KS proceedings. Anyone else here get the word from "on high"?

I wonder if the response to these proceedings would be different if the KS school board tried to lend some sort of accountability to the "debate" - such as agreeing to take an exam (based on any presentations made by scientists, and not dependent on affirmations of faith or belief) and recuse themselves from any votes if they failed the test. I know that I would be favorably impressed if an elected official in my state would make such an offer. Personal accountability in our elected officials is such a rare commodity.

Crowther and Wagner's spin on the AAAS letter is just plain dumfounding, and are simply outright lies, plain and simple.

The AAAS and its members aren't willing to engage in any debate, because they all know that it would be a waste of time. Even "if" any mainstream professional scientist "won" in that trial, the outcome would still be the same; the Creationists would trumpet their "victory", and Creationism would be taught in Kansas schools. The Kansas trial wants the AAAS there so they can paint great big targets on their bodies, and the AAAS knows it.

Science is not determined in public show trials or in public debates: it is determined in the hard, hard work that scientists undertake, whether it be in the field or in the lab. That Creationists, trumpeting their "Protestant Work Ethic" have not even the slightest iota of appreciation for that insults me not only as a student of science, but as a Christian as well.

the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued a sort of scientific papal bull, a gag order to scientists, telling them not to debate

The DI blog doesn't allow comments

This de facto "gag order", this refusal to debate the merits of evolutionary theory (or lack thereof) is not restricted to the Kansas issue, nor is it something new. It has been in effect for quite a while, as I can testify from my own personal experience. You simply cannot get a reputable scientist to discuss these questions, either on the record or off the record and this has been going on for a while.

Even here at PT and over at T.O I find that, while "creationist bashing" is rampant, actual discussion of the science itself is almost completely absent.

Of course, Crowther et al will tell you that there are not wanting to debate ID, but rather just certain weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

— Jack Krebs

I often write comments to researchers regarding the interpretations and implications of their work on evolutionary theory and I am consistently met with absolute stonewalling. They simply don't want to discuss it. And if they say anything at all, it's something comical and useless like "we don't know all of the specific mechanisms" or "evolutionsary theory adequately explains it", or "it evolved..". Now what the heck does that mean? Even here at PT and over at T.O I find that, while "creationist bashing" is rampant, actual discussion of the science itself is almost completely absent.

— Charlie Wagner

Charlie - I'd be glad to discuss it with you. (Perhaps the After the Bar Closes would be a better venue than here - which is really all about Kansas.) Looking forward to it!

— Russell

So back to the conditioning thing, I don't believe that most (hopefully all) of these scientists are ignoring you based on a lack of a response. They are acting on experiences that have told them that it is often simply a waste of time to discuss scientific intricacies with laypeople.

— Joe E

Wagner writes "I often write comments to researchers regarding the interpretations and implications of their work on evolutionary theory and I am consistently met with absolute stonewalling."

Yeah Charlie, what would we do without you?

So you bother professional researchers? I used to get letters from cranks regarding the formation of the Earth, Expanding Earth or bizarre ideas regarding the Earth's interior.

THose letters mostly found their way into my waste paper basket. Thats probably where yours went.

So back to the conditioning thing, I don't believe that most (hopefully all) of these scientists are ignoring you based on a lack of a response. They are acting on experiences that have told them that it is often simply a waste of time to discuss scientific intricacies with laypeople.

— Joe E.

Joe E writes "They are acting on experiences that have told them that it is often simply a waste of time to discuss scientific intricacies with laypeople"

I think that is way to harsh an assessment.

I can only write for myself here. But on t.o, sci.geo.geology and the occasional letter I get, I will always do my best to answer straight forward questions regarding my research or science.

A. I owe at least that much to the taxpayer.

B. I actually enjoy it, and do what I can to increase people's enthusiam for the subject.

Thats a far different thing then getting repeated emails and letters etc. from kooks. In those cases, when I respond, its only for sport, although people can learn something from the responses.

And I have found I do not normally have to get into the scientific intricasies of a subject to give lay people an answer that has meaning and value to them. If they want to get into the details I usually suggest references, and that they can wirte back with questions.

If somebody can't explain the basics of what they are doing, then perhaps they don't understand what it is they are doing.

If somebody can't explain the basics of what they are doing, then perhaps they don't understand what it is they are doing.

— Weinstein

Why? Because the Darwinian high priests at the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued a sort of scientific papal bull...

— Rob Crowther

Is there a difference between going to Dover to debate the creationists, and debating them interminably on this board?

For the record, it would be interesting to know how many comments on this blog have been devoted to "discussing the science" with the likes of Charlie Wagner. I'm guessing on the order of hundreds.

And then at some point we grew tired of Charlie's dissembling and his habit of quote mining biologists' work as "evidence" that mysterious alien beings must have designed all the life on earth, and we learned -- not agreed -- to ignore his trolling.

Now he claims that there is some sort of conspiracy to stifle the "views" and "ideas" of uninteresting deluded cranks and Sasquatch-lovin' charlatans.

The appropriate term is "deluded," Charlie.

Thanks for your input everyone. I will admit, sometimes I am not sure if someone gets lost during my expalanations because they can't understand it or if it is just a result of my general difficulty in explaining things. I guess I just need to come up with better analogies, or something, so that I can be clearer.

Anyway, I would love to continue this discussion, but I have a mountain of homework that is not doing itself...

It's a good point.

What Crowther et al. seem to want is a religious war. That's the only reasonable conclusion from their invidious comparisons of science to religious elements. So the only question left is to ask how they wish to fight this war? Given that those who hate science with such religious fervor have had such a miserable track record, maybe they should finally do something about it? Perhaps they should begin car bombing Universities. Or start taking evolutionary biologists hostages, put them in jumper suits, and have them read denunciations of other scientists on videotape. Maybe some of them will have to take flying lessons, learn to pose as students, and infiltrate the grounds of infidels.

Or, will they, in the end, just hide behind their keyboards and type out whiny lies about scientists?

As a scientist and long time member of the AAAS I recently received notification that my membership would be cancelled forthwith if I used the word "Dumbski" in a blog comment section.

Uh, oh.

Hey, charlie, you say that you are not a crank. What exactly distinguishes you from the hordes of cranks who do what you do?

Steve R. writes "I've always found it amusing, if slightly disturbing, just how badly the IDists seem to hate religion. If you're an ID advocate who wants to insult scientists, there's no better way than to compare them to clergymen. So we have the leadership of one of the world's foremost scientific organizations referred to as "high priests" who have issued a "papal bull". "

Actually thats not surprising given the Protestant fundamentalist roots of creationism. For them, terms like "papal bull", "high priests" are indeed perjoratives.

I don't think these terms are used by *design*, but reflects there long ingrained fears of Catholicism.

If the space between science and popular culture becomes too distant, then in the minds of many science=technology=magic.

— P. Mihalakos

I've always found it amusing, if slightly disturbing, just how badly the IDists seem to hate religion. If you're an ID advocate who wants to insult scientists, there's no better way than to compare them to clergymen. So we have the leadership of one of the world's foremost scientific organizations referred to as "high priests" who have issued a "papal bull".

— Steve Reuland

Arthur C. Clarke's 3 Laws:

1.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Then another reference gives another #3.

"Any sufficiently advanced system that makes you re-examine your basic assumptions is indistinguishable from a cult."

Either way, #3 gives me nightmares! I'd never seen Clarke's laws before. Thanks for the reference, Malkuth.

"Because the Darwinian high priests at the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued a sort of scientific papal bull, a gag order to scientists, telling them not to debate the flaws in Darwin's theory before the Kansas State Board of Education."

Does that mean that he considers anyone who does turn up to debate the flaws to not be a scientist?

Yeah Charlie, what would we do without you? So you bother professional researchers? I used to get letters from cranks regarding the formation of the Earth, Expanding Earth or bizarre ideas regarding the Earth's interior. THose letters mostly found their way into my waste paper basket. Thats probably where yours went.

— Bigdakine

Actually thats not surprising given the Protestant fundamentalist roots of creationism. For them, terms like "papal bull", "high priests" are indeed perjoratives. I don't think these terms are used by *design*, but reflects there long ingrained fears of Catholicism.

Remember the Memes: 1. Evolution isn't real science. 2. Evolution isn't compatible with religion 3. Teach both sides

All are given credence if the IDC-ers succeed in getting the debate switched to such nebulous topics as "belief systems," "naturalism," etc. Bottom line: they use the rhetoric because it suits their purpose. If "Darwinism" becomes a "religion," then their religious beliefs deserve "equal time."

Sorry IDC-ers, we're doing science and you're not. To paraphrase James Carville: It's the data, stupid!

so charlie, what makes you different from the cranks who do what you do?

"A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street."

One point Crowther makes is that the minority report isn't asking to include intelligent design in the standards. He's right. Just because John Calvert, founder/leader of IDNet, subcommittee members' campaign contributor, is counsel to the minority surely doesn't mean that ID is being given any preference. Just because the list of witnesses is chock-full of ID proponents can't mean ID is on the way into the standards. Just because "teaching the controversy" is a political strategy endorsed by the Discovery Institute (the Seattle ID hotbed) doesn't guarantee ID will make its way into science class. And, just because the three subcommittee members were elected on anti-evolution platforms doesn't mean they can't be objective in this matter. Now, if you honestly believe this stuff (and it would be an irrational, untenable, fly-in-the-face-of-evidence belief), then I'd really like to sell you a bridge or two.

Keanus,

Re "I think a necessary one is that the proverbial "first man...on the street" be an open-minded and willing listener."

And who doesn't have to unlearn a bunch of wrong stuff first.

Henry

The structure of antievolution argument, a primer.

"(1) Evolution sucks, (2) therefore an intelligent designer must have done it, and (3) the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible."

The content of (1) across "evidence against evolution", "intelligent design", and "creation science" is a sequence of subsets: (1) seen in "evidence against evolution" is a subset of (1) seen in "intelligent design" which is a subset of (1) seen in "creation science". The content of (1) also has little to do with what biologists actually think are the open questions in the field.

"Intelligent design" advocates generally, but not always, limit themselves to (1) and (2).

"Creation science" advocates insist on having (3) as well as (1) and (2). This approach has been ruled out of bounds for science classes by the courts.

Anybody trying to claim that they weren't ripping off a music album with as much content copied from that source as we see in the arguments in (1) having come from "intelligent design" and "creation science" would find themselves shortly paying a big judgment. The notion that "evidence against evolution" is not "intelligent design" is not a polite fiction, it is outright fraud.

I recently asked several reputable evolutionists if they cared to discuss the findings in this report and offer some kind of explanation as to how a highly organized and complex system such as described below could have emerged by mechanisms like those that are included in current evolutionary thinking. I'm still waiting. So far the only response has been the sound of crickets chirping.

— Charlie Wagner

There are no high priests of Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory, not religion. Scientists are always trying to find weaknesses in theories and welcome anyone to design experiments to disprove them. That is how progress is made in science. The new theories that arise explain the weaknesses of the old as well as confirm their strengths. They also allow further testing and newer uses of the information achieved. This process goes on and on. Faith is just that. There is no experimentation designed to disprove it. There are no new uses of the information provided by Faith. There is no scientific progress to be made with it.

There is no end-running around this. There is no evidence---repeat:evidence---to the contrary of Crowther's point there. None of the four "just because's" that Csadams brought up show any evidence of the ID hypothesis being incorporated, mandated, or even mentioned in the standards if this specific minority report does happen to be adoped.

This is basically a political struggle. ... Science will have very little to do with the arguments on what science standards will look like. Education will have little to do with it. It's basically how the politics will work in a particular state.

There is no end-running around this. There is no evidence---repeat:evidence---to the contrary of Crowther's point there. None of the four "just because's" that Csadams brought up show any evidence of the ID hypothesis being incorporated, mandated, or even mentioned in the standards if this specific minority report does happen to be adoped.

Just wanted to add an illustration to the final bit of my "primer" above...

Let's say Band X releases a big new album, "Entropy Rules!", with 21 selections on it. Once critics play it, though, they find that every one of the tunes is a cover of a tune on George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" album. Charged with copyright infringement of Harrison's album, Band X counters, "You have no evidence of that. Why, look, we did not cover 'My Sweet Lord', so your claims are entirely groundless!"

The ID advocates in taking up "evidence against evolution" as a strategy are just like Band X, hoping that by dropping "My Sweet Lord" from the playlist they will cruise underneath the radar.

Not everyone who challenges accepted orthodoxy is a crackpot or misguided. And while I don't work in scientific academia, it should be obvious to the least perceptive person that I am hardly your average "layperson".

Real scientists propose real experiments to falsify or verify their work.

CTa,

the proposed experiment (above and beyond looking for similarities in extant and fossil organisms most parsimoniously explained by common descent) for so-called macroevolution is simple enough to be called trivial, and requires two steps:

- observe and document as many cases of evolution within a species, speciation events and minor radiation beyond species level possible within human observation times (both in the wild and in the lab) and look for evidence of mechanisms leading to these events.

- check the mechanisms in evidence for any show stoppers preventing the observed changes to continue indefinitely, as long as they are beneficial to the populations involved (thus potentially forming new higher taxa).

This has been done for a while and the first step has produced a lot of positives while the second one, while lots of 'information limitations' and similar stuff has been proposed by interested parties has always come up blank in the experimental arena. So, if you actually cared about falsifying macroevolution, you would know what you had to do.

aCTa said:

"which in the context of macroevolution, is singularly unforthcoming, hence the rise of dissent"

Not necessarily. Case in point, many fossils. For a while, theropods were divided into coelurosaurs and carnosaurs. Then it seemed tyrannosaurids were closer to ornithomimids based on their foot structures. This meant that _T. rex_ would have been closer to the little feather birdinos. It was also thought they probably developed from ancestors with three fingers on their hands.

And then we found both _Eotyrannus_ - small, graceful, and three fingered like other "coelurosaurs", and the recent _Dilong_ - similar, but with feathery integument.

So that helped support the argument that the mighty _Tyrannosaurus_ evolved from a little feathery thing - what would be called macroevolution.

Then you've got sirenians. Like whales, we figured they came from four legged land animals. Hello _Pezosiren_, four legged, but otherwise the body of a dugong or manatee.

Snakes? _Haasiophis_ and _Pachyrachis_ - even down to the toe bones, it showed snakes evolved from animals with four legs, and seemingly in marine environments - we see a broad trend from varanids to mosasaurids and aigalosaurids to leggy snakes.

All these, granted, were subject to falsification in the notion that if we never found these fossils, we could never have been sure either way. But the *strength* they provide is that we thought about what *would* be in the gaps .... and were lucky enough to *find what we expected to find*.

Much of the history of pterosaurs is pterra incognita, but we can theorise - and we can gain validation if and when we find the pieces. 'Falsification' (or simply a case of not being sure) is if we never found them. Palaeontology keeps finding new verification for macroevolution.

Ed Darrell wrote, "There is no commercial application of any creationist or "intelligent design" concept.".

I would have to disagree. They seem to be making quite a pretty penny in book sales...

Joe,

Check out the publishing houses who publish creationist tomes, and compare them with the publishing houses who publish popular (or science) books on evolution.

Would you invest in Regnery (publisher of Jonathan Wells) over Basic Books (publisher of Ernst Mayr)? I think that, even in publishing, where the actual value of the science is perhaps a little abstract, creationism offers no commercial application that any serious entrepreneur would pursue.

The Discovery Institute is not turning a profit. Only the donations from political activists keep them going. Genentech, on the other hand, trades on the New York Stock Exchange, and they file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If one wishes to compare the relative wild frontier mentality of unregulated issue advocacy versus the tight restrictions of the current rules under the Sarbanes-Oxley, I think one gets an even stronger indication of the relative value of the enterprises, especially as to their redeeming social value.

. . . which in the context of macroevolution, is singularly unforthcoming, hence the rise of dissent.

If held at all,the hearing should have represntatives from both sides, but in proportion to the actual number of credentialed biologists who hold each position. That would put the scientific situation in stark relief, and give the public an honest picture of just how little support ID has in the scientific arena.

KC

All these, granted, were subject to falsification in the notion that if we never found these fossils, we could never have been sure either way. But the *strength* they provide is that we thought about what *would* be in the gaps . . . . and were lucky enough to *find what we expected to find*.

Hi eapeman. What about all the scientists that are not atheists who accept common descent? How do you account for them? Many mainstream Christians accept common descent

Ed, keep in mind I never said it was a commercial application more profitable than true science publications, only that it was a commercial application. Dembski and Behe, et. al., make money by the books they write, regardless of whether or not the publication companies receive a decent return on that investment. if the DI pays for that, then at the very least the publishing companies make money if at the DI's contributor's expense. all depends on what point you call the profit center.

the DI doesn't measure its success financially. the DI measures its success one corrupted school system at a time.

Sure Jack,

Most don't understand the issue. Neo-darwinims proponets argue common descent via evolution as an undirected process. Many of these mainstream Christians believe in "God-directed evolution." Clearly we have a contradiction of terms. To argue that human existence comes from a mindless chance driven process is philosophy not science.

Evolving Strawman:

Squirm as much as you want, the contradiction only exists in your own mind. You could just as well argue that, since God directs everything, the silly atheistic idea that a 12 turns out on average once every 36 tosses of the dice is incompatible with Christianity.

"To argue that human existence comes from a mindless chance driven process is philosophy not science."

It's also wrong.

to eapeman: we are discussing common descent. God could guide evolution through common descent. In fact, that is easier to envision bacause manipulating things at the genetic, or perhaps even quantum, level seems like a less invasive thing for God to do rather than crate whole organisms de novo.

So my point is that common descent is not incompatible with mainstream Christian beleif.

the DI doesn't measure its success financially. the DI measures its success one corrupted school system at a time.

I don't see apeman's contradiction either. Evolution has produced what it has produced, and is slowly but steadily in the process of producing something different. Might there be some overmind consciously directing this process for purposes beyond our ken? Why not? Is it possible that no such mind exists? Certainly. Is such nonexistence required? Nope.

But the decision whether or not to project an overmind influencing what evolution produces, is quite separate from the decision to reject the process itself. The former is a personal policy decision the evidence neither supports nor refutes. The latter is clearly refuted.

the silly atheistic idea that a 12 turns out on average once every 36 tosses of the dice is incompatible with Christianity.

Evolution has produced what it has produced, and is slowly but steadily in the process of producing something different. Might there be some overmind consciously directing this process for purposes beyond our ken? Why not? Is it possible that no such mind exists? Certainly. Is such nonexistence required? Nope.

I'm not arguing that naturalistic processes don't occur, science is based on naturalism.

I'm arguing that science can't answer every question, including the mechanism by which human existence occured.

You need relevent data, which doesn't exist to get common descent via evolution beyond the hypothesis stage.

I'm not arguing that naturalistic processes don't occur, science is based on naturalism. I'm arguing that science can't answer every question, including the mechanism by which human existence occured. You need relevent data, which doesn't exist to get common descent via evolution beyond the hypothesis stage.

When a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, did it require some "overmind to consciously direct this process"?

When A Theist has a prayer answered does he/she attrbute it to a chance event or divine intervention?

When A Theist has a prayer answered does he/she attrbute it to a chance event or divine intervention? a true theist recognized that the reality of the supernatural can also explain aspects of the world around us.

Flint responded: An interesting question, though irrelevant. My observation is that prayers are always answered, though they are answered as requested and anticipated no more than chance would suggest

Re #25635

What about those who regard human existence as the result of chance mutations and undirected natural selection, but who regard answered prayers as theological "evidence" of God's love?

IMHO - God's more concerned about our souls than our cells.

Neo-darwinims proponets argue common descent via evolution as an undirected process. Many of these mainstream Christians believe in "God-directed evolution." Clearly we have a contradiction of terms.

Do you know any Christians or other theists who regard the answer to their prayers as due to chance?

What about those who regard human existence as the result of chance mutations and undirected natural selection, but who regard answered prayers as theological "evidence" of God's love? IMHO - God's more concerned about our souls than our cells.

on the death of his son from progeria. In fact, there is a tremendous comfort in attributing chance events to just that.

GWW, what do you have against aliens.

On what basis have you concluded spontaneous evolution couldn't have occured on other planets.

It's entirely consistent with your Darwinian fundamentalism?

I think its pretty sad that a person would find "comfort" in concluding the death of their son was due to meaningless chance.

shhh! he'll hear you...

Interesting . . . So from your theological viewpoint: Did God create our souls or did they evolve as well?

So if I got some Holocaust deniers to set up a discussion on whether the Holocaust really happened, how many history professors do you think I could get to show up?

I will agree that anyone who views the answer to prayer as a chance event will consistently conclude that human existence occured due to chance mutatations and undirected natural selection. (My emphasis, because I don't understand why this distinction matters)

I think its pretty sad that a person would find "comfort" in concluding the death of their son was due to meaningless chance.

What basis do you use to decide whether a theology is mature or immature? I think its pretty sad that a person would find "comfort" in concluding the death of their son was due to meaningless chance.

The work of creation is still unfinished.

hence, mature theology allows and even embraces the grandeur of evolution.

Your still talking about something for which you have zippo for evidence

Benford's Corollary: "Any science distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"

Sorry, couldn't resist

change to mike150160

If this were even remotely true, your claim might have some force. However, the evidence is overwhelming, and it is stonkingly dishonest to deny it.

You might say that your faith requires you to reject any and all evidence supporting conclusions you can't accept, however strong that evidence may be.

I doubt anyone would hold this against you. You need not be dishonest to remain ignorant, you know.

the evidence is overwhelming

"So if I got some Holocaust deniers to set up a discussion on whether the Holocaust really happened, how many history professors do you think I could get to show up?"

ya know, it's funny, but it seems that Holocaust deniers run a similar gamut as the creationists:

there are those who believe none of it ever happened, all the way to those who simply think the "numbers are slightly off".

one wonders if it is not some natural aspect of human behavior that this kind of reactionary phenomena exists. Maybe some sort of psychological defense mechanism that those employing project externally, then develop rationalizations to support it?

hmm.

"Please tell me, when has "science" argued that it could answer every question?"

Speaking for all of science, I say it can. You just wouldn't understand the answers.

;)

(pssst: 42!)

cheers

@chance, Flint and DC.

you are right: you guys are confused.

Chances point wasn't arguing that there was "zippo" evidence for evolution, rather that there is no evidence to support the relative maturity of one religious school of thought over another.

I think Chance mistakes the use of the word "maturity" however, in that in this case i believe it was used in the context of "maturity of mind" in a more ontogenetic context, rather than a theological one. More applied to folks who have actually logically pondered the issues over a period of time, rather than take spoon fed information and regurgitate it.

could be wrong, but I think you guys are arguing across definitions.

cheers

No I think your correct

hence, mature theology allows and even embraces the grandeur of evolution

Ho would you rather have suffering be the result of some sin?

Somehow apeman leaps directly from the matter of prayer to rejecting the notion of drawing such conclusions, saying that the scientific method of hypothesizing, testing, and iterating is somehow a hoax unless one believes prayers are "answered" in some supernatural manner. Perhaps the connection between the two is obvious to Apeman, but I admit I just can't see it.

regard human existence as the result of chance mutations and undirected natural selection

regard answered prayers as theological "evidence" of God's love?

Darwinists look at the universe with colored spectacles that force them to only allow for naturalistic explainations and of course that is all they ever see.

However, I see horrible diseases more consistently as evidence for a "fallen world" that is explained in Christianity as original sin.

I agree with you that a naturalistic method (science) cannot study the supernatural.

... That's the convenience of "spirituality" these days, since we have concluded life is ultimately meaningless, we can each make up our on religion as we see fit and be our own gods.

— evolving apeman

"Frank(without the y)'s definition of theological maturity describes Darwinian Fundamentalism at its finest:"

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

" Spirituality is no more that an evolved psychological behavior that allows us to find comfort from chance events"

interesting hypothesis; however it's not original. The "religion as opiate of the masses" hypothesis goes a wee bit further back...

"However, your real religion is the nihilistic "grandeur of evolution"."

er, isn't nihilism the LACK of religion? how can you define a religion as nihilistic? it would imply finding meaning in nihilism itself... or is that what you ARE implying?

"we can each make up our on religion as we see fit and be our own gods"

sounds good to me. Do i still get tax exempt status when i create my church based on my made-up religion?

"However, I see horrible diseases more consistently as evidence for a "fallen world" that is explained in Christianity as original sin."

ah, i see, so you aren't a christian then, as christianity dealt with original sin as documented in the new testament, yes? So which is it? are you an old testament tub-thumper, who believes in the consequence of sin being visited by god in the mortal realm, or a new testament evangelical who believes christ died for our sins? or don't you know yourself?

it is your apparent lack of any consistent belief structure that makes some label you as "immature". you seem to borrow from several religions and philosophies at once, in a kind of mix-and-match scenario, with no regards to inherent philosophical conflicts.

what question are you trying to answer for yourself? it does not appear emergent from your babbling.

" Darwinists look at the universe with colored spectacles that force them to only allow for naturalistic explainations and of course that is all they ever see"

you commonly accuse us of such, when it is readily apparent that you yourself are the one most guilty of blurred vision. suggest you take a close look at your own spectacles.

" I agree with you that a naturalistic method (science) cannot study the supernatural"

ah, then if so, here is a question for you. WHY do you believe that is so?

spend less time throwing out babbel, and more time in a bit of self reflection.

cheers

I'm not sure how you concluded that I believe the scientific method is a hoax without prayer. I agree with you that a naturalistic method (science) cannot study the supernatural. My point is that if you conclude the answer to prayers as chance events, then you will be consistent in concluding human existence is based on undirected chance events. However, if you conclude the answer to prayer was directly related to intervention of a supernatural deity, you may also conclude that your existence was not an undirected chance event.

— Evolving Apeman

My point is that if you conclude the answer to prayers as chance events, then you will be consistent in concluding human existence is based on undirected chance events. However, if you conclude the answer to prayer was directly related to intervention of a supernatural deity, you may also conclude that your existence was not an undirected chance event.

The problem we scientists and philosphers have on this site is that the comprehension level among Darwinists is quite low. This seems to be true no matter how much we dumb down our explainations for you. Or perhaps it is that narrow-minded Darwinian fundamentalists refuse to see things beyond the tip of their nose.

Pray for us

...we scientists and philosphers...

Prayers are formalized wishful thinking. They are not "answered" in any sense other than to pacify the concerns of whoever prays.

"The problem we scientists and philosphers have on this site is that the comprehension level among Darwinists is quite low. This seems to be true no matter how much we dumb down our explainations for you. Or perhaps it is that narrow-minded Darwinian fundamentalists refuse to see things beyond the tip of their nose."

I see, just to amuse us, he takes exactly what we say, reverses it, and then regurgitates.

oh yes, your barf does so amuse us. very witty.

I've got one for you:

"his majesty is like a stream of bat's piss."

Apeman, the problem is that in order for YOU to feel connected to your fellow human beings, you also must feel that they share your religion. Are you blind to how completely aggressive such an idea is? How territorial it is? How insecure it is? You do Christians everywhere a profound disservice.

While you can continue to puff yourself up into a state of pious indignation all you want, you will ironically remain exactly what you hope to transcend. Namely, an animal. With your nose pressed to the ground.

Hear this: you will not be allowed to arbitrarily change the rules of science just to validate your personal idea of what it means or does not mean to be spiritual.

The problem we scientists and philosphers have on this site is that the comprehension level among Darwinists is quite low. This seems to be true no matter how much we dumb down our explainations for you. Or perhaps it is that narrow-minded Darwinian fundamentalists refuse to see things beyond the tip of their nose.

— Evolving Apeman

Or do you just pretend to feel pity and think that our lives are meaningless because it's a cheap way of making yourself feel superior?

Darwinists look at the universe with colored spectacles that force them to only allow for naturalistic explainations and of course that is all they ever see.

First, I'm not interested in a 'my' religion or a 'my' spirituality, but truth. Some religion is mythology I agree. But to conclude that all religion is mythology is arrogant.

Second, I'm not interested in changing the rules of science. However, I will point out when pseudo-scientists claim that science can validate an unobservable, unreproducible hypothesis.

[quote[And then there's that whole "if you don't believe in my religion your life is meaningless" attitude. I hate that.
No, but if you believe in the "your" religion of Darwinian fundamentalism then you will conclude that your life is meaningless to be intellectually honest.

No, but if you believe in the "your" religion of Darwinian fundamentalism then you will conclude that your life is meaningless to be intellectually honest.

— Evolving Apeman

Evolving Apeman wrote: No, but if you believe in the "your" religion of Darwinian fundamentalism then you will conclude that your life is meaningless to be intellectually honest.

Some religion is mythology I agree. But to conclude that all religion is mythology is arrogant.

And once again, the Flat Earther looks at the phogographs taken from space and declares them fakes. And those of the "round earth religion" foolish enough to consider those pictures to be entirely normal and unexceptional are dismissed as intellectually dishonest. At some point, Apeman decided that distorting and misrepresenting what evidence he could neither deny nor ignore was the key to finding "meaning" in his life. How very strange to fear reality quite that fiercely.

But at least we've got to the point where the theory of evolution is no longer being misrepresented as the the topic of discussion. Now we're all on the same page: we're discussing religion, period. Some of us have a religion that embraces reality; others suffer a faith that has no choice but to reject it. I can honestly say that everything science learns (that I become aware of and can understand) adds meaning to my life, as does every correction or improvement science makes in the process. What sort of life defends "meaning" by preserving ignorance? I shudder to imagine.

ok. I've seen enough of EA's posts over the last several weeks to come to the conclusion that he is nothing more than a troll.

can we please treat him as such and banish him to the BW??

it is a TOTAL waste of time and space to continue responding to his posts. I'm even tired of throwing rocks at him

all in favor signify by saying I.

ok. I've seen enough of EA's posts over the last several weeks to come to the conclusion that he is nothing more than a troll.can we please treat him as such and banish him to the BW??

And what the hell do you mean by that statement? ...If my 'meaning' or 'meaninglessness' in life simply refers to whether or not one exists for some purpose layed out by someone or something other than themself, then I can still say that I was created by my genes with the purpose of keeping them around and making more of them. It's a superficial kind of meaning, and I don't concentrate on it.

Do you turn to drugs, pornography, etc. to escape the emptiness of your existence.

Evolving Strawman:

You would have us believe that, if somehow you reached the conclusion that you've been fed a false delusion instead of the 'Truth', you would fall into nihilism and "turn to drugs, pornography, etc. to escape the emptiness" of your existence.

You know what? I don't believe you.

I believe that, behind the mask of Internet anonymity, you are a regular (if deluded) human being, and that, should this fundamentalistic infatuation of yours fade like it does for so many other people, you would find purpose and meaning in yourself, in accomplishing something, in helping other people, fellow human beings just like you.

That's where intellectual honesty would lead you, were you to take a good, hard look at yourself and the rest of mankind.

I've never (do you hear me? NEVER) met any atheist who reasoned like you pretend they do. I've NEVER met an agnostic who reasoned like you pretend they do. I've NEVER met a non-fundamentalist theist who reasoned like you pretend they do.

In short, you are attacking strawmen. I've been telling this to you over and over, and yet you insist that you know everybody else's mind better than they do.

No, you don't. You should stop trying to demean people who don't share your beliefs, and pursue knowledge and the quest for small-case truths. At least those, from time to time, do not completely elude our grasp.

That statement---"If you don't believe my religion your life is meaningless"---always carries connotations of the person being addressed being without goals and in despair. And that's pretty damned easy to infer

— Malkuth

Do you turn to drugs, pornography, etc. to escape the emptiness of your existence.

— Evolving Apeman

ok. I've seen enough of EA's posts over the last several weeks to come to the conclusion that he is nothing more than a troll. can we please treat him as such and banish him to the BW?? it is a TOTAL waste of time and space to continue responding to his posts. I'm even tired of throwing rocks at him all in favor signify by saying I.

— Sir_Toejam

"In short, you are attacking strawmen. I've been telling this to you over and over, and yet you insist that you know everybody else's mind better than they do."

uh, to borrow a bit of 80's pop culture trivia...

'coz dat's vot trollies do! little girlie men. Not properly pumped.

Aureola:

Many see and do not perceive, hear and do not understand. My beliefs and your beliefs our irrelevent. We're talking about absolute truth, something you clearly fear. An honest look at the failings of modern Western culture can almost all be traced back to the pervasive influence of Darwinian fundamentalism.

I am often disappointed with the lack of interest in science. But then again I'm not surprised as Darwinism has wrongly teaches that science proves nihilism. Thus, people turn to fairy tales. Disagree, then answer the challenge I have repeated over and over. What aspect of human existence cannot be explained by neo-darwinism (i.e. random mutations and undirected natural selection)?

Evolving Strawman:

Once again you make up your own version of reality. I don't fear "absolute truth" any more than I fear "god"; one can't fear what one hasn't been given any compelling reason to believe exists.

Your claim that "the failings of modern Western culture can almost all be traced back to the pervasive influence of Darwinian fundamentalism" is just that: a claim, and a baseless one.

Tell me, how can the AIDS pandemic in Africa be traced back to [...] "Darwinian fundamentalism"? Catholic opposition to condoms plays an obvious role, but the theory of evolution? And I'd say that a pandemic that is wiping out a generation of Africans should qualify as a major failing of modern society!

Of course, if one regards things like the abolition of slavery, the push towards gender equality, the breakthroughs against age-old diseases and the like as failings, then yes, the theory of evolution and its derivations have played a major role.

Please tell me, which biology textbook includes the teaching "that science proves nihilism"?

As to your bogus "challenge", since you claim to be a scientist (another thing I find very hard to believe about you), you should know that terms must be accurately and inequivocally defined (at least since Galileo, another scientist who dealt a blow to religious fanatics... while being a good Christian himself!). Are you talking about our bodies, our minds, or what?

Because our current state of knowledge and theorizing has barely scratched the surface of the evolution of human minds, and throwing around vague terms like "love", "hate", "self-sacrifice", "religiosity", "fundamentalism", and so on, demanding that an evidence-based theory accounts for these evanescent concepts, is merely playing with words.

Just like those who purposefully confuse everything else with evolution, and throw around "challenges" that "random mutation + natural selection" explain abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and so on and so forth.

And "fairytale" accurately describes a narrative full of wonder and mysterious magical events... oh, I don't know: things like people coming back from the dead, or a few pieces of bread and a few fishes nourishing a crowd numbering in the hundreds, or walls crumbling at the sound of trumpets, or the universe being created over six days by the willpower of a tribal chieftain writ large... you know, magic!

I can honestly say that everything science learns (that I become aware of and can understand) adds meaning to my life, as does every correction or improvement science makes in the process. What sort of life defends "meaning" by preserving ignorance? I shudder to imagine.

Concerning the comments about today's newspaper stories in Kansas:

The newspaper reports around the state didn't get things completely right last night.

What they did get correct is that KCFS will be working with others to provide daily events associated with the hearings.

However, it is not correct to say that Mr. Irigonegaray is represented the majority on the science committee. As a member of the science committee, I know for sure that our position is that Draft 2 is what represents us. Mr. Irigonegaray may represesent the majority, mainstream viewpoint, but he doesn't represent the actual members of the committee.

Also, I have listened to a recording of last night's meeting. I am pretty sure that Mr. Irigonegaray did not say, as the KC Star says, that

quote:Defenders of evolution, despite earlier pledges of a boycott, plan to present three days of evidence in support of the scientific theory at hearings next month.

What Mr. Irigonegaray did say was that, as the paper quotes,

quote:Our witnesses will be called in a timely manner, and they will have relevant and important information.

And last, I can imagine that one reason Mr. Irigonegaray did not want to name witnesses is that he doesn't know completely, or at all, who they will be. This was his "first day on the job," so to speak. As far as I know he has not been involved in science activism in the state in the past, so it will probably take some work on his part to find witnesses and to prepare a plan.

If people have further questions, please feel free to ask.

keep us posted, please.

Ed+Ed, PZ Myers, Dr.GH, Nick Matzke and many others at PT: Thank you so much for your time and eloquent arguments for evolution. Keep fighting against the tide of ignorance that gaining power in this country.