If she weighs the same as a duck...

Posted 23 June 2005 by Jim Foley

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/if-she-weighs-t.html

On his blog, William Dembski noted the appearance of a new Intelligent Design blog at the University of California Irvine, and suggested that the appearance of more such blogs would be "a Darwinist�s worst nightmare".

Might I suggest instead that biologists (calling them 'Darwinists' is about as silly as calling chemists Daltonists) are more likely to fall about laughing? Take, for example, some reasoning from an early posting at the new blog:

Now here comes my intuitive (a.k.a. hand-waving) argument for design:
1. This fountain is elegant and complex.
2. The ducks are more elegant and more complex than the fountain.
3. If X is more elegant and more complex than Y, then X is more likely to be designed than Y.
4. The fountain was likely to be designed.
5. The ducks were more likely to be designed.

I haven't seen such compelling logic since the last time I saw another argument involving ducks: the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Really, the idea that this something like this constitutes evidence against evolution should be embarrassing even to IDers.

69 Comments

Rupert Goodwins · 23 June 2005

"Wow, that skyscraper's big! Men made it! But WOW! That mountain's MUCH MUCH bigger! Must have been made by supermen!"

Kay · 23 June 2005

Does this mean that Dembski is made of wood?

Adam Ierymenko · 23 June 2005

This might look funny, but I can just see human thought regressing to a preconceptual state. Evolutionary theory was a great triumph because it represented the capacity of human reason to pierce the veil of complexity and understand the underlying causes of things. Ironically the greatest capacity of intelligence, the ability to see *through* complexity to underlying causes, is precisely what is thrown aside by "intelligent" design.

I also can't help but blame the educational system (both public and university) for the fact that a student at UCI finds an argument resembling a Monty Python parody convincing.

John Wilkins · 23 June 2005

But Jim, this is the logic of design arguments. It is all a mix of analogy with human design and then the assertion of how much more living things are like designed things than designed things...

It reminds me of Granny Weatherwax's comment in Wyrd Sisters:

"Things that try to look like things often do look more like things than things."

SEF · 23 June 2005

That looking like things is true though. You can usually tell artificially random data produced by a human (whether numbers for data or the lottery or scatterings of dots) because it looks more random than genuinely random data - which tends to have clusters. The human thinks such clusters look designed and therefore deliberately avoids them when trying not to look designed - which then of course gives the game away to anyone else testing for the expected amount of coincidental patterning were the source to be random.

Steve F · 23 June 2005

Why exactly is this a 'darwinists' worst nightmare? Its an ID blog. There are loads of ID blogs. It has nothing do do with UCI or their biology department in any kind of official capacity (apart from their vice pres apparently being a student in biology).

The cynic in me suggests that it is going to be 'darwinists' worst nightmare because the ID crew are going to spin this as some sort of ID in major universities line. After all the title of the blog does kind of imply that.

Ginger Yellow · 23 June 2005

The fact that Dembski thinks a blog could be a "Darwinist's" worst nightmare, rather than, say, actual evidence against evolution, tells you everything you need to know about ID. It's a PR campaign, not science.

tytlal · 23 June 2005

Let's see - attacking evolution without merit . . . and no theory of ID. Yeah, those "Darwinist's" (who are they anyway) are losing sleep.

Is Dembski contributing ANYTHING useful to society? I am really looking forward to the Theory Of ID (TM).

DEQ · 23 June 2005

Oh, no! Someone on the internets doesn't like evolution. Truly, this is my worst nightmare.

DouglasG · 23 June 2005

Kay,
If Dembski weighed the same as a duck, THEN he would be made of wood. We first would have to measure his weight against a duck. Or we could just build a bridge out of him...

Flint · 23 June 2005

calling them 'Darwinists' is about as silly as calling chemists Daltonists

No, it's not silly at all. It is a semantic technique calculated to isolate and marginalize "believers in evolution" as a competing sect. As our creationist man-in-the-street simon objected, calling evolution "science" is qualitatively incorrect. Darwinists are a religion, not science. He "knows" this, and the language backs him up. I think we can be quite sure that if people of faith found chemistry objectionable, they would indeed use such a term as "Daltonists" to emphasize that such people are not scientists either, but rather believers in some fringe church, followers after some charismatic pied piper. I suggest that to counter this trick, scientists of all persuasions close ranks and refer to science, rather than atomizing science into a dozen different "ologies".

Pierce R. Butler · 23 June 2005

So the Theory of Intelligent Design, once it passes the vaporware stage, will include a formal definition of elegance. Mathematicians, rejoice!

I for one look forward to learning how a small hydrological cycle will be surpassed in elegance by awkward waddling, funny noises, and a proclivity to crap all over everything.

Brad Davis · 23 June 2005

Sounds a bit like Aquinas's Ontological argument. Didn't Kant, Hume others point out the falacies in such arguments?

Evil Monkey · 23 June 2005

Let's play a game and assume that this guy is correct, and ducks are even more likely to be designed.

Now how the fucking hell do I use this "knowledge" to design an experiment?????

Jim · 23 June 2005

This comments in this thread remind me of a question that I've wanted to pose to creationists:

If Evolution is atheistic, is it the only branch of science that is atheistic? If so, why? If not, what are the other branches that are atheistic, and why?

Kevin W. Parker · 23 June 2005

Once again the IDers are unable to make up their minds. Dembski says that ever more ID websites is bad news for the "Darwinists." Meanwhile, at the Discovery Institute, Rob Crowther implies that new evolution websites indicate desperation on part of the pro-evolution side. This line is particularly notable:

The brights at the National Acadamies (sic) are throwing more money into marketing, instead of into new product development.

So just who is it that's throwing most of their effort into influencing school boards, rather than into basic research?

steve · 23 June 2005

To quote Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, criticising IDers is like booing at the Special Olympics.

Les Lane · 23 June 2005

Phillip Johnson taught Dembski that one needn't know any science to understand evolution. Dembski would do well to talk to people who actually do science. Propostional logic is no substitute for experiment, but its (usually inappropriate) application continues to amuse.

steve · 23 June 2005

Lenny Flank needs to get over there and start asking them if they, unlike other IDiots, actually have a scientific theory of ID.

bill · 23 June 2005

Evil Monkey,

Based on observation of fountains and ducks (or was that Pandas and People...oh, well), anyway, based on those observations alone I predict that if you put the duck in the fountain, it will float. The duck, that is, not the fountain.

In fact, further observation will prove that the duck was designed to float in the fountain. It's not a coincidence.

Michelangelo · 23 June 2005

Seems to me one could add:

6. The fountain was most likely designed by the ducks.

Or maybe:

6. The people who designed the fountain were designed by the ducks.

Is this a "Duck of the Gaps" argument?

Pirate Dan · 23 June 2005

I remember my worst nightmare, and I'm pretty darned sure that there were no blogs in it at all.

Oh, but my Dad, a longtime member of the American Atheists Society, was in it. Therefore, my father is made of very small rocks. Or churches.

steve · 23 June 2005

You still owe us one "Waterloo", Bill.

Albion · 23 June 2005

If Evolution is atheistic, is it the only branch of science that is atheistic? If so, why? If not, what are the other branches that are atheistic, and why?

nonono, see, it isn't evolution that's atheistic. Most IDers accept evolution as long as it's talking about what creationists refer to as microevolution, which, as we all know, thanks to creationist PR, is the only sort of evolution with scientific evidence (insert "banghead" and "rolleyes" emoticons here). It's Darwinism (see some of the above comments)that's the atheistic religion which is subscribed to by all these people who are out to wreck society by refusing to put Jesus in pride of place in the science lab. The fact that some of these creationist groups are mighty coy about what exactly constitutes Darwinism (after all, we do have our large tent to think of, and some IDists do accept common descent), thus confusing everybody in sight and making it very easy to shift goalposts around as needed, is just one of those things that makes creationism so fundamentally dishonest.

RPM · 23 June 2005

Ironically, Irvine is building itself into one of the top evolutionary genetics centers in the nation. Take a look at their eco-evo department (http://ecoevo.bio.uci.edu/Faculty/Faculty.html), and they're adding John Avise in the fall. Plus, they've got a National Academies conference center there (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/beckman/), and we know what the NAS thinks about ID.

moioci · 23 June 2005

DouglasG: Or we could just build a bridge out of him . . .

Can't we just turn him into a newt? (checks blog)

Looks like somebody beat me to it.

Aaron · 23 June 2005

"I haven't seen such compelling logic since the last time I saw another argument involving ducks: the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

At that point, I couldn't help but imagine the preceding argument for design being read by John Cleese, and burst out laughing. :)

Michael Roberts · 23 June 2005

No Jim your argument is a dead duck and sorry to ruffle your feathers.

Michael

A sedgwickian (geologist)

Greg Peterson · 23 June 2005

Back to the "argument" on the blog for a second: Dr. Perakh did a very able job in "Unintelligent Design" of demolishing arguments from intuitive complexity. One example he offered was, if you find a perfectly spherical stone on a beach covered with irregular stones, it is by far the most geometrically "simple," yet it is the most likely of all stones to have had its shape "designed" by someone.

Or how about this: Cyclones and snowflakes are both the result of self-organization. Snowflakes are prettier than cyclones, and cyclones are more powerful than snowflakes; therefore, I conclude that the Cyclone God is might and fierce and the Snowflake God is delicate and clever.

Or how about comparing the intricate structures made by social insects--hives, etc.--"designed" by nothing more than agents following a few simple commands. Dolphins don't "design" anything, so far as we know. Are wasps more intelligent than dolphins?

This is too wide-ranging, and I apologize for that, but I can't help thinking that any arguments that depend on complexity for an inference of design must define what is meant by design and what is meant by complexity, and then demonstrate a necessary link between the two. This has never been done.

Longhorn · 23 June 2005

1. What does Dembski mean by "Darwinist?" Charles Darwin didn't have understanding about DNA, RNA and genes. He also didn't understand that genes mutate. He didn't understand genetic recombination and what happens at the molecular level when organisms sexually reproduce. He thought that when organisms sexually reproduced, the matter they contributed blended like two cans of paint in trough. That's not what happens. Sex cells generally have half the chromosomes of regular cells, and the nucleotides in sex cells are in significantly different sequences than are the nucleotides of regular cells. This happens during a process called meiosis. When the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell, none of the chromosomes blends with any of the others. So, my sperm cells have 23 chromosomes in them instead of the 46 I have in my regular cells. And these 23 chromosomes have chunks of DNA that are in different orders than they are in my regular cells. The same thing happens in the woman. When my sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell, the 23 chromosomes that I contribute don't even touch the 23 chromosomes that the woman contributes.

Large populations of organisms sexually reproducing over millions and millions of years is one of the main causes of my being as different from mice as I am. There is a massive correlation between sexual reproduction and differences among organisms. My parents sexually reproducing played a huge role in my being as different from my parents as I am. Large populations of organisms sexually reproducing over thousands of years played a huge role in chihuahuas being as different from saint bernards as they are. One reason I care so much about who I reproduce with is that we each contribute fifty percent of the DNA. Offspring are always a little different than their parents. In the offspring's cells, the mother's set of chromosomes sits next to the father's set. Sexual reproduction is huge. It is not a blending process. The two units of chromosomes don't even touch each other.

Darwin didn't understand what happens at the molecular level when organisms sexually reproduce. He also didn't understand that organisms often come into being with what we call new mutations.

2. As for the person's point about ducks being designed. Given how he or she seems to be using the word "designed," I don't know whether ducks were "designed." For one thing, we don't know the series of events that resulted in the existence of the space, matter and time that we associate with the known universe. We may learn someday. But we don't know yet.

However, if the person means that a deity turned dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two ducks (one male and one female), that didn't happen. The first organisms to live on earth that were very similar anatomically to today's ducks were born by their mothers in much the same way that I was born by mine. In fact, I share common ancestors with today's bacteria.

Humans directly turned matter into fountains. However, the similarity between fountains and ducks is not sufficient to reasonably infer that a deity turned dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two ducks. First, we know that didn't happen. Ducks were born. Second, the similarity is not sufficient to reasonably infer that a deity was even a distant cause of the existence of ducks, for instance, was a cause of the Big Bang. We've seen humans make lots of things, and lots of things similar to fountains. There is no thing that large numbers of people have seen a deity make. There is no thing that a deity is known to have made. And there is no thing over the last 200 years on earth that we are even justified in believing was made by a deity -- in the sense that a deity didn't turn dust -- poof! -- directly into the thing. Also, ducks are alive, and billions of living things have come into being through asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction. In fact, billions and billions of ducks have been born. That is how the ducks I feed at the local pond got here.

Greg Peterson · 23 June 2005

...in fact, let me go one step further. Not only has no necessary link been demonstrated between complexity and design, but ID argues against such a link by claiming that the Designer, surely the most complex entity of all by any meaningful standard, was precisely NOT designed.

Sort of makes nonsense of the whole argument, I think.

Evil Monkey · 23 June 2005

Based on observation of fountains and ducks (or was that Pandas and People . . . oh, well), anyway, based on those observations alone I predict that if you put the duck in the fountain, it will float. The duck, that is, not the fountain.
— bill

Mmmkay, no ID there....

In fact, further observation will prove that the duck was designed to float in the fountain. It's not a coincidence

I think perhaps it was a coincidence, as we can't distinguish whether the duck was designed to float in the fountain or the fountain was designed to float ducks. Given that ducks preceded fountains and ducks float in non-designed lakes, the latter conclusion is more likely. Of course, inferring the purpose of the design without knowledge of either the designer(s) or intentions is about as intelligent as playing Russian Roulette with an automatic.

Longhorn · 23 June 2005

I posted:

[Darwin] thought that when organisms sexually reproduced, the matter they contributed blended like two cans of paint in trough.

That is too strong a claim. Darwin was puzzled by sexual reproduction. But I'm pretty sure he never explicitly used the analogy of paint in a trough. He wondered if a "blending process" could produce such significant differences among organisms. He seemed to wonder how a blending process could have produced such significant differences among dogs. Well, sexual reproduction is not a blending process. It is, for lack of a better expression, a recombining or reconstructing process.

bill · 23 June 2005

Evil Monkey,

In fact, further observation will prove that the duck was designed to float in the fountain. It's not a coincidence.

Evil Monkey · 23 June 2005

Repeat ad nauseum.

steve · 23 June 2005

Here's my contribution to Irrigating Ducks Theory (or "ID"):

The universe is approximately 30 billion light years wide.
Ducks can walk at a rate of 1 mph.
In a random universe, the odds of a randomly-positioned duck making it to a randomly-positioned fountain are beyond the Universal Probability Bound
The duck must have been near the fountain by Design.

Looking over that, I believe I have just become the William Dembski of Irrigating Ducks Theory

Kay · 23 June 2005

In conclusion, I vote we burn Steve Steve as a witch and declare Dembski to be banana-shaped.

Next: Do the flight-model differences between european and african swallows constitute an instance of macroevolution?

Kay · 23 June 2005

In conclusion, I vote we burn Steve Steve as a witch and declare Dembski to be banana-shaped.

Next: Do the flight-model differences between european and african swallows constitute an instance of macroevolution?

Raven · 23 June 2005

I haven't seen such compelling logic since the last time I saw another argument involving ducks: the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

I don't know--this is some pretty fine thinking here, and it's even got a legal citation to back it up, so it must be true:

'Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up to the next evolutionary stage? Of course not. It drowns.'" Id. at 342 n. 51.

(I've been laughing at "get this--lungfish" so hard ever since Timothy wrote it that I'm in danger of giving myself an aneurysm :)

Shirley Knott · 23 June 2005

tytlal asked "s Dembski contributing ANYTHING useful to society? "
to which I can only respond
well, he gives off carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees...

cheers,
Shirley
PS. This actually appeared on an employee evaluation at a place I once worked, in the peer review section labeled "say something nice about "

Steve · 23 June 2005

Why exactly is this a 'darwinists' worst nightmare? Its an ID blog. There are loads of ID blogs. It has nothing do do with UCI or their biology department in any kind of official capacity (apart from their vice pres apparently being a student in biology). The cynic in me suggests that it is going to be 'darwinists' worst nightmare because the ID crew are going to spin this as some sort of ID in major universities line. After all the title of the blog does kind of imply that.

No, you simply haven't been reading Dembski long enough. Everytime there is a new development it is always the "last nail in the coffin", "the begining of the end", "Darwinists worst nightmare", or "the death knell of evolutionists". Dembski has some sort of psychological compulsion to caste everything that is ID in the best possible light to such a degree that it becomes a self-parody.

cleek · 23 June 2005

not surprisingly, when i posted asking: "did the same architects who designed the fountain also design the ducks? or did they hire a contractor?" my comment was deleted within minutes.

ID: teach the controversy, but don't tolerate one.

GCT · 23 June 2005

cleek, did you mean on Dembski's site or the new blog site? If the latter, it is still there.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 23 June 2005

From the iDesign @ UCI blog

MISSION STATEMENT: iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.

There you go; if they are going to critically analyse theories of Intelligent Design Creationism, they must have some theories to analyse. The long wait is over! Now if we could just get them to tell us what these theories of Intelligent Design Creationism are.

Stuart Weinstein · 23 June 2005

1. Nothing is better than God.

2. Something is better than nothing.

3. Therefore something is better than God.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 June 2005

This comments in this thread remind me of a question that I've wanted to pose to creationists: If Evolution is atheistic, is it the only branch of science that is atheistic? If so, why? If not, what are the other branches that are atheistic, and why?

Or, to ask the same thing in another way: What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible. I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" ---- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)? I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes --- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" --- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)? How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs? Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation? Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" . . . . . ?

Jim Ryan · 23 June 2005

Dembski has some sort of psychological compulsion to caste everything that is ID in the best possible light to such a degree that it becomes a self-parody.

What else you gonna' do after you've whizzed away every molecule of scientific credibility you ever had with your peers and gone over to the dumb side?

AEL · 23 June 2005

I only found this blog because some bozo - Dwight Yokum (sp?) - on the Daily Show said that science had just proven that dogs were closer in evolution to us than chimps. I could only find a Science publication from 2002 about dog evolution/ co-evolution related to domestication.

Apparently chimps do poorly on certain tests of communication with man, and dogs do better. I'm hardly shocked, we've been selectively breeding dogs since before God.

I have un-Tivoed it, so can't check what exactly it was that Mr. Yokum stated, but he was saying on a "genetic level" dogs are more similar to us than are apes, at a "genetic level".

Better high schools. Pllleeeeeeeuuz, some time before I die, I pray to thee, it would really fulfill my life to see science taught in science class and Christianity taught in church.

I've been listening to the waning "anti-Darwinist" crap for over 20 years, way back to when I went to college, and they taught us there would never be a mammalian clone and Taq & PCR were beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Yeah, that would be before microfuge tubes, too.

AEL

steve · 23 June 2005

I was watching when he said that. Yeah, it was kind of dim, but I was impressed that a country music star so casually said something which was premised on evolution.

Don S · 23 June 2005

No, you simply haven't been reading Dembski long enough. Everytime there is a new development it is always the "last nail in the coffin", "the begining of the end", "Darwinists worst nightmare", or "the death knell of evolutionists".

And let's not forget the impending "Waterloo".

Paul · 23 June 2005

Other Monty Python parallels of Intelligent Design

The Knights who say Ni's demand for shrubberies and the ever changing definition of IC

The witch-duck scene to the "explanatory filter"

The black knight to the decade old arguments. "Tis but a scratch" "It's only a flesh wound"

and lastly, compare the horses to the science of ID.

Albion · 23 June 2005

And let's not forget the impending "Waterloo".

Well, Waterloo was a smashing victory for one of the participants.

Mike Walker · 24 June 2005

With all this talk about Monty Python, I just had a thought. Wouldn't it be great if Eric Idle could write an "Evolution Song" in a similar vein to his wonderful "Universe Song".

Anyone here happen to know Mr. Idle personally?

Arne Langsetmo · 24 June 2005

Wiley weighs in on ID:

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/nq/2005/06/23/index.html

Cheers,

Where do ducks flatulate? · 24 June 2005

Who let those ducks in the bloody fountain! Somebody get them out of there before they make a bigger mess!

David Sklar · 24 June 2005

If Evolution is atheistic, is it the only branch of science that is atheistic? If so, why? If not, what are the other branches that are atheistic, and why?

Well obviously that would be astronomy, and those wicked Copernicans (Galileists?) who tell us the Earth revolves around the Sun. Which is really a _lot_ harder than evolution to reconcile with the creation story in Genesis--which tells us that God first created light, then He divided night and day, then He called for the Earth to create the plants (yes, that's right, the Bible says that God let the earth do the dirty work itself), and _then_ He created the sun and the moon (before calling upon the seas to create fish and birds, and the earth to produce the other animals). That's the thing I'm surprised not to hear more about in these discussions--that evolution is not only consistent with the Biblical story, but it can arguably be described as "hinted at" in the Bible, whereas the movement of the planets, which even the Creationists accept, is not. Sorry for bringing theology into what is supposed to be a scientific discussion; of course it's a discussion that wouldn't even be necessary if it weren't for other people bringing theology into it, so I figure we might as well avail ourselves of the same tools.

cleek · 24 June 2005

cleek, did you mean on Dembski's site or the new blog site? If the latter, it is still there.

the latter. when i hit the site, it says "0 Comments".

possibly a caching issue on my end.

oh well.

AEL · 24 June 2005

I believe they call it Darwinism, because their arguments are almost as ancient as the Bible, and if they actually dealt with "today's" science, it would be a huge Tsunami of evidence crushing their "theories".

However, if you call it the "Theory of Evolution" or even better - Carl Segans "Fact of Evolution", they then actually have to understand what is going on today:

1. mitochondrial DNA analysis
2. the fact the most biology is now done with automated sequencing, which rapidly feeds into TIGR, NIH and other databases where they are gobbled up by eager researchers. Almost all molecular biology is off the bench now and in huge databases.
3. ooooh, and man can be cloned just like a rat or a cat. The South Koreans even cloned a human inside of a rabbit egg because of a shortage of human eggs, and it worked. Of course, it was terminated . . . but sooner or later . . . childless couples want to clone one or the other, rather than adopt. You can illegalize it in the US, but that's not going to stop them in China and Korea. There will be human clones. People in the US are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for infertility. There's already a huge financial incentive for poorer nations to clone humans, reproductively and not merely to start stem cell lines.
4. what on God's earth do they think all humanoid fossils come from? Satan? These are also more or less recent, relative to their arguments.
5. microarray technology

Molecular biology is turning into what seems to look more like mathematics or statistics.

IMHO, they do not understand molecular biology to any extend whatsoever, and therefore continue to direct their arguments against "Darwin's theories" which are over a century old. What a huge challenge! I mean, guys, if they're still calling it "Darwinism" doesn't that say something right there?

So, well, the new web site is "Darwinism's" worst nightmare, but since I don't know of any field of science called "Darwinism", why should we even care? I just say "what's Darwinism?" or I'll ask "why did God make an appendix"? or I might ask "If God doesn't breed, and Jesus didn't mate, either, why does He have genitals?"

Hey, maybe you guys are young, and can keep talking into the ears of the deaf and blind, but I follow Monty Python, too:

I "run away, run away!".

Good luck!!

Best,
Ari

AEL · 24 June 2005

Here's something I found on the internet. Oh, you guys, I had no idea it was this bad!! I have never seen anything so stupid in my life:
----------------------------------------
What about the eye? Evolutionists cannot figure out hour eyes evolved, or how creatures with one kind of eye could possibly have descended from creatures with another kind of eye. So to solve the problem, they just came up with a new name. They called it "convergent evolution," as though that would solve the problem of how it could possibly happen! But calling an impossibility "evolution," does not change it into a possibility. Similarities in such different creatures, that could not have descended from one another, continue to be a nagging puzzle to the evolutionists.
----------------------------------------

Wow. This is so amazingly stupid and incorrect, I can't believe it.

Let's see:
1. "evolutionists" or "darwinists" believe that an octupus "invented it's own eye." Of course, that's rediculous, so God must have designed it!
2. "evolutionists" had to invent a whole new "invention" called "convergent evolution" to explain the impossibility of a octupus inventing it's own eye.
3. this is a "nagging puzzle".

Wow, I had no idea it was this horrific! There is no scientific theory that an "octupus invented it's own eye".

The "invention" of the concept of "convergent" evolution is called . . a hypothesis. And it's a very good one with a great deal of quality evidence to support it.

I don't need to tell you guys, but, Science is a philosophy in which new observations are made, new hypothesis are formulated and tested all the time. It's called the "scientific method" not some "new invention to explain an impossibility" so, when they teach "science" in High School, only the "scientific method" should be taught.

Just leave it as: "science is a philosophy, therefore we will teach science here". Creationism is another "philosophy", let's teach it in a different place, like maybe a comparitive philosopy class, or, hey, what about church.

The creationist web site was not a blog so:
There's light on our planet. Various organisms evolved different types of eyes, because there's an evolutionary advantage to be able to use the visible light (and other forms of light on Earth), and therefore, with this environmental pressure favoring the creation of an "eye" or "light detector" it's hardly a surprise that there are a variety of "eyes" amongth the life forms on earth. They didn't "make their own eyes".

Jesus.

Well, guys, I applaud you again, because these people are not just lacking in current knowledge, they don't understand the "scientific method" itself.

I don't think I'll make any more posts, other than to wish you guys well against this onslaught of ignorance. Get me a barf bag, it's more than I can take . . .

Ari

Arden Chatfield · 24 June 2005

what on God's earth do they think all humanoid fossils come from? Satan?

Yes. Some people do think that. I actually remember hearing the 'Satan made dinosaur fossils to trick people into hell' argument back around 1970 or so. I was just a kid and actually pretty well educated about evolution and the age of the earth and such (for an 8 year old, at least) and even then I was dumbfounded at how retarded this idea was. So that particular idea goes back at least that far...

386sx · 24 June 2005

I wonder what hand waving intuitive arguments about X and Y Mr. Asuncio would derive from the observation that the more that people learn about the natural cuases for natural phenomena, the less they atrribute natural phenomena to magic spooky spirit things. Something tells me he might give that intuitive X and Y argument a little more contemplation than some of the other ducky ones.

Henry J · 24 June 2005

Re ""evolutionists" or "darwinists" believe that an octupus "invented it's own eye.""

Not the octopus itself, the gene pools of its ancestors are what did the "inventing". ;)

Henry

Rich · 26 June 2005

Fools! The duck thing is a slam duck, er dunk. I'm switching teams because he's made fools out of you all.

Inspired, I have my *own* logical proof of God.

A Horse has 2 back legs
It also has forelegs.
that's SIX legs.
Six is an even number, but odd for a mammal.
The only number that is odd and even is infinity.
God is infinate, as are horses' legs.
Horses are real - so God must be too.

I'll be in the back waiting for my noble prize.

Bing · 26 June 2005

And let's not forget the impending "Waterloo".
— Don S

Waterloo is best around Canadian thanksgiving. Oktoberfest! That's worth waiting for.

Stuart Weinstein · 26 June 2005

Arden writes "Yes. Some people do think that.

I actually remember hearing the 'Satan made dinosaur fossils to trick people into hell' argument back around 1970 or so. I was just a kid and actually pretty well educated about evolution and the age of the earth and such (for an 8 year old, at least) and even then I was dumbfounded at how retarded this idea was.

So that particular idea goes back at least that far . . .

Heck, not just fossils, but craters too!

After I did a radio show, I got some "fan" mail pointing out that the cratering of the moon occurred when God and Satan were throwing hissy fits.

steve · 26 June 2005

Rich, that's superb. You are the William Dembski of Veterenary Thoery.

Henry J · 26 June 2005

Re "I got some "fan" mail pointing out that the cratering of the moon occurred when God and Satan were throwing hissy fits."

Oh, there's a person on a BB that I frequent that has said she believes that. [rolls eyes]

Henry

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 June 2005

Re "I got some "fan" mail pointing out that the cratering of the moon occurred when God and Satan were throwing hissy fits." Oh, there's a person on a BB that I frequent that has said she believes that. [rolls eyes]

It's from one of Morris's books.

Genie · 29 June 2005

With all this talk about Monty Python, I just had a thought. Wouldn't it be great if Eric Idle could write an "Evolution Song" in a similar vein to his wonderful "Universe Song".

Well, next best thing: http://ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 The Steve Song, by Geoff Sirmai and David Fisher, a couple of Aussies who are Pythonites once removed, I guess.