Irony Design in Utah

It should be remembered that evolution is a scientific "theory" - meaning it is the best hypothesis scientists have to explain their observations in the natural world. Theory is a long way from scientific "fact."

Is the Spectrum a parody site or is the unnamed author of that piece (and any editor overseeing it) an idiot?

Divine design is an even more stupidly transparent name than intelligent design. In the first dictionary I pulled off the shelf, definitions 1 and 2 for divine are god and god-like. The 3rd is an informal usage meaning splendid (ie should be grand design). The 4th is religious again but this time a human priest theologian - which is ironically appropriate given that the idea of ID/DD was made up by religious extremists. The 5th definition is even funnier - being about discovering via intuition, guessing or waving around of rods.

Do explain for us again, Sen. Chris Buttars, just how this god-based guessing is not religion but science. :-D

Up until now, evolution has had no competition in the classroom. Now it's time for the theory to enter into a contest of survival of the fittest - theory that is.

That competition isn't supposed to take place in the classroom in order to confuse non-experts who aren't even trusted to have an opinion on a political vote, drinking or driving though. It's supposed to take place among informed scientists in peer review. IDists just aren't in the same league as real scientists and have no credibility (among informed people) as their peers. So instead they try to appeal to the lowest common denominator (the least scientific people they can find) - politicians, lawyers and school-children. It's dishonest and despicable.

It's like an incompetent sportsman turning down professional matches to go and beat up a pre-schooler because (s)he's an easier target. Once they've impressed the school kids this way, they hope the intellectual elite will applaud them for their display of prowess rather than condemn them for their cowardice.

Just another bunch of riders on the
Sitchin and Von Daniken Railroad.

They're honestly saying that "divine design" could have been done by ET and still be divine?

They're as confused about what "divine" means as they are about what "theory" means.

Does he not realise that this is how science works? A theory becomes established because it is better and has outcompeted the other ideas.

Some will argue that this is an inappropriate mixture of science and religion, but again, divine design does not purport to say who or what the designer was.

di·vine ( P ) adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est

Having the nature of or being a deity.
Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
Superhuman; godlike.

Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
Heavenly; perfect.

n.
A cleric.
A theologian.

most people understand divine as "from god", but we're not saying who the creator was!

Simpletons.

In order for designed to be a useful descriptor, we would also need some examples of items that are not designed. Do the IDers point to any? (I haven't been following this as closely as some of you so I apologize in advance if the answer to my question is well known.)

I would love to be there when the DI receives that phone call:

Buttars: "Hey, you are the design theorists, how bout you come to Utah. We're trying to get your design theory inna tha curriculums."
DI: "Good, good, glad you called us early. The most important thing to do is to make sure you avoid any and all references to jesus, god, the designer, our lord, etc. We have to pretend there's nothing about any divine being in this. That's what we've spent millions of dollars here at the DI doing--creating a creationism without the bible. After we get this generic creationism in, then we can move on to " Cultural Confrontation & Renewal" like it says in the Wedge Document.
Buttars: "Oh yeah, good, yeah, we haven't said anything about jesus at all, in our legislation for Divine Designer Theory."
DI: "The-...uh...the what theory?"
Buttars: "Divine Designer Theory."
DI: "Is that what you're calling it?"
Buttars: "Yep. That's what's on the bill. Divine Designer Theory."
DI: "And...uh...and this is already public?"
Buttars: "You bet."
DI: "Um...uh...wrong number. No speeka the english." click!
Buttars: "Hello? Hel-lo-o?" (taps that plastic thingy in the phone cradle)

We may ridicule Intelligent Design (ID) and its proponents, but the ridicule fails to address the ID argument. Publicly, many people may remain silent amid our insults, but privately, since evolutionists tend to leave the ID argument almost completely untouched, more people than we think perhaps believe the ID position is not as "stupid" as we claim.

Apparently significant majorities in America subscribe to some form of Intelligent Design, with surprisingly large numbers of Americans thinking life began pretty much as Genesis describes.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000728154

What is striking about this is that Americans believe as they do despite nearly a century of being taught the "empirical facts" of evolution from the time they are small children in schools, well into college adulthood. After nearly a century of ridicule, much of it unfair, dishonest, propagandistic and quite vicious (SEE http://www.gennet.org/facts/scopes.html and http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/inherit/dif.html ), Americans still largely reject evolution and accept creationism.

Clearly then, while Darwinians have almost completely commandeered the minds of academia, they have failed to win the minds of the public. Though they frequently insult and caricaturize creationists and ID proponents as ignorant, theistic goofs, the majority of Americans still sense the creationists are correct.

What the ID'ers are about to offer America is an intellectual justification for what most Americans by faith now think is true. Americans think as they do mostly because they just cannot fathom that 'all of this happened by chance!' Intuitively they sense the existence of an Intelligent Creator within the things they see around them. Darwinists have not been able to shake this faith.

But what ID'ers seem near to accomplishing is an intellectual framework wherein the average American can entertain, seriously ponder, and even defend creationism at least to himself. If after the study of ID Americans cannot defend creationism, they perhaps will at a minimum be able to confidently reject Darwinism.

I think Darwinists kid themselves and do their own positions a grave disservice by using essentially mere bluster and haughtiness to attempt rejecting the power of the ID position. Up to now Darwinists have merely used the courts, ridicule, academic exclusion, the press, flawed movies, plays and other propaganda against ID, and none of it has worked. Some scientists are trying to fight back, but ID seems as mighty a threat as always.

I have read a fair amount of this debate and I am impressed that despite Darwinian haughtiness, ID'ers continue building their edifice while systematically destroying the foundation of the Darwinian paradigm.

For example, here is a stunning exchange between Kenneth Miller and Bill Dembski. Read the two papers very closely. Read them honestly---without attempting to hold onto your pet theory. Then try to honestly tell yourself the ID'ers are really and truly the kooks darwinists typically claim them to be.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

We see Miller fails to assault the argument before him. Indeed, it almost appears he is on the run, grasping for something, anything, to use as a weapon against his opponents. He assumes, for example, that a sub-structure removed from a super structure, which sub-structure has little or nothing to do with the Irreducibly Complex (IC) portions of the super-structure, and that therefore leaves the super-structure functioning as always, proves that the super-structure has no IC portions. Miller is quite obviously wrong here, as Dembski incisively points out. If the IC structure falls after having >>ITS>IT

(continued from above...)

Miller is quite obviously wrong here, as Dembski incisively points out. If the IC structure falls after having ITS parts removed, and no explanatory mechanism exists in all the scientific literature showing how IT, not an infinitesimal fairly unrelated piece of it, could have developed in the first place, then the Darwinian model for this structure obviously does not work to explain it. And if macro forms depend upon micro IC structures, the Darwinian model is left powerless. Darwinism must first explain what has not yet been explained (and apparently cannot ever be explained, according the the ID'ers).

It is a fascinating debate and the ID part in it has teeth, perhaps big sharp teeth. I think we can only bluster our way out of this for so long. Eventually, normal Americans are going to understand the issues here and their children are going to begin defying our attempts to prop Darwinism up by running and lying and petty ridicule.

Apparently, Buttars thinks it's perfectly OK to teach that "a god" might have been involved, as long as you don't specify which god.

As an aside, what if you believe a god exists, but you don't believe He/She/It should be worshipped? Is that a religion?

(No, that's not my personal belief. Just idle curiosity....)

susan makes a good point (and one that a few people here have mentioned before). Are the IDers saying that rocks and oceans and the planet weren't designed? If a clump of rocks is designed, where's the CSI in that? Where's the IC? If a clump of rocks is designed, what won't your detector beep at? Alternately, if a clump of rocks, the oceans, whatever, wasn't designed, why are they here? How can you say that god created it, but didn't design it?

IDers can't win for losing.

As an aside, what if you believe a god exists, but you don't believe He/She/It should be worshipped? Is that a religion?

The TTSS contains ten or so proteins that are homologous to proteins in the flagellum. The flagellum requires an additional thirty or forty proteins, which are unique.

Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so that's the level of explanation that is needed. What part of "numerous, successive, slight" is so hard to understand? And not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.

It should be remembered that evolution is a scientific "theory" - meaning it is the best hypothesis scientists have to explain their observations in the natural world. Theory is a long way from scientific "fact."

Surely, people like Sen. Buttarse do things like this on purpose, just so we can attain a new peak of witticism. Or perhaps he had in mind a specific Intelligent Designer, the late Divine, star of "Pink Flamingos?"

I predict that ID will eventually flop among the Mormans. It just isn't nutty enough for their taste. Indeed, compared to the fraud, symptomology, and science fiction that comprises the LDS faith, ID is as sensible as a dictionary.

Well, I have read most of these posts and I think my point still stands, namely, that the essential ID argument is not adequately being addressed. Surely, for scientists convinced in the truthfulness of Darwinism, the explanations here would undoubtedly be sufficient to confirm their paradigm. But for those of us not hindered by Darwinism or its opponents, far more evidence is required. This is to say nothing of those of us who are trapped in the creationist paradigm. Some scientists are trying to respond appropriately and I for one certainly appreciate it; but the lion's share of the responses are so filled with bluster and other fallacies, those of us who are trying to treat the matter fairly, are being put off.

Now, contrary to your claims, Behe is not moving the goalposts, and I think it is unfortunate that we must attack his view by such dishonorable means. I myself read the demands to which you are referring by implication ages ago, when Behe first released his book. They made sense to me then and they still do. Indeed, the demand is not new, at least not with me because I intuitively have long sensed that if one wishes I should believe certain remarkable structures of amino acids developed step-by-step without any guided assistance, then it is not too much for me to ask one to provide evidence for the gradual development, at least at the critical steps, explaining the pressures that gave rise to them. I don't demand it because I wish to set impossible goals for Dawrinists. I demand it because, my goodness, without it, my believing your view sincerely becomes as much a matter of faith as belief in ID.

The point of my post is to say that ID'ers are about to give an intellectual framework to people, much like me, who either already believe by some means in ID or who are at least prone to believe it were their doubts not so severe. And all the lies, bluster, running and insults from the scientific community and its supporters will simply not help them see how ID fails. I think ID is doing quite a lot better on the popular front than its opponent and that it will continue to excel unless it is confronted honestly, calmly and deliberately, using no fallacious devices at all. ID is rapidly acquiring (and has perhaps already done so) enough credibility that it now deserves to be heard without the traditional and unfair hindrances scientists have placed upon it. I think when scientists belittle its proponents or use all manner of tricks to stomp upon it, other than dispatching it openly and fairly, they imply weakness in their own views - not in those of the ID'ers.

Simon, you state that biologists have failed to win the mind of the public, as if that means there isn't enough evidence out there for the descriminating layman to accept evolution. The public does not accept scientific theories on the evidence, they basically decide which authorities to believe. Do you honestly think that if the majority of Americans found quantum mechanics religiously distasteful, they wouldn't reject it just as quickly as evolution? The reason there is no public controversy over quantum mechanics is NOT because most people find the evidence convincing - they have no clue, but they haven't been given religious reasons to doubt.

The situation in Utah could explode with a strong statement by a member of the LDS church hirearchy in support of ID - millions of Mormons would push for its inclusion in school after that. The BYU biology department uncompromisingly teaches evolution, but many other faculty on campus are strongly creationist, and if you bring up evolution in a positive context in a Sunday meeting (as I did before becoming an ex-Mormon), you're quickly silenced. Most Mormons I know do not accept evolution (and I know a lot of Mormons).

Many Mormons are already primed to listen to the pseudoscientific garbage that ID peddles - Mormon apologists with PhD's sound a lot like ID'ers when they attack mainstream archaeologists in order to defend the claim that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American Israelites.

Simon,

I don't understand why you and Behe think that in order to explain something by evolution one has to describe every mutation that took place, every selective pressure, etc. - as someone else mentioned before, that's like asking for a year-by-year account of how the Grand Canyon was formed before accepting that it formed the way geologists say it was formed.

Furthermore, it's more than a little ironic that Behe demands this level of detail, yet refuses to go into detail about the designer he postulates? Behe states that he doesn't reject all of evolution, but neither Behe nor any other ID advocate will explicitly state just exactly when the bacterial flagellum was put into bacteria, what were the precursors, how the designer did it, which parts were there before, why the designer made different flagella for different bacteria for no apparent functional reason, etc., etc.

While we may not be able to reconstruct, mutation by mutation, how the flagellum evolved, there are many studies that look at fitness effects of single amino acid mutations and we do observe how evolution occurs at this level of detail in current scientific research. To go back to the Grand Canyon analogy, we may not be able to give a year by year account of how the thing was formed, we can study the effects of erosion over the course of a year and gain a good understanding of what happens over the short term. ID advocates seem to want it both ways - when scientists study short-term evolutionary change at the level of single mutations, IDers dismiss it as "microevolution" and insignificant, but when scientists talk about long-term evolutionary change, IDers criticize them for not explaining things at the single mutation level.

As in a fairly recent thread, I must correct the widespread misconception that Behe hasn't provided a mechanism used by his intelligent designer.

Be careful, reading the following may shock you out of your narrow minded worldview and shake the foundations of your Darwinian religion.

revolutionary science

Well, I have read most of these posts and I think my point still stands, namely, that the essential ID argument is not adequately being addressed.

We may ridicule Intelligent Design (ID) and its proponents, but the ridicule fails to address the ID argument.

Apparently significant majorities in America subscribe to some form of Intelligent Design

Well, I have read most of these posts and I think my point still stands, namely, that the essential ID argument is not adequately being addressed.

It is a fair point that Darwinism meets public resistance largely because it poses a threat to many established religious ideas. And I think you are correct that the public is not generally so philosophical that it will seek evidence, ponder it and then make decisions based upon what it sees. Nevertheless I don't think people are anti-philosophical. In other words, they do not choose their authorities randomly. They do so for a variety of reasons. And few of these reasons appear in Darwinist circles.

Even if evidence for Darwinism is as powerful as you appear to think, when we employ exclusion, ridicule, and a host of other fallacious treatments of Darwinism's opponents, we do not present the evidence for Darwinism. We actually appear as if we have something to fear from the competition. Meanwhile, ID marches onward, building its edifice on a now impressive foundation, presenting its irreducibly complex objects to average people who marvel over them and whose children will be the professionals of tomorrow. These people already tend to believe in ID even without the intellectual support. I suspect should ID'ers succeed in getting their views a wide hearing, the public effect will be stunning even to them. It will be stunning because Darwinists claimed to have evidence for their views, but never effectively presented it.

Having once lived in Salt Lake, I, Like you, happen to know quite a lot of Mormons and not a little about the LDS religion. Though I summarily reject Mormon claims, I would not begin to confront those claims by telling Mormons they are a bunch of idiots. Were I to do this, the folks at FARMS would do to me what the ID'ers now do to you (ha ha).

Which brings me again to the point. In essence you (not you particularly) are equating the ID'ers to people at FARMS. You are claiming the ID'ers are so kooky, so ridiculous and weird, that they do not deserve open and respectful engagement. That is just not true and anyone who reads the literature can see this. Moreover, you are in effect claiming that I am an idiot merely because, after reading as much of the literature as honestly as I can, I think ID has a strong position. You write books that dismiss my beliefs and then pass laws forcing my children to study your books. No one likes to be insulted, even if indirectly, and no one likes to be forced to do anything. The minute you call me an idiot, a fundie, a kook, or any of a monstrous number of pejorative terms Darwinists typically heap upon their opponents, I will tend to get hung up on the insult, losing the thrust of your argument. Ken Miller does this frequently, albeit a lot more artfully than I have presented here.

The solution is to calmly meet ID point-for-point (making sure to stay on each point), even inviting it into discussion. It is going to be heard whatever you do, so you may as well bring it on anyway. It has now acquired a position such that it now deserves a lot more respect than Darwinists are giving it. If Darwinists insist on an over reliance on fallacy, they will eventually shoot themselves in the foot.

...must run

Even if evidence for Darwinism is as powerful as you appear to think, when we employ exclusion, ridicule, and a host of other fallacious treatments of Darwinism's opponents, we do not present the evidence for Darwinism. We actually appear as if we have something to fear from the competition. Meanwhile, ID marches onward, building its edifice on a now impressive foundation...

Simon: I take it you've never read Talkorigins.org. That's fine. But pop over and read their in depth, precice and well-reasoned arguments that completely debunk every falicy ever created by the ID crowd.

That's not to mention some of the truly excellent posts here that expertly refute the claims of the ID creationists. Of course, most of the posts here are not that detailed and are frequently mocking. But there are some real gems to be found here.

If you really think that spelling out the science any better will help, you're kidding yourself. The supporters of ID couldn't care less about scientific truth, they just want a nice theory that fits with their their religious beliefs. That Kathy Martin woman in Kansas is a prime example - utterly, wilfully clueless.

The problem is that for most people, their religious faith is vastly more important than scientific theories. People will happily use computers and take antibiotics and so on while simultaneously claiming that science can't answer any important questions and changes so often that it can't be trusted. On the other hand, many people have enough respect for science that the perception of ID as a science that can prove the existence of an intelligent designer means that their religion is given greater legitimacy.

Even though the public face of the ID movement is just a plea for fairness in science, just about everybody knows what it's really about - as you say, and to paraphrase Professor Dawkins, ID makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian. That is so much more important to people in this country than whether ID is actually science. Especially when it can then be used to help remake laws and culture along evangelical Christian lines because it's proved that the Christian god exists and that humans were created by God for a purpose as stated in the Bible.

There's no way the IDists are going to lose this battle in the short term; they've got too much money (from their evangelical donors), they're politically too well connected (and most politicians also consider religion and "values" to be far more important than those nasty elitist intellectual scientists out there on the left-wing fringes), and simply by being noticed and diffusing their stuff into the public consciousness, they've gone a long way to gettng what they want. In the process they're reinforcing public opinion that scientists are a bunch of out-of-touch atheists who aren't to be trusted with real-world issues. The loss in the longer term is going to happen when we realise that East Asia has become the scientific and technological world leader, just like it happened with Sputnik last time. Whether the USA will be able to regain the scientific and technological edge after having so willingly given it away remains to be seen.

I think the best we can hope for is to publicise the real aims behind the ID movement, because there are still some people out there who don't know a lot about the issue and who are given quite a reality check by reading the Wedge Document or being pointed toward the list of (almost exclusively Christian) organisations who fund the DVDs and publish the books generated by the ID movement. I don't think we're going to change most people's minds - half the country are still young Earthers, for goodness sake, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary - but changing a few people's minds is better than nothing.

Simon,

You talk about the insulting or haughty attidtudes of "Darwinists", but it sounds like you're reading mostly internet boards! Of course you find people venting their feelings this way on the internet, and I don't think evolutionists are any worse than ID advocates (and in fact, I personally think they're better because evolutionists have more serious argumets in addition to the polemics.)

But, as several on this thread have already suggested, have you read the articles at TalkOrigins? Or Ken Miller'e book, or Young and Edis' "Why Intelligent Design Fails?" How about H. Allen Orr's recent article in the New Yorker? Or Genie Scott's textbook "Evolution vs. Creationism"?

In all of these pieces, bluster, pejorative attacks, whatever want to call it, play a minor role, if they are even present at all. The point is that there are many, many works out there that calmy and even politely consider what ID advocates have written, and attack the arguments, not the people. If you're just reading internet forums or live debates, where sound bites are key, then you're reading the wrong stuff. People have respectfully engaged ID arguments (just like there are people, including myself, who have respectfully engaged the Mormon FARMS arguments in writing) - the kind of thing you describe in your post is already out there.

Simon, to be honest, sounds like one of those "open-minded" people who wants one side of the debate to produce infinite evidence while giving the other a pass on evidence, demands that one side field a theory explain everything perfectly while giving the other a pass on having any theory at all, demands that one side be polite and respectful while giving the other a pass on basic integrity, demanding that one side be consistent while not noticing that the other is necessarily the opposite, and in general makes nearly-reasonable requests of science while making no requests (and finding nothing to criticize, EVER) about ID. And in defense, this sort of "open-minded" person continually asks why their demands of science are not reasonable, and simply ignores the observation that no trace of such demands, even a tiny tiny tiny bit, are ever made of ID.

To me, this sort of double standard is itself a dead giveaway. I doubt anyone wonders why Creationists refuse to debate on a level field, according to the rules science must play by.

It is a fair point that Darwinism meets public resistance largely because it poses a threat to many established religious ideas.

I think ID has a strong position.

It is a fair point that Darwinism meets public resistance largely because it poses a threat to many established religious ideas.

— Simon

The solution is to calmly meet ID point-for-point (making sure to stay on each point), even inviting it into discussion.

— Simon

A small excerpt from the Salt Lake Tribune article:

"We get different types of dogs and different types of cats, but you have never seen a 'dat,' " he [Buttars] said.

You know, just when you think that you have lost all respect for propenents of ID, someone says something this inane and you realize it's even worse than you thought.

You've gotta love Buttars. There's nothing like being endorsed by an verbose dullard to raise your profile. Next up "devine design, but its not buddha or Allah, okay?"...

You are claiming the ID'ers are so kooky, so ridiculous and weird, that they do not deserve open and respectful engagement. That is just not true ...

— Simon

Michael:

I think the Grand Canyon analogy does not work here because, though the creation of Grand Canyon cannot be fully demonstrated, the alleged method by which the canyon came to be can be quite sufficiently detailed, at least at the critical steps. Though the details can be many, they do not seem terribly complex. It is not so much to expect a layperson to believe that water can erode soil and stone to form an ever widening area, particularly when erosion can be directly witnessed doing precisely this, and in a variety of regions, year after year after year, compounding to such a degree that entire neighborhoods are eventually destroyed by it.

On the other hand, the step-by-step ever compounding method Darwinists* claim are solely responsible for producing complex mini structures (and ever complex forms that depend upon them), is simply not that apparent, at least I don't think so. (*I sincerely do not know what to call the opponents of ID. I thought the term "Darwinists" was the appropriate term. If there is a better term, let me know of it).

The question I am quite sure many millions of individuals have privately asked themselves is "What sort of evidence do I require to be convinced in my own mind that Darwinian gradualism actually accounts for the wide variety of forms I see in nature?" Bluster, even if it is impregnated with alleged evidence, is just not appropriate here, though it may cause many of us to be silent as we go on believing what we wish. To be convinced, I need to see evidence that corresponds, at least significantly, to the magnitude of complexity in those forms-- and where step-by-step unguided evolution of complex structures built of amino acids is concerned, that means a lot of evidence. I need to see a significant degree of these steps and a plausible explanation of the pressures that allegedly caused them. This is entirely reasonable. Again, we are talking step-by-step mutations in highly complex miniscule forms that ultimately support step-by-step evolution of larger, highly complex dependent forms. If a solid Darwinian model does not exist to support the miniscule forms on which everything else depends, well, I just can't see a fit basis for belief in the Darwinian model.

One thing that has long concerned me in these sorts of discussions is how when one rejects Darwinism or even expresses severe doubt in the theory, Darwinists often demand the challenger produce an alternative theory. It is as if a friend is telling me that a taxi will come to pick me up at 5:30pm for a meeting I must attend. I suspect taxis won't travel to my area after 5pm, so I tell my friend of my concern. It would seem enough merely that I doubt my friend's instructions. But instead of giving me evidence that I am wrong about the taxi, he instead demands I prove when the taxi will arrive. I may not know this, but only that it likely will not arrive at 5:30pm.

Behe does not need to describe the designer. The designer's identity is entirely irrelevant here. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, I don't care about w(W?)ho or what the designer is at this point. Behe instead merely needs show that the currently promoted model for nature's development is deeply flawed. In other words, he merely needs to show that the taxi will not come at 5:30pm, just as I have expected. Once I am convinced of that, I will work to nail down how I am going to get to the meeting. I may query him at that time concerning when he thinks the car will come. He may or may not know when, and reason does not demand he have this information before I consider his evidence that the taxi will not come.

Michael:

It is true I have in the last few weeks spent a lot of time reading the exchanges via the web. But these exchanges have been largely between scientists on both sides of the debate (or reports of these exchanges). I have generally avoided discussions between laypeople because they are almost wholly comprised of rants with little that I can use. Even between the scientists I have seen too much posturing and fallacy, though the books I have read, as you say, are not nearly as heated.

The problem with books is this: I read them, and see what to me are problems, I then begin to form opinions about the arguments and then when I mention these I am told 'you need to read recent research debunking your view.' Then I am given a battery of links to web sites.

I don't claim to hold no biases on this. I sense my biases. But I think I am not so biased that I will harp on the Darwinists without cause. The rants and rages are most prevalent on the Darwinian side of this debate. And I think there is no sufficient cause for it.

One thing that has long concerned me in these sorts of discussions is how when one rejects Darwinism or even expresses severe doubt in the theory, Darwinists often demand the challenger produce an alternative theory.

You are claiming the ID'ers are so kooky, so ridiculous and weird, that they do not deserve open and respectful engagement. That is just not true and anyone who reads the literature can see this.

— Simon

Simon sez "Well, I have read most of these posts and I think my point still stands, namely, that the essential ID argument is not adequately being addressed. Surely, for scientists convinced in the truthfulness of Darwinism, "

i.e., the educated elite masses..

"the explanations here would undoubtedly be sufficient to confirm their paradigm."

Put it this way. It no more "confirms" their paradigm than Eddington's experiment confirmed General Relativity. But it sure puts the Kabosh, as Eddington did on Newton, on the inevolvability of IC structures ala "Darwin's Black Box" and suggests descent with modification. The problem most creationists have with Darwinian evolution, is not that it is unflasifiable.. its that it is so far unfalsified.

"But for those of us not hindered by Darwinism or its opponents, far more evidence is required."

In other words, for those of us immune to the facts but who have a religous axe to grind.

"This is to say nothing of those of us who are trapped in the creationist paradigm."

You're not so far outside that community as you may think.

" Some scientists are trying to respond appropriately and I for one certainly appreciate it; but the lion's share of the responses are so filled with bluster and other fallacies, those of us who are trying to treat the matter fairly, are being put off."

My irony meter just exploded..

"Now, contrary to your claims, Behe is not moving the goalposts,"

Why do you think that?

"and I think it is unfortunate that we must attack his view by such dishonorable means."

Dishonorable? (cue violins..)

"I myself read the demands to which you are referring by implication ages ago, when Behe first released his book. They made sense to me then and they still do. Indeed, the demand is not new, at least not with me because I intuitively have long sensed that if one wishes I should believe certain remarkable structures of amino acids developed step-by-step without any guided assistance, "

Pssttt.. Its called natural selection acting on mutations.

Argument from personal incredulity noted.

"then it is not too much for me to ask one to provide evidence for the gradual development, at least at the critical steps, explaining the pressures that gave rise to them. I don't demand it because I wish to set impossible goals for Dawrinists. I demand it because, my goodness, without it, my believing your view sincerely becomes as much a matter of faith as belief in ID."

First the creationists demanded to see the steps in whale evolution. They were shown them. Now the IDer's want to know mutation by mutation how it all unfolded.

Or does Simon suggest that ID played no role in the evolution of whales?

"The point of my post is to say that ID'ers are about to give an intellectual framework to people.."

"about" Bawahahaha.

Flint:

Thanks so much for your excellent reply. I understand the claims of science and how science basically works. The problem is I now hold suspect the ability of science to interpret the available evidence without shoe-horning it into whatever place it needs it to be. The passions of the participants are so great, the exchanges so bitter, I no longer think evolutionary science can calmly, fairly and responsibly deal with challenges and those who doubt its powers. We are not exactly free to question without incurring ridicule, to express doubt without being told 'you are just ignorant of science' or 'you believe crap' and other such things. That sounds a bit oppressive, "religious" even.

When you claim 'science constructs the most plausible and consistent explanation possible for all of the evidence currently available,' I hear the ID'ers saying precisely the same thing, and with as much sincerity as their opponents. But, and perhaps I am just ignorant of science here, unlike the Darwinian view, the ID position has a certain potential for mass appeal that I think makes it formidable.

In a nutshell, the ID'ers claim 1. There are certain forms in nature that are irreducibly complex, 2. We already know intelligence can and does produce such forms, 3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods. This is particularly true since there is no well-established model laying out how such forms could have come about via Darwinian methods.

So when you in effect claim Darwinism is the best we can do at the moment, many people wonder if this in fact is true. Just as you have determined to declare Darwinism as the cause of nature's variety until such a time as science proves otherwise, many people may validly think it possible to posit Intelligence as the cause until science demonstrates something to the contrary. The power of intelligence to develop IC forms is demonstrable. Since science has not yet demonstrated a solid model for the evolutionary development of IC forms (and this is certainly needed even more than evidence in the fossil record and other evidences), well, it makes no sense to hold onto Darwinism.

Now I should say I don't exactly hold to the view above. I think ID has a lot of power. But I don't think it yet has enough power to compel me toward a Creator. I believe in God, but I don't think ID gets me to Him just yet. But my word! It has me wondering about the implications if it is proven unassailable.

A last word before bed: I have read, even here on these pages, Darwinists claiming ID'ers are saying, "Hey fellas! Now that we've figured out that God did it, let's just give up" using this straw man as a substitute for what ID'ers are really saying. We shouldn't do this. It may be true that ID'ers haven't offered a fully orbed theory, including a full description of the Designer and whatnot. But it is entirely possible that ID'ers are deciding to marshal most of their public forces to the Darwinian front, rather than devote them to the next phase in ID'dom. If ID can severely damage or dethrone Darwinism, I suspect you will see greater public efforts centered around better formulations of ID theory, perhaps even attempts to identify the Intelligence behind reality.

"What sort of evidence do I require to be convinced in my own mind that Darwinian gradualism actually accounts for the wide variety of forms I see in nature?"

— Simon

One thing that has long concerned me in these sorts of discussions is how when one rejects Darwinism or even expresses severe doubt in the theory, Darwinists often demand the challenger produce an alternative theory. It is as if a friend is telling me that a taxi will come to pick me up at 5:30pm for a meeting I must attend. I suspect taxis won't travel to my area after 5pm, so I tell my friend of my concern. It would seem enough merely that I doubt my friend's instructions. But instead of giving me evidence that I am wrong about the taxi, he instead demands I prove when the taxi will arrive. I may not know this, but only that it likely will not arrive at 5:30pm.

— Simon

In a nutshell, the ID'ers claim 1. There are certain forms in nature that are irreducibly complex, 2. We already know intelligence can and does produce such forms, 3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods. This is particularly true since there is no well-established model laying out how such forms could have come about via Darwinian methods.

The problem with "evidence for design" is that ID people have yet to come up with a way to categorize it in a way that is scientific rather than intuitive. Irriducible Complexity has been shown to be no real barrier to evolution, and its importance has been exaggerated. "Specified Complexity" is one big begged question: how do you know if something is specified? Dembski's answer: It looks designed. Circular reasoning.

Something having a "function" is not evidence because function is not a scientific term. It is entirely relative whether something produces useful work, or "function." It could be that a tree happening to fall on my enemy serves a function. Must we invoke design? Erosion makes a depression in a boulder which functions as a nice ass-groove, which fits my ass comfortably. Design? It seems very subjective to me.

"We may ridicule Intelligent Design (ID) and its proponents, but the ridicule fails to address the ID argument. ... more people than we think perhaps believe the ID position is not as "stupid" as we claim." and "I think we can only bluster our way out of this for so long. Eventually, normal Americans are going to understand the issues here and their children are going to begin defying our attempts to prop Darwinism up by running and lying and petty ridicule.

"(*I sincerely do not know what to call the opponents of ID. I thought the term "Darwinists" was the appropriate term. If there is a better term, let me know of it)."

— Simon

But, and perhaps I am just ignorant of science here, unlike the Darwinian view, the ID position has a certain potential for mass appeal that I think makes it formidable.

— Simon

In a nutshell, the ID'ers claim 1. There are certain forms in nature that are irreducibly complex,

2. We already know intelligence can and does produce such forms,

3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods.

This is particularly true since there is no well-established model laying out how such forms could have come about via Darwinian methods.

— Simon

But, and perhaps I am just ignorant of science here, unlike the Darwinian view, the ID position has a certain potential for mass appeal that I think makes it formidable.

— Simon

In a nutshell, the ID'ers claim 1. There are certain forms in nature that are irreducibly complex,

2. We already know intelligence can and does produce such forms,

3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods.

This is particularly true since there is no well-established model laying out how such forms could have come about via Darwinian methods.

QETZAL:

I think both our analogies are quite a bit off-base, mine for the reasons you mention, and yours because of this: I really have no need for all the detail concerning the path of the taxi because, unlike with evolution, I have actually seen a can literally travel from my meeting all the way to my home. Indeed I have seen it tens of dozens of times and even if I have never seen it before, millions upon millions have.

You are also correct that a failure (in my view) of Darwinism certainly does not mean a plus for ID. I have already said this earlier.

RBH: (trying hard to get to bed...)

I am not sure I can confidently accept IC critters on your obviously designed computer generated by your obviously designed code.

RBH: (trying desperately to get to bed)

I am not sure I can confidently accept IC critters on your obviously designed computer generated by your obviously designed code.

RBH:

I am not sure I can confidently accept IC critters on your obviously designed computer generated by your obviously designed code.

DON:

I used "we" because I don't like to sound too accusatory, as in "You heathen Darwinian bums are always insulting folks. Ya idiots." That sort of thing is usually counterproductive. I simply wanted to get over the point that we need to make the discussion as open to inquiry as possible, resisting the urge to insult people with whom we disagree. And it is really dishonest to put words in people's mouths so that you can beat them up. We ought not try to win by use of lies.

Moreover, it is equally dishonest to try compelling me to call Darwinists "scientists" when people like Behe are genuine scientists too. I need some non-offensive term to distinguish Darwinists from ID'ers. I am asking in good faith for someone to give me that term. It may be that I am insulting ID'ers by calling them ID'ers. So, if anyone can tell me the valid terms, I'll use them. But let's skip the games. Yes?

QETZAL:

Your questions:

>>Do you think it's important for a scientific hypothesis or theory to make testable and falsifiable predictions?

Yes. And I sincerely don't think (I don't want to insult anyone here) evolution meets the test. Evidence seems terribly subjective here. Too subjective.

>>Are you aware of any such predictions made by ID?

Well, it seems to me it claims certain forms are Irreducibly Complex and that no one will produce a valid model showing a Darwinian step-by-step evolution of these forms. To knock ID out, one merely need produce what ID claims cannot be produced and then let us see the response of ID'ers. (I do not think their demands are unreasonable. I have long thought the demands are what is required to believe the Darinian claim).

>>Do you have any personal views on the question of what should be taught in public schools?

A few. I am something of a libertarian. So I would probably prefer there not be any public schools. That would take care of this debate as it concerns such schools. But, since I don't expect my view to prevail anytime soon, I think both evolution and ID should be taught, not as fact, but as competing theories.

Nick:

You asked "Will the ID advocates admit that they made a mistake in asserting that, except for the 10 proteins of the Type III secretion system, they other 30-40 parts of the flagellum were "unique"?"

The reason I didn't ask further on this when you mentioned it on the other thread was because I didn't see its significance to the larger point made by both Dembski and Behe. But I went ahead and spent time reading quite a bit more here. Now I am interested because apparently the issue is of great significance.

To get at the issue I am first of all assuming you are correct in the claim that Dembski made a mistake in the number of unique TTSS proteins. What I wish to know is whether the mistake is material to the point at hand or are we simply allowing ourselves to be distracted.

If, as Behe and Dembski claim, the TTSS protein transfer function is merely a loosely associated sub-function of the flagellum and not an integral component of the irreducibly complex (IC) rotary propulsion mechanism, then this mistake of Dembski's seems most irrelevant. The IC of the system under discussion remains intact and so now we must deal with it, without drifting to the TTSS. Is that right?

If I understand this, then I cannot see why we should make such a big deal about what seems to me is a mistake that is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Simon,

It's a big mistake. The T3SS -- the bit Dembski et al know about -- is homologous to the "core" of the flagellum -- the rotating base and rod. But according to Dembski et al, the motor proteins on the outside of the base (the proteins that actually rotate the flagellum), the rod-hook-filament proteins, the regulatory proteins, the chemotaxis (guidance system) proteins, etc., were all supposed to be unique. But they're not.

It's on the same level as saying "there are no transitional hominid fossils." It's just plain wrong, and an indication of basic unfamiliarity with the relevant science. This should give you pause, when you consider the fact that the flagellum is The Favorite Example of ID promoted by the IDists from coast to coast in every media forum available. Dembski put the flagellum on the cover of his book No Free Lunch, for goodness' sake!

I'm actually in favor of ID being taught in science class...

"... also, a bunch of kooks who claim to be scientists advocate a theory called Intelligent Design. Please visit their webpage for information and www.talkorigins.org for refutation. This won't be on the test."

1. There are certain forms in nature that are irreducibly complex

— simon

2. We already know intelligence can and does produce such forms,

— simon

3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods. This is particularly true since there is no well-established model laying out how such forms could have come about via Darwinian methods.

— simon

Are you aware of any such predictions made by ID? Well, it seems to me it claims certain forms are Irreducibly Complex and that no one will produce a valid model showing a Darwinian step-by-step evolution of these forms. To knock ID out, one merely need produce what ID claims cannot be produced and then let us see the response of ID'ers.

(I do not think their demands are unreasonable. I have long thought the demands are what is required to believe the Darinian claim).

Simon, would oyu please tell us what the scientific theory of ID is, and how we can test it using the scientific method?

What did the designer do, according to this scientific theory of ID?

What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it did, according to this scientific theory of ID?

Where can we see these mechanisms on action today?

Or is "POOF! God --er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer dunnit!!!" the best ID can come up with?

Are IDers just lying to us when they claim that ID is science and not religion?

(*I sincerely do not know what to call the opponents of ID. I thought the term "Darwinists" was the appropriate term. If there is a better term, let me know of it).

Behe does not need to describe the designer. The designer's identity is entirely irrelevant here.

Darwinists often demand the challenger produce an alternative theory. It is as if a friend is telling me that a taxi will come to pick me up at 5:30pm for a meeting I must attend. I suspect taxis won't travel to my area after 5pm, so I tell my friend of my concern. It would seem enough merely that I doubt my friend's instructions. But instead of giving me evidence that I am wrong about the taxi, he instead demands I prove when the taxi will arrive. I may not know this, but only that it likely will not arrive at 5:30pm.

The problem is I now hold suspect the ability of science to interpret the available evidence without shoe-horning it into whatever place it needs it to be. The passions of the participants are so great, the exchanges so bitter, I no longer think evolutionary science can calmly, fairly and responsibly deal with challenges and those who doubt its powers. We are not exactly free to question without incurring ridicule, to express doubt without being told 'you are just ignorant of science' or 'you believe crap' and other such things. That sounds a bit oppressive, "religious" even.

When you claim 'science constructs the most plausible and consistent explanation possible for all of the evidence currently available,' I hear the ID'ers saying precisely the same thing, and with as much sincerity as their opponents.

But, and perhaps I am just ignorant of science here, unlike the Darwinian view, the ID position has a certain potential for mass appeal that I think makes it formidable.

In a nutshell, the ID'ers claim 1. There are certain forms in nature that are irreducibly complex,

2. We already know intelligence can and does produce such forms,

3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods.

This is particularly true since there is no well-established model laying out how such forms could have come about via Darwinian methods.

So when you in effect claim Darwinism is the best we can do at the moment, many people wonder if this in fact is true.

Just as you have determined to declare Darwinism as the cause of nature's variety until such a time as science proves otherwise, many people may validly think it possible to posit Intelligence as the cause until science demonstrates something to the contrary.

The power of intelligence to develop IC forms is demonstrable. Since science has not yet demonstrated a solid model for the evolutionary development of IC forms (and this is certainly needed even more than evidence in the fossil record and other evidences), well, it makes no sense to hold onto Darwinism.

Now I should say I don't exactly hold to the view above. I think ID has a lot of power. But I don't think it yet has enough power to compel me toward a Creator. I believe in God, but I don't think ID gets me to Him just yet. But my word! It has me wondering about the implications if it is proven unassailable.

It may be true that ID'ers haven't offered a fully orbed theory, including a full description of the Designer and whatnot. But it is entirely possible that ID'ers are deciding to marshal most of their public forces to the Darwinian front, rather than devote them to the next phase in ID'dom. If ID can severely damage or dethrone Darwinism, I suspect you will see greater public efforts centered around better formulations of ID theory, perhaps even attempts to identify the Intelligence behind reality.

I'm thinking, after reading #34979, that what scientists should do is to show that the Quranic account of creation, etc., is much more logical, requires fewer adhoc hypotheses, etc., than the Biblical account, so Intelligent Design is more conducive to Allah than to Jesus. I think such arguments will more quickly shut down ID than any presentation of evidence :)

-Arun

The scientists already having to deal with islamic anti-science religious fundamentalists wouldn't thank you for that.

If anything at all other than the entirely natural processes which best fit the evidence(!), the least bad religious fit would be to some pantheon of rather incompetent and uncooperative but occasionally competitive gods with a system of patents which prevents them repeating someone else's ideas in exactly the same way in different semi-intelligent design lineages.

I don't read the church-owned Deseret News religiously as some people do, but it clearly has NOT been covering the "divine design" trial baloon prominently, if at all. Curiously, this appeared in today's (6/13/05) edition:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600141135,00.html

Utah's earliest fossils made their debut in the latest issue of "Survey Notes," the magazine published by the Utah Geological Survey --- and they are really old!

Microphotographs show a type of bacteria called cyanobacteria. Preserved in rock of the Uinta Mountains, they are part of a set of the earliest fossils ever found in Utah, dating to Precambrian era.

They are remarkably well-preserved cyanobacteria fossils from the eastern Uinta Mountains, tiny bacteria that lived 740 million to 950 million years ago. They date to the Precambrian era, a period when fossil remains are rare.
Although Precambrian rock crops out in Big Cottonwood Canyon, it has been heated in the distant past, which may have destroyed delicate fossils.
To understand the age of the Uinta fossils, consider that the dinosaurs ruled Earth until 65 million years ago. The trilobites of Millard County, from the middle Cambrian era, may be about 540 million years old. The few Precambrian fossil bacteria found before recently were from the late part of the period, about 740 million years ago.
Some of the newly announced bacteria remains are up to 200 million years older.
Although microscopic, they retain clear evidence of internal cellular structure. Photographs of them look much like pictures of modern bacteria taken through a powerful microscope.
Douglas A. Sprinkel, senior geologist with the Survey, made the first of the new discoveries in 2000, part of a geologic mapping project he has been working in the eastern Uintas since 1999. Since then he has continued sampling the rocks and has located a number of fossil sites, from the lower part of the Uintas to an area at about 11,000 feet elevation.
Some of the discoveries were published earlier as part of his "open file" map project, but the "Survey Notes" article is the first announcement to be issued for public consumption.
Cyanobacteria are sometimes called blue-green algae, and the type survives today. They are single-cell organisms. Scientists believe the new discoveries represent about four species.

"Some have simple walls, and as we go younger (more recent rocks), the cell walls become a little more complex," Sprinkel said. "And as we go even younger, they begin to form colonial organisms." They had some tendency to clump together in colonies.
"And then we do see some species that are definitely colonial type organisms," he said. "They're forming a nice clump-of-grapes sort of thing."
The bacteria remains are so nicely preserved because of the environment in which they were deposited. Bacteria fell into water that had little or no oxygen to eat away at the tiny organisms. After sediments hardened into rock, "there hasn't been a lot of the sort of post rock-forming events" to damage the fossils' structure.
So far, geologists have not been able to determine a definite age of the rocks but have a general idea. "We do have some pending radiometric rating that they're trying to get down right now."
Levels of grains of zircon in the rocks are being analyzed at the Australian National Laboratory to get a more exact date.
Australia is famous among paleontologists for spectacular Precambrian fossils, including stromatolites, large colonies of bacteria that formed structures like coral heads. In fact, some stromatolites still live in shallow waters of Australia.
"It's possible that we could have stromatolite organisms or more complex organisms in the rocks of the Uinta Mountains," he added. "So far, no one has really found any that I'm aware of."
A complex procedure had to be followed to expose the microfossils. Gerald Waanders, a consulting independent expert from Southern California who was the other co-author of the article, crushed rock into a powder, then applied acid to bring out the tiny fossils. Then he studied the material in a microscope to see what was there.
When he passed samples along to Waanders, Sprinkel wasn't expecting to find any fossils. When Waanders called and said "we had a whole bunch of cyanobacteria in our samples, it was pretty exciting," he said.
Then he corrected himself: "Really exciting."

Sadly, as I just wrote, ID not only lacks ANY theory or ANY evidence, they are also making NO attempt to develop any of either one. They have a very large budget, which is expended entirely on political lobbying and public relations programs. Their goal is to pack school boards (and ideally, courts) with Creationists. In other words, as applied in practice, there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE involved with ID. It is a social and political strategy to get Jesus into 9th grade science classes by changing the word "God" to "Intelligent Designer" and changing "creation" to "design" in the hopes of tricking the courts into deciding it's not religion. If there were any scientific merit to be extracted from ID, you would think at least a LITTLE of all that funding would be expended producing it. Again, the allocation of funds is a damn fine barometer of priorities and purposes.

But of course, none of this long-term plan would be possible were it not for the broad public desire to reconcile their religious faith with their faith in science. The situation is fairly clear: For the vast majority, their faith is immutable, while their understanding of science is minimal at best. This allows untrustworthy people to make nearly ANY incorrect claim about science, secure in the knowledge that very few people will recognize that it's wrong, and nearly as few will be capable of understanding an explanation of WHY it's wrong. And so they can claim that evolution is "deeply flawed" and "not a solid model" and well-meaning people will buy it, neither educated enough in science to know better, nor (and far more important) disposed to be either. After all, it's what they WANT to hear.

To my mind it is preposterous that a number of commenters to this thread have invested so much time and effort to a discusssion of the comment by somebody hiding behind the moniker "Simon." In his (her) first comment on this thread he (she) asserted that ID opponents avoid answering the essence of ID argumentation resorting instead to personal insults, etc. For anybody minimally familiar with facts, such an assertion was so obviously false that this in itself should have made a discussion with "Simon" aimless. The other commenters to this thread could have pointed out that only during the recent 12 months at least four books were published with a detailed analysis of ID argumentation. These books are:

(1) B. Forrest and P. Gross. Creationism's Trojan Horse. While in this book mainly the Wedge tactics of IDists were analyzed, also a review of substantive arguments by various ID opponents was offered.

(2) M. Perakh. Unintelligent Design. In this book, among other topics, a very thorough discussion of the arguments and ideas of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson is presented. Only the chapter on Dembski is over 100 pages long and contains a detailed analysis of his concepts on probability, information, complexity, and design.

(3) M. Young and T. Edis (editors). Why Intelligent Design Fails. This is an anthology containing articles by 13 scientists who analyze ID from purely scientific standpoints without any personal attacks, each of the contributors approaching the subject from the vantage point of one's scientific expertise.

(4) N. Shanks. God, the Devil, and Darwin. Another substantive discussion of ID ideas and arguments.

Plenty of material critical of ID and lacking personal insults and ad hominem attacks is also available online ( www.talkorigin.org, www.talkreason.org, www.talkdesign.org, and more).

While "Simon" pretends to be an unbiased observer genuinely curious about the essence of the debate between ID proponents and opponents, to my mind his (her) comments make a distinctive impression of his (her) being in fact definitely prejudiced in favor of ID.
Possibly "Simon" claimed that ID opponents only resort to insults and avoid substantive discussion because he (she) was not familiar with the mentioned (and many other) sources of substantive critique of ID. If that is so, he (she) was ignorant of the field he (she) endeavored to discusss. If, however, he (she) knew about the mentioned substantive critique of ID, then he (she) was lying in his (her) first comment. In either case a debate with him (her) was a waste of time and effort.

Amiel Rossow:

While I agree with you, surely you have noticed as well as anyone that ALL debate with creationists has been a proximate waste of time. We are all trying to bury faith under the weight of evidence, no realizing the two do not inhabit the same universe of discourse.

Simon's pretense of disinterest is, as is invariably the case, belied by his insistence on holding science up to unreachably high standards, while accepting ID assertions without any semblance of skepticism. What science claims is never supported enough despite libraries of observation; what ID claims is "plausible" despite lack of even a trace of evidence. Interesting that creationists think that if they merely state that their deck isn't stacked, unbelievers will take this at face value and never notice that the creationist deals himself nothing but winning hands.

But presumably, this site (and others more or less similar) exist so that anyone genuinely curious can read what everyone says and (we hope) draw a more informed conclusion. Or at least (as Dawkins said) defend their religious rejection of the facts with more sophisticated claims.

Right, "Simon" is a sock-puppet. But even sock-puppets often need answering.

I don't think direct answers are going to cut it, however. Look, Simon's another ignorant IDist, whoever he is, who doesn't understand science and insists that we "answer" the IDiots on their level and in their own ignorance.

Of course the supposed points raised by IDists have been answered, and Simon almost certainly knows this. He just wants to rag on us because we're discussing anything other than the supposed "brilliance" of the clueless creationists/IDists, when of course this isn't a forum set up to endlessly discuss the various idiocies thrown out at us by the Simons of this world. Many come here and tell us what the purpose of PT is (Berlinski did, and so does Simon--well, who knows whose sock-puppet Simon is), but of course it's really more of a place to compare notes about how to counter pseudo-science and to consider how and why the IDists are so lame and pathetic, than it is for anything else.

The fact is that if we "discussed" mindless ID nonsense we'd sound as stupid as IDists. Anyone actually interested in science, as Simon feigns to be, has a host of materials to grab off of the web.

The crucial issues in countering ID are philosophical and epistemological. In this sense alone would I agree with Simon, that when we discuss the subversion of science by the IDists these discussions doesn't mean much to most people. This is unfortunate, and it is also a factor regarding the public that the IDiots exploit to their advantage. Simon tells us that we need to counter ID, as if it were a legitimate science (even if wrong). Unfortunately, it isn't that easy, since ID isn't science at all, instead it is an attempt to subvert science to accommodate "poof" as if it were science.

Simon either doesn't understand or deliberately obfuscates the fact that the issues that really count in this matter are in fact not simple nor easy to understand. He is either trying to exploit this fact by claiming that proper discussions about what science is aren't addressing the issues, or he genuinely doesn't understand science himself.

This is why we must discuss science and what constitutes science, so that we may deal in competent judicial and scientific arenas (and in the public arena too, I hope, at least in some cases) to prevent the ill-educated from teaching rubbish to children. PT is not particularly aimed at the uncomprehending Simons and the rest of the public. It exists for knowledgeable scientists and other intelligent folk to consider science and the science-public interface. Few would try to use what goes on here to try to convince the public, and it's well-nigh useless trying to get anything new into the heads of Dembski, Sal, or Simon, so we have little reason to try.

No, Simon is trying either knowingly or unknowingly to subvert often useful discussions and to turn them to the useless task of trying to convince IDists in their own terms of what is wrong with ID. It is the terms as used by IDiots that subvert science and intelligence to the sorry ends pursued by the DI and various IDiots, and we have no reason to enter into sparring matches over issues that have been adequately addressed from our side countless times (and not uncommonly are repeated on PT, actually) and made available to anyone with an open mind. We needn't trouble ourselves overmuch with mind that appear not to be open.

Amiel:

YOU SAID: "The other commenters to this thread could have pointed out that only during the recent 12 months at least four books were published with a detailed analysis of ID argumentation."

Well, perhaps they could have, but until you, they didn't. Instead, the majority of them, like you, have questioned my motives and falsely accused me of doing what was not my intent. It is this sort of behavior that makes the honest doubter reticent to express his doubt. And I find it is most typical of the evolution side of this debate.

YOU SAID: "While "Simon" pretends to be an unbiased observer genuinely curious about the essence of the debate between ID proponents and opponents, to my mind his (her) comments make a distinctive impression of his (her) being in fact definitely prejudiced in favor of ID."

This is a rank falsehood and I detest it. I do not pretend to be an unbiased observer and never have claimed to be unbiased. Indeed, I have already admitted my biases, also stating (and quite clearly) that I think the lion's share of Americans, like me, are also biased. This is why, despite nearly a century of teaching the supposed "facts" of evolution, most Americans still embrace creationism. Moreover, unlike me, few of them will stay up until 3:00AM reading your side of the issue.

I think it is impossible for most people to be unbiased after even a cursory engagment of this issue. But even were this true, it still does not neccessarily mean we cannot be fairminded. And one's expressing doubts here ought not cause you or anyone else to make false accusations against people you do not know.

We may ridicule Intelligent Design (ID) and its proponents, but the ridicule fails to address the ID argument. Publicly, many people may remain silent amid our insults, but privately, since evolutionists tend to leave the ID argument almost completely untouched, more people than we think perhaps believe the ID position is not as "stupid" as we claim.

Flint:

Since you obviously think I am pretending here, I won't bother to engage you much further. But to try giving you a bit of my intent here, I'd like to briefly try showing you what people like me are up against.

Behe claims: "Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar -- but not identical -- to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria. See Hueck 1998). Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What's more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine."

If this is true, then Dembski's alleged errors concerning unique proteins appear irrelevant. Now Nick tells me TTSS is homologous to the core of the flagellum, as if TTSS can be a precursor to the flagellum. But according to Dembski, Nugyen claims the evidence points to the TTSS evolving from the Flagellum. These sorts of disagreements are legion, and rather than someone point-for-point clarifying the issues, folks like me encounter quite a lot of meaningless insults. These insults leave the ID claim untouched.

Even here amidst these discussions we see the same sort of thing. For example Nick claims Behe has "given up on his 'irreducible complexity' argument and now requires infinite detail," when it is quite obvious to me that he has done no such thing. From my vantagepoint, Behe simply requires evidence appropriate to convince one who does not begin an evaluation with the acceptance of evolution. Moreover, Behe has not suddenly made these demands, contrary to Nick's claims. So it seems to me difficult to accept the pro-evolution statement because they are infected by claims that I think ought not exist here. And this, then, leaves ID still on the table.

In Comment #34963 NDT tells me, contrary to ID's claims, that Irreducibly Complex forms don't even exist in nature. Yet in Comment #34979 you yourself claim Irreducibly Complex forms do indeed exist and that they are exactly what should be expected from evolution. It is maddening, and made worst when one is insulted simply because one does not agree with the dogma here. I really don't get this from ID'ers and I have certainly approached plenty of them as I have approached the evolutionists here. I suspect for most people, incurring this sort of treatment leaves ID still on the table.

Now it could be that there is a natural hostility between you and I because I am likely biased in favor of ID. But in truth, I do not yet accept ID, not as it is currently formulated. I think it is appealing and I think its proponents make several powerful arguments. But I do not yet think it proves the existence of a designer. Nevertheless, this really isn't the point. I ought not have to express my doubts about ID simply to win the ability to express my sincere doubts of evolution to evolutionists. You are supposed to be scientists, for goodness sakes.

Okay. That'll be all. I am tired from last night and am likely a bit irritated. I apologize to everyone I have offended.

Glen Davidson:

You may claim I am being dishonest, enjoy. But in my opinion my initial statement still stands as powerfully as ever. If the evidence for evolutionary construction of complex forms made of amino acids is so compelling, then you do a very grave disservice to it by infecting it with insults, dishonest statements concerning your opponent's intent, and other nonsense.

Since you obviously think I am pretending here, I won't bother to engage you much further.

You may claim I am being dishonest, enjoy. But in my opinion my initial statement still stands as powerfully as ever.

If the evidence for evolutionary construction of complex forms made of amino acids is so compelling, then you do a very grave disservice to it by infecting it with insults, dishonest statements concerning your opponent's intent, and other nonsense.

Flint:

YOU SAID: "Please make an effort to expand your perspective. You have adopted a posture (the interested but somewhat open-minded outsider) that has been taken ad nauseum by those who later on turn out to be mindless creationists."

Well, you really ought not project your bitterness against them upon me. That really is the problem here. When you do this, you in fact shut down a lot of people who, despite their biases, would otherwise inquire sincerely. ID'ers gain footage because, from my experience, they work hard to explain their view without assuming everyone who disagrees with the dogma is an idiot.

YOU SAID: "Even if you are NOT pretending, you have executed this maneuver to creationist perfection."

Well fine, Flint. That could be because I am in fact a creationist. I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism, that is probably what I accept. This is especially true since I believe in God and think a God that has had nothing to do with my existence and development is not a God for which I can find much use. But if given the chance to view evidence that compells disbelief in ID, I'd certainly reject ID. But you really have not presented that evidence. Well, perhaps you have, but it is so muddled with insults and other nonsense I have not seen it. I suspect if I haven't seen it, then the majority of Americans haven't seen it.

YOU SAID: "We have seen it a hundred times, in precisely the form you have presented here. Can you blame us for being suspicious?"

Yes. I certainly can, especially when I know for a fact that I am being honest. You know, we do the best we can to get at these issues. Just because I do not know as much as you do on this particular issue does not mean I must accept what you say, especially when you erroneously accuse me of an intent that simply did not exist. If your judgement is cloudy here, then from my point of view I think it may be cloudy elsewhere. The participants are so bitter, I have severe doubts as to whether they can see evidence for what it is. I think the doubts are warranted.

YOU SAID: "I took your comment at face value, and spent several hours composing a reply in good faith. Can you blame me for suspecting that your little hissy isn't so much an emotional outburst, as an excuse to avoid the very real issues that I responded to?"

Yes. I can blame you, especially when I know of a certainty that I had every intention of responding to you in good faith. Of course once I saw you claiming I am actually pretending here, I think responding would be a waste of time. After all, you've already dismissed my point of view as mere pretense.

YOU SAID: "I pointed out that irreducible complexity is a prediction of evolutionary theory, not a refutation. You simply ignore this and forge on with material you yourself admit you don't understand."

I didn't ignore this at all. But please try to understand, there is a very important difference between your claim that evolution predicts irreducible complexity and other evolutionists claims that irreducible complexity does not even exist. Now, rather than assume evolutionists are essentially in disagreement on this point, the solidarity here causes me to suspect some other problem. But God help me should I approach the problem while expressing a doubt of evolution in the first place.

YOU SAID: "Should we consider this an honest response to the issue?"

You most certainly should. I think the ID'ers will possibly eat your lunch, friend. You have control of the schools, the universities and the courts, and yet I think the ID position can possibly gain a foothold in all of these institutions because it aligns with the faith that is already prevalent in society. Seeing this, I am a bit mystified that, instead of dealing with ID sober-mindedly, openly assaulting each point without infecting it with insults and other things that muddle your case, you allow your bitterness toward creationism to rule you. Now, perhaps this does not matter to you, but I think you ought to consider how that looks to someone like me. You ought to think how it looks to large numbers of people who might consider your view, were they not afraid of being insulted merely because they are too feeble to address the issue as you do.

YOU SAID: "What does not exist, to the best of the knowledge of honest biologists, is irreducibly complex forms that could not have evolved. The distinction is crucial. Non-evolvable forms have never been identified in nature, except by those strongly predisposed to find some justification for a faith-based position."

Very well. The ID'ers claim that your predisposition to materialism makes you see what is not there. And the point really has a lot of power, at least to average people. Perhaps you are hoping for America to simply trust you, though they cannot understand what you are convinced is true. Perhaps you don't even care. But when you claim to have evidence, a whole lot of people wonder if you are only seeing what you wish to see. I am just telling you what I think is actually going on here.

YOU SAID: "Please understand that science and ID operate under different rules. In the world of science, sincere doubts can be expressed in only one way: with conflicing evidence."

Of course I live in the everyday world, and here, where I live, if someone tells me my breakfast pancake is made of beef, though it looks like it came from wheat, I am going to hold the claim with suspicion until such a time as the person quite fully demonstrates how such a thing took place. I may not have evidence that the cake was made of wheat. I may only believe it was made of wheat because that is what I've always been told. But I won't throw out the faith in wheat simply because you enter what is to me a novel claim that its beef. Your claim is so new and fantastic to me, that I will need to see a pancake like mine being deliberately generated from the flesh of a cow. Until that time, I cannot help but doubt your claim. That is just how the thing works. It may be ridiculous to you, but when you insult me for thinking in this way, you do not help your position at all.

YOU SAID: "NOT with opinion, NOT with plausible-sounding philosophical arguments. Evidence. ONLY evidence. You have presented none."

I don't need evidence, Flint. I am not making an assertion here. You are. I believe what I believe. I am willing to abandon the belief, but the evidence compelling this abandonment has to be so astounding, so detailed and so uncluttered with insults, that I do it willingly - not by courts, not by academic exclusion and not by bullying.

YOU SAID: "I also apologize for taking you seriously and spending so much time trying to engage you on the issues themselves."

You need not apologize to me for doing what you think is a waste of your own time. I was sincere in trying to understand your world. But it seems quite a hopeless pursuit. The frustrating thing is that it need not be. I am actually trying to develop a sincere belief in your view, but I cannot just will myself to do it. I need to pull together to evidence and see if I can honestly embrace it. You know, this seems strangely like a religious debate, and I do not think the ID'ers alone are culpable.

YOU SAID: "Amiel was quite correct. Blaming everyone else while running away is yet another hallmark of the creationist."

I'm not running away. I just do not see the usefullness, either to you or to me, in wasting more of your time.

Behe claims: "Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar --- but not identical --- to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria. See Hueck 1998). Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What's more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine."

— Simon

In Comment #34963 NDT tells me, contrary to ID's claims, that Irreducibly Complex forms don't even exist in nature. Yet in Comment #34979 you yourself claim Irreducibly Complex forms do indeed exist and that they are exactly what should be expected from evolution.

— Simon

But if given the chance to view evidence that compells disbelief in ID, I'd certainly reject ID. But you really have not presented that evidence.

Yes. I certainly can, especially when I know for a fact that I am being honest.

I can blame you, especially when I know of a certainty that I had every intention of responding to you in good faith. Of course once I saw you claiming I am actually pretending here, I think responding would be a waste of time. After all, you've already dismissed my point of view as mere pretense.

But please try to understand, there is a very important difference between your claim that evolution predicts irreducible complexity and other evolutionists claims that irreducible complexity does not even exist. Now, rather than assume evolutionists are essentially in disagreement on this point, the solidarity here causes me to suspect some other problem.

You have control of the schools, the universities and the courts, and yet I think the ID position can possibly gain a foothold in all of these institutions because it aligns with the faith that is already prevalent in society.

I am a bit mystified that, instead of dealing with ID sober-mindedly, openly assaulting each point without infecting it with insults and other things that muddle your case, you allow your bitterness toward creationism to rule you. Now, perhaps this does not matter to you, but I think you ought to consider how that looks to someone like me.

The ID'ers claim that your predisposition to materialism makes you see what is not there.

Your claim is so new and fantastic to me, that I will need to see a pancake like mine being deliberately generated from the flesh of a cow. Until that time, I cannot help but doubt your claim. That is just how the thing works. It may be ridiculous to you, but when you insult me for thinking in this way, you do not help your position at all.

You need not apologize to me for doing what you think is a waste of your own time.

3. It is more plausible to consider that intelligence was involved in the irreducibly complex natural forms than to consider the forms came about via step-by-step compounding Darwinian methods.

Of course I live in the everyday world, and here, where I live, if someone tells me my breakfast pancake is made of beef, though it looks like it came from wheat...

Well fine, Flint. That could be because I am in fact a creationist. I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism, that is probably what I accept. This is especially true since I believe in God and think a God that has had nothing to do with my existence and development is not a God for which I can find much use.

But if given the chance to view evidence that compells disbelief in ID, I'd certainly reject ID.

Simon: Have you read the detailed takedowns of ID on Talkorigins.org yet?

Honestly - not being insulting here - but if you haven't, then you really have no right to claim that scientists aren't answering the claims of ID. The answers are there, but I don't think you've looked for them.

This is a rank falsehood and I detest it. I do not pretend to be an unbiased observer and never have claimed to be unbiased.

I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism, that is probably what I accept. This is especially true since I believe in God and think a God that has had nothing to do with my existence and development is not a God for which I can find much use.

THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism

In response to, "I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism..."

steve wrote: "Man, two mistakes, and the sentence isn't even over yet."

You're a pushover. I count three whoppers, and that's excluding one of the locally infamous "pizza-boy" variety implied in the first four words.

Shame on you all by being bated by simon. Faith trumps fact, and he has none to present. That said, stay journalistic, attack the arguments, not the people.

As a fun aside, check out Connie 'mission from god; Morris:

http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1630041.html

New thread, anyone?

Shame on you all by being baited by simon. Faith trumps fact, and he has none to present. That said, stay journalistic, attack the arguments, not the people.

As a fun aside, check out Connie 'mission from god; Morris:

http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1630041.html

New thread, anyone?

We may ridicule Intelligent Design (ID) and its proponents, but the ridicule fails to address the ID argument.

— Simon

I really don't get this from ID'ers and I have certainly approached plenty of them as I have approached the evolutionists here. I suspect for most people, incurring this sort of treatment leaves ID still on the table.

— simon

So let me get this straight, Simon. You don't accept evolution because you haven't seen enough evidence to demonstrate that it's true. But you do accept ID because you haven't seen enough evidence that it isn't true. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

As a fun aside, check out Connie 'mission from god; Morris: http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1630041.html . . .

I endorse Glen Davidson's thoughts in #35008, and will refrain from feeding the trolls in the future :)

But you should have seen it coming.

Flint:

I thought you agreed to take my word that I was not intentionally trying to be provocative. But it appears you wish to insist that I am. I have spent considerable time contemplating your view and responding as honestly as I know how. Very well. You will see what you must see. This will be my last post here.

YOU SAID: "You have made two separate claims here, I think. First, that the tension between the application of the scientific method and the specifics of religious doctrine have strongly biased the scientific results themselves (though I notice that you do not mention whether you think this conflict has influenced religious doctrine, although both approaches are used by people with similar human nature) . . . ."

Not exactly. Please try to put yourself in the following position: You do not have a Ph.D. in microbiology, as evolutionist authorities claim is the MINIMUM requirement to have an adequate knowledge of the origins issue. You have a genuine intuitive sense that design was involved in certain structures because the structures appear as if they could not have developed in a step-by-step evolutionary manner. You also see many evolutionists claiming that that intuition is wrong. A relative few ID'ers declare that the intuition is right and because they calmly describe to you the structures involved in supporting the intuition, without posturing, you hear the argument and think them powerful. You do not think the arguments are necessarily correct, but you know for a fact that they are very powerful and that the people involved are not dishonest kooks because, not thinking yourself a kook, they have appealed to and in part won your own intellect.

You read through talkorigins (I first encountered it as a newsgroup and I have to tell you my experience there as a lurker was just appalling. So my skepticism of talkorigins is very great for the reasons I am about to describe). You discover there a war in which evolutionists haughtily dismiss their opponents with accusations and assaults that you know are just plain fallacious and even outright dishonest. You yourself engage evolutionists in person and online, encountering the same fallacies and dishonesty. You read books and in all of this you encounter fallacious posturing and even personal insults merely for requiring evidence that seems entirely reasonable to you. You want to get your doubts fairly criticized, but the minute you begin to press them, evolutionists pile on like religious fundamentalists, even demanding you produce a theory before rejecting evolution simply "because that is how science works" (the acceptance of the structure itself strikes you as religious in nature because you personally see no logic that objectively compels one to formally present a certain view before dismissing another).

Lacking the required Ph.D, you sense that at some point, you are going to have to trust an authority. But your reading and certainly your personal experience indicates to you that the authorities in the evolutionist culture are so conditioned toward a certain train of thought that when presented a certain set of data, they find what they wish to find. You know, for example, that you had no intention of being a "troll" or a "liar" and that you certainly are not any of the many insulting things the evolutionists have called you, but because you express a certain set of concerns, the evolutionists are absolutely convinced that these things are true about you. ** Now I should add here, not flippantly, that I really do not personally care what any of you think of me. My concern here is that my skepticism naturally increases with each insult. ** Indeed, your mere use of the word "we" to blunt the accusatory sting of certain of your beliefs about evolutionist culture causes legions of evolutionists to actually think you mean to lie.

You see in evolutionist culture what is obvious to you a lack of soberness, a conditioning against what you personally know are the facts, a tendency to see facts that simply are not there. You are seeing the same evidence as the evolutionists, but come away with radically different conclusions. And you see that the bias, the bitterness, the lies* and blustering are so ubiquitous in the culture, you think they are quite possibly a cultural fixture, influencing not only the evolutionists' dealings with you, but also their perception of everything else. (* I should clarify what I mean when I use the word "lie" here. Search the thread here and find any of a number of people putting words in my mouth and posturing simply to try to argue. The "Rev." here tells these sorts of lies incessantly. It is true of many evolutionists. I won't even respond to such obvious dishonesty and nonsense.)

I do not claim that evolutionists have for a fact unintentionally misrepresented the data. But I strongly suspect it, and because I suspect the problem is a fixture in evolutionist culture, it makes evolutionist leaders unfit to be general authoritative on this issue. The matter is worsened because to understand it, I must acquire a PhD from the very culture the general intellectual integrity of which I hold suspect. This is the chief reason I began here by pointing out a need for us to avoid insults and other fallacy. In my opinion, insults and an over reliance on fallacy are strong indicators of a lack of integrity.

YOU SAID: "Interestingly, there is no indication of either of these symptions except from the perspective of someone whose religious beliefs make them uncomfortable with evolutionary theory . . . "

This is not true. There is another alternative. One could be genuinely uncomfortable with evolutionary theory because one lacks faith in the reasonableness of evolutionist culture and therefore holds suspect its claims. In fact, I am astonished evolutionists can so easily and so fervently accept the theory without the detailed evidence that I personally think one should instinctively expect. But merely voicing such astonishment provokes long sequences of fallacy from the culture, claiming I seek "infinite proof" and other claims that are to me obviously and perhaps even intentionally false. In my view this alone, regardless of religion, is enough to leave one uncomfortable with evolutionary theory. Please understand here that I am not trying to be harsh and uncooperative. I am trying to help you see how many, I suspect, average non-evolutionists think.

YOU SAID: "However, it's probably important to point out that your perspective derives from exposure to those scientists attempting to defend their life's work against people who reject it on the basis of faith rather than evidence . . . "

Well yes. I understand that scientists are people too. But I think they tend to use language as you have used it here to falsely gain footage in the debate. Surely you do not think even the majority of evolutionists have the requisite PhD to embrace evolution. Yet they do embrace it, and every bit as fervently as others embrace God. For most of us, it is a matter of faith whether we reject or accept evolution. So I suspect for many evolutionist scientists rejection with faith as its basis is not really the problem. Rejection itself is the problem.

YOU SAID: "It's a bit frustrating for me personally, that you suspect ONLY the science side of the debate of having changed their position out of irrational passion, while at the same time admitting you don't know enough of science and its history to make such a determination on the merits."

I have only a few choices available to me. I could dismiss evolutionist culture as comprised of a bunch of zealots who through artful politicking and government oppression of American citizens have kept their theory alive, or I may gain the minimum PhD from the culture I hold suspect (which I suspect means I must conform to this culture) in order to understand the data for myself, or I may study the claims coming out of the culture while holding the culture and its claims suspect, also employing the critiques of the culture's enemies. As you might imagine, they are all very difficult choices.

I don't think I could make the first choice, even if I wished to make it. The middle choice is not practical for me at the moment and even if it were there seems to me a certain perversity involved with attempting to learn the "facts" from a culture one suspects is unable to see them clearly. The last option seems best and that is what I try to do.

YOU SAID: "How can we help but conclude that you hold this suspicion not on the basis of evidence you admit you lack, but because it is congenial to your faith?"

You need only read my statements and note the theme therein is quite consistent with what I have described above.

YOU SAID: "I hope you can recognize that the processes by which these opposing conclusions [to evolution] are reached are dramatically different."

I am just not sure about this. I strongly suspect there are pressures, fallacious pressures, fixed in evolutionist culture, that keep its troops moored to evolution. I have seen enough of what happens to scientists who don't exactly toe the line. They are savaged, and not just professionally, but personally. A very tame, by comparison to other attacks, example of this is found in Miller's response to Dembski's use of a statement by an evolutionist scientist who claims that science's proposed mechanisms for the evolutionary development of IC forms amount essentially to "wishful thinking." Instead of Miller rejecting the substance of the claim by calmly citing examples that undermine it, he instead attacked the scientist, by implication claiming the scientist's retirement means he doesn't know what he is talking about. The unvarnished sub-text here is that the scientist is an old man, now out of the loop, and therefore unqualified to be taken seriously. It is hard for me to see how evolutionist culture's allegedly built-in checks and balances can truly work to compel objectivity amidst of what I suspect is quite a lot of fear.

YOU SAID: "When ID makes the claim that "science has found God" it is a formidable claim indeed. The claim is entirely false, but as you imply, false matters only to science. Mass appeal matters to religion."

Actually, I don't think False matters only to science. I think, and it is one of the chief reasons I am here, that only False matters to evolutionary science, to the unnecessary dismissal of mass appeal. I think religion, as it is often (but not always) practiced, has the opposite problem.

YOU SAID: "Yes, many if not most forms in nature are irreducibly complex. Indeed, current evolutionary theory predicts exactly this --- that any redundency will soon be co-opted for some different function, rendering the organism's descendents once again irreducibly complex. So I must emphasize this: Irreducible complexity is a prediction of evolutionary theory, and in no way a refutation of it!"

Very well. But please understand it seems entirely reasonable to me that given an IC form, we need more than a general philosophical claim that such forms are predicted by evolution. We need a very specific and detailed model at the molecular level that demonstrates how the form developed, its major steps and the pressures that compelled them. Now, perhaps I am uninformed. This, as I have admitted, is a distinct possibility. But when I read Behe's claim re: the flagellum, for example, and then read Miller's response. I am left wondering if such a model truly exists.

Further on this point, I earlier thought Miller's response was obviously flawed and that everyone could see it. But reading Nick's claim of the importance of Dembski's alleged mistake concerning the supposed unique proteins in T3SS forces me to revisit the matter. But at this point I still, and honestly, despite Nick's paper, don't see how the flagellum claim has been dismissed-- and I need it to be dismissed. If I can get you to simply trust one thing it is this: I believed in God before ID. So I don't need ID and am not trying to protect it.

Please bear with me. I am under the impression that Behe claims the flagellum is IC. This means if a portion is removed from it, the flagellum ceases to function. Miller seeks to disprove IC in the flagellum by showing that a sub-structure within the flagellum can be removed and altered and yet still provide some sort of protein transfer. Now it seems to me Miller is quite obviously wrong because he fails to address the item at hand, namely the IC of the flagellum. The flagellum is now completely dead as a result of Miller's alteration of the sub-structure; and it does not matter what the sub-structure can do unless we can produce a step-by-step model showing how it can evolve from its altered form to a rotary propelled flagellum. I know you say IC is a prediction of evolution, but what I really need to know is does this model exist? If it does, I want to see if your opponents have reviewed it and get their take on it.

YOU SAID: "We know HUMAN intelligence [produces IC forms]. We also know human intellgence produces forms that are NOT irreducibly complex. If irreducible complexity invariably indicated human intelligence, and could not possibly arise naturally, you would have a strong argument. But when both humans and nature produce both redundency and irreducibility, you have no argument at all."

The problem is in how we see that word "nature." Apparently you view nature here as meaning "evolution" when ID'ers seem to think of it as "Intelligence." I think they are claiming that the attribute of Intelligence is itself a natural attribute and that since, unlike with the evolution alternative, this attribute demonstrably produces IC forms, then where IC exists intelligence is indicated. As I have said, I don't buy this part of ID. But I suspect it will generally sink in a lot more easily than evolution because it aligns with what many of us sense intuitively.

YOU SAID: "Plausibility is in the mind of the beholder . . . "

And this tends to make this issue very difficult. I can see how, if mutations can compound, step-by-step, year after year, age-after-age they might eventually account for the variety we now see in nature. But can you see how one might consider the "if" above a remarkably huge IF? Were you to claim the witnessed changes account for the relatively superficial differences between certain creatures, I suspect your opponents would have very little problem because of two reasons: 1. the small changes are directly verifiable, and 2. small changes between many creatures actually exist. Indeed, every single family on earth witnesses this with each human birth. But to many people, this sort of certainty is not nearly as accessible when one speaks of anything beyond this-- like "Dats". (ha ha) Since we generally lack the requisite minimum PhD to acquire this certainty, we are for the most part left at your mercy, effectively being forced to either accept your view by faith, or accepting something else on the same basis, depending upon what seems most plausible to us.

YOU SAID: "The model of how this happens, as I wrote to you earlier, "is the single best-attested, most strongly-supported theory in the entire history of science."

We are talking about the evolution of amino acids into a variety of IC forms. Does an evolutionary history exist showing the details of how these forms developed? I remember read a debate between an ID'er and evolutionist. The evolutionist claimed he could describe such a history for a large form, a think he described an alleged dog to whale transformation. The evidence he used to support his view was a series of remains now in the fossil record. And I have read fairly detailed accounts of the pressures that gave rise to this transformation. What I need to know is, do such detailed evolutionary histories and evidence exist for such IC forms as the flagellum and others?

YOU SAID: "First, your continued use of the word "Darwinism" is a code-word typically used by religious deniers to compartmentalize what they seek to reject. You would be more accurate (assuming you wish to be) if you substituted words like "evolution" or even "science"."

Yes. I honestly didn't know the term was offensive to you. I've used it in the past and the evolutionists to whom I spoke never batted an eye. I actually thought calling you "evolutionists" was offensive because it sounds like a religion. Darwinist to me sounds merely like one who accepts and seeks to extend the theories first popularized by Charles Darwin. But it doesn't matter, as long as I now have the right term. I think it is most unfair of you to attempt to exploit language against your ideological opponents by commandeering the words "science" and "scientists" when your opponents are valid scientists and in their view participate in science. I therefore will reject your request here and apply the word to both sides of the issue.

YOU SAID: "Instead you mean . . . that many people know ONLY enough about evolution . . . to know that it conflicts with the tenets of their religious faith. Since for most people, for whatever reason, their religious faith is impervious to modification, evolution must be wrong."

Come now. That is not exactly what I have said here. Let us try to keep the thing as open and on the line as we can. Once again, I do believe most people are somewhat inclined to reject evolution. But I DO NOT think they are as anti-philosophical as you claim. If the evidence is compelling enough and presented clearly, without the fallacious clutter that is all too common within evolutionist culture, then they will alter their doctrine to accommodate it. Few, if anyone, really thinks the earth is flat and sits at the universe's center. Evidence to the contrary is compelling, especially now that we have had tens of dozens of people literally seeing and taking tens of thousands of photographs that directly attest to the fact, leaving smooth and utterly detailed amounts of evidence so that anyone can grasp it. No PhD required. I submit that the evidence for evolution is not this apparent. Even you yourself have admitted this. So people are not that inclined to believe it. Rather than claim they disbelieve simply because they wish to protect religion, we should consider the obvious here.

YOU SAID: "But this sets up a tension: evolutionary theory is attested to by nearly every scientist alive, and science is "good". There is one easy resolution to this problem: the theory of evolution MUST be wrong. Not the rest of science, mind you, just evolutionary theory."

Personally, I suspect evolutionist culture has the problem I have mentioned previously. And as I have also mentioned, I think the evidence supporting the theory is not very compelling as presented -- whether it is true or not. I think that is the problem. Surely vast numbers of scientists accept evolution. But that was the case even before the evidence was as complete as it is. Do you really think scientists with Ph.Ds in anthropology really had the wherewithal to present detailed evolutionary histories of the IC forms upon which their formerly living evidence is predicated? I think not. Yet without what to me is this most critical evidence, they accepted the theory purely based on the large forms and built detailed histories from them. I suspect they are still accepting the theory on the same basis as always, and they are doing it without the detailed history of IC molecular forms that I for one think is absolutely mandatory. I think faith exist even among scientists. So I am not terribly impressed that most scientists accept evolution.

YOU SAID: "But let's isolate this as "Darwinism" to turn it into an "ism" to imply that it's a cult and not really a scientific discipline at all. Perhaps scientists are too emotional and passionate. Perhaps they are too dogmatic. Perhaps, under the pressure of religious "correction" they refuse even to admit to the serious flaws in their theory. But they MUST be wrong. Do these speculations sound familiar to you? You have so far trotted out every one of them!"

I have not. My reasons for rejection are as I have described them. I most sincerely used the term "Darwinism", well, to be as accurate as I can, I used the term "Darwinism" because it corresponds nicely with "Darwinists," which term I thought was preferable to "Evolutionist." I see it was a mistake. I don't engage evolutionists online very much. And the insults fly so much in places like this I tend to just ignore most of the exchanges. So I must have just picked up the wrong impression about the words. You will note I no longer use them.

YOU SAID: "So the challenge for science is indeed to "demonstrate something to the contrary". As far as science is concerned, there are two problems here. First (of course), something to the contrary has been demonstrated to the full, complete, unambiguous satisfaction of nearly every scientist in the world (and the ONLY known exceptions are those whose religious beliefs conflict. This peculiar coincidence might suggest a motivation behind such disagreement, yes?)"

Well yes. It certainly might. It is a fine point, and we'll have to look into it. But, please consider that if upon looking at the evidence one statistically determines that certain parts of it could not have arisen by step-by-step evolution, then that alone sets up the conflict. In other words, the person making the anti-evolution determination is now faced with what to him is the fact that evolution is not an alternative that is available to him. By default, because there is no view you are willing to accept as "natural," other than your own evolutionist view, you will have to dismiss him as approaching the evidence from "religion." This could quite easily account for why those who are against you appear to you as they do.

YOU SAID: "And second, there is absolutely no evidence-based method by which intelligence can be ruled out."

Which is exactly why I do not accept this part of ID. But this does not prohibit my establishing in my own mind that ID's claims against evolution are firm. I really think this is the baby of ID. I can throw out the bathwater for now.

YOU SAID: "(Consider the jury at the OJ Simpson trial. The prosecution could have produced 50 witnesses, and they'd have concluded it was mass hypnosis. The prosecution could have produced live videotape of the murders, and the jury would have decided they were doctored. OJ could have confessed on the stand, and the jury would decide he was lying or it was coerced. When a position is not based on evidence, no amount of evidence can dislodge it.)"

Don't you think you are exaggerating just a little bit here? I think OJ was as guilty as sin. But I have long understood the verdict. The jury experienced with the LAPD something similar to what I am experiencing with evolutionist culture. They didn't think the LAPD could be fair-minded to a black man-- and for several understandable reasons.

Blacks had for decades complained that the LAPD was particularly unfair in the way it treated them. By the time LA began to investigate the complaints, the Rodney King fracas had come and gone, leaving a lot of bad blood in the streets. Several independent commissions and reports confirmed essentially what the blacks had long claimed: that the LAPD was quite seriously infested with racism, its officers planting false evidence upon black suspects and doing a number of things that was against the law.

By the time the Simpson trial began, blacks were still convinced the LAPD had it out for them. It did not help that Mark Furman, the LAPD detective who searched OJ's home, was actually caught on tape admitting he and his co-workers routinely placed false evidence on "niggers." That didn't help at all. And it did not help that the LAPD broke its own rules to allow its employee to take home the blood samples to be used as evidence against Simpson. It did not help a bit when the news media showed the sloppy job the LAPD did in securing the evidence, allowing everyday passersby to get near and even look into the famous Bronco. All of this was evidence to the blacks, evidence that you and I, because of our biases, interpreted away or completely overlooked. I understand this because I suspect the same sort of thing is happening within evolutionist culture.

YOU SAID: "Well, I'll be the first to admit that magical explanations ARE unassailable. They are useless, of course, but they cannot possibly be disproved. When you say ID has a lot of power, this is ambiguous. It has NO scientific power . . . "

This is like saying the evidence I spoke of above has NO legal power because our narrow view claims it is irrelevant to a specific case. It certainly does have power whether it counts. It is most true, at least to those who view it and it is wondrously influential in how people see the world. We may dismiss it with insults and haughtiness, but we do not address it by such behavior.

YOU SAID: "Sadly, as I just wrote, ID not only lacks ANY theory or ANY evidence, they are also making NO attempt to develop any of either one."

I don't think they have to, not at this point. They think they are appropriately assaulting evolution based upon Darwin's challenge. I think it is fair that they do it. They need no theory to serve this function.

YOU SAID: "They have a very large budget, which is expended entirely on political lobbying and public relations programs. Their goal is to pack school boards (and ideally, courts) with Creationists."

They do this because they think they have to. Evolution controls the courts, the schools and universities. And very many people, as I have tried to explain above, do not think its evidence warrants this degree of control. Despite their views, they are unable to live as they wish. Evolutionists force them by threat of government arms to pay taxes so that their own children can be taught things they just do not believe are true. And apparently evolutionists do not care anything at all for the concerns of these people. It just forces its way regardless of individual conscience and freedom of thought. I think there is a strong belief that there is no choice but to fight back by destroying evolution on multiple fronts, including by taking over the courts. It creates a lot of bad blood -- and needlessly, in my opinion. There is a better way.

YOU SAID: "But of course, none of this long-term plan would be possible were it not for the broad public desire to reconcile their religious faith with their faith in science."

People dislike very many things evolution does to them. The mere fact evolution forces its way via courts upon vast regional majorities of people is by itself enough to fill those vast majorities with distrust. We ought not overlook this. I personally think it was a mistake for the evolutionists to force themselves as they did. People ought not be forced to accept what they think is unsubstantiated and when you force them to pay for it, you are certainly forcing them to accept it. It is better to substantiate the belief first and then have people accept it willingly.

From Simon:

"People dislike very many things evolution does to them. The mere fact evolution forces its way via courts upon vast regional majorities of people is by itself enough to fill those vast majorities with distrust. We ought not overlook this. I personally think it was a mistake for the evolutionists to force themselves as they did. People ought not be forced to accept what they think is unsubstantiated and when you force them to pay for it, you are certainly forcing them to accept it. It is better to substantiate the belief first and then have people accept it willingly"

This bit is pricelessly partisan.

I'm not really sure how 'evolution forces its way into the courts'. It is the dominant, strike that, only scientific theory that has credible weight behind it. There is no 'hidden evolution agenda' -- its transparent agenda is the search for truth in our origins and its support is from many people of many theologies. There is friction where people have trouble reconciling their faith with aspects of it, but they can either burn the heretics, or accept the world is flat and evolve their faith, as has happened previously. "People ought not be forced to accept what they think is unsubstantiated" is a great argument for keeping religion and ID out of the classroom." It is better to substantiate the belief first and then have people accept it willingly" -- isn't this the current ID crisis, with its non theories that aren't published and by self admission not ready for the public stage?

From Simon:

"People dislike very many things evolution does to them. The mere fact evolution forces its way via courts upon vast regional majorities of people is by itself enough to fill those vast majorities with distrust. We ought not overlook this. I personally think it was a mistake for the evolutionists to force themselves as they did. People ought not be forced to accept what they think is unsubstantiated and when you force them to pay for it, you are certainly forcing them to accept it. It is better to substantiate the belief first and then have people accept it willingly"

This bit is pricelessly partisan.

I'm not really sure how 'evolution forces its way into the courts'. It is the dominant, strike that, only scientific theory that has credible weight behind it. There is no 'hidden evolution agenda' -- its transparent agenda is the search for truth in our origins and its support is from many people of many theologies. There is friction where people have trouble reconciling their faith with aspects of it, but they can either burn the heretics, or accept the world is flat and evolve their faith, as has happened previously. "People ought not be forced to accept what they think is unsubstantiated" is a great argument for keeping religion and ID out of the classroom." It is better to substantiate the belief first and then have people accept it willingly" -- isn't this the current ID crisis, with its non theories that aren't published and by self admission not ready for the public stage?

You yourself engage evolutionists in person and online, encountering the same fallacies and dishonesty. You read books and in all of this you encounter fallacious posturing and even personal insults merely for requiring evidence that seems entirely reasonable to you.

I believed in God before ID.

— Simon

You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know.

No-one(?) falls for ID without already being a god-believer - prejudiced towards it and towards the idea of regarding false (religious) authorities as valid scientific ones.

— SEF

#35225 - Simon, go to a physics group and try telling them with similar arguments that Einstein's Special or General Relativity is wrong. Before complaining about these scientists, you should do this experiment.

Whereas the creationist fairy story is easy and attractive because it is vacuous. It explains nothing. It predicts nothing - by accounting for everything and anything post hoc.

— SEF

As I and very few others note, the ID strategy is more a reaction to the scientific failure of the creationisms than the legal failures to get them taught in public schools.

I thought you agreed to take my word that I was not intentionally trying to be provocative. But it appears you wish to insist that I am. I have spent considerable time contemplating your view and responding as honestly as I know how. Very well. You will see what you must see. This will be my last post here.

Please try to put yourself in the following position: You do not have a Ph.D. in microbiology, as evolutionist authorities claim is the MINIMUM requirement to have an adequate knowledge of the origins issue.

You have a genuine intuitive sense that design was involved in certain structures because the structures appear as if they could not have developed in a step-by-step evolutionary manner.

You also see many evolutionists claiming that that intuition is wrong.

A relative few ID'ers declare that the intuition is right and because they calmly describe to you the structures involved in supporting the intuition, without posturing, you hear the argument and think them powerful.

You do not think the arguments are necessarily correct, but you know for a fact that they are very powerful

and that the people involved are not dishonest kooks because, not thinking yourself a kook, they have appealed to and in part won your own intellect.

You read through talkorigins (I first encountered it as a newsgroup and I have to tell you my experience there as a lurker was just appalling. So my skepticism of talkorigins is very great for the reasons I am about to describe). You discover there a war in which evolutionists haughtily dismiss their opponents with accusations and assaults that you know are just plain fallacious and even outright dishonest.

You yourself engage evolutionists in person and online, encountering the same fallacies and dishonesty. You read books and in all of this you encounter fallacious posturing and even personal insults merely for requiring evidence that seems entirely reasonable to you.

You want to get your doubts fairly criticized, but the minute you begin to press them, evolutionists pile on like religious fundamentalists, even demanding you produce a theory before rejecting evolution simply "because that is how science works" (the acceptance of the structure itself strikes you as religious in nature because you personally see no logic that objectively compels one to formally present a certain view before dismissing another).

Lacking the required Ph.D, you sense that at some point, you are going to have to trust an authority. But your reading and certainly your personal experience indicates to you that the authorities in the evolutionist culture are so conditioned toward a certain train of thought that when presented a certain set of data, they find what they wish to find.

You know, for example, that you had no intention of being a "troll" or a "liar" and that you certainly are not any of the many insulting things the evolutionists have called you, but because you express a certain set of concerns, the evolutionists are absolutely convinced that these things are true about you.

** Now I should add here, not flippantly, that I really do not personally care what any of you think of me. My concern here is that my skepticism naturally increases with each insult. ** Indeed, your mere use of the word "we" to blunt the accusatory sting of certain of your beliefs about evolutionist culture causes legions of evolutionists to actually think you mean to lie.

You see in evolutionist culture what is obvious to you a lack of soberness, a conditioning against what you personally know are the facts, a tendency to see facts that simply are not there.

You are seeing the same evidence as the evolutionists, but come away with radically different conclusions.

And you see that the bias, the bitterness, the lies* and blustering are so ubiquitous in the culture,

you think they are quite possibly a cultural fixture, influencing not only the evolutionists' dealings with you, but also their perception of everything else. (* I should clarify what I mean when I use the word "lie" here. Search the thread here and find any of a number of people putting words in my mouth and posturing simply to try to argue. The "Rev." here tells these sorts of lies incessantly. It is true of many evolutionists. I won't even respond to such obvious dishonesty and nonsense.)

I do not claim that evolutionists have for a fact unintentionally misrepresented the data. But I strongly suspect it, and because I suspect the problem is a fixture in evolutionist culture, it makes evolutionist leaders unfit to be general authoritative on this issue.

The matter is worsened because to understand it, I must acquire a PhD from the very culture the general intellectual integrity of which I hold suspect.

This is the chief reason I began here by pointing out a need for us to avoid insults and other fallacy. In my opinion, insults and an over reliance on fallacy are strong indicators of a lack of integrity.

This is not true. There is another alternative. One could be genuinely uncomfortable with evolutionary theory because one lacks faith in the reasonableness of evolutionist culture and therefore holds suspect its claims.

In fact, I am astonished evolutionists can so easily and so fervently accept the theory without the detailed evidence that I personally think one should instinctively expect.

But merely voicing such astonishment provokes long sequences of fallacy from the culture, claiming I seek "infinite proof" and other claims that are to me obviously and perhaps even intentionally false.

In my view this alone, regardless of religion, is enough to leave one uncomfortable with evolutionary theory. Please understand here that I am not trying to be harsh and uncooperative. I am trying to help you see how many, I suspect, average non-evolutionists think.

Surely you do not think even the majority of evolutionists have the requisite PhD to embrace evolution.

Yet they do embrace it, and every bit as fervently as others embrace God.

For most of us, it is a matter of faith whether we reject or accept evolution.

So I suspect for many evolutionist scientists rejection with faith as its basis is not really the problem. Rejection itself is the problem.

I have only a few choices available to me. I could dismiss evolutionist culture as comprised of a bunch of zealots who through artful politicking and government oppression of American citizens have kept their theory alive,

or I may gain the minimum PhD from the culture I hold suspect (which I suspect means I must conform to this culture) in order to understand the data for myself,

or I may study the claims coming out of the culture while holding the culture and its claims suspect, also employing the critiques of the culture's enemies. As you might imagine, they are all very difficult choices.

The last option seems best and that is what I try to do.

YOU SAID: "I hope you can recognize that the processes by which these opposing conclusions [to evolution] are reached are dramatically different." I am just not sure about this. I strongly suspect there are pressures, fallacious pressures, fixed in evolutionist culture, that keep its troops moored to evolution.

Actually, I don't think False matters only to science. I think, and it is one of the chief reasons I am here, that only False matters to evolutionary science, to the unnecessary dismissal of mass appeal. I think religion, as it is often (but not always) practiced, has the opposite problem.

Very well. But please understand it seems entirely reasonable to me that given an IC form, we need more than a general philosophical claim that such forms are predicted by evolution. We need a very specific and detailed model at the molecular level that demonstrates how the form developed, its major steps and the pressures that compelled them.

Now, perhaps I am uninformed. This, as I have admitted, is a distinct possibility. But when I read Behe's claim re: the flagellum, for example, and then read Miller's response. I am left wondering if such a model truly exists.

If I can get you to simply trust one thing it is this: I believed in God before ID. So I don't need ID and am not trying to protect it.

Please bear with me. I am under the impression that Behe claims the flagellum is IC. This means if a portion is removed from it, the flagellum ceases to function.

Miller seeks to disprove IC in the flagellum by showing that a sub-structure within the flagellum can be removed and altered and yet still provide some sort of protein transfer...

The problem is in how we see that word "nature." Apparently you view nature here as meaning "evolution" when ID'ers seem to think of it as "Intelligence." I think they are claiming that the attribute of Intelligence is itself a natural attribute and that since, unlike with the evolution alternative, this attribute demonstrably produces IC forms, then where IC exists intelligence is indicated. As I have said, I don't buy this part of ID. But I suspect it will generally sink in a lot more easily than evolution because it aligns with what many of us sense intuitively.

I can see how, if mutations can compound, step-by-step, year after year, age-after-age they might eventually account for the variety we now see in nature.

Since we generally lack the requisite minimum PhD to acquire this certainty, we are for the most part left at your mercy, effectively being forced to either accept your view by faith, or accepting something else on the same basis, depending upon what seems most plausible to us.

We are talking about the evolution of amino acids into a variety of IC forms. Does an evolutionary history exist showing the details of how these forms developed?

The evolutionist claimed he could describe such a history for a large form, a think he described an alleged dog to whale transformation.

The evidence he used to support his view was a series of remains now in the fossil record. And I have read fairly detailed accounts of the pressures that gave rise to this transformation. What I need to know is, do such detailed evolutionary histories and evidence exist for such IC forms as the flagellum and others?

I honestly didn't know the term was offensive to you.

I think it is most unfair of you to attempt to exploit language against your ideological opponents by commandeering the words "science" and "scientists" when your opponents are valid scientists and in their view participate in science. I therefore will reject your request here and apply the word to both sides of the issue.

Come now. That is not exactly what I have said here. Let us try to keep the thing as open and on the line as we can. Once again, I do believe most people are somewhat inclined to reject evolution. But I DO NOT think they are as anti-philosophical as you claim.

If the evidence is compelling enough and presented clearly, without the fallacious clutter that is all too common within evolutionist culture,

then they will alter their doctrine to accommodate it.

Few, if anyone, really thinks the earth is flat and sits at the universe's center. Evidence to the contrary is compelling, especially now that we have had tens of dozens of people literally seeing and taking tens of thousands of photographs that directly attest to the fact, leaving smooth and utterly detailed amounts of evidence so that anyone can grasp it.

I submit that the evidence for evolution is not this apparent.

Even you yourself have admitted this. So people are not that inclined to believe it. Rather than claim they disbelieve simply because they wish to protect religion, we should consider the obvious here.

Personally, I suspect evolutionist culture has the problem I have mentioned previously.

And as I have also mentioned, I think the evidence supporting the theory is not very compelling as presented -- whether it is true or not.

I think that is the problem. Surely vast numbers of scientists accept evolution. But that was the case even before the evidence was as complete as it is.

Do you really think scientists with Ph.Ds in anthropology really had the wherewithal to present detailed evolutionary histories of the IC forms upon which their formerly living evidence is predicated? I think not.

YOU SAID: "But let's isolate this as "Darwinism" to turn it into an "ism" to imply that it's a cult and not really a scientific discipline at all. Perhaps scientists are too emotional and passionate. Perhaps they are too dogmatic. Perhaps, under the pressure of religious "correction" they refuse even to admit to the serious flaws in their theory. But they MUST be wrong. Do these speculations sound familiar to you? You have so far trotted out every one of them!" I have not.

Well yes. It certainly might. It is a fine point, and we'll have to look into it.

But, please consider that if upon looking at the evidence one statistically determines that certain parts of it could not have arisen by step-by-step evolution,

In other words, the person making the anti-evolution determination is now faced with what to him is the fact that evolution is not an alternative that is available to him. By default, because there is no view you are willing to accept as "natural," other than your own evolutionist view, you will have to dismiss him as approaching the evidence from "religion." This could quite easily account for why those who are against you appear to you as they do.

But this does not prohibit my establishing in my own mind that ID's claims against evolution are firm. I really think this is the baby of ID. I can throw out the bathwater for now.

I think OJ was as guilty as sin. But I have long understood the verdict. The jury experienced with the LAPD something similar to what I am experiencing with evolutionist culture. They didn't think the LAPD could be fair-minded to a black man--- and for several understandable reasons...All of this was evidence to the blacks, evidence that you and I, because of our biases, interpreted away or completely overlooked. I understand this because I suspect the same sort of thing is happening within evolutionist culture.

This is like saying the evidence I spoke of above has NO legal power

YOU SAID: "Sadly, as I just wrote, ID not only lacks ANY theory or ANY evidence, they are also making NO attempt to develop any of either one." I don't think they have to, not at this point. They think they are appropriately assaulting evolution based upon Darwin's challenge. I think it is fair that they do it. They need no theory to serve this function.

They do this because they think they have to.

Evolution controls the courts, the schools and universities. And very many people, as I have tried to explain above, do not think its evidence warrants this degree of control.

Despite their views, they are unable to live as they wish.

Evolutionists force them by threat of government arms to pay taxes so that their own children can be taught things they just do not believe are true.

And apparently evolutionists do not care anything at all for the concerns of these people. It just forces its way regardless of individual conscience and freedom of thought.

People dislike very many things evolution does to them. The mere fact evolution forces its way via courts upon vast regional majorities of people is by itself enough to fill those vast majorities with distrust.

I beg to differ again.

— Frank J

Well, that wasn't worth the time to scroll.

Nothing but a rim shot to add, and exit stage left:

"Simon YOU SAID"

I can see you have made a massive effort here. Just the sheer magnitude of the investment is impressive all by itself. Perhaps my suspicions are unjustified. I have rarely known a dishonest person to exert this kind of effort.

I think a layman can understand the general issues.

Meaning no insult here, but... IF my intuition told me that these structures were designed, THEN I could rationalize my intuition. But the intuition comes first; it does not derive from the appearance.

The appearance in this usage is a subjective judgment based on the intuition. You KNOW they were designed, therefore they LOOK designed. Am I clear?

But the intuition itself is fully justified, IMAO. Indeed, that intuition was taken for granted for millennia before even the very first suspicions arose that there might actually be another possibility. And the possibility of evolution is not intuitive (at least, not to me) at all.

What has led those who have studied it hardest to exchange the intuition for the theory of evolution is the preponderance of evidence.

Again, I could not in all honesty do as you request here. IF I already believed in creation, of course I would find any claims in support of my belief to be powerful. It has been my experience with myself as well as with others, that nothing is more reasonable than a shared prejudice.

Your terminology is misleading. You wish very badly for these arguments to be correct, if you are anything like me or most people. You don't "know for a fact" but ratification of my preferences is always convincing.

No, I think not. They have won your emotion. And most such people are not kooks at all, they are entirely sincere. They have a powerful belief. Inclined toward the same belief, you are perforce inclined to accept the same rationale. I consider this only natural.

Here is what leads to my previous comments. I also encountered talkorigins (at least, the archive, not the realtime give and take), and found every single thing they wrote to be intelligent, well-supported, logical, and respectful.

I found scientists carefully and logically presenting defensible positions, and I found creationists lying through their teeth. But of course, I recognize that I had already taken sides before I ever got there. So had you. And sure enough, we each see the opposing side as black and our side as white. We are strongly prejudiced. Both of us.

If you could be so kind as to point out an evolutionist fallacy, I would be glad to consider it. I grant that insults are the coin of the internet, pandemic and universal.

. . . What the evolutionists are trying to do is get you to admit to them and to yourself WHY you have rejected this theory, and "insufficient data" is NOT a valid reason for rejection.

If you were to say "My religious faith teaches otherwise, and I cannot abandon my faith" nobody would pile on you, because this would be honest.

Let me point out here, that all people are highly skilled at finding what they wish to find. Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and tend to find support for their ideas whether it's there or not. But this entirely human tendency is well-recognized, and the scientific process takes a lot of precautions in an attempt to neutralize it. To save time and space, I won't list a whole lot of them, but they exist: replication, peer review, methodology.

And before we wander off this topic, I'd like to point out that all of us appeal to authority every day, whether it be taking our car to a mechanic, hiring a lawyer, attending school, even using a computer (whose designers and programmers you rely on).

This is not my appreciation of what has happened here. You have not been labeled a troll or liar for expressing a certain set of concerns, but for HOW you expressed them.

But I've been spending a lot of time on you as well, because I have not abandoned hope that you can make a good contribution...

Finally and most persuasively, I see that the ONLY people who feel the way you do are believers in one particular religious faith that just happens to disagree with the conclusions that the theory of evolution draws. This is not a coincidence.

And I should emphasize here that I know from personal experience that devout religious faith has profound effects on the perceptions.

So consider what I see: 1) Tens of thousands of scientists have developed, and are daily ratifying and strengthening, the theory of evolution. 2) A tiny handful of scientists, almost NONE working in a discipline where evolution is involved, disagree with the theory of evolution. 3) ALL of these scientists are opposed to evolution on religious grounds. And nearly all of them say so quite openly. Now, what conclusion is it reasonable to draw?

But the distinguishing factor is religion. Nothing else.

This is really too much, you know. You are condemning a very large number of very dedicated people who have devoted their lives to the accumulation and contribution to highly specialized knowledge, none of whom lie, none of whom are bitter, who are not part of a "culture" in the way you use the word, but ALL of whom have taken a scientific position in conflict with your religious faith. And that's the ONLY thing they all have in common. Do you not reflect on this at all?

I can't say that nobody on this thread has misconstrued what you have written. On the other hand, it does seem to me that you *already "knew"* that you would be entering a nest of nasty, bitter, biased, blustering liars, and sure enough, your conclusions match your assumptions so closely it's hard to tell them apart.

Your claim that those who know a field most intimately and who have the most knowledge, are ipso facto least qualified to be authoritative is simply mind-boggling.

Here is how I interpret this astounding claim: 1) Evolution can't be right, because my faith forbids it 2) The overwhelming majority of scientists in related fields (99.99%) hold that evolution is correct. 3) Since they must be wrong, all that remains is to understand how and why they are wrong. 4) It may be part of their culture. They might be stupid, or dishonest, or just bad people. They are surely so ignorant of their very specialties as to be unqualified as authorities . . .

Simon, this is religious fanaticism. It just is. What else could it be?

. . . To contribute useful new knowledge you probably need such a qualification [as a PhD]. To understand it, you need only approach it with the desire to learn, not armed with such a powerful rejection you anticipate a nest of vicious ignorant snakes.

Yet look at what you have indirectly accused tens of thousands of scientists of doing! And these claims are simply not true. Evolutionists do NOT misrepresent the data. They are NOT a 'culture'. They ARE authorities within their specialties. They are NOT bitter. They do NOT lie, and indeed being caught lying spells the end of any career in science.

Every one of these false smears is an insult. Clearly, you do not like being called a liar or ignorant. Why is it NOT an insult when you do that to others wholesale?

How much detail is enough? Literally tens of thousands of scientists have been accumulating relevant detail in multiple related disciplines for over 150 years, and their cumulative output fills entire large libraries and requires a dozen years of focused education to master even one small slice of . . .

Then let me attempt to explain. Those who make this claim, unlike yourself, are intensely and professionally aware of the sheer volume of supporting evidence. If what we currently know is not enough, then "enough" has become a code-word for "you'll never have enough to satisfy me." . . .

I'm not saying that faith is wrong or bad, I'm saying that any position not based on evidence cannot be dislodged by evidence. And thus the claim that "you don't have enough evidence yet" is not an honest claim.

Your implication that such a degree is required to understand evolution in general (as opposed to being able to make contributions to the theory) is simply wrong. Your word "embrace" is a telling term. Perhaps you do not understand the code inside your computer, but this doesn't prevent you from accepting computers on the evidence. And you need not "embrace" your computer to accept that it's there and it works.

But you accept your computer on the basis of good evidence, even though you may not know exactly how they work.

You know that when you press a key, the key shows up on the screen. How does this happen? If you don't know, does this mean it does not happen? Or can you reasonably conclude that some process someone else DOES understand makes it happen?

You may be right, but for some of us, it is instead a matter of evidence. I admit I was predisposed to accept that 99.99% of scientists in the field probably had some reason for their acceptance before I started reading popular books to find out WHAT they were accepting. I will never be an expert.

I would disagree. Rejection without evidence in support of that rejection is the problem. It's always critical to bear in mind when dealing with scientists, that evidence not only matters, evidence is ALL that matters. Given the sheer magnitude of the evidence backing evolution, one must either not respect evidence at all to reject it, or one must be willfully ignorant of that evidence.

you could make yourself knowledgeable about the evidential basis on which the theory is based. After all, the overwhelming majority of scientists do not accept evolution, gravity, plate tectonics and other widely-accepted theories because they wish to belong to some arcane social club . . .

Nonetheless, I appreciate your difficulty. It arises mainly because you did NOT give yourself the option of opening your mind, accepting for the sake of argument that maybe the scientists are right and your religious convictions are misguided, and that with appropriate knowledge you could accommodate both your faith and the discoveries and understandings science has developed. I can assure you that a great many capable evolutionary scientists are also devout believers in God. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive at all.

This seems reasonable to me. It's what everyone must do with respect to nearly every specialty. We may distrust lawyers, we will never get law degrees, but we still take advantage of their services...

My understanding is that we have exactly what you request. A scientific theory is not a "general philosophical claim", it is a pragmatic and practical explanation of genuine replicable observations. Science is a very nitty gritty process. We can observe the genetic changes that lead to IC forms quite directly, in the lab.

There are in fact hundreds of responses to Behe, you need only search the net.

ID, to be blunt and honest (even though you may disagree), is nothing more than ordinary creationism dressed up in scientistical terms. ID is a barely-encoded religious faith.

Here's where you and I both have problems. I'm not a biologist. So two biologists argue these matters using terms I've never heard, citing experiments I couldn't understand, etc. How can I judge at that level of detail?

Yet I CAN understand illustrations of various evolutionary pathways. And as I understand this, nearly every protein and substructure in the flagellum is present in other bacteria, serving other purposes. All that was necessary for evolution to produce a flagellum (more literally, for some mutation to do so) was to combine these factors in a slightly different way.

To the best of my knowledge, our view is necessary latitudinal (across a lot of similar organisms) rather than longitudinal (over the course of millions of years). And so we can say: IF things happened as we suppose, THEN we can model what the results would necessarily be. THEN we go out to see if we can find those results.

Uh, proto-whales probably existed before proto-dogs. But whales did evolve from terrestrial forms.

As I understand it, such histories cannot be produced for very much, because we do not have a time machine. But the important point is that such histories are not really necessary to support the theory. We have multiple sources in agreement: the fossil record (incomplete as it is), molecular methods, genetic analysis, etc.

In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the demand for a detailed history is motivated NOT because such a history would contribute anything useful, but because we don't have that history, and demanding it makes scientists look presumptuous and ignorant.

Remember that ID is a public relations technique. When scientists say "No, we don't have that detailed history, but we have something equally informative" this argument is dismissed.

This is not quite right. The term [Darwinism] itself isn't offensive, although as I wrote above, Darwin only started things off, and the theory has left him far behind. What's offensive is the implied intent to marginalize an in fact extremely broad theory.

And (though you may not be aware), most scientists opposing evolution are not in related disciplines, and ALL are devoutly religious. As is often pointed out here, they make no effort to even TRY for peer review . . .

Very very few people can give even the simplest synopsis of evolutionary theory and get it right. The same is true of most every scientific theory. Yet ONLY evolution is broadly rejected. This rejection can't possibly be on the merits: nobody knows the merits. We are instead seeing the effect of religious doctrine.

The correlation between acceptance of evolution and Biblical literalism is disconcertingly high.

The evidence in favor of plate tectonics is far more tenuous, yet it conflicts with no religious teachings, and nobody contests it.

The Phoenecians knew the world was round and that it rotated. They even estimated the global circumference remarkably accurately. This knowledge was overruled by the Christian church.

Yes, I agree. This is why the Phoenecians knew about the globe thousands of years ago, but evolution was not even suspected until a couple hundred years ago. It is subtle.

But what is obvious? Can YOU explain the details of plate tectonics? But do you REJECT plate tectonics even though you have no clue about the geological details? No, you accept it (I'm presuming) because you have no reason not to and you trust professional geologists to know their field.

OK, so I missed one reason for rejecting it. But understand that I consider your "evolutionist culture" conspiracy to be entirely fictitious and STRONGLY contraindicated by the facts.

(Tearing out hair) But you DO NOT KNOW the evidence supporting it. You had no idea how very very very very vast that evidence is.

And as I have said before, I also spend no time researching the support for anything I don't care to accept. I know for a fact that the Bible is nothing but the local superstitions of an ancient tribe of middle-eastern camel herders, yet I've never actually opened a Bible in my life. See how that works?

Oh no! Not at all! This is important. Before Darwin, Divine creation was the ONLY alternative. In fact, discovery of prior ice ages was delayed by probably a generation by the conviction that the evidence MUST be for Noah's flood.

You have described an "evolutionary culture" unwilling to change. You said that there were "serious flaws" and you are still taking about the lack of a molecular history. You said they substituted passion for judgment ("I now hold suspect the ability of science to interpret the available evidence without shoe-horning it into whatever place it needs it to be. The passions of the participants are so great . . . ") Now you have added "inadequate evidence" to the list.

Please do. When something is accepted by everyone worldwide who has any knowedge of it, EXCEPT believers in a faith that explicitly rejects it, you have a clear-cut example of religious rejection. Nothing else.

Simon, those "statistical determinations" are without exception bogus. They have been soundly refuted for decades.

You need not be so indirect. Dembski has come right out and SAID that science is useless without Jesus. Dembski is moving to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Philip Johnson has said that FEAR OF THE LORD is where scientific truth lies. This is not subtle.

Another insightful point here, actually. You are entirely correct: the OJ jury was making a social statement, and the evidence did not matter.

And you are running into plain hostility from those whose lives are dedicated to collecting and interpreting evidence. Indirectly, you are telling them you think they are wasting their lives. Do you expect milk and honey?

And as I have explained, the evidence in support of evolution as a theory is simply overwhelming. There is only one possible reason to claim it's not enough: because "enough" is like "tomorrow" --- it never comes.

What? Who? You are free to homeschool your children . . .

This is a sticky problem. If someone had a religious conviction that reading books was a sin, would you like the public schools to teach illiteracy to appease these Believers?

If the evidence offends you, you are free to teach your children otherwise.[/auote] Not everywhere. Freedom is in rapidly decreasing supply in America. And evolution is part of the problem here as evolutionists exploit law for tax dollars and exploit the courts to do for it what it obviously cannot yet do on its own. Not so. You have plenty of freedom. And for a fact, most public schools remain tactfully silent about evolution because they don't wish angry zealots pestering them.

But scientists care deeply about education: They wish our children to be informed, to understand how to learn, how science works. If you reject knowledge, don't blame others.

This sounds like paranoia to me. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is accepted by almost all scientists worldwide. It is supported by so much evidence a thousand brilliant people couldn't learn it all in their lifetimes. WHY would any sane person feel threatened by this?

In some parts of the world, science is rejected for religious or political regions. The term that generally describes these places is "backwards." This is no coincidence. You are not threatened by science. You are threatened by ignorance and by religion.

I'm sorry that the way biology works is religiously distasteful to you, and I can understand your desire not to know better. But out here in the secular world, there are no evolutionist cultures, science is perhaps the greatest invention in the history of the world, and even those who rail against it take full advantage of the benefits it offers.

From my very first remembrances I have seen highly complex structures, the high order materials of which I, or creatures like me, could shape into components. I have seen these structures are always the result of an application of intelligence.

It is to give to evolutionists what much of the world now gives to priests, preachers and popes. Huh? No, actually, most people don't rely on religious authority figures for their science. Evolution directly contradicts what humans sense every single day of their lives. Quantum mechanics doesn't do this.

Quantum mechanics contradicts intuition (aka common sense) all over the place:

wave particle duality.
particle entanglement at a distance.
virtual particles popping in and out.
Uncertainty principle.

Otoh, evolution is based largely on inference from the simple assumption that complex life forms come from ancestors very similar to themselves, and that basic assumption is common sense.

Henry

The implications of this issue are so large, impacting not merely religion, but how we see ourselves in nature, our responsibilities to each other and to nature, that a mere understanding of the general issues leaving alleged authorities to summarize the critical details strikes me as grossly insufficient.

It is to give to evolutionists what much of the world now gives to priests, preachers and popes.

But I think the reason you cannot move toward me is because, judging from what you've said above, you treat intuition as a thing that "just is" and that leads us to seek rationalization.

Moreover, the libertarian in me finds it immeasurably difficult that on the basis of "general issues" you think it acceptable that I be compelled by government force to teach your truth to my children, or at least be compelled to pay for teaching it to other people's children. Don't you think you ask too much?

On the other hand, I DO NOT KNOW the power of evolution because it is NOT directly accessible to me and it is certainly NOT a daily part of my cognitive experience.

Evolution directly contradicts what humans sense every single day of their lives.

Which is precisely why it ought not be forced on a public for whom ID is intuitive.

The problem is in how we interpret the evidence. I once accepted evolution because I learned it as a child, went to college and studied it. The evidence for it looked acceptable, though I confess to always having doubts. But now that Behe has come out with his book, the evidence no longer looks fine.

In fact I do not know whom to trust at this point.

This is why I absolutely must have the details before I willingly change to evolution. I am willing to admit the possibility that I am trapped here. But if I am indeed trapped, I know what I need to get out and I am not finding it, despite talkorigins.org.

ID tells me there exist things that could not possibly exist without the Super Intellect I have long sensed exists.

What I very badly wish to do is disprove ID.

the only way I can do this satisfactorily is to find the very thing Behe claims does not exist, a detailed history demonstrating the evolution of an IC form

I do not wish to force you to pay to have your children (or anyone else's children) taught ID.

And insults are the primary fallacy employed here.

If it is true, then the extant function of the superstructure could not possibly ever have developed in a step-by-step fashion.

Despite how we may personally interpret the implication of Behe's views, he obviously never counsels us to just give up.

It directly contradicts what is implied by everyday human experience and it does not have readily accessible and compelling evidence to warrant the respect that is being compelled on others by government threat.

If the culture is dominated by a paradigm and also pressured by war so that members are actually picketing, boycotting meetings, and employing fallacies against their opponents just to keep them out of the classroom and out of journals and out of their sphere so that nothing but the paradigm ever gets a chance to be influential, then it is quite possible that all of these precautions are made powerless.

Only with evolution is authority left unproved except by "general issues," which, as I have explained, are insufficient.

Flint: the ONLY people who feel the way you do are believers in one particular religious faith that just happens to disagree with the conclusions that the theory of evolution draws. This is not a coincidence. I don't really think this is persuasive at all.

I suspect so does rigid adherence to philosophical materialism.

A whole lot of exclusion is taking place, while the lion's share of the country decisively rejects what the scientists are ratifying.

I nevertheless began here because I very much wanted to have this discussion and I thought by underscoring the destructiveness of insults the participants here would think twice about using them.

these authorities may be most qualified to you, but when I see them employing cheap tricks an other emotional fallacies, I hold them at arm's length.

First, when I have mentioned "evolutionists," I have not had in mind only scientists, but everyone seriously advocating and protecting the theory. I have in mind evolution culture.

it has been my experience that if I approach evolutionists and ID'ers with the same skeptical attitude, evolutionists tend to employ dishonesty more frequently.

I have shown the insults and fallacies.

In this sort of struggle, especially in this sort where evidence is not readily accessible, professional scientists ought by no means employ dishonesty

As I have already explained, I am skeptical of the culture. So corroboration from members of the culture will necessarily be weak.

Do you actually think I can be reasonable and do anything else? How am I wrong in wanting this? Maybe I am wrong here, but I sincerely cannot see it.

It is an honest claim with me. Obviously my perception of the evidence is vastly different from yours, and I do not think I am so dense that I can't perceive what is generally apparent. I tell you I am trying to see it as you do. But I cannot lie to myself about what I don't see.

So it is presents no difficulty to me at all to believe that computers exist and do what the computer scientist claims they can do. I have experienced it cognitively for myself from first to last. Evolution is not so accessible and apparent. So the analogy here does not work, yes?

I am not forced with the computer, as you are with evolution, to rely upon term papers and notes to try reverse extrapolating the shape of the computer from what it has allegedly left behind.

And, for the reasons I have shared, I am predisposed to accept God.

And who really can say who perceives the evidence properly?

The problem is, since science must limit itself to naturalism, I cannot possibly see how science can ever make room for a God. Science has no use for God. God is completely unnecessary. So what is the point of a God that is not needed?

I have searched for this. If you can direct me to it, I'd very much appreciate it.

I would like to see this evidence of genetic mutation from simple to IC form. That would destroy ID and allow us to go home.

And since Miller thinks he can disprove it, Miller obviously thinks ID has made a testable claim.

We cannot really trust either the ID'ers or evolutionists because I suspect they are both prone to skew the evidence in their favor.

Am I wrong to demand evidence that this in fact took place?

And if you make this sort of claim we need to see evidence that it happened. We are just missing each other here -- and it is frustrating. I don't really know how to bridge this.

The point I tried to make is that he tried to show the workings of evolution by a detailed sequence. Now this sequence is quite unacceptable to me.

This sort of sequence and explanation seems at least what is needed on the molecular level

I truly don't see how this so thoroughly satisfies you.

Don't you think it is possible that at least some ID'ers really need this history?

If my suspicions are correct, they should not try because the establishment rejects everything outside of the box. The ID'ers ought to do what they are doing. Develop a new and bigger box from scratch.

I suppose the correlation between acceptance of evolution and hard atheism is equally as high.

It also does not conflict with what we experience in our own lives. I suggest that is a fact you ought not so readily overlook.

Flint: The Phoenecians knew the world was round and that it rotated. They even estimated the global circumference remarkably accurately. This knowledge was overruled by the Christian church. Only because the evidence was not as apparent as it is now.

If it is subtle, it ought not be forced until people can see it for themselves.

This still gives no one the right to force me to pay for what I think likely does not even exist.

my word, Flint! Surely you jest here

The point was that Darwin proposed his theory only on an idea and a few observations of macro forms. He had no genetic support, no fossil support, no support from any of the other sciences.

when you accept a paradigm as evolution was accepted, it seems at least possible that when you then go out to look for evidence to support the paradigm, you'll find it. I know you will disagree.

That's like saying "when religion is accepted by everyone worldwide who has any knowedge of it, EXCEPT hard atheists, you have a clear-cut example of scientific rejection. Nothing else." I reject your view here.

They may be on their side of the line because, by default, rejecting evolution puts them there in your view.

But the evidence certainly did matter. It is just that the pool of evidence was a lot larger than you and I could see.

In the face of ALL of the evidence, the jury could not accept evidence like the testimony of Mark "nigger" Fuhrman. It is quite understandable. I am experiencing the same sort of thing with evolutionists.

There really ought not be public schools. But if they are to exist, they ought not force people everywhere to pay for what people cannot accept.

Not everywhere. Freedom is in rapidly decreasing supply in America. And evolution is part of the problem here as evolutionists exploit law for tax dollars and exploit the courts to do for it what it obviously cannot yet do on its own.

An evolutionist scientist is in effect assaulting his opponents motives, casting their positions and character without evidence. He in effect claim they are being led by hostility to his views instead of by interpretations of evidence. He uses bluster to ridicule the opponents instead of letting the evidence against their views speak for itself.

Man, flint, you are 400 times as patient as I would have been. Not because I think simon is a sock-puppet or a troll--indeed, his urgency about civility and the energy he pours into his attempts to communicate are refreshingly distinct from the usual drive-by trolls.

One troubling thing is his conflation of rudeness and insults with "fallacy." He doesn't seem to get the disconnect here.

Another troubling thing is his rejection-without-explanation of the land-mammal-to-whale fossil evidence. I SUSPECT that simon has been convinced by somebody--with far less respect for the evidence than simon deserves--that there are features of each fossil which place them (in greater or lesser degree) off the "direct line" from the ancestral land mammal to the modern whales, as if this "indirect" lineage was a weakness in the fossil evidence.

And that no one has carefully explained the key transistional features attested, in correct time sequence and shared by no other biological lineage, by the various fossils.

But since simon has--so far, at least--refused to enlighten us regarding the details of his doubts about the fossil evidence, it makes it very hard to discuss the matter with him.

simon, let's step outside of the evolutionary, ahem, "debate" for a moment and look at another example, one often trumpeted by the ID/creationist crowd--the continents-don't-move geology paradigm that was overthrown a half-century ago by the "outside-the-box" plate tectonics revolution. This is sometimes cited as an example of the refusal of a hidebound scientific "culture" to give a new idea a fair hearing. In fact, it's the opposite: an example of how science WAS willing to embrace change when the evidence required it. But that paradigm shift was not driven by the armchair philosophizing of intellectual mavericks, but by the phyical research of hundreds of scientists collecting real-world data in a variety of testable and replicable ways. Despite what you might prefer to believe, scientific "culture" is simply NOT immune to paradigm shifts in the way that you have convinced yourself that it is.

One "corollary" of plate tectonics that received widespread acceptance about the same time was the "hot spot" theory explaining intra-plate volcanism. Today, despite the wide acceptance of plate tectonics, there is a vigorous debate--and vigorous research and testing!--of the counter-theory that intra-plate volcanism is instead generated by some other geological process. Maybe the "hot spot" theory will survive, maybe it will require extensive modification, or maybe it will be overturned.

Similar debates are going on about certain aspects of cosmology and physics. While any given scientist may fall prey to the human desire to convince him or herself that the facts best fit the model he or she would preferto impose, as flint has explained at length, other scientists will not long be taken in by such "misfits." Science recognizes these human tendencies and has worked out careful hedges and doublechecks. Sometimes these work better or quicker than at other times, but over time the better-fitting models prevail in the "marketplace of ideas."

You seem to recognize that there's a self-correcting "market" of this kind that measures the performance--as opposed to the PR flack--of lawyers, auto mechanics, and ideas about the shape and trajectory of the planet. Why aren't you capable of subjecting the evidence in THIS area to the same market-based approach? ID isn't rejected by scientists because it's unorthodox, but because it furnishes no coherent theory and it inspires no testing or research.

simon, since the flagellum discussion seems to be a slippery one for you to get a hold of, maybe you need to go back and review the history of the blood coagulation system and the immune system, other supposed "irreducibly complex" systems which were previously championed by the goalpost-moving Behes of the creationist/ID world, and ask yourself why the "complexity" of these systems seems to have dropped out of the ID rhetoric.

You seem like an intelligent and sincere person, simon, but until you learn to evaluate the evidence with some independence, separating the message from the messengers where necessary and--where the evidence requires it--at least temporarily suspending your own beliefs and "intuitions," your likelihood of working out of your current mire is slim.

It is another issue, but as long as you mention it. I have read some of these people. Paul Davies for example. The problem is, since science must limit itself to naturalism, I cannot possibly see how science can ever make room for a God. Science has no use for God. God is completely unnecessary. So what is the point of a God that is not needed? If I ever accept evolution, it seems to me I will certainly ignore this God, unless I receive evidence that He lies completely outside of reality as science knows it and is just sitting there for some unfathomable reason.

— Simon

You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know.

Phew. They don't make threads like this any more...

I'm curious as to what Simon considers scientific evidence actually is. The whole endeavour revolves around repeatable experiments, which means you find some evidence and publish it alongside your reasons and actions behind the discovery. Assuming that Simon's "evolutionary culture" is running some huge, power-crazed land grab based on adherence to a false ideal, then where does this leave this particular aspect of the scientific method? What is the real nature of all those uncountable publications littering the planet, all curiously linked, all curiously consistent?

Is the evidence wrong, either by blind misreadings of the 'real' evidence, by mishap or by deliberate falsification? If so, then it is a simple matter for someone who doesn't believe in it to repeat the experiment and demonstrate the error. If you don't have a PhD, pick a simple experiment. Everyone can do science: you don't need permission. I wish more people would (especially IDers). Take a compass, put a piece of wire across it and connect a battery. What happens? How can you find out how that works? Science will tell you, and then go on to create a world alive with electricity, and if you disbelieve what it tells you along the way then by all means go back to Faraday in the mid 19th century (he didn't have a PhD - he left school at 14) and follow the process step by step to the present day. If that works, why don't the same mechanisms work for evolution? What is peculiarly wrong?

Is the evidence right, but somehow not strong enough to support theories based on it? If so, then the theories based on the evidence won't themselves be able to generate new, good evidence and experiments based on these new theories will be likely to fail. That line of enquiry will quickly die -- unless deliberate falsehood, error or mishap manage to maintain it. In which case, see the prior case.

Or is the evidence right and in context? In which case, where's the problem?

A really good thing about science is that it works whether you believe it or not. Another really good thing about it is its culture of openness and accessibility, again whether you believe in it or not. Still another is that it has a built-in expectation of failure, and a mechanism for taking those failures and using them to refine its ideas. So, if its evidence is not what it says it is, then there are plenty of opportunities to demonstrate this and in a way that science cannot in honesty deny (there are a lot of honest people in science: it only takes a few).

So, what does Simon think the scientific evidence actually is, en masse? How might he demonstrate this?

R

One troubling thing is his conflation of rudeness and insults with "fallacy." He doesn't seem to get the disconnect here.

Flint's "Slings and arrows" comment reminds me: those of you who, like me, are concentrated in the sciences, and have a deficit of humanities, read Hamlet. If you're like me, it'll take about three readings to start to get it. But once you do, it's just fantastic stuff.

For instance, I was reading Othello in the Cameron Village Starbucks the other day, (Raleigh woot woot!) and a cute mom started telling me how that was her favorite. It was my first reading of Othello, so it was just jibber-jabber, but I told her to find me after I'd read it a few times. And by now, I have, and wow. My hair is blown back. Which, with this new high-and-tight haircut, is difficult, trust me. But Billy Shakespeare can do it. Got to stop by American Video and pick up the recent movie version with Lawrence Fishburne as Othello.

Life is good.

But you still haven't produced a fallacy (as opposed to what you consider rude behavior) . . .

The claim that those who disagree are "kept out of journals" very neatly ignores the fact that NOBODY SUBMITTED ANYTHING to those journals. Why didn't you mention that?

Pretending that the submissions were rejected when there were no submissions is not honest. You keep claiming to be honest, but this accusation is a lie. And indeed, I can guarantee you that plenty of journals would compete actively to be the first to publish a genuine scientific paper investigating the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this set of allegations is BULLSHIT. Please don't do this.

It was no lie. Read the correspondence. Submissions have been made and according to Behe they have been made for many years now, always with the same result.

H. Humbert & Henry J.

Please reread my comment re: Quantum Mechanics and try to understand the meansing in context. The point was that many humans sense something that Evolution directly contradicts. Quantum mechanics, while appearing counterintuitive, doesn't directly contradict wat many of us sense.

Here is an admittedly rough analogy to what I mean (and please ignore the illogic for a moment to understand the hang up people enduring):

Human: "It seems natural to me to think I am designed because I have the same sort of characteristics as a watch. And I know the watch is designed."

Evolution: "You ARE NOT designed."

Human: "Sounds ridiculous to me because I sure SEEM designed."

Here, evolution directly contradicts what the human experiences or thinks he experiences. So the human naturally recoils from it.

Now here is how we treat Quantum Mechanics:

Human: "It seems natural to me to think I am designed because I have the same sort of characteristics as a watch. And I know the watch is designed."

Quantum Mechanics: "There are these weird phenomenon and amazing ideas in the very small world. Stuff happens differently there than it seems happens here. There is 'wave particle duality, and 'particle entanglement at a distance', and 'virtual particles popping in and out' and an 'Uncertainty principle.' Cool!"

Human: "Yeah. Cool!"

Please reread my comment re: Quantum Mechanics and try to understand the meansing in context. The point was that many humans sense something that Evolution directly contradicts. Quantum mechanics, while appearing counterintuitive, doesn't directly contradict wat many of us sense.

Incidentally, "You are an idiot" is not an ad hominem argument. It's just an epithet.

An ad homenem argument is one that uses someone's character as a reason to doubt their claims: "Because Joe is a jerk, gravity must not exist!" Or (more on point) "evolutionary theory is questionable because Miller and Futuyma are insulting." It's kind of ironic that the single most-repeated complaint you have with the theory is a classic textbook ad hominem fallacy!

I should as that a great many people do that Evolution is intuitive. Many people have long suspected great kinship with the animal kingdom, or observed "human-like" traits among various species, including such supposedly unique emotions as grief or altruism. To them, it makes perfect, smack-yourself-on-the-forehead kind of sense that we are all related, evolutionarily speaking.

Simon, your protests that Evolutionary scientists are hot-headed and too emotionally involved is quickly becoming an excuse for not having to look at any of the evidence they've amassed. (Which one assumes was collected, examined, and written-up while they were quite calm.)

It has been explained to you on several occasions what motivates their impatience with the proponents of ID. On multiple occasions you claim you've come to this website for information, yet you cannot accept any of this information in good conscience because it presented to you politely enough. It seems a quibble. Really, is this you objection you plan to cling to?

I did reread your comment and it still makes little sense. You're new example is terribly flawed for several reasons. First, I personally do not feel designed like a watch.

Secondly, you say that Quantum Mechanics isn't counterintuitive with normal experience. Yet in your example you compare QM not with normal sense experience, but with your own personal feeling of design . . .

No, to be an accurate analogy, the conversation would go like this. Human: "I've never seen a single object that could be in two places simultaneously. That's impossible." Quantum Mechanics: "Not in my world."

So no, evolution doesn't conflict with reality or normal intuition. It conflicts only, as Flint has said, with a religious belief that one is specially created by a diety.

Ok, I'm tired and inadvertantly dropping whole words from my comments. I wish to apologize for the terrible grammar of my previous posts. Ill check in in the morning.

It is not an ad hominem attack. It is a valid skepticism that takes place in our courts all over America. Witnesses must have credibility.

— Simon

Once again, very many humans have a sense that they were designed, likely due to their own experience with design. Because evolution directly contradicts that experience, they likely reject it right on the surface.

I should as that a great many people do that Evolution is intuitive. Many people have long suspected great kinship with the animal kingdom, or observed "human-like" traits among various species, including such supposedly unique emotions as grief or altruism. To them, it makes perfect, smack-yourself-on-the-forehead kind of sense that we are all related, evolutionarily speaking.

And there is no direct conflict because the human simply thinks "My QM lives in a strange world where things are weird. Cool!" Evolution, on the other hand, comments on the human's nature in the human's own world. And that comment is often viewed as contrary to what the human experiences every single day of his life. So he rejects it. No religion.

Intuition is what a lifetime of experience with things that might or might not be closely related suggests to us when we encounter something different. If our experiences are not appropriate, our intuitions are incorrect. But how can we TELL if our intuitions are wrong? I suggest we study the topic as hard as we can, learn as much detail as we can, construct whatever hypotheses and experiments we can, and find out how things actually work. Against this detailed investigation, we can compare our intuitions and see how badly they led us astray (if at all). The worst thing we can do, in my opinion, is to reject the data on the grounds that it conflicts with our intuition. In other words, to do science, one must be able to admit error on a thumpingly regular basis.

In 1999, I had a discussion on some long-lost internet forum with someone who was absolutely convinced that the Y2K meltdown was going to be irrecoverable. Most specifically, the economy would tank because the banks had such irremediable computer code that the banking system would self-destruct. He was sincerely panicked by this, and sounded his dire warnings regularly.

"OK", I told him, "Let's say just for the sake of discussion that the banks are NOT so hopelessly unable to fix these computer bugs. After all, they are conducting tests of their repaired code, and the tests seem to be working. You seem unconvinced by these tests. So what WOULD convince you?"

His reply was a classic of this same form this thread has been discussing. He admitted there really was no way he could be convinced. He wasn't a computer programmer, so examining their code directly would mean nothing to him. The tests were probably faked; in any case they weren't using live code. Sincere assurances by the programmers involved were surely untrustworthy: these programmers were paid by the bank! He was unable to think of any evidence of any kind he'd find convincing. But he "knew" the banks were toast.

I asked him what he did for a living. Turns out, he was a gold dealer! His constant recommendation that we should put all our money into gold where it would be safe started to make some sense. I asked him what he did with all the soon-to-be-worthless currency he received for that gold. He never replied.

I have no doubt that this guy sincerely expected banks to fail. Nonetheless, it's no coincidence that no conceivable evidence could overcome a position congenial to his vested interest. And religious faith is something in which many people have vested a great deal of their identity. Few of us are rational in defending our interests.

I seem to remember, but can't recall from where--maybe a David Foster Wallace book?--a story about a guy who couldn't bear to think of the blood and guts and acids and wastes inside himself, so he believed that it was a uniform mush similar to a potato.

Maybe this guy is Simon's brother?

Of course, I could be way off about him, I haven't actually read any of Simon's comments. Brevity is the soul of wit, and most 57,000-word pieces aren't worth the time. The come with too high an Opportunity Cost.

steve:

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because:

1) It doesn't "seem intuitive" to him.
2) He regards it as a belief system (qualitatively distinct from science).
3) Those who "believe in" evolution tend to be impatient and rude.
4) He is obliged to pay taxes used to teach his children a belief system he doesn't accept.
5) The evidence supporting evolution is not sufficient.
6) The claims of design, being congruent with his intuition, require no evidence to be persuasive.
7) He sees "evolutionists" as distinctly more dishonest than ID proponents (!!!)

thanks for the summary. I see now it was damn sure not worth reading his half a million words.

There used to be a conservative blogger, initials SDB, who never learned how to write succinctly. What you or I would say in 200 words took him 5,000. From a month's worth of his writings, I estimated his annual word count around a million a year. It was so ridiculous, a friend started referring to 5,000 words as one SDB unit.

btw, the guy no longer writes political stuff. Now he just runs a pervy anime blog.

Simon - if you're still there, I appreciated your efforts.

A couple of thoughts, for what they're worth. On intuition - "And hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon earth, and with labour do we find the things that are before us". You've got to do the work. Theory of Evolution could be broken overnight if the right evidence was there. A modern whale below Ambulocetus in the series. A chimera, like a "dat", say. Wham! Don't sit there arguing, get out looking. Do some research, nobody else seems to be. Or sponsor someone else to do some.

But be sure you're doing so for good scientific reasons. Easy to get into bad company. Check out Matthew 12:38 [Dr Myers has got a Bible. He might lend it to you.]

Theory of Evolution could be broken overnight if the right evidence was there. A modern whale below Ambulocetus in the series. A chimera, like a "dat", say. Wham!

Permit me to quibble here for a moment. Let's say we find something like this. Would science say "Oops, I guess we'd better abandon any hope of a genuine historical explanation of this evidence, and concede that it was all magic after all"? I'm willing to bet against this.

Humbert:

Certainly it would require that evolutionary theory undergo some important changes. But of course, there is ample evidence that life forms change over time that isn't going to go away and must still be explained. I would expect enough overlap between the before and after theories so that the term 'theory of evolution' would still be sensible to apply.

And this is one of the things that drives creationists nuts, and causes them to complain that evolution (indeed, any scientific theory) is not falsifiable. We just change the theory and keep going. There's no way to overthrow scientific theories with ANY evidence -- the theories simply morph to fit. They never go away. At this level, theories never CAN be falsified, only recast in some (perhaps important) respects. Particular aspects of theories can be falsified, of course. I read somewhere (physicist, please?) that string theory keeps changing the number of required dimensions of space. That's pretty fundamental, but it's still string theory in name.

Let's say we learn that drift dwarfs selection as the primary mechanism for change. We'd still have a theory of evolution, however obsolete Darwin's primitive ideas became. We'd still have a "theory of evolution" even if every notion of mechanism proposed today were to be replaced with something completely different. Creationists want absolutes that hold still, and this plasticity of theory is offensive. In the interests of 'real' falsification, they propose that life forms do NOT change over time (not in any appreciable way, anyhow). This is the only truly effective way to overthrow the theory in toto -- by disallowing the fact in addition to the theories of evolution.

But there'd have to be a new theory. Whether this (a) swallows up the existing model, like relativity - Newton, or (b) appropriates large chunks of it, like quantum - Hamiltonian mechanics, or (c) takes a wholly different perspective like Copernicus - Ptolemy, or (d) blows it out of the water, like chemistry - alchemy .......

........... well, got to find the evidence first. 150 years is a pretty good run for a scientific theory, given the sheer volume of information it does manage to encompass. I'd put a small amount of money on the successor being (a) or (b), if you were offering the right odds.

Yeah, Flint, I see what your saying, but that's only because Evolution has already been so well established that it's nearly impossible to conceive of a single fact would cause us to chuck the whole theory. But what's important to note is that doesn't mean Evolution is "unfalsifiable." The evidence could have, especially in its infancy, unraveled Evolution. It's not a bullet proof tautology protected by atheist scientists, as some claim. It's a theory that the evidence has consistently supported. It still is falsifiable, it's just that it would now take some pretty convincing counter-evidence.

There's no way to overthrow scientific theories with ANY evidence --- the theories simply morph to fit. They never go away.

You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know.

Hmmm . . . does that mean we still teach phlogiston, caloric and the luminiferous ether? How about fixed immovable continents?

Well, with all due respect to simon, those of us who have been attempting to converse with him have already agreed that--however unintentionally--simon sure conveyed a convincing SEMBLANCE of ID troll-dom.

Likewise, the exchanges have been lengthy, and several of the most diligent PTers have had to admit that they haven't been able to stick with it all, word for word.

With these things in mind, I think Lenny may perhaps be forgiven a little table-pounding here... Or, at least, let's not take it out on Lenny's pizza boy. It's getting late and I'm getting hungry!

Also, I do not read simon as saying ID is all about God and the Bible.

I do not pretend to be an unbiased observer and never have claimed to be unbiased. Indeed, I have already admitted my biases, also stating (and quite clearly) that I think the lion's share of Americans, like me, are also biased. This is why, despite nearly a century of teaching the supposed "facts" of evolution, most Americans still embrace creationism.

Well fine, Flint. That could be because I am in fact a creationist. I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism, that is probably what I accept. This is especially true since I believe in God and think a God that has had nothing to do with my existence and development is not a God for which I can find much use.

You come across as one of those fanatics who redoubles his energy when he's forgotten his aim.

I should as that a great many people do that Evolution is intuitive. Many people have long suspected great kinship with the animal kingdom, or observed "human-like" traits among various species, including such supposedly unique emotions as grief or altruism. To them, it makes perfect, smack-yourself-on-the-forehead kind of sense that we are all related, evolutionarily speaking.

A really good thing about science is that it works whether you believe it or not.

Lenny:

Sorry to disagree with you here, but I do. I did not say that simon's position had nothing to do with religion, and indeed I have repeatedly said his approach is basically religious. On the other had, I read you as entirely unsympathetic with simon's concerns, which are shared by (as simon has repeatedly pointed out) a great many Americans. The fact is that the American flavor of Christianity is a very literal-minded one. Simon points out that your enemy is strong. You dismiss this, on the grounds that your enemy is stupid. You are missing the point.

Simon is making a point here you simply refuse to recognize, and IMO you look like a damn fool in the process. Most people are not rigorously logical. Most people have not spent many many hours and lots of give-and-take understanding how science works. Most people operate on gut feelings, not facts. They are concerned with personal affronts, not evidence. They are wish to be accepted by their neighbors and friends, rather than correct or logical. They don't form their judgments based on arcane pointy-headed stuff, but on what seems sensible to them. Most people attend church and believe in God.

Your incessant "Show me any hard evidence for design, you imbecile. Aha, I knew you couldn't do it, you stupid moron" schtick may inspire the Nelsons and Salvadors of the world to greater doubletalk, but the simons simply say "these evolutionists are jerks" and their already low opinion of the self-appointed scientific cognoscenti sinks lower.

So I regard Simon as an everyman sort of citizen. He's biased and knows it. He believes in God and doesn't want his beliefs belittled. He recognizes that those who stroke his preferences suck top tit, and those whose argument seems overly intellectual and uncongenial are suspect. And when someone like you comes along calling them asinine arm-wavers and demanding that they play according to YOUR rules on YOUR field, they have not the slightest temptation to compete on those terms. They simply see their comfortable view as ratified. Do you think most Americans will recognize the "idiocy" of their lifelong sustaining faith if you call them jerks enough times?

Simon is large enough to make a real, careful, time-consuming effort to explain himself. Most people like Simon simply see your idiotic performance as ratification of their opinion, and vote for creationists. And people like Simon are the majority in some states, and wield real power in many states where they are close to the majority. So the louder you call them names, the more convinced they are that evolution is for fanatics and undesirables, and they go to church and learn Genesis with more acceptance all the time.

You may now resume your sarcasm. Maybe someone will be impressed.

Flint,

You said, "..I did not say that simon's position had nothing to do with religion, and indeed I have repeatedly said his approach is basically religious. On the other had, I read you as entirely unsympathetic with simon's concerns, which are shared by (as simon has repeatedly pointed out) a great many Americans. The fact is that the American flavor of Christianity is a very literal-minded one. Simon points out that your enemy is strong. You dismiss this, on the grounds that your enemy is stupid. You are missing the point."

Surely you are not saying that Science should be swayed by the "American flavor of Christianity," or by any other flavor? The enemy may appear to be strong, but I think a realistic examination of the enemy's arguments indicates that the enemy is, indeed, stupid. We can perhaps disagree on whether it is expedient to point that out, but that is, I think, the reality.

I almost always agree with your posts, and wish I were as eloquent and incisive as you usually are, but I must take exception to this one.

I can appreciate Simon's concerns, and the threats he may perceive, or imagine, as looming on the horizon - but I see no imperative to kowtow to those imaginings.

Facts and evidence are what they are, and we csnnot, any of us - regardless of how fervently we wish we could - change that. In the end that is the only measure that applies. If Simon can supply facts and evidence to support his position, so be it; if not, so be it. Enough said?

Bob

Simon,

Re "Please reread my comment re: Quantum Mechanics and try to understand the meansing in context."
Re "Quantum mechanics, while appearing counterintuitive, doesn't directly contradict wat many of us sense."
Re "The point was that many humans sense something that Evolution directly contradicts."

Q.M. is very counterintuitive, it doesn't merely "appear" so. The only reason it doesn't directly conflict with intuition (aka common sense) is because it's way out of the range of our natural senses.

As for people sensing something that's contradicted by evolution, I don't know what you mean by that. The idea that complex life forms are descended from earlier life forms much like themselves is common sense; the idea of a life form (or a complex piece of one) showing up suddenly without precedent, now that would be in direct conflict with common sense.

Back to Q.M. for a moment: the fact that much of it is in direct conflict with common sense proves that common sense is not a reliable guide to how things work outside the range of day to day experience. So somebody "sensing" a contradiction is simply not a valid reason to reject conclusions reached by the experts in the field. Also, which part of evolution theory is supposed to be contradicting something?

-

Flint,

Re "I read somewhere (physicist, please?) that string theory keeps changing the number of required dimensions of space."
Yeah, there are (or at least were?) various models of string theory, some with 10, 11, 26, or 27 dimensions. I got the impression that the number of dimensions might depend on just how much the particular model was trying to explain, so I don't know if they actually contradict each other or not. (4 dimensions for space-time, 6 or 7 for fundamental forces, 16 more for matter and antimatter particles, or something like that.)

As for how much evidence it would take to "falsify" a current theory, I'd say it would have to be enough to disrupt the patterns that are explained by the current theory. Given the amount of data presently supportive of the current theory, I'd think it would take quite a lot.

-

Re "How about fixed immovable continents?"
Well, on historic time scales that's a reasonable approximation. ;)

Henry

Simon is making a point here you simply refuse to recognize, and IMO you look like a damn fool in the process. Most people are not rigorously logical. Most people have not spent many many hours and lots of give-and-take understanding how science works. Most people operate on gut feelings, not facts. They are concerned with personal affronts, not evidence. They are wish to be accepted by their neighbors and friends, rather than correct or logical. They don't form their judgments based on arcane pointy-headed stuff, but on what seems sensible to them. Most people attend church and believe in God.

demanding that they play according to YOUR rules on YOUR field,

The question on the table is a simple one; Simon says that ID's objections to evolution are religious; the Discovery Institue bigwigs say it's NOT.

One of them is bullshitting us.

Which one?

At this level, theories never CAN be falsified, only recast in some (perhaps important) respects. Particular aspects of theories can be falsified, of course. I read somewhere (physicist, please?) that string theory keeps changing the number of required dimensions of space. That's pretty fundamental, but it's still string theory in name.

Your incessant "Show me any hard evidence for design, you imbecile. Aha, I knew you couldn't do it, you stupid moron" schtick

Scientifically, they don't HAVE any argument. There is no scientific theory of ID, they are l;ying to us when they claim there is, and they know it just as well as we do. What they have is their religious opinions, which science does not NEED to address.

Significant majorities in America subscribe to LOTS of stupid ideas, such as "flying saucers are real", "psychics can predict the future", and "Iraq really had WMDs". A large proportion of Americans don't know how long it takes for the earth to revolve once around the sun --- or even THAT the earth revolves around the sun. About one in eight Americans can't even find the United States on a world map. We are, in short, a nation of ignoramuses. Ignorami. Whatever. I agree with whoever it was who said "In a democracy, we get exactly the sort of government that we deserve". If we get a government run by pig-ignorant con artists, it is because we, as a nation, deserve it.

And what, again, is this "essential ID argument"? Other than "God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!"? Can you give us a scientific theory of ID and tell us how to test it using the scientific method? Why not?

Who cares. A round earth that orbits the sun also posed a threat to many established religious ideas. They got over it. Or do you think that religious faith is so weak that a simple finding of sciecne is enough to destroy it? If so, then it's not much of a faith, is it. I'm very glad that MY faith is not that weak and puny. Now then, do you have an alternative scientific theory of ID to offer, or don't you. If you do, let's see it. If you don't, why do IDers keep telling us they do? Or are they just lying to us whenever they state that ID is about science and has no religious aims or purpose?

Tell us about it. What is the scientific theory of ID. What, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms in action today. Or is "POOF!!! God ---- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer dunnit!!!!", the best ID can do? Are IDers just lying to us when they claim their "theory" is science and has NO religious aims or purpose? What happens to Christians who lie?

Simon, would oyu please tell us what the scientific theory of ID is, and how we can test it using the scientific method? What did the designer do, according to this scientific theory of ID? What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it did, according to this scientific theory of ID? Where can we see these mechanisms on action today? Or is "POOF! God ---er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer dunnit!!!" the best ID can come up with? Are IDers just lying to us when they claim that ID is science and not religion?

(*I sincerely do not know what to call the opponents of ID. I thought the term "Darwinists" was the appropriate term. If there is a better term, let me know of it). "Scientists" will do nicely.

Behe does not need to describe the designer. The designer's identity is entirely irrelevant here. Agreed. I want to know what the designer DID. I want to know HOW it did whatever it did. I want to know where we can see it doing anything today. And I don't care WHO or WHAT the designer is. I don't care if it's little green men from Mars, or Zeus the Almighty, or the Wicked Witch of the North. I simply want a scientific theory of ID that we can test using the scientific method. Can you give one? Why not?

That's nice. What, again, is the scientific theory of ID? How, again, do we test it using the scientific method? What, again, do you propose the designer did, specifically? How, again, do you propose it did whatever the heck you think it did? Where, again, can we see the designer doing . . . well . . . anything, today? Or are IDers simply lying to us when they claim that ID is sciecne and not just fundamentalist religious apologetics?

I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism, that is probably what I accept. This is especially true since I believe in God and think a God that has had nothing to do with my existence and development is not a God for which I can find much use. I see. So there IS NO scientific theory of ID; it's just fundamentalist Christian creationsit rhetoric in a cheap new suit. Got it. Thanks for making that so clear. That raises a question from me, though: You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know.

As a fun aside, check out Connie 'mission from god; Morris: http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1630041.html . . . . . . Remember, everyone, Morris, and Simon, are on the side that will b e arguing in court that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING to do with fundamentalist religion. Nothing AT ALL. They are liars. Flat-out, bare bald-faced liars --- deliberately, intentionally and with malice aforethought.

Simon, please answer my question: You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know. Thanks.

Well, creationism failed legally precisely BECAUSE it fails scientifically --- or more specifically, isn't science at all. ID will fail for the same reason.

Simon, please answer my question: You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know. Thanks.

Simon, please answer my question: You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then their crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us or anyoen else that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know. Thanks.

From Simon: I do not pretend to be an unbiased observer and never have claimed to be unbiased. Indeed, I have already admitted my biases, also stating (and quite clearly) that I think the lion's share of Americans, like me, are also biased. This is why, despite nearly a century of teaching the supposed "facts" of evolution, most Americans still embrace creationism. Well fine, Flint. That could be because I am in fact a creationist. I do not accept evolution, and since it seems the alternative is creationism, that is probably what I accept. This is especially true since I believe in God and think a God that has had nothing to do with my existence and development is not a God for which I can find much use. Yeah, OK. Nothing to do with God or the Bible, huh . . . . . Simon, please answer my question. You are here basing creationism/ID on God, while creationist/IDers in Kansas and Pennsylvania are desperately trying to argue that creationism/ID has nothing to do with God. Why are you undercutting your own side? Are you lying when you say ID/creationism *does* have something to do with a god that is involved with your existence and development, or are those creationists/IDers lying when they say it *doesn't*? Is there a scientific theory of ID, or isn't there. If there is, can we see it, please? If there's not, then are IDers simply lying to us when they claim there *is*?

Au contraire, I've stuck to my aim like a laser beam. My oft-repeatred questions to Simon have been crushingly simple (and have also been the very same questions I've asked of every *other* IDer who comes in here): (1) what IS this scientififc thoery of ID that I keep hearing so much about, and (2) why is Simon undermining his own side by equating ID with God, when IDers in Pennsylvania and Kansas are desperately trying to AVOID making that equation? Alas, the only responses I've received from Simon have been: That is, of course, the only "response" I *ever* get from ID/creationists . . . . . . . . I wonder why that is . . . . Simon (and all the other IDers) can wave their arms all they like. Until they have either a scientific theory of ID to present, or a good reason why anyone should pay any more attention to THEIR religious opinions than to anyone else's, they quite literally have nothing to present.

And before some IDer comes along and smugly equates ID to string theory, let me point out some of the basic reasons why that's crap.

S.T. is worked on by dozens of physicists who have prominent accomplishments in mathematical physics, such as Fields Medals. ID isn't worked on by dozens of prominent biologists at leading schools. S.T., while still lacking predictions, has mathematical postdictions of several sophisticated things, such as the thermodynamics of black holes. ID doesn't have any -dictions. The leaders of S.T all admit they have no theory yet. IDers claim they do. S.T.ers aren't trying to sneak their claims into schools by lobbying ignorant school boards. IDers are. S.T.ers don't make absurd claims that they've destroyed the reigning model in the field. IDers do. S.T.ers will answer basic, long-resolved questions such as "How old is the earth?". IDers won't.

And when someone asks a physicist "what are strings, and what do they do?", physicists don't answer "We don't have to tell you, so there". Like IDers do when someone asks them what the designer is and what it does.

And despite all Simon's weeping and whining, sooner or later the fundies will get over "evolution belittles their religious beliefs" too.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 1) It doesn't "seem intuitive" to him. 2) He regards it as a belief system (qualitatively distinct from science). 3) Those who "believe in" evolution tend to be impatient and rude. 4) He is obliged to pay taxes used to teach his children a belief system he doesn't accept. 5) The evidence supporting evolution is not sufficient. 6) The claims of design, being congruent with his intuition, require no evidence to be persuasive. 7) He sees "evolutionists" as distinctly more dishonest than ID proponents (!!!)

— Flint

And despite all Simon's weeping and whining, sooner or later the fundies will get over "evolution belittles their religious beliefs" too.

They've had about a century and a half so far. They are depressingly backwards people.

Surely you are not saying that Science should be swayed by the "American flavor of Christianity," or by any other flavor? The enemy may appear to be strong, but I think a realistic examination of the enemy's arguments indicates that the enemy is, indeed, stupid. We can perhaps disagree on whether it is expedient to point that out, but that is, I think, the reality.

IDers are claiming that their crap is SCIENCE, and that means they ARE playing on my field according to my rules --- the field and rules of science.

It is therefore incumbent upon them to either (1) produce some science, or (2) shut the hell up and go away.

when Simon and his ilk try to force their religious opinions into schools under the guise of "science", then I will fight him using whatever methods I find effective. I couldn't care less if he gets offended in the process.

I have tried to read all of Simon's comments, but I may have missed a few things. If so, they just happen to be the points that I consider most important, such as: 1. How did the designer create species if not by evolution? 2. Does his hypothesis include common descent if not "macroevolution" (a la Behe)? 3. Does it agree with mainstream science (and Behe) on the age of the earth and the general timeline of events? 4. Does he think that the 4000+ members of Christian Clergy who endorsed evolution are "impatient and rude"? 5. Does he think that quoting out of context, and misrepresenting scientists is less dishonest than what "evolutionists" do (e.g. not afraid to criticize each other as Kenneth Miller does to Richard Dawkins in "Finding Darwin's God")?

I guess I wasn't clear. Simon is quite accurate in pointing out that a very large number of voters is disinclined to give the theory of evolution the benefit of the doubt.

Simon tells you these things over and over. You simply don't listen.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. They are playing on the field of conversion, belief support, and public relations. Saying their magic is science isn't intended to make it science, it's to win PR points. Telling them they are idiots wins them even more PR points. At no time do the ID people go anywhere near actual science. Please do not confuse a claim of science made for PR purposes, with any actual science.

I don't have any hypothesis and don't need one.

The Biblical creation tale seems good enough.

Any scientists who claim their work supports this tale get full and instant credibility.

Alas for them, it has already failed.

What Simon (and the hordes of uneducated drones who think like him) says, simply doesn't matter to science.

There I disagree. Simon, unlike YECs and classic OECs, is careful not to reference any of the mutually contradictory versions, because he seems to know that they all fail the tests. He called himself a "creationist" but was careful not to define it.

Alas for them, it has already failed.

Then why are any of us here at all?

I guess you and I and the rest of us only spend our time and energy on them because we like to feel superior to stupid ignoramuses, right?

What seems to be the problem?

The problem seems to be an unwillingness (rather mutual, I think) to give the other side a thoughtful hearing. Simon says he believe's in God (most Americans do), and you ask him why he is "yammering" about religion.

He tries to reconcile different views with his own perceptions. You do the same, and conclude that your perceptions are the only ones that can be right.

So you ask him "what happens to Christians who lie". Calling others liars is usually considered insulting.

Calling them "Losers with a capital 'L'" is also insulting.

Simon tries to explain where his difficulties are and what causes them, and you simply tune him out and demand that he answer questions he's not interested in.

When he instead talks about what DOES interest him, you ignore everything he says

Perhaps I'm not the only person who sees your name on a post and skips it,

But when Simon says ID is about religion, and the DI-ites say it's NOT about religion, then one of them is bullshitting me.

But calling liars, liars, is not. Simon says that ID is about religion. The DI-ites say it's NOT about religion.

Perhaps Simon wouldn't be so apt to accept the word of his ID heros if he realized how much and how often they are lying to him.

Simon doesn't strike me as tied to any particular scriptural reading. His general level of awareness of scripture seems about like his general level of awareness of science. God made us. How doesn't really matter. We are special. Let the theologists argue about angels on pinheads, let the biologists argue about their unpronouncable details, these things are both for the Ph.D.s (the pointy-headed dimwits). We seem designed because we are complicated, but that's really a justification after the fact. We've been (as a culture, perhaps as a species) placing ourselves in an exalted position since forever. We are on top because we were created to be on top. Why else would we have been created in the first place? We were created to glorify God. Maybe some of us don't expend as much effort on this as perhaps we ought to, but we are all victims of the tyrrany of the urgent: Gotta earn a living, gotta do the chores.

Again, not an insult ---- simply a statement of confirmed fact.

Simon's cohorts claim that ID is science.

I am not interested in his existentialist angst, and can do nothing about it.

Simon has chosen to push his religion into the realm of politics.

Please feel entirely free to skip all of my posts, unread. I assure you that I will never notice.

Well, Flint, sorry you don't like me. One thing I learned long ago in life is that no matter WHAT ya do, there's ALWAYS gonna be somebody somewhere who won't like it.

I look forward to your not reading any of my posts any more.

Bye.

If Simon and his ilk have some science to present, I suggest they present it.

If Simon and his ilk just want to whine about their religious angst, well, no one cares.

Calling simon a liar because someone else takes a different position is simply stupid.

Not that Lenny is likely to care about my opinion either (nor is Simon likely to care for it much!), but I'm largely with Flint on this one. Simon isn't that deep in his thoughts - possibly naively and possibly deliberately. Either way, I'd say that rather than pick one of Lenny's two separated options, Simon wants to have his cake and eat it too - have ID non-religious but nonetheless support his religious position. He wants to be an intellectually fulfilled theist (just as atheists are accused of wanting this) by having some sort of (pretense of) science on his side but doesn't want to be genuinely intellectually fulfilled by bothering to study the issues in detail. He is unlikely to see a problem in doing that because to do so would require greater thought and be a threat in itself.

Emotion and superficial appearance is everything and logic and evidence nothing to such people. Wholesale discrimination for and against people/ideas rather than discerning discrimination on individual details is what you get through such emotional response. I'd also say they are in the majority from my experience - not right of course but just having the most common sort of mindset. Fortunately not all emoters focus on science (or part of it) as one of their irrational fears. Which still leaves science on the good side in the majority view.

On the other hand though (sort of on Lenny's side) I'd query whether this is intended as a science blog/site or as a religious angst one. If it isn't supposed to be the forum for religious angst then it's odd for Simon to have decided it is (or should be) one. He does seem to have come more as a preacher than a supplicant - the natural result of trying to shore up his own faith by attacking others. Very evangelical in the worst way.

Not that Lenny is likely to care about my opinion either (nor is Simon likely to care for it much!), but I'm largely with Flint on this one. Simon isn't that deep in his thoughts - possibly naively and possibly deliberately. Either way, I'd say that rather than pick one of Lenny's two separated options, Simon wants to have his cake and eat it too - have ID non-religious but nonetheless support his religious position.

I would love to be there when the DI receives that phone call: Buttars: "Hey, you are the design theorists, how bout you come to Utah. We're trying to get your design theory inna tha curriculums." DI: "Good, good, glad you called us early. The most important thing to do is to make sure you avoid any and all references to jesus, god, the designer, our lord, etc. We have to pretend there's nothing about any divine being in this. That's what we've spent millions of dollars here at the DI doing---creating a creationism without the bible. After we get this generic creationism in, then we can move on to " Cultural Confrontation & Renewal" like it says in the Wedge Document. Buttars: "Oh yeah, good, yeah, we haven't said anything about jesus at all, in our legislation for Divine Designer Theory." DI: "The- . . . uh . . . the what theory?" Buttars: "Divine Designer Theory." DI: "Is that what you're calling it?" Buttars: "Yep. That's what's on the bill. Divine Designer Theory." DI: "And . . . uh . . . and this is already public?" Buttars: "You bet." DI: "Um . . . uh . . . wrong number. No speeka the english." click! Buttars: "Hello? Hel-lo-o?" (taps that plastic thingy in the phone cradle)

— steve

. . . Evolution has not been a big issue in Utah until now. On June 3, Sen. Chris Buttars of West Jordan said he would propose giving equal time to what he called "divine design," that is, that the world was created by a superior being. "The divine design is a counter to the kids' belief that we all come from monkeys. Because we didn't," the conservative Republican told The Salt Lake Tribune. But proponents of intelligent design have a message for Buttars: Don't help us. "We get very upset when supposed friends are claiming far more than what the scholars are saying," says John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. For one thing, they oppose requiring the teaching of intelligent design. What they are pushing, West says, is a thorough discussion of Darwinian theories which would include criticism raised by legitimate scientists. That's what the schools in Ohio and Minnesota have done and what intelligent design advocates hope will happen in Kansas, he says. But they don't support the move in Dover, Pa., to add a statement about intelligent design to the curriculum. And they want nothing to do with Buttars' so-called "divine design." "We wish [Buttars] would get the name right and not propose something he doesn't understand," West says.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 1) It doesn't "seem intuitive" to him.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 2) He regards it as a belief system (qualitatively distinct from science).

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 3) Those who "believe in" evolution tend to be impatient and rude.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 4) He is obliged to pay taxes used to teach his children a belief system he doesn't accept.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 5) The evidence supporting evolution is not sufficient.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 6) The claims of design, being congruent with his intuition, require no evidence to be persuasive.

At significant risk of oversimplifying, I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 7) He sees "evolutionists" as distinctly more dishonest than ID proponents (!!!)

1. How did the designer create species if not by evolution?

2. Does his hypothesis include common descent if not "macroevolution" (a la Behe)?

3. Does it agree with mainstream science (and Behe) on the age of the earth and the general timeline of events?

4. Does he think that the 4000+ members of Christian Clergy who endorsed evolution are "impatient and rude"?

5. Does he think that quoting out of context, and misrepresenting scientists is less dishonest than what "evolutionists" do (e.g. not afraid to criticize each other as Kenneth Miller does to Richard Dawkins in "Finding Darwin's God")?

Futuyma's claim that because Behe takes an ID position Behe counsels us all to just "give up" further research on origins is precisely this sort of lie. It is designed to increase incredulity not on the basis of objective facts, but on a flawed recasting of the argument.).

We proved, without any doubt in my mind, that air does indeed have weight.

— Simon

I don't reject science's claim of a 4.5 billion year-old earth. I think this is probably true. But because of the culture of evolution's possible effect on this figure, I cannot help but view it with skepticism.

— Simon

I in fact wish to discover what I myself believe, but I cannot do this while reading so many of the fallacious submissions that I think are too common among those representing the evolutionist view. I suspect this is true for very many people in America. There is so much bluster and bitterness in pro-evolution forces...

I think there are better ways to deal with them without bluster and lies (and when we intentionally recast their arguments to ridicule them, when we impugn their motives without their agreeing with our view of the motives, we are indeed lying against them as part of our response. Futuyma's claim that because Behe takes an ID position Behe counsels us all to just "give up" further research on origins is precisely this sort of lie.

It is not that evolution doesn't seem intuitive. It is that it contradicts my experience with design and complex objects, failing to provide sufficient evidence to overcome and compel me from the knowledge gained from the experience.

I am willing to admit that my knowledge of the evidence for evolution is perhaps too deficient to judge the theory. But when I've looked at what goes for evidence and rejected it because to my sincerest mind it was too scant, I have been insulted as ignorant, a troll, a fundamentalist and a host of other invalid attacks.

I want to discover how evolutionists so passionately accept the evidence that to me is truly insufficient.

Flint: I'd say simon dislikes evolution because: 4) He is obliged to pay taxes used to teach his children a belief system he doesn't accept. No. I personally don't care about this. But very many do and I think their objections are valid.

Freedom is in rapidly decreasing supply in America. And evolution is part of the problem here as evolutionists exploit law for tax dollars and exploit the courts to do for it what it obviously cannot yet do on its own...Evolution controls the courts, the schools and universities...The mere fact evolution forces its way via courts upon vast regional majorities of people is by itself enough to fill those vast majorities with distrust...There really ought not be public schools. But if they are to exist, they ought not force people everywhere to pay for what people cannot accept...I am threatened only by those who aim to take money out of my pocket against my will. I really don't care if you believe evolution. I honestly don't care how many people believe it. I just don't care. I care when it costs me and I don't even accept it. It is against individual conscience and human freedom...

I have seen the evidence, studied it as a child and as an adult. And I cannot get past the fact that I think it is insufficient.

I marvel that evolution was so firmly believed in the past, when evidence was not nearly as complete as it is today. Yet it was firmly believed.

The claims of ID, being congruent with my intuition, makes design somewhat easier to accept (though not very easy to accept). It has little to do with my rejecting evolution, except that it perhaps may help my intuition to become a bit more entrenched.

My personal experience has been that ID proponents have, by far, made it more possible for me to understand the evidence for their claims

I don't reject science's claim of a 4.5 billion year-old earth. I think this is probably true. But because of the culture of evolution's possible effect on this figure, I cannot help but view it with skepticism.

In fact I really don't know much about the designer at all, despite the teaching of religionists (they are as sure of their knowledge as evolutionists are of theirs -- and they become every bit as emotional as evolutionists when their views are rejected).

And, simon, we're not just "beating up" on you because we're a bunch of rude evolutionist-believers. Even if we fail to communicate with you, we'd like to continue to learn how to communicate better with those who have sincere doubts and sincere questions about these issues.

But it's difficult when you won't subject your own beliefs, intuitions, and experiences--even temoporarily--to the same skepticism you harbor for the evidence in favor of evolution (that you simultaneously admit you don't really know much about).

Some of the people on this thread may have been perceived by you as being rude. I don't believe I have done that. I'm asking you to please set aside your offense at those who you think have, long enough to reply to my questions about the evidence.

For example, you linked up above to some of the fossils that evolutionary scientists see as "transitional" between early land mammals and modern whales. You suggested that you saw--or, more likely, that SOMEONE else whom you have read, saw--some sort of difficulty with this evidence. I asked you above to get more specific with us about that. Isn't that what you keep repeating that you came here to do? Discuss the evidence without all the ranting?

And yet you have never returned to this point--what, specifically, is it about the transitional fossil evidence that you find (or that you have been told) is lacking or insufficient? Again, as Flint says, several different people here have spent a fair amount of time with you in the hope that you will get past your rudeness-phobia and get down to discussing the evidence that you claim you want to deal with. But every time you return, you remain at the level of generality and insist upon characterizing and recharacterizing who holds what "view" about this or that.]

Wouldn't you agree that the only way to get past the opinions and the rhetoric is to discuss the evidence itself? Why won't you do that, if that's really what you claim to be interested in?

compel him to teach his children what he is not capable of accepting. It is the right of every human to be ignorant of what we think is truth.

— Simon

You are saying that we should teach our children KNOWN ERROR because their parents are ignorant? But one of the key purposes of education is to DISPEL ignorance, not to reinforce it!

It's quite a different matter for a parent to condemn their child to ignorance. That's what school is ideally there to prevent.

Shame I didn't preview/check that one more carefully though. It should have been: "School is his best hope ...". I think part of the problem was that I was remembering the equivalent StarWars lines and laughing too much to type straight.

PS Brains don't work exactly the same way. They do retain some plasticity of patterning. Just occasionally an entrenched mind, typically religious, comes to its senses much later only to regret all the lost time and past lies believed (not always having to give up all religious faith either - ie the fearsome threat with which other religious people despicably try to trick them).

After all, if minds weren't at all plastic then there would never be any new scientific ideas! However, you could argue that those are minds trained to be plastic rather than rigid - and there are also examples of some scientists not being able to cope with new discoveries.

So there's still hope for some creationists learning to appreciate reality rather than deny it - even if they will never be capable of becoming scientists themselves.

And we still don't know whether Simon considers the evidence of 150 years of scientific work to be wrong, right but inadequate for the claims made for it, or right and adequate (well, I guess we can nix that last one). Or whether he considers whether his intuition _might_ be wrong, and how he might find out.

These are very basic issues in any scientific endeavour, and without knowing the answers to those I certainly can't begin to understand why he chooses ID over evolution with such firmness.

R

It is not that evolution doesn't seem intuitive. It is that it contradicts my experience with design and complex objects, failing to provide sufficient evidence to overcome and compel me from the knowledge gained from the experience.

— simon

It is not that evolution doesn't seem intuitive. It is that it contradicts my experience with design and complex objects,He is in fact saying it's not intuitive, though he contradicts himself. Anyway. Why anybody's intuition should be expected to accurately guess the limits of an iterative algorithm over millions of iterations, is beyond...uh...my intuition.

On the other hand, I'm doing an admittedly lousy job of interpreting what simon is driving at.

It is not that evolution doesn't seem intuitive. It is that it contradicts my experience with design and complex objects,

Simon,

It's been a week since I dropped in on this thread, so I hope you will forgive me if I rehash any old ground.

In some recent comments, you've repeated that you're willing to be convinced about evolution, but that the evidence you've seen doesn't persuade you.

Can you describe what sort of evidence it would take? Or can you at least describe which key aspect(s) of evolution are inadequately supported by evidence in your view?

I think there are more than a few people here who would like to help fill in those gaps. I don't expect you to be convinced based on Flint's statement that it's the best supported theory ever, and I'm sure Flint doesn't expect that either. By the same token, I'm sure you don't expect people here to go through every piece of evidence there is. If we can narrow things down, perhaps we can make some progress.

Why are we so angry here?

I did not come here to change anyone's beliefs in or against evolution. I in fact wish to discover what I myself believe

I do believe evolution is a belief system

Wonder if everybody has a bookmark/link to this page since it fell off the blog's main index Sunday afternoon? :)

Henry

Here.

RBH

Here.

RBH