Nobel Laureate: "Intelligent Design" is An Attack on All of Science

That's it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view. It could had been drawn from any of a hundred posts or a thousand comments on PT. I would expect more from a Nobel Laureate than just parroting tiresome arguments. It's almost an embarrassment. When I read something from a Nobel Laureate, I'm looking for substance, regardless of whether or not I agree. This mush reads as if it were generated from an anti-ID Perl script crawling through dusty PT archives.

Dr. Kroemer, it would appear, is just another Dr. Chicken Little.

He's also wrong, but that's beside the point.

C'mon--even though most of you agree with him, did you actually learn anything from his article? PZ is much more interesting.

That's it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view.

It should be pointed out, though, that Kroemer is wrong; ID isn't simply an attack on "science" -- that is just a means to a much larger end. ID is a theocratic political movement, with theocratic political goals. It has almost nothing to do with "science".

While agree entirely with Kroemer, this was a pretty lame essay.

I wish i still got APS news, but it's just not worth it for me. But they do have a good article like this every other issue.

While agree entirely with Kroemer, this was a pretty lame essay.

If the essay helps rally scientists to participate in policy discussions, it's a good thing.

scientists have to be invited to participate in policy discussion.

under the current administration, we have not only seen scientists not invited, but actively discouraged from participating.

remember the NASA brouhaha?

same thing in Australia:

http://www.physorg.com/news10801.html

only one way to solve that; make sure the folks you vote for actually care about science to begin with.

Dr. Kromer's article was written as an editorial for a NEWSPAPER! Not a scientific journal. Yes, it was mundane and repetitive to those who are involved on both sides. However, his name and reputation speaking to average citizens as well as scientists and id proponents was important. I think it was a good and positive attempt to explain the real situation.

It was a letter to the editor - not an essay, David. You know - 200 words max.

We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.

— Dr. Kroemer

"attacks on science itself --- all of science"

http://tinyurl.com/8d3vw
http://tinyurl.com/ccjzq
http://tinyurl.com/8tn7k

I agree. Except the roles have been reversed. Now the high priests of science refuse to have their dogma questioned, and if any professional scientist dares to do so, he/she will be burned at the stake.

— Blast

Anyone familiar with science should be well aware that questioning science is what science is all about.

— PvM

Blastfromthepast wrote: "I agree. Except the roles have been reversed. Now the high priests of science refuse to have their dogma questioned, and if any professional scientist dares to do so, he/she will be burned at the stake."

Actually, dogma is a very useful thing in science. Ultimately Popper and Kuhn arrived pretty much at the same place about scientific dogma. The idea is that a highly corroborated (by evidence) theory should always be defended somewhat dogmatically until a sufficient quantity of observations conflict with the theory's predictions.

And even at that point, the old theory continues to be the one of choice until a better one comes along that has enough predictive power to assume the role of the old theory and explain the outlying contradictory results.

As such, the scientific community is being perfectly consistent with their support of ToE as they are with all other foundational theories. They are acting no differently to challenges to evolution as they did with challenges to classical physics, for example. Only when the theory of relativity demonstrated superior predictive power over Newtonian Mechanics did it become the theory of choice for the laws of motion.

The problem with ID is that it has no predictive powers, so it disqualifies itself as a scientific theory. As such, it is not any more powerful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. (If you disagree with me, kindly supply an example of ID's predictive power.) So scientists dogmatically defend evolution from ID in the same way they would defend it from Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

It has been said by ID proponents that ID is a very new theory that has not yet been fully developed so my characterization would be considered by them to be unfair. I say that is baloney, because the Argument for Design is just as old as the notion of Natural Selection. It has had 150 years to develop predictive power and so far it has developed exactly none.

Scientific theories are judged by their predictive powers. The one with the most predictive power wins. Scientists are correct to defend the winners as dogma, until a stronger contender arrives.

In the case of TOE vs ID, it is not the scientists that are behaving differently, its the challengers who are. They have replaced 300 years of scientific method with institutionalized whining.

So in that light, the Nobel Laureate is absolutely correct. And the reviewers here are also correct when they say that he didn't go far enough. This is not a scientific battle, its a cultural one. And the battle plans can be found in the Wedge document.

It could had been drawn from any of a hundred posts or a thousand comments on PT.

"supply an example of ID's predictive power"

No problem.

ID predicts that no matter how long you culture bacteria there won't be anything but more bacteria as a result.

ID predicts that no matter how long you let a chemical soup sit around it won't self-organize into a viable living cell capable of descent with modification.

Now friend, give me an example of macroevolutionary predictive power. How long does the modern synthesis predict it will take bacteria to evolve a nucleus? ID predicts it will never happen. Surely neoDarwinian evolution can make a testable prediction here, right?

This editor sucks. Who's the clown responsible for choosing something that dumps a comment into the bit bucket for a markup error?

As I was saying...

"supply an example of ID's predictive power"

Sure.

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

Now be kind enough to tell me what neoDarwinian theory predicts will happen. How many generations should it take before bacteria evolves into a eukaryote?

I'll understand if you can't give me an answer because, as anyone with a pulse knows, neoDarwinian theory is as useless as teats on a tomcat when it comes to prediction of the things it claims to explain.

David Heddle, there is little doubt, when you win the Nobel prize, you'll write a better essay (or rather a letter to a newspaper). Until then you are entitled to post here your usual piffle, utilizing PT team's tolerance.

I'll understand if you can't give me an answer because, as anyone with a pulse knows, neoDarwinian theory is as useless as teats on a tomcat when it comes to prediction of the things it claims to explain.

This is, of course, dead wrong.

Anybody who's aware of the research knows precisely what the predictions neoDarwinism makes.

Anyone who's been READING the website knows the predictions.

This lets out creationists, however, because no matter what predictions are cited, they'll keep ignoring it and go on with their same broken record.

How many generations should it take before bacteria evolves into a eukaryote?

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus.

...

I'm not even sure that's worth a coherent response. You know what? No, it's really not.

Try taking a basic biology class, whoever. Your staggeringly inane and immature view of "evolution" (I think that's what you are hoping to represent?) did make me laugh though, so kudos for that.

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

— Posted by whoever

So much for the predictive power of neoDarwinian theory.

ID predicted you'd have no predictions when it comes to the major stepping stones in the evolution of life.

ROFLMAO! This is like shooting fish in barrel.

By the way, how many generations does neoDarwinian theory predict it will take fish in a barrel to grow lungs and legs and leave the barrel?

Or how many generations should it take a reptile to evolve warm blood and feathers?

Surely there's SOME predictive power in neoDarwinian theory here somewhere, right? It can't possibly be as wanting for predictive power as I'm saying is it?

C'mon girls, speak right up!

Having followed this assault upon science and the freedom of religion as approved by the founders of this nation, I am pleased that those who, until now, have quietly upheld the ideals of the Enlightenment have finally begun to speak in its defense.
The overly simplistic and ultimatly blastphemeous version of so-called Christianity preached by the enemies of science is equivalent to the overly simplistic and ultimately blastphemous version of so-called Islam that kills children.
Science has saved billions of people from death (see Norman Blalock for one example). Having the gall of speak-for-God fanaticism has failed to exterminate the human race as rapidly as science has saved their lives.

"Thou shalt not lie" is a commandment. Why do the ID/Creationist people consistently lie about their credentials, about obviously forged evidence (Paluxy River Tracts, etc.), about their true intentions? I guess if they consider the commandment against lying negotiable then their self-proclaimed version of Christianity must be the work of false prophets.

Referring to 'whoever':

The clear prediction for your so called problems is that none of the events you list will happen. Your so called test is not how speciation happens. Branches on a tree, not tributaries on a river.

Go Away You Stupid Troll!

Sure Mate, I have no problem with descent with modification from one or more common ancestors.

A fertilized human egg cell diversifies through descent with modification into hundreds of specialized cell types, tissue types, and organs in with trillions of individual members in a highly organized interdependent array.

If one cell can be pre-programmed do all that in 9-months I'm sure a cell can be pre-programmed to evolve from a single cell into all the different forms of life we see today over a course of billions of years.

But it didn't happen by serendipitous accidental mutations. That's patently absurd. Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of phylogenesis, like ontogenesis, being a front-loaded, self-limiting, self-terminating planned process where the environment plays little if any role outside of providing triggers to proceed to the next stage of diversification. Once you girls get that through your thick skulls everything in evolution will fall neatly into place and I will no longer be able to make fools of you by asking for predictions of how long it takes for random mutation and natural selection to do things it's never been observed doing and never will be observed doing because of the simple fact that it never was and never will have the capacity to accomplish these things.

Write that down.

Sure Mate, I have no problem with descent with modification from one or more common ancestors. A fertilized human egg cell diversifies through descent with modification into hundreds of specialized cell types, tissue types, and organs in with trillions of individual members in a highly organized interdependent array. If one cell can be pre-programmed do all that in 9-months I'm sure a cell can be pre-programmed to evolve from a single cell into all the different forms of life we see today over a course of billions of years.

— whoever

Write that down.

sir_jumptoconclusions

Check this out.

http://www.cafepress.com/nationallampoon/622746

Duh.

You girls got Davison phobia. See your mental health care provider. In this day and age there's no reason for you to suffer with this paranoia that John A. Davision lurks behind every hostile pseudonym. God knows there's no dearth of people hostile to you dogmatic Darwinian chance worshippers.

p.s.

Write that down.

Mate

"So you didn't actually mean any of that stuff you said about ID predicting bacteria won't develop nuclei. What with that being completely contradictory to what you just said and all."

Who said the last universal common ancestor was identical to modern bacteria? Not me, that's for sure. The LUCA had a much more complex genome. Modern bacteria are incapable of acquring a nucleus. If you think they can, I'm willing to watch you demonstrate it. Let me know the time & place of the demonstration. In the meantime STFU.

somebody with such little sanity could only be JAD

JAD wrote: Modern bacteria are incapable of acquiring a nucleus. If you think they can, I'm willing to watch you demonstrate it. Let me know the time & place of the demonstration. In the meantime STFU.

I thought the letter was pretty good.

Criticism of it for not saying anything new is irrelevant. What new things can you say? Not everyone has heard of the ID debate, and that letter points out how vacuous ID is, to somebody new to the topic.

Comment #79629 Posted by whoever on February 14, 2006 01:56 AM This editor sucks. Who's the clown responsible for choosing something that dumps a comment into the bit bucket for a markup error? Comment #79642 Posted by whoever on February 14, 2006 02:44 AM Sure Mate, I have no problem with descent with modification from one or more common ancestors. A fertilized human egg cell diversifies through descent with modification into hundreds of specialized cell types, tissue types, and organs in with trillions of individual members in a highly organized interdependent array. [italics mine]

Comment #79612 Posted by whoever on February 13, 2006 11:59 PM "attacks on science itself --- all of science" http://tinyurl.com/8d3vw http://tinyurl.com/ccjzq http://tinyurl.com/8tn7k

Comment #79629 Posted by whoever on February 14, 2006 01:56 AM ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever.

We keep hearing that students must be taught not to question evolution theory because it has important applications in many areas of science. However, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

I'm leaning toward evopeach. But its possible that its a previously unidentified specimen.

Posted by Andy H. on February 14, 2006 06:42 AM (e) We keep hearing that students must be taught not to question evolution theory because it has important applications in many areas of science. However, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

That's it, right? With AndLarryFafermannyH.'s comment, has every utterly dishonest, puffed-up fool of a troll on this site now pissed their territorial blatherings on this thread?

And in record time?

Andy H previously known as Larry Fart-man a Creationism Identity politics Designer

We keep hearing that students must be taught not to question evolution theory because it has important applications in many areas of science. However, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

Well, well, well

Larry/Andy Whatever Creationism Identity politics Designer
go back and re-read what the NOBEL LAUREATE wrote at least HE knows what his OWN NAME IS and he is not ASHAMED of it and he doesn't go around LYING about what is science, and what is not.

Larry/Andy Whatever Creationism Identity politics Designer you are YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR OWN IDENTITY let alone what exists as true reality or what does not exist and is false.

On top of that Mr No-name Creationism Identity politics Designer the NOBLE LAUREATE is acting in GOOD FAITH whereas you MR Anonymous Creationism Identity politics Designer have been acting in BAD FAITH since you came on here.

Blast, old buddy, back already?

Ready to tell us yet about this "frontloading"of yours?

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

Wow, looks like all the nutters are finally crawling out of their foxholes.

I guess they've finally gotten over their post-Dover gun-shy-ness.

Discussion of Dr. Kroemer's letter has certainly brought out the science deniers in all their incarnations.

I would like to hear FL's reaction to Dr. Kroemer's assertion that ID is an attack on all science not just Biological evolution.

"They are not the healthy clarifying debates within the scientific community by which science arrives at its understanding, where different scientists may initially interpret the evolving evidence differently, until new evidence settles the issue. They are religiously motivated attacks by outside groups who are simply in denial of the evidence, because it conflicts with their literal acceptance of biblical traditions..."

This seems to contradict FL's thesis that only evolution is a threat to the Faith. For FL, and for many other True Beleivers, evolution is just the tip of the ice berg. It's all of science, indeed all the gifts of the Enlightenment, that they fear.

Evolutionary theory is useful whether you believe it's true or not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is useless whether you believe it's true or not. Therefore, Intelligent Design represents a serious challenge to the theory of evolution.

[Daily Show] Bwuuuh?! [/Daily Show]

I do find it highly ironic that whoever and the larry hive mind have gone out of their way to prove Kroemer's point for them, and to do so in the same thread with a letter where he makes the point.

I did not figure the ID folks would be so obliging. But, seriously, whoever's "predictions" are nuts. His ID predictions are untestable garbage, and his supposed predictions "evolution" (or whatever the hell he's thinking of, because it's sure not evolution as I was taught in a biology class) would make are, in fact, nothing of the sort. Highly misleading to a casual reader without knowledge of the debate, but intellectually vacuous. Maybe that's why they keep getting splinters of public support and then smashed in court?

More of the same, more of the the same. Perhaps we should develop an official "no feeding trolls" policy? If only we had a bit T icon to go next to their names...

Yeah Lenny ....Blast must have bored the other inmates stupid.

Of course true to form he transparently projects

I agree. Except the roles have been reversed. Now the high priests of science Creationism Identity politics Designo-tologists
refuse to have their dogma questioned, and if any professional scientist who is a Creationism Identity politics Designo-tologists or even an atheist, Rastafarian or an FSMer dares to do so, he/she will be burned at the stake rightly questioned on his/her motives, possible tainting of evidence, results or conclusion by personal influences and their proposals as accurately reflecting external reality in a manner that can be repeatably tested by unbiased independent observers.

The SHAH (Blast)...he don't like it.
A plus for Blast is he is consistently, repeatably and genuinely over the edge and set in ignorance concrete and realizes it, so can claim an honor tick ..there may be hope for him.
However no-name Larry does not know he is a fool and on some sort of moral crusade but in truth is behaving in a completely faithless, narcissistic, unethical manner, a complete no hope-er.

Now let's just run a little test Blast and Larry what are your options on the huge dangers of Global Warming or should that be Global Meltdown ?

Whoever wrote... "ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus."

Ok, thats an excellent answer and an excellent counter challenge. I would like to take these one at a time, if its ok with you. First, I am interested in your example of ID prediction. Exactly how does ID predict that after many generations of culturing bacteria that none would have a nucleus?

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

— whoever

Are you saying the experiment has been done? Are you saying the conclusions are in? What ... no Designer whatsoever? Got it. You sign on as "whoever" because you don't want your fellow churchgoers to discover that you're now an atheist....ooooooooooooh.

For whatever and creationist friends:

Kroemer's letter does cover material previously covered at PT and elsewhere, many times. But it's necessary to repeat that information, because some folks have not heard it before and others, whoever, have heard it but continue to deny it. In their denials they raise false and misleading arguments, repeat contentions that have long been refuted, and raise strawmen. Some even (sit down for it...) tell lies to support their creationist position. "whoever" would like us to believe that a cell is programmed for billions of years of "designed" evolution, but can produce no evidence for this fanciful claim, and yet denies published evidence of evolutionary change and speciation.

It's also possible that folks like whoever are unfamiliar with creationists outside of their own creationist puptent--the followers of anti-evolutionists such as James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Phyllis Schlafly, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, and the Chalcedon Institute for a few examples. Whoever must be ignorant of related anti-science activities, such as pushing Creationist yarns at the Grand Canyon, denigrating the Big Bang theory on a NASA webpage, denials of the physics of radiometric decay, and "conspiracy theories" regarding global climate change. It's not a question of if anti-scientific ideologues will attack other sciences (with the consequences mentioned by Kroemer), but of how long they will continue and how much attention they will receive.

Biological evolution is not the only concept in conflict with such a literal interpretation of the bible; other areas of science, like geophysics and astrophysics, come right behind.

Andy H wrote... "We keep hearing that students must be taught not to question evolution theory because it has important applications in many areas of science."

Your first statement doesn't characterize the real objection to questioning evolution theory. The scientific and educational community is objecting to an arbitrary "singling out" of ToE from all the other well established theories and labeling it as especially flawed, or incomplete. Doing so sends a false message to students, which compromises the quality of their education.

If one were to put stickers on science textbooks it would be more accurate for them to say something like:

"All scientific theories are provisional and are evaluated only as to their usefulness in explaining historic evidence and predicting the results of future events. Scientific theories must make highly specific and falsifiable claims in an open and notorious manner, so as to promote vigorous and continuous experimentation towards corroborating or falsifying the theory. Throughout the history of science, all scientific theories have been replaced, but only by new theories that demonstrated a more comprehensive ability to predict past and future natural events, while making the fewest assumptions."

Andy H wrote... "However, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue."

Yes, andy, this is definitely true about all theories. For example, the wave theory and particulate theory of light are not completely reconciled to each other in all areas of E&M. As such, (and like all theories) we know that because of their incompatibilities in some areas, neither of them must be the actual cosmic truth. However, since both of them are astonishingly useful in predicting the events from the subatomic to the galactic level, we use one or both of them where appropriate. At the same time, we do fundamental research and theoretical speculation in hopes of coming up with a more comprehensive theory that can provide the predictive power of both of these with fewer contradictions. This is why String Theory has gotten so much press lately. It shows great promise in reconciling the apparent wavelike and particulate-like behavior of light.

The same goes for Newtonian Mechanics. I am quite sure that classical physics is used routinely in most of NASA's calculations in orbital mechanics. They do this knowing full well that Newton's laws of motion are a subset of a more comprehensive set of theories from "modern physics" (i.e. special and general relativity). At speeds much less than the speed of light, classical physics is extremely powerful and therefore still in use today and taught to every high school and college student of science.

Real scientists know this kind of stuff. This is the reason why arbitrarily singling out one theory foundational theory from all the others and implying that it has a reduced status because it is incomplete is nonsense when it comes to instructing our young future scientists. It sends a completely false message to students about the status of scientific theories in general. This is why the only challenge to the scientific status of ToE is coming from non-scientific circles, such as DI, delusional Republican Senators and local insurance salesmen turned school board members.

In summary, since all scientific theories enjoy the same provisional status based on their predictive powers, singling out as special in this regard is obviously a cultural challenge, not a scientific one.

Andy, thanks for your interest in science.

I wrote... "In summary, since all scientific theories enjoy the same provisional status based on their predictive powers, singling out as special in this regard is obviously a cultural challenge, not a scientific one."

I meant to say, "In summary, since all scientific theories enjoy the same provisional status based on their predictive powers, singling out *one* as special in this regard is obviously a cultural challenge, not a scientific one."

"Whoever," it takes one generation. The problem is, no one knows which one.

The further problem is that eukaryotes already exist. So if the original leap is made again, how could we know it was done again? If a different leap is made, the new one must compete with eukaryotes billions of years old, honed for sharp competition in the current environment. A new eukaryote would be unlikely to survive long enough to be found and described.

But, tell us, whoever: What evidence have you that eukaryotes did not evolve? When, where and how did the Wilber Force intervene to make bacteria in eukaryotes, and what data support any of your answers?

[sound of cricket chirping from Whoever]

That's it? How awful.

Who said the last universal common ancestor was identical to modern bacteria? Not me, that's for sure. The LUCA had a much more complex genome. Modern bacteria are incapable of acquring a nucleus.

— whoever

The particular question of creativity gets at the real threat of AI to religion. We often hold up creativity as an "inspired" activity whether or not that inspiration is religious in nature. But how much of creativity is really just the question of generating lots of possibilities and selecting the ones that best match an objective? I personally think that all invention may come down to a combination of variability and fitness, much like evolution.

I suspect that this viewpoint is anathema to creationists of all stripes whether they say it or not, and I expect that if AI were ever to become a mainstream science taught at a pre-college level, that they would attack it as vehemently as they attack evolution.

I'm not sure they would attack traditional static AI (rules, expert systems, etc) or even primitive neural nets, but rather the whole area of genetic algorithms, genetic programming, and artificial life. These algorithms truly have the power to create & innovate.

Comment #79582 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 13, 2006 09:19 PM (e) That's it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view.

If I had 16 cents for every time Carol started babbling about how "the bee's knees" in original Hebrew really meant "the cat's pajama's", I'd be lighting Dunhills with Benjamins.

Comment #79639 Posted by whoever on February 14, 2006 02:33 AM (e) So much for the predictive power of neoDarwinian theory. ID predicted you'd have no predictions when it comes to the major stepping stones in the evolution of life. ROFLMAO! This is like shooting fish in barrel. By the way, how many generations does neoDarwinian theory predict it will take fish in a barrel to grow lungs and legs and leave the barrel? Or how many generations should it take a reptile to evolve warm blood and feathers? Surely there's SOME predictive power in neoDarwinian theory here somewhere, right? It can't possibly be as wanting for predictive power as I'm saying is it? C'mon girls, speak right up!

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

— whoever

Several times whoever refers to PTers as 'girls', apparently intended as the ultimate insult. That tells me all I need to know about his attitudes and intellectual abilities.

So, let me know if I've got the score wrong:

Nobel laureates who are pro-evolution: 39
Nobel laureates who are pro-ID: 0

I guess the Nobel Foundation is part of the evil atheist evolution conspiracy too, huh?

Comment #79644 Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 14, 2006 03:10 AM (e) Write that down. figures. somebody with such little sanity could only be JAD. did you ever figure out how to get in touch with a local mental therapist in your area, John?

Comment #79647 Posted by whoever on February 14, 2006 04:00 AM (e) sir_jumptoconclusions Check this out. http://www.cafepress.com/nationallampoon/622746 Duh. You girls got Davison phobia. See your mental health care provider. In this day and age there's no reason for you to suffer with this paranoia that John A. Davision lurks behind every hostile pseudonym. God knows there's no dearth of people hostile to you dogmatic Darwinian chance worshippers.

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus

C'mon girls, speak right up!

And it hates women, too.

In addition to "whatever's" juvenile ad hominem attacks and his total ignorance of what sorts of things evolution actually predicts, no one yet has pointed out that he seems to think it's an insult to call people "girls". Nothing like a hefty dose of misogyny to go along with your anti-science paranoia, eh?

Personally, I can think of a great many "girls" who know more science than I ever will, and whom I'd be flattered to be compared to. Some of them post right here on PT. Perhaps if "whatever" ever manages to get out of the 17th century, he could read them sometime and learn something.

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you'll never get one with a nucleus.

Well, no one had yet pointed out whatever's woman-hating at the time I started writing my post, anyway. But I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed it.

I'm not sure they would attack traditional static AI (rules, expert systems, etc) or even primitive neural nets, but rather the whole area of genetic algorithms, genetic programming, and artificial life. These algorithms truly have the power to create & innovate.

So, let me know if I've got the score wrong: Nobel laureates who are pro-evolution: 39 Nobel laureates who are pro-ID: 0

The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all.

and when real authorities come along and point out that ID's so-called authorities are wrong, it's quite awful for you.

Sorry girls, but as usual when I stir the pot here a million of you come out of the woodwork at me.

I tell you what - choose your champion and we'll have a debate in a moderated forum. The topic will be the evolution of the nucleus. You may present all the evidence you have to support the neoDarwinian position that random mutation + natural selection was the mechanism behind it.

I'll ask my good friends at Uncommon Descent to set up a page where I "whoever" will take on your designated champion.

Let me get them to set that up right now. Look for the page in the right margin of Uncommon Descent and give me your response there.

For example, we have from Penzias:

The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.

— David Heddle

"The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole."

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all."

"People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view... It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent."

Several times whoever refers to PTers as 'girls', apparently intended as the ultimate insult. That tells me all I need to know about his attitudes and intellectual abilities.

Comment #79667 Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 14, 2006 06:54 AM

Posted by Andy H. on February 14, 2006 06:42 AM We keep hearing that students must be taught not to question evolution theory because it has important applications in many areas of science. However, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

You sir, talk nonsense. Scientists question evolution constantly.

How should science be taught? I would say you introduce students to scientific theories by teaching them as fact.

For example, look at Newtons physics. It is wrong.

I'll see your 38, and raise it to 72.

Cheers, Dave

Gee, Andy (Larry, whatever), I see you continue your unethical behavior of violating Posting rule six.

Aren't you embarrassed by the facts that no one takes you seriously and everyone realizes how dishonest you are?

Fascinating.

Whoever wrote.... "I tell you what - choose your champion and we'll have a debate in a moderated forum. The topic will be the evolution of the nucleus. You may present all the evidence you have to support the neoDarwinian position that random mutation + natural selection was the mechanism behind it."

Wait, before you run off, I am still curious where ID predicts that a bacteria will not develop a nucleus after a long period of culturing. I haven't heard that before. How is that conclusion obtained from the notion of a Designer?

Btw, JAD or whoever it is enjoys the reactions to his "girls" remarks. It's attack, attack, attack for this troll, and it's really not best to play his games.

He'll "challenge" anyone to "debate", only he has absolutely no sense of fair play or of what is proper in science. JAD's blog got about as much traffic as you'd expect of such a dishonest crank, and now he, or some idiot like him, is trying yank some chains. Looks like he did it, though of course his boasts about drawing people out of the woodwork (certainly the words and phrases expected of JAD) are about as correct as his claims regarding evolution. That is to say, he mixes a bit of truth (certainly the "girls" remark drew people to his bait) with a whole lot of bluster and nonsense, and pretends to be the alpha male in these parts (why do you think he used "girls" like a football coach might?).

I'd say it's best to attack him, if he isn't banned first. He's a stupid old loser who hasn't said anything intelligent in years. If I were moderating this thread (and had the time, anyway) I'd demand evidence that he isn't the vile old turd known as JAD, or I'd killfile him. JAD and his ilk haven't done anything but troll in all of the time that I have observed them.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading.

Only scientific laws should be taught as facts.

Given that there ain't no such thing, Larry, then you want NOTHING to be taught as science.

Massively ignorant.

Only scientific laws should be taught as facts.

I found Kroemer's letter to be very comprehensive despite its necessary brevity. It also strikes me as more lucid than usual for a Letter to the Editor. Clearly he understands the issues well and composed his letter carefully.

For contrast, read this thread's comments.

Townes's entire quote changes nothing: virtually all pro Iders (except perhaps the most lunatic fringe YECs, who are on PT's side of the cosmological ID debate) acknowledge that there is some evolution---do you know some who say that nothing has ever evolved, ever? I don't. Townes's statement is definitely pro-ID. Unless you are now arguing that "This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all" does not reveal a pro-ID sentiment.

All you are really saying, and I'd agree, is that Townes is not an AiG-er.

As for Penzias, he is certainly pro cosmological ID. I have no idea what his views on evolution are. However, it's not my fault that gregonomic used non-mutually-exclusive categories in his scorecard. You in fact can be both pro-Id and pro evolution.

If you ask Penzias: was the universe designed by an intelligent agent, and is that design reflected by discoveries of science, then I would bet the farm, based on his statements, that his answer would be yes. The fact that Penzias sees the data as revealing design (even more than that--he sees it as consistent with the bible) separates him from the garden variety "mere belief in a higher power" theist that Ebonmuse discussed in #79765.

Of course, I expected you to move the goalposts---that is, after all, a PT specialty.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/nuclear-evolution-debate/

There it is. Put up or shut up!

FWIW, "Andy" and "Whoever" are posting from different IP addresses, and are most likely not one and the same troll.

And, their IP addresses are different from the now-banned sock puppet who used numerous identities, "Joey Abline," "anti-darwinist," "I CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF THE EVIDENCE," "Mark Copen," "Dan Wintell" and many, many more.

But I can see why PT readers are wondering. Do these guys all listen to the same creationist subliminal tapes every night?

Dave

Unless you are now arguing that "This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all" does not reveal a pro-ID sentiment.

Comment #79751 Posted by David Heddle on February 14, 2006 12:24 PM (e) gregonomic, So, let me know if I've got the score wrong: Nobel laureates who are pro-evolution: 39 Nobel laureates who are pro-ID: 0

Amici curiae are individual scientists, state academies of science, and other scientific organizations. Each of the 72 individual amici has received the Nobel Prize in Physics[1], in Chemistry[2], or in Physiology or Medicine[3]. COMPLETE LIST OF REPRESENTED AMICI Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang. State Academies of Science: The California Academy of Sciences, The Florida Academy of Sciences, The Idaho Academy of Science, The Indiana Academy of Science, The Iowa Academy of Science, The Kentucky Academy of Science, The Mississippi Academy of Sciences, The Nebraska Academy of Sciences, The New Mexico Academy of Science, The New York Academy of Sciences, The North Dakota Academy of Science, The Ohio Academy of Science, The South Carolina Academy of Science, The Tennessee Academy of Science, the Vermont Academy of Arts and Sciences, The West Virginia Academy of Sciences, The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Other Scientific Organizations: The American Anthropological Association, The American Institute of Biological Sciences, The Association of American Medical Colleges, The Astronomical Society of the Pacific, The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, The Southern California Skeptics, The Southern California Academy of Sciences. This case is crucial to the future of scientific education in this nation. As researchers in many different branches of advanced science, amici share a concern for the basic scientific education of this nation's public-school students. Scientific education should accurately portray the current state of substantive scientific knowledge. Even more importantly, scientific education should accurately portray the premises and processes of science. Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom. Amici urge this Court to affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.

Posted by Dave Thomas on February 14, 2006 01:22 PM (e) FWIW, "Andy" and "Whoever" are posting from different IP

FWIW, "Andy" and "Whoever" are posting from different IP addresses, and are most likely not one and the same troll.

I nominate Dr. Lenny to take on the IDiot "whoever".

There it is. Put up or shut up!

Is it worth myself, or someone else who's more qualified, taking Whoever up on his offer of a debate? Or would that be idiotic?

If people think that it's a good idea, but no-one better qualified wants to waste their time on it, I'd be happy to give it a go - I could use the debating practice.

And from Townes: Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all.

Ah, sorry, just realised that the challenge is specifically talking about the idea that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. I don't know enough about that to put up a decent showing, not without doing an implausible amount of research anyway.

Posted by Chiefley on February 14, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

Whoever wrote.... "I tell you what - choose your champion and we'll have a debate in a moderated forum. The topic will be the evolution of the nucleus. You may present all the evidence you have to support the neoDarwinian position that random mutation + natural selection was the mechanism behind it."

Wait, before you run off, I am still curious where ID predicts that a bacteria will not develop a nucleus after a long period of culturing. I haven't heard that before. How is that conclusion obtained from the notion of a Designer?

----------------------------

ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature are best explained by intelligent agency.

I have merely identified the eukaryote nucleus as one of those patterns and predict it will not evolve from a modern bacteria lacking a nucleus because the transition involves the generation of complex specified information and there is no mechanism in a modern bacteria capable of generating that information. The neoDarwinian theory proposes that the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection can create a nucleus in a prokaryote.

If you are the one to represent the NDE side please direct further responses to:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/nuclear-evolution-debate/#postcomment

Posted by Corkscrew on February 14, 2006 01:35 PM (e) Is it worth myself, or someone else who's more qualified, taking Whoever up on his offer of a debate? Or would that be idiotic? If people think that it's a good idea, but no-one better qualified wants to waste their time on it, I'd be happy to give it a go - I could use the debating practice.

Well, it's nice to see that Whoever/PhishyPhred/JAD has overcome the bizarre speech disorder from which he suffers at AtBC.

Is it worth myself, or someone else who's more qualified, taking Whoever up on his offer of a debate? Or would that be idiotic? If people think that it's a good idea, but no-one better qualified wants to waste their time on it, I'd be happy to give it a go - I could use the debating practice.

I have merely identified the eukaryote nucleus as one of those patterns and predict it will not evolve from a modern bacteria lacking a nucleus because the transition involves the generation of complex specified information and there is no mechanism in a modern bacteria capable of generating that information.

— whoever

Moses (#79779),

You do realize that what you posted is meaningless?

I also do not think that ID should be taught--in fact I have stated repeatedly that ID should not be in the science curriculum and evolution should be. I completely agree with the statement you posted. Ergo, it says nothing about whether I am or am not pro ID. Ditto for others. You are guilty of another PT methodology: painting all opponents with the same brush. You assume we all want ID in the classroom, and therefore if someone doesn't, then he must be anti-ID. Sorry, that dog don't bark.

And if you think Townes was quote-mined, then explain why PZ views him as a "pious fraud". (A post, by the way, that resulted in me getting tossed from Pharyngula.)

Comment #79715 Posted by Chiefley on February 14, 2006 10:28 AM This is the reason why arbitrarily singling out one theory foundational theory from all the others and implying that it has a reduced status because it is incomplete is nonsense when it comes to instructing our young future scientists. It sends a completely false message to students about the status of scientific theories in general .......... In summary, since all scientific theories enjoy the same provisional status based on their predictive powers, singling out as special in this regard is obviously a cultural challenge, not a scientific one.

quote from whoever (I'm leaning more towards DaveScot, who claimed to know things about computers):

"ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature are best explained by intelligent agency.

I have merely identified the eukaryote nucleus as one of those patterns and predict it will not evolve from a modern bacteria lacking a nucleus because the transition involves the generation of complex specified information and there is no mechanism in a modern bacteria capable of generating that information. The neoDarwinian theory proposes that the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection can create a nucleus in a prokaryote."

Mutation introduces information - it is a trivial fact that all IDers conveniently ignore. But ignoring that, I have a few questions - everyone knows the position of scientists, but each and every ID troll has different views on ID, so please answer the following:

1) Where did you get the definition "ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature are best explained by intelligent agency." from? Reference, please. Or did you invent it as you wrote it down to accommodate for your argument?

2) According to you, when did evolution stop? I.e. you say that the modern bacteria no longer can evolve - this implies that old bacteria could. This makes you part of the ID camp of loss of information pseudoscience - when do you predict that information ran/will run out? (see, that is what we call a *positive* prediction)

3) Would you mind fleshing out the ID theory? "Evolution can't happen" which is what you said in the first paragraph contradicts the "modern bacteria can't evolve" (i.e. old bacteria could). Exactly what bits of evolution are impossible? How does the Intelligent Designer make things change? How does he add the information? Please give the example of how the prokaryotes were created. Don't forget to include the mechanism.

If you want to have a discussion about ID, you need to define this. Else, it is a simple God of the gaps fallacy combined with argument from incredulity (i.e. God did it because I can't see it happening). Remember that Evolution is top of the hill - if ID is to supplant it, we have to discuss ID, not evolution.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Andy H, aka the troll formerly known as Fafarman:
"Furthermore, Darwinism is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason. So there are good reasons for singling out evolution theory as "special." It is about time that people learned the truth about evolution theory."

See, just because you say that it is counter intuitive it doesn't make it true. There is no reason - not a one - that I have ever seen except personal incredulity that limits changes in evolution. You accept that "micro"evolution happen - and state that "macro"evolution doesn't - but you cannot draw a line at where it stops.

Then there are those that say that evolution has happened, but the first life was front loaded (for example, the nameless troll). And others that say that evolution happened naturally, but that the universe was front loaded (Heddle). Would it be too much to ask for a coherent version of ID?

Also, Quantum Mechanics is far more counter intuitive and contrary to reason than evolution could ever hope to be, and it doesn't stop it from being correct.

Finally, I agree with your last statement. People should learn the truths about evolution theory. I suggest you as a prime example of someone needing urgent education in the subject. Indeed, I suspect that you would flunk any exam on evolution theory put before you right now (where you got asked what evolution theory says, not whether you think it is correct or not - i.e. the facts of evolution theory).

Heddle:
"I have stated repeatedly that ID should not be in the science curriculum and evolution should be. I completely agree with the statement you posted. Ergo, it says nothing about whether I am or am not pro ID. Ditto for others. You are guilty of another PT methodology: painting all opponents with the same brush. You assume we all want ID in the classroom, and therefore if someone doesn't, then he must be anti-ID. Sorry, that dog don't bark"

Given that each IDer has its own private version of ID of their own, I'm hardly surprised. You call your argument of ignorance (on probabilities) "ID". It has nothing to do with the DI's four or five versions of ID. I don't even understand why you come to a biology forum to propose your cosmological ID crank ideas.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

My my...

Look at all the reasons why no one can enter this debate.

"arguing astrophysics with an auto-mechanic"

Rest assured I will be consulting appropriate credentialed experts as part of the formulation of my replies. Whoever is representing NDE may do the same.

"already banned"

I am assured your designated champion will be allowed to comment. The point is that it will not be a free-for-all like it is here.

The real reason you are dodging this debate is no one here is capable of presenting a convincing defense of the hypothesis that random mutation plus natural selection can add a nucleus to a prokaryote, a clear step delineated in the fossil record that any evolutionary hypothesis must account for.

C'mon girls, don't let me sit here calling you a bunch of yellow-bellied blowhards trumpeting a vacuous mechanism underlying modification with descent from a common ancestor. This is shameful.

Whoever is representing NDE...

— whoever

I take some comfort in the thought that the goal posts cannot be moved forever. .... The current political battle is important to keep science progressing, but it is the progress of science that will eventually win the war.

Whoever:
"The real reason you are dodging this debate is no one here is capable of presenting a convincing defense of the hypothesis that random mutation plus natural selection can add a nucleus to a prokaryote, a clear step delineated in the fossil record that any evolutionary hypothesis must account for."

On the contrary, I personally am dodging it for three reasons:

a) I do not try to argue that of which I have no knowledge, unlike you. I am not an expert in molecular biology.

b)In my experience, the moment anyone ask difficult questions that show ID to be empty in uncommon descent, the poster is immediately deleted and his posts removed from uncommon descent. I certainly don't trust the word of a nameless troll that things are about to change.

c) There is no need to defend evolution, no matter how flawed, until there is a rival. There is no ID - just a mishmash of conflicting ideas under a big tent (see my posts above). How does ID explain better than the step evolution the formation of a nucleus?

"The point is that it will not be a free-for-all like it is here"

What's wrong with a free-for-all? Have you got something against freedom of expression? Can't admit that you cannot answers the basic, easy questions I and others put before you? I mean, Lenny hasn't even dropped by with his list of questions that he would like answered, so there aren't that many yet.

Indeed, I can confidently claim that you cannot even answer the following question:

What is the theory of Intelligent Design?

Of course, when, what, how, and so on need to be included in the answer - not just "The intelligent designer did it because I think it is a better answer"

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Furthermore, Darwinism is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason.

Do not feed the trolls.

If "whoever" wants to learn about eukaryotic origin and evolution, she can do a literature search.

Some of us are too busy doing science to spend time answering a silly challenge from an arm-chair individual who doesn't know enough biology to even offer a relevant challenge.

DaveScot probably is a good guess. JAD at least knows the singular for "bacteria". I didn't remember DaveScot being quite as harsh as the language from "whoever" is, although he was at least as obnoxious as JAD in his way (maybe DaveScot has been seething over remarks about him for a long time). Could be some other idiot as well, though, or even a combination of several IDiots who find themselves to be clever.

Of course the biggest reasons no one should debate the troll are two. First, the "challenge" is that modern bacteria won't give rise to eukaryotes, which is virtually certain for a number of reasons (especially that eukaryotes already exist, and because any eukaryote-like evolutionary event(s) would almost certainly give rise to something rather different from today's eukaryotes if it did take place). The second is that it is the usual ID tactic of pretending that we don't have sufficient reason to know that eukaryotes did evolve from prokaryotic precursors.

The misdirection of this useless and untestable "prediction" is used to obscure the evolutionary evidence of eukaryote evolution. Plus, the "challenge to debate" has only one main motivation, which is to call into question the evolution of eukaryotes without having to even provide any evidence against it (not that they wouldn't come up with some BS if anyone were foolish enough to take the "challenge"). Debates from IDists exist primarily to undermine science by bringing up "questions" that would not be produced in the normal course of science, and thus to win in the minds of many by merely calling into question the conclusions of science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Grey Wolf,

In case you didn't notice, the subject of this thread is an article, from a physicist, alleging an "attack on all science." That would seem to indicate, at least to me, that this particular thread is about all science, not just biology.

Isn't the current thinking on the prokaryote-eukaryote evolution that inner membranes were rearranged to form the nuclear membrane? Prokaryotes had invaginations of the cell memrane analogous to the endoplasmic reticulum of eukaryotes. I believe that is thought to be the origin of the nuclear membrane with subsequent endosymbiosis of other prokaryotes for the important organelles such as mitochondria. Why would rearranging of membranes and endocytosis even require mutations?

And by the way, I don't think anybody on PT is saying that mutation-selection is the only way to have evolution.

Please talk to Ken Miller to get the details on the status of the prokaryote argument. I'm a frickin' ecologist, here.

Furthermore, Darwinism is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason.

Heddle:

"In case you didn't notice, the subject of this thread is an article, from a physicist, alleging an "attack on all science." That would seem to indicate, at least to me, that this particular thread is about all science, not just biology."

Which is a nice way of not answering my question about why you are in a biology forum, Heddle. Or why you have participated in many other threads just to push your brand of ID ideas when it was out of place.

Just for once, really, I would like for someone to answer the core questions I pose, instead of answering the fringe ones or their own versions.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

We don't expect a feather to fall as fast as a lead weight, and it is counterintuitive to ascribe differential acceleration to the effect of air resistance rather than what we imagine to be a "lesser pull"

Anyone interested in Marshall Berman's Back Page APS News article can find it at http://www.aps.org/apsnews/1005/100518.cfm

Interesting. It would appear that the Panda's Thumb is producing some acute anxiety in the folks who run Uncommon Descent - they are inventing faux debates to lure people over. I admit that the continual (and at this point almost sole) presence of individuals who make ID a laughing-stock through scientific ignorance and patently religious motivation might be somewhat dull, but still! Something more imaginative would be nice.

Just curious, whoever...

Why, if that's such a good argument, didn't you bring it up at Dover?

You see, the problem is that we've already HAD this debate, and you lost. You didn't just lose, in fact. You lost smashingly and were humiliated in the process, as well as stuck an otherwise innocent school district with a massive bill for legal fees.

By the by, this debate has always been open and ongoing. If you want to participate, all you have to do is start performing experiments and publish in journals. You're welcome to join whenever you want.

Posted by AD on February 14, 2006 02:47 PM (e) Just curious, whoever... Why, if that's such a good argument, didn't you bring it up at Dover? You see, the problem is that we've already HAD this debate, and you lost. You didn't just lose, in fact. You lost smashingly and were humiliated in the process, as well as stuck an otherwise innocent school district with a massive bill for legal fees. By the by, this debate has always been open and ongoing. If you want to participate, all you have to do is start performing experiments and publish in journals. You're welcome to join whenever you want.

Interesting. It would appear that the Panda's Thumb is producing some acute anxiety in the folks who run Uncommon Descent - they are inventing faux debates to lure people over. I admit that the continual (and at this point almost sole) presence of individuals who make ID a laughing-stock through scientific ignorance and patently religious motivation might be somewhat dull, but still! Something more imaginative would be nice.

greywolf
1) Where did you get the definition "ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature are best explained by intelligent agency." from? Reference, please. Or did you invent it as you wrote it down to accommodate for your argument?

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

"2) According to you, when did evolution stop? I.e. you say that the modern bacteria no longer can evolve - this implies that old bacteria could."

I didn't say it stopped and I did not imply the LUCA was a bacterium. We may never know what the LUCA was as it is surely lost to the ravages of time. But perhaps not. Maybe we'll find, if I may coin a phrase, a "phylogentic stem cell" among the many extant organisms yet to be investigated. However, I see little evidence to believe that the fecundity of the past which produced the diversity of life we see today is still going on. When did it stop? Well, I believe the last genus to emerge was about 10 million years ago. It's not a matter of screeching to a halt but rather a gradual slowdown. Today there appears to be nothing going on but massive extinction of existing species and minor varietal changes happening within existing genera and maybe some speciation as defined by inability to produce fertile hybrids.

"This makes you part of the ID camp of loss of information pseudoscience - when do you predict that information ran/will run out? (see, that is what we call a *positive* prediction)"

I predict it may have already run out for the production of genera and broader taxonomic categories but that may not be true. The fecundity of past evolution might restart but I've no idea what could trigger it. The question - is evolution over begs further investigation. There's a nice paper published in Rivista di Biologia in 1998 reproduced here

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/davison/self-limiting-process/

"3) Would you mind fleshing out the ID theory? "Evolution can't happen" which is what you said in the first paragraph contradicts the "modern bacteria can't evolve" (i.e. old bacteria could). Exactly what bits of evolution are impossible?"

We don't know exactly. A better question is which bits of evolution can demonstrated as possible today. The answer seems to be the generation of varieties within extant genera. Antibiotic resistance, finch beaks, moth pigments, you know the spiel.

"How does the Intelligent Designer make things change? How does he add the information?"

Perhaps the information was there from the start in a LUCA just waiting to be expressed when the conditions were right. How does a stem cell get the information needed to differentiate through descent with modification into a neuron? Answer: that information was already present in the stem cell just waiting to be expressed at the proper time in a predetermined sequence.

"Please give the example of how the prokaryotes were created. Don't forget to include the mechanism."

This is getting WAY outside the scope of ID which is the theory that certain patterns in nature are best explained by intelligent cause. I can give you mechanisms compatible with ID but those mechanisms are not part of ID. I would say the same or similar mechanism that differentiates stem cells differentiated an arbitrarily complex LUCA. Since we don't yet know exactly how stem cells differentiate it's premature to say the least to demand an explanation about how a LUCA differentiated.

"If you want to have a discussion about ID, you need to define this."

I did and I gave you a source for the definition.

"Else, it is a simple God of the gaps fallacy combined with argument from incredulity (i.e. God did it because I can't see it happening). Remember that Evolution is top of the hill - if ID is to supplant it, we have to discuss ID, not evolution."

ID doesn't dispute evolution if evolution is defined as descent with modification from one or more common ancestors. ID argues that unintelligent causes are insufficient by themselves to explain evolution.

"Hope that helps,"

Ditto.

Please find me at

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/nuclear-evolution-debate/

if you can find consensus here to be the NDE representative and we'll focus on a single evolutinary event - the eukaryote nucleus - and the evidence supporting its orgination from a prokaryote ancestor similar to modern species of bacteria through the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection.

Whoever is representing NDE...

— whoever

Wait, I thought you were representing ID. Make up your addled mind, dude.

Note that whoever/davescot requires detailed pathways for evolution while when asked how ID explains it, he resorts to much handwaving. This shows once again why ID is scientifically vacuous: Even wohever/davescot's prediction for ID is a negative one. Nothing much there I am afraid. Remember that when Dembski was asked for similar details for his ID explanation he 'responded' that he need to give such pathetic details.

As I said I raise endosymbiosis and call whoever's bluff. Since anyone posting or commenting on PT has been de-facto banned by Davescot, I see no reason to feed the troll at UD.

The earth does in fact have a "lesser pull" on a feather than on a (more massive) lead weight. We do not imagine that.

Those curious about the endosymbiotic origins of the nucleus (including other hypotheses like chronocytes) can begin with papers like:
http://www.socgenmicrobiol.org.uk/pubs/micro_today/pdf/110406.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5685/766
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/032658599v1
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article243.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6954
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2_Suppl/175
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12382325&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11175755&itool=pubmed_Abstract

Other candidates come from the recent discovery of family of "nucleocytoplasmic" colossal DNA viruses (~1000 genes!), which replicate and form a membrane in the cytoplasm and has "linear" rather than circular chromosomes.
http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/Mimivirus.html
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/041111_giant_virus.html

The earliest descendant of this merger might be recognized as similar to an amitochondriate protist.

C'mon girls, don't let me sit here calling you a bunch of yellow-bellied blowhards trumpeting a vacuous mechanism underlying modification with descent from a common ancestor. This is shameful.

RE: Whoever:

1) I see that, as I suspected, you changed a key word in the definition from "features" to "patterns" which are vastly different in their usual meanings to better serve your point. Ah, ID, endlessly plastic and capable of meaning everything and, of course, nothing all at the same time.

2) "I did not imply the LUCA was a bacterium"

No, you "only" said that we must demonstrate that bacteria evolved nucleus, which sort of needs it to have evolved, while at the same time explaining how modern ones cannot do it. Mind you, your position is easy, since you only need to say "that is impossible" to defend your "position". Easy way indeed to have a discussion.

Genus do not emerge - we get all animals and divide them into groups. When the last "genus" emerged, it was a speciation event. For two species to become genus millions of years need to pass until they differentiate enough for scientists to classify them as different genus. You have provided no evidence that evolution has stopped or even that it is slowing down.

"ID doesn't dispute evolution if evolution is defined as descent with modification from one or more common ancestors. ID argues that unintelligent causes are insufficient by themselves to explain evolution."

On the contrary, I am sure we can find plenty of declarations of top ID thinkers that state that ID and evolution is incompatible (I'd start looking in their talks in churches). Why shouldn't we believe them? Why should we believe you, nameless one? We're back to "what version of ID should we believe, anyway?".

Have more nits to pick, but gotta run.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

C'mon girls, don't let me sit here calling you a bunch of yellow-bellied blowhards trumpeting a vacuous mechanism underlying modification with descent from a common ancestor. This is shameful.

When did it stop? Well, I believe the last genus to emerge was about 10 million years ago. It's not a matter of screeching to a halt but rather a gradual slowdown. Today there appears to be nothing going on but massive extinction of existing species and minor varietal changes happening within existing genera and maybe some speciation as defined by inability to produce fertile hybrids.

Can Secondary Symbiosis Still Occur? Probably so. Two Japanese scientists have discovered a heterotrophic flagellate that engulfs a unicellular green alga that lives freely in the surrounding water. Once inside, * the alga loses its flagella and cytoskeleton; * the host loses its feeding apparatus; * the host switches from heterotrophic to autotrophic nutrition (photosynthesis); * the host becomes capable of phototaxis. When the host divides by mitosis, only one daughter cell gets the plastid. The other cell regrows the feeding apparatus and is ready to engulf another alga. You can read the details in Okamoto, N. & Inouye, I., Science, 310:287, 14 October 2005

Some of us are too busy doing science to spend time answering a silly challenge from an arm-chair individual who doesn't know enough biology to even offer a relevant challenge.

— Reed Carwright

Townes's entire quote changes nothing: virtually all pro Iders (except perhaps the most lunatic fringe YECs, who are on PT's side of the cosmological ID debate)

— David Heddle

this thread is supposed to be about the Kroemer article, not the evolution of prokaryotes being discussed on Uncommon Pissant. For that, see After the Bar Closes, where I point out that Creationists have made this argument years ago. But you IDiots aren't Creationists, are you, no. Perish the thought.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43f1f71c38ec8320;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=630

Paul C wrote.... "My point was that human intuition by itself does a terrible job of distinguishing between these concepts: force and acceleration or even identifying that they exist. It is the job of science to do so, and the result is often counterintuitive."

Yes, absolutely. History has shown that common sense, intuition, and incredulity are extremely unreliable scientific tools. Most of the modern successful theories are outrageously counterintuitive and downright incredible. Who would believe that mass is not constant but a function of velocity, or that continents move around and smash into each other, or that light is made up of particles. Or that a light particle will interfere with itself as if it were a wave, while passing through one slit in a double slit intereferometer.

As Kenneth Miller says, the argument from "Personal Incredulity" is not a scientific one. Its a subjective opinion and it is almost always wrong.

Glenn
Don't let the IDers get away with claiming they are not reading Genesis literally. Larry is the perfect example. His very first comments several weeks ago chastised the Dover IDiots for bringing up de LORd every time they opened their mouths and he has been scrupulously following his own 'rule'.

He gave it all away in a fit of pique when he ticked off Dr. Miller for first being a religious nut THEN for not being religious ENOUGH by not reading the good BoOk literally. The rubes who continue to push this have been counseled by the DI behind closed doors on how NOT to say goddidit every 5 seconds. For the fellow travelers like DS .....look and learn.

DS is a closet atheist having a real big Pascals Wager and is having a gay old time stirring up the Theists (So is Dembski, but he actually realizes it ....as he takes all their lovely money ......with scrupulous discretion)

Now note: DS will scream that the DEAR LEADER is a real honest to god, god botherer but have a look at his own response ;

Hey DaveScott or Whoever, your knickers are showing BTW, thanks for the invite to your little clubhouse, or is it a Quixotic Windmill, ....anyway to your er ....debate.

DaveScott or Whoever you're dreaming, probably of electric sheep, but I am afraid yourself and Duh duh Dembski and it would seem all of the Creationist Industrial Deceit ID Deus Ex Machina (look it up) crowd do not know how it is done.

TO DEPOSE THE ID GODDIDIT, DECONSTRUCT THE MACHINE

BTW DS you should get out more you know and expand your mind.
You seem trapped playing the
Enchanted Dulchina del Toboso to 'Count' Don Dembski's little comedy of manners ...the fools quest

Now since it would seem that you have a thing about 'girls' try The Laughing Gnostic: David Bowie and the Occult.

"So are you advocating we ban you?"

If you think you can ban all the anonymous proxies in the world go right ahead.

But first I'm going to take a snapshot of this page (done) and all the comments in case my comments are deleted and I want to refer to them in future.

Thanks for playing.

Comment #79802 Posted by David Heddle on February 14, 2006 01:55 PM (e) Moses (#79779), You do realize that what you posted is meaningless?

And if you think Townes was quote-mined, then explain why PZ views him as a "pious fraud". (A post, by the way, that resulted in me getting tossed from Pharyngula.)

DaveScott /Whoever

hahahahahahahaha

runaway runaway ...brave Sir ....debater Knight.

Maybe you could plead with Dembski to try and have your own posts put back up on Uncommon whatever.... he might do it for a little kiss ...but probably not.

Yet you constantly conflate that, more well known version of ID, with your own cosmological beliefs. Then when others who don't know (or care) about the Heddle version make an assault on ID, you cry foul. You know better. Your disingenuousness fools no one. You have no class, sir.

"So are you advocating we ban you?" If you think you can ban all the anonymous proxies in the world go right ahead. But first I'm going to take a snapshot of this page (done) and all the comments in case my comments are deleted and I want to refer to them in future. Thanks for playing.

— Whoever

Mr Whoever,

I'm confused. You keep talking about LUCA. Yet, I thought that according to ID, it never existed.
Are you a supporter of evolution?

William Phillips, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in cooling and trapping atoms with lasers, said the perception that religion and science are in intractable conflict is fading. Increasing is the view that both religion and science have "important things to tell us about life and the universe" and that "sometimes you need to consult both in order to get the best answers," said Phillips, a University of Maryland professor who sometimes teaches Sunday school at his United Methodist church.

As for the age of the earth and the universe, within the usual limits of any scientific conclusions, I believe that the present calculations of about 4 billion years for the earth and 14 billion years for the universe are not far wrong, and I see no conflict with that understanding and my understanding of the Bible. Source: E-mail response to the direct question by the author of this paper May 24, 2004

Finally, I thank God for providing such a wonderful and intriguing world for us to explore, for allowing me the plearure of learning something new things about it, and for allowing me to do so in the company of such good friends and colleagues.

granddaughter

Are you saying no one ever gets banned here or their comments deleted or disemvoweled?

Wesley Elsberry even threatened DaveScot with criminal prosecution if he continued to comment here. If you don't believe me just ask him if he did. I'm curious to see if he'll deny it. There's plenty of people that witnessed it as he posted the threat on the bathroom wall. He may have subsequently deleted it.

Will the real DaveScott please standup

A "Heddle" version of ID? That fine-tuning is evidence of design? Gee, it was kind of Susskind to publish a best selling book just to try to address this minor, nay personal variant of ID: The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. And for Publisher's Weekly, in its review of Susskind's book, to write: "While the subtitle is a bit misleading (this isn't about intelligent design in the Kansas Board of Education sense, but actually a controversy at once bigger and less prominent)". I guess I should feel privileged. Of course, if Susskind had checked with you, Savagemutt, he might have subtitled it the Illusion of Heddle's Intelligent Design, which would have been kinda cool.

— David Heddle

Finally, SavageMutt---when Mark Perakh posts on PT about non-biological ID, do you remind him: the only ID we discuss here is biological ID? Nobody here cares about this, so why you are writing about it?

granddaughter Are you saying no one ever gets banned here or their comments deleted or disemvoweled? Wesley Elsberry even threatened DaveScot with criminal prosecution if he continued to comment here. If you don't believe me just ask him if he did. I'm curious to see if he'll deny it. There's plenty of people that witnessed it as he posted the threat on the bathroom wall. He may have subsequently deleted it.

Isn't this just precious?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/davisons_soapbo.html

Date: 2005-05-19 17:04:39, Link
Author: Wesley R. Elsberry
Message to David Scott Springer aka "DaveScot" aka "Sad Covet" aka "jordan" and etc.:

Your use of this computer system is unauthorized. You do not have consent to use this system.

There exists a computer security system in place to restrict your access to this system.

This is not a "game of hide and seek". Any further attempts to access this system by you will be treated as a violation of Section 1. Title 7, Chapter 33, Section 33.02 of the Texas Penal Code.

This includes usage of alternate ISPs to evade the security system.

Goodbye.

Here's what any "debate" with an IDer looks like.

IDer: "Prove to me every step of evolution is possible right before my eyes in a lab. Can't do it? I win by default."

Of course, a properly moderated debate would say that arguments cannot be won by employing a single logical fallacy, but hey, they are always victors in their own minds.

oops...wrong url...mibad

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001050.html#c31115

Date: 2005-05-19 17:04:39, Link
Author: Wesley R. Elsberry
Message to David Scott Springer aka "DaveScot" aka "Sad Covet" aka "jordan" and etc.:

Your use of this computer system is unauthorized. You do not have consent to use this system.

There exists a computer security system in place to restrict your access to this system.

This is not a "game of hide and seek". Any further attempts to access this system by you will be treated as a violation of Section 1. Title 7, Chapter 33, Section 33.02 of the Texas Penal Code.

This includes usage of alternate ISPs to evade the security system.

Goodbye.

Jean said:

Mr Whoever,

I'm confused. You keep talking about LUCA. Yet, I thought that according to ID, it never existed.
Are you a supporter of evolution?

Well actually DaveScott is a supporter of evolution and almost pulled down the curtain neh ..ripped apart the cosmic dharma at UCD when he tried to have PURE evidenciary science implemented by booting off all the god talkers ...he almost succeeded with his little scheme until the 'Count' took him behind the barracks and whacked the living daylights out of him THEN .....get this he sheepishly announces that he censored HIMSELF ......one of the funniest incidents at the circus in ages the elephantsh*t shoveler being chased by the clown ...granddaughter indeed.

The appearance of conflict [between religion and science] is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique conscious being, a divine creation."

It's worth remembering that DaveScot has banned more people in one day (Jan 20, 2006, IIRC), than PT has banned in its 23 month history.

I'll understand if you can't give me an answer because, as anyone with a pulse knows, neoDarwinian theory is as useless as teats on a tomcat when it comes to prediction of the things it claims to explain.

Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about. . . . I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cell may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.

Abiogenesis seems to be a locus where the religious and scientific views become semantically entangled.

Science says "not known at this time". Religion says "Goddidit". These are, in practice, *almost* the same statement. The only possible difference is, the former phrasing does not discourage active research to find out, while the latter does.

I'm baffled that a biologist would find magic a "satisfactory solution" when it is in fact neither one. It's equivalent to saying "I don't know and I don't think finding out is worth the bother." And how anyone can think "I don't want to be bothered" represents a solution is beyond me.

Stevepinhead

Reading your post I have to have a little laugh.
I have had an extra bit of pink tissue located about 1.5 inches below my right nipple for as long I can remember and now that I have reached 1/2 a century the damn thing now looks like the tip of my other nipples. Makes for an interesting conversation piece, although my daughters find it a bit passe. I can claim that I am related to Scaramanga in the "Man with the Golden Gun". Having 6 rather than 4 wisdom teeth was a bit of surprise as well.

From Mythology in the Hermetic Greek tradition which has its roots in the Egyptian Trinity and probably influenced the early christian church, partly emphasized the male breasts as a connection to all of nature and the 'feminity of Divine power '.

Flint it's not for you it's for him, live and let live.

I note, in reference to 'whoever's comment on the deletion of comments, that his challenge has indeed vanished from the front page of Uncommon Descent. Why? Too embarrassing?

It remains a classic example of the very thinking that Kroemer decrys in his brief statement: a lack of healthy debate.

Yeah, k.e., my ex also had an extra set of nipples located an inch or so below the under-crease of her breasts. Her parents had required their surgical removal before I ever met her, leaving her with weird little scars. I don't know what their motivation was, precisely, but I suspect it had something to do with the suggested "unnatural" "animal"-ness of the extra nips.

Of course, I thought it was cool that she had had these nifty left-overs, a visible demonstration of our relatedness to our multi-papped ancestors.

I sometimes wonder if a good deal of suppressed anti-"animal," anti-"nature" emotion isn't behind some of this anti-evolutionary foment, which so largely overlaps on the politico-religious spectrums, with anti-environmental foment.

Thanks to JohnK and Pvm for recent references on endosymbiotic processes. Some of us ecologists are interested in this stuff y'know.

I find it very telling that whoever, Andy H. and the IDM seem to offer no counter-hypothesis.

Sorry to have raised something way off the original topic of the post/comment string.

Re "History has shown that common sense, intuition, and incredulity are extremely unreliable scientific tools. Most of the modern successful theories are outrageously counter-intuitive and downright incredible."

Though imo evolution comes closer to being common sense than relativity or quantum mechanics ever could. After all, for whole critters (or major parts of them) to suddenly poof into existence would seem to me to be highly contrary to common sense.

Henry

that was one of the most concise and accurate comments on ID I've ever seen ...thank you for re-printing it

that was one of the most concise and accurate comments on ID I've ever seen ...thank you for re-printing it

Moses, Moses, Moses---the point is that you have not demonstrated that they (Townes and Penzias) are anti-ID. Agreeing with that statement is a possibly necessary but certainly not sufficient condition to be anti-ID. Once again, I agree with it, and I am not anti-ID. Your post was indeed meaningless.

Comment #79900 Posted by k.e. on February 14, 2006 05:09 PM (e) Stevepinhead Reading your post I have to have a little laugh. I have had an extra bit of pink tissue located about 1.5 inches below my right nipple for as long I can remember and now that I have reached 1/2 a century the damn thing now looks like the tip of my other nipples. Makes for an interesting conversation piece, although my daughters find it a bit passe. I can claim that I am related to Scaramanga in the "Man with the Golden Gun". Having 6 rather than 4 wisdom teeth was a bit of surprise as well.

Let's give Whoever a little credit. He isn't trying to debate how many generations it will take for NS + mutation to turn a cat into a dog!

KP - its good to see another ecologist on board here.

Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about.... I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cell may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.

Moses, Moses, Moses

Wow, looks like all the nutters are finally crawling out of their foxholes. I guess they've finally gotten over their post-Dover gun-shy-ness.

Brave Dave That's it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view.

In the last four decades, scientists have learned how to unravel the secrets of the genetic control of life processes. Interestingly, and as far as is known at the present time, the genetic information of all forms of cellular life is contained in the linear sequence of building blocks, called nucleotides - of long filamentous molecules of DNA, a nucleic acid. In addition, all living beings seem to 'speak' the same genetic language, i.e. they use essentially the same genetic code. These observations are in accordance with the Darwinian theory of biological evolution postulating a steady development of life processes from a common origin. The basis for this diversification is, on the one hand, the spontaneous generation of genetic variants and, on the other, the forces of natural selection acting on mixed populations of genetic variants and different species of organisms.

I find this article shallow as I do Mr. Kroemer's opinion, both are an affront to science and to logic. Yes, we do see decent with modification. Yes, we see a physical world that has expanded and progressed. I would say virtually every ID proponent recognises that he is different from his parents, that new bodies are formed and destroyed in the universe. Where both these authors offend science an logic is where they fail to recognise they do not know the origin of life itself, nor the origin of the universe. Life is a delicate balance, there is not one study that shows what set this balance in motion. There is not one study that shows what set in motion the BB, the supposed creation of the universe. If one claims that life began through a non intelligent process, what evidence can they supply other than opinion or anecdotal incidents? What can they show that the universe was either created or eternal? Only anecdotal incidents and opinion.
With this said, why would these authors deny that any search for these origins is not valid? And if it is valid and unknown, how can they honestly eliminate ANY possibility? Looking for design in a physical object is recognised. We do it all the time.
Regarding evolution, without the knowledge of the CAUSE, how do you differentiate what you see in this world and determine what is a non intelligent creation and what is an intelligent creation? To claim either way takes reason, evidence, thought.

(sigh)

Is it some sort of requirement that all ID/creationist supporters must be functional illiterates?

Looking for design in a physical object is recognised. We do it all the time.

— Sara

I find this article shallow as I do Mr. Kroemer's opinion, both are an affront to science and to logic.

— Sara

Yes, we do see decent with modification. Yes, we see a physical world that has expanded and progressed. I would say virtually every ID proponent recognises that he is different from his parents, that new bodies are formed and destroyed in the universe.

Where both these authors offend science an logic is where they fail to recognise they do not know the origin of life itself, nor the origin of the universe.

Life is a delicate balance, there is not one study that shows what set this balance in motion.

There is not one study that shows what set in motion the BB, the supposed creation of the universe.

If one claims that life began through a non intelligent process, what evidence can they supply other than opinion or anecdotal incidents?

What can they show that the universe was either created or eternal? Only anecdotal incidents and opinion.

With this said, why would these authors deny that any search for these origins is not valid? And if it is valid and unknown, how can they honestly eliminate ANY possibility?

Looking for design in a physical object is recognised. We do it all the time.

Regarding evolution, without the knowledge of the CAUSE, how do you differentiate what you see in this world and determine what is a non intelligent creation and what is an intelligent creation?

To claim either way takes reason, evidence, thought.

Is it some sort of requirement that all ID/creationist supporters must be functional illiterates?

— Dr. Lenny

The Intellectual Dysfunction Theorist formerly Known As Larry Farfalarfadingdangdung wrote:

...However, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

Thus announcing the retreat of creationists into the last refuge of con-artists, piss-artists, loonies, and rigid losers: crybaby subjectivism. Now is the time for all sore losers to stamp their feet in perfect sync and chant: "They use it, they cure diseases with it, they get results with it, but they don't really believe it! How can they? It's NOT REAL!! It's NOT REAL!! It's NOT REAL!!"

Dr. Lenny wrote:

Is it some sort of requirement that all ID/creationist supporters must be functional illiterates?

And I believe we can answer with confidence:

Yes.

So what? No one is arguing that the initiator of the BB cannot be God, merely that no evidence exists for such a claim.

A small bone to pick. There is no empirically observable evidence for God. Science merely accepts that one cannot test a supernatural creator being in any reliable method (currently, at least), and so responsibly declines to comment.

— AD

The trouble here, as so often, is with the term 'supernatural'. If God were testable then God could enter into scientific explanation. I think we should abandon the term completely and stick with 'testable' or 'not-testable'.

The problem with that approach is that there could be many hypotheses or assertions about the natural world that have nothing to do with the "supernatural," but which are currently not testable due to limitations in knowledge or technology (such as whether mass, energy, space or time existed in any form before the Big Bang).

That's it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view.

This has become the standard -- sometomes the only -- response of the far right to any form of criticism: if they can't refute or disprove a critical statement, they call it "predictable" or "unoriginal," with the sneering tone of the insecure bully. (And, of course, they're right, to the extent that one can't be "original" while stating well-known facts and using real logic.)

These are the words of people who know they're in the wrong, don't have the guts to admit it, and are desperate for any means to make themselves feel like they're still superior to the rest of us no matter what. It's all getting rather...predictable.

The problem with that approach is that there could be many hypotheses or assertions about the natural world that have nothing to do with the "supernatural," but which are currently not testable due to limitations in knowledge or technology (such as whether mass, energy, space or time existed in any form before the Big Bang).

I was going to make the same point. If we clarify what we mean, we'd want to divide things into three categories:

Currently Testable

Theroetically Testable

Theroetically Untestable

The things in the last category would be the ones we could call "supernatural", or whatever other name might be appropriate to the idea. But only the first two categories would be things that could scientifically be investigated (though possibly not yet).

If you think you can ban all the anonymous proxies in the world go right ahead.

All you have to do is eliminate anonymous comments and require commenters to register first as users with verifiable identities (a functioning email address is a start, but you could make it a lot more secure). It would be a headache and would probably discourage some newcomers, so I don't recommend it. But your suggestion that we're powerless to stop your trolling is pretty laughable. It's just simpler to ignore for now.

With this said, why would these authors deny that any search for these origins is not valid?

— Sara

The problem with that approach is that there could be many hypotheses or assertions about the natural world that have nothing to do with the "supernatural," but which are currently not testable due to limitations in knowledge or technology (such as whether mass, energy, space or time existed in any form before the Big Bang).

— Raging Bee

Posted by AD on February 15, 2006 12:39 PM (e) ... However, I think there is a good reason to allow the trolling to continue. For all we pretend to be affronted by it, let's face it: some of the best evidence against ID supporters are the insane things they say. Banning them irrevocably would cut off that avenue.

However, I think there is a good reason to allow the trolling to continue. For all we pretend to be affronted by it, let's face it: some of the best evidence against ID supporters are the insane things they say. Banning them irrevocably would cut off that avenue.

We're not going to lose the terms "natural" and "supernatural", due to our history, and to the convenience of just saying "that's natural". However, it does introduce a useless step in discussing what is science, and it provides an opening for the IDist rhetoric denouncing some supposed "faith in naturalism".

"Supernatural" cannot fail to be ambiguous, since it has no actual human reference (at least not at this time). Is Jesus walking on the water supernatural? If he's said to do it regularly, across an accessible lake, it appears as if it is theoretically testable (prior to some proviso like 'he never walks on water when skeptics are in the vicinity'). On the other hand, an unknown designer with unknown design criteria and unknown capabilities might very well be defined as "natural", but when characterized like this we don't even know if it is "theoretically testable". We certainly know that it is not practically testable and we have little reason to differentiate the IDist's "natural designer" from God, based upon the lack of any obvious means to make this "designer" testable.

Btw, I should note here that Phillip Johnson likes to attack science for "naturalistic bias", while Behe takes pains to suggest that the designer could very well be "natural", only he describes a "designer" that is as untestable at the present time as God would be. That's the height of "naturalistic bias", this claim that the "designer" who is beyond the reach of science and, for all we know, may remain beyond reach forever, could in fact be "natural". Why would anyone even guess that the unknown and practically unknowable "designer" might be natural? We have no data to suggest that it would be (in addition, any difference between "theoretically testable" and "practically testable" is not apparent in this case).

Back to the heart of the problem of the term "natural". We often "define" the supernatural as that which is not testable even in theory. I think I brought up examples that make even that definition problematic, but let's let that go for now. We gain nothing in conciseness or explanatory value if we interpose the "natural" into the consideration of what "science is", since the issue of what science is rests on testability regardless of whether or not we call "the testable" the same thing as "the natural". For convenience, yes, we might call what is testable "the natural world", but science has gained nothing through that term.

Using the definition of "natural" as that which is "testable" only means that both "natural" and "science" rest upon testability, and we're only going to lose scientific definition when we write as if science depends upon what is "natural" when in fact all it depends upon is what is testable.

Practically, of course, who cares if we typically call what is testable the "natural world"? This is fine as long as we know that "natural" is only a word we use for convencience, and just so long as pseudoscientists like IDists don't try to make "naturalism" out to be some kind of religion or ideology. The term "natural" becomes grist for the IDist PR mills when science is depicted as committed to this "natural realm", as if this "natural realm" were not simply considered to be the study of what is observable and testable. Because of prior beliefs and false dichotomies, IDists think that "natural" stands in contrast to "supernatural", when in fact the latter is empirically an empty set against which no contrasts are possible.

I wouldn't especially wish to try to expunge science of the term "natural", then. However, I would prefer to minimize it in our battles against ID. In fact I do believe that the anti-ID side has been increasingly speaking of what is testable and what is observable as being within the proper purview of science, and less about how science studies what is "natural". Nevertheless, we could still do with fewer mentions of "natural", and of "methodological naturalism", on our side, since neither term directly refers to the epistemological issues that are important in science.

We may say that we aren't committed only to the study of what is "natural", except when what is "natural" is already defined to be what is observable and testable (which would include an observable Jesus walking on the water--yet this inclusion of Jesus' deeds into the "natural" conflicts with typical beliefs about hypothetically observable "supernatural events"). Cut out the step of calling "natural" that which is "observable", and you've cut out one of the rhetorical devices that IDists use to muddy science (not that they wouldn't still use it, but presumably to lesser effect). For us, using the terms "natural" and "naturalism" works against the bystanders' understanding the real issues existing between science and pseudoscience, which are actually the use of empirical evidence to come to scientific conclusions having measurable confidence levels. Any level of confidence is unattainable when using the pseudosciences such as ID, except where they overlap with real science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Funny, that's one of the reasons I come here, so I guess it's a two-way street. When PT commenters tell me things like rearing my children as Christians is a form of child abuse---well that is simply invaluable fodder.

Funny, that's one of the reasons I come here, so I guess it's a two-way street. When PT commenters tell me things like rearing my children as Christians is a form of child abuse---well that is simply invaluable fodder.

some of the best evidence against ID supporters are the insane things they say. Banning them irrevocably would cut off that avenue.

If a Christian said it's abusive not to tell your kids about Jesus because they might go to hell as a result, I could disagree but I would find it logically consistent with their beliefs.

A parent, you see, cannot affect a child's salvation.

I'm always bemused by silliness like whoever's challenge re. prokaryotic cells evolving nuclei. This challenge is equivalent to the old cannard, "If evolution is real, why aren't chimps evolving into humans?"

The answer to both is, why? What conceivable reason is there to expect either of these changes?

These fallacious challenges are rooted in the naive assumption that evolution is somehow all about progress (and of course, the accompanying assumption that whatever *we* are is the most progressive). That's nonsense. Evolution is about finding a way to "make a living" not being used by anyone else. Evolution doesn't produce "progress" in any objective sense; what it produces is *diversity*. The illusion of progress in the history of Earth's life forms comes from the reality that life began at the simplest edge of the spectrum of its possibility, and some of the growing diversity has inevitably moved into the more complex areas of that spectrum of diversity. But the older forms don't go away, and new forms aren't at all inevitably more complex than older ones.

Chimps don't evolve into humans because they are very good chimps, thank you. At one time, our shared ancestral species splintered, probably due to diverging ecological advantages, and one splinter eventually produced humans, the other chimps. Just as I never expected my sister to turn into me, I have no reason to expect chimps to become human beings.

In the case of the prokaryotic cell, one who understands anything at all about the scope of life on Earth has to realize that there are more ecological opportunities on this planet for prokaryotic forms than for any other kind of life. It's estimated that there are more bacterial species, more bacterial individuals, more bacterial biomass on this planet than all other life forms combined. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this is a world dominated by mammals--the bacteria are in charge, as they have been from the earliest days of life on Earth.

So... why expect prokaryotic cells to spontaneously produce nuclei? Why would they? Earth's life has been there and done that. There's plenty of opportunity for good ol' bacteria, now and into the future.

Posted by David Heddle on February 15, 2006 01:38 PM (e) Funny, that's one of the reasons I come here, so I guess it's a two-way street. When PT commenters tell me things like rearing my children as Christians is a form of child abuse---well that is simply invaluable fodder.

Chiefley ---

In fact NASA, at JPL, uses the General Theory of Relativity for mission planning (and, one supposes, mid-flight corrections).

There is enough computer power available to do this, and the fuel savings suffice to make this effort worthwhile.

Posted by David B. Benson on February 15, 2006 03:05 PM (e) Chiefley ---- In fact NASA, at JPL, uses the General Theory of Relativity for mission planning (and, one supposes, mid-flight corrections). There is enough computer power available to do this, and the fuel savings suffice to make this effort worthwhile.

guangung said, "'Only scientific laws should be taught as facts.' (quoting Larry)

"Given that there ain't no such thing, Larry, then you want NOTHING to be taught as science.

"Massively ignorant."

Not precisely correct :^) There certainly are things which scientists refer to as "laws," but the problem here is that Larry clearly doesn't understand just what a scientific law is.

It's a common misconception that these laws are "proven," as in known to be absolutely correct. Not at all so. Scientific laws are no more "proven" than scientific theories are--there are no proven concepts in all of science. The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law is a description of observed behavior--which is why so many of the "laws of physics" are best stated as mathematical equations. Theories are explanations. This makes theories on the whole considerably more complex, with a lot more "moving parts." But it doesn't make laws any closer to "truth" than theories.

A fact, on the other hand, is basically pretty trivial. Facts are just single repeatable observations. They are the raw material out of which we devise the generalizations which can, with enough evidential support, eventually become laws and theories.

"Evolution is not a fact!" is not an insult; it's a compliment ;^)

"Evolution is a theory" is the nicest thing one could possibly say about any complex idea. Go, evolution! Theories rule!

Lynn, who wishes she could still claim "girl" status, but will have to settle for the realization that, even back when she was a mere girl, she could have though circles around the whoever's of the world LOL!

Andy H. said: "Furthermore, Darwinism is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason."

Try this, Andy. Take your right hand and grasp your left hand. Feel that left hand thoroughly, squeezing and kneading. Feels pretty solid, right?

How much sense does it make that your nice, solid, substantial hand is composed overwhelmingly of ... empty space?

Yet that's what our understanding of atomic structure tells us.

Oh! My mistake! I forgot that our understanding of atomic structure is only a theory!

The amazing whowever said: When did it stop? Well, I believe the last genus to emerge was about 10 million years ago. It's not a matter of screeching to a halt but rather a gradual slowdown. Today there appears to be nothing going on but massive extinction of existing species and minor varietal changes happening within existing genera and maybe some speciation as defined by inability to produce fertile hybrids.

Hmm. Sorry to tell you this, but our own genus is far younger than 10 MYO.

this way, if I may paraphrase (noting you wrote that it was not against ID, but against ID supporters): We shouldn't ban our opponents because when they say stupid things it's good for the home team.

David Heddle said" When PT commenters tell me things like rearing my children as Christians is a form of child abuse---well that is simply invaluable fodder"
I agree,and we should show our children just what a fountain from which truth, goodness and purity springs, the Bible really is.Lets awakening our children on Sunday morning to participate in Biblical readings such as these
Gen. 38:9 "...and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground."
Ezek. 23:20 "..Yet she increased her harlotry, and doted upon her (RSV) paramours there, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts." Song 5:4 "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." I don't think many people need to be told what "it," "went unto," "members," and "issue," and "by the hole of the door," are referring to
..." 2Kgs. 18:27 "... that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you."
Perhaps we could show what wonderfull role models the patriarchs were
ABSALOM--ordered killings (2 Sam. 13:28-29 RSV) and had sex in the open (2 Sam. 16:22 RSV);
AMON--raped his sister, Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11-14 RSV);
GIDEON--killed (Jud. 8:16:17 the Living Bible), murdered prisoners (Jud. 8:21 RSV), engaged in polygamy (Jud. 8:30);
JOSHUA--killed and slaughtered without letup (Joshua 6:21, 8:25-28, 10:1, 20, 26-28, 30, 32-33, 35, 37, 39-41, 17-18, 21, 12:7), murdered prisoners (Josh. 8:29), and hamstrung horses, (Josh. 11:9 RSV);
JEPHTHAH--slaughtered people (Jud. 11:33), and killed his own daughter (Jud. 11:39 RSV);
Maybe not child abuse,BUT HOW AWFUL

Stephen Elliott --

Unfortunately I don't have a url regarding JPL's use of the General Theory of Relativity. You could try web trawling on the recently returned cargo of space dust -- the mission's name escapes me. This mission poked around an unstable Lagrange point for many years. It is one of the missions in which general relativity was used.

The article I read in a book, a proceedings of a conference on chaos theory and the like, made it quite clear that general relativity was required for so sensitive a flight path.

Another article described a proposed mission to the sun (not the ulysses mission) in order to check general relativity. The reason given by the author was that NASA (meaning JPL) uses general relativity for mission flight planning.

GPS definitely uses relativity in order to remain accurate in timing and in space. There is no way that accurate space-time coordinates could be maintained without taking into account the relativistic effects of velocity and of gravity on the GPS satellites and their clocks, which are used to fix the coordinates of the receivers on the ground.

And no, I don't have references for this. Anybody can look it up on a search engine, plus it should be obvious that any really accurate space-time measurements, which are unavoidably necessary in GPS technology, require the use of relativity theory.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

A parent, you see, cannot affect a child's salvation.

— David Heddle

Unfortunately I don't have a url regarding JPL's use of the General Theory of Relativity. You could try web trawling on the recently returned cargo of space dust --- the mission's name escapes me. This mission poked around an unstable Lagrange point for many years. It is one of the missions in which general relativity was used.

— David B. Benson

Another article described a proposed mission to the sun (not the ulysses mission) in order to check general relativity. The reason given by the author was that NASA (meaning JPL) uses general relativity for mission flight planning.

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 15, 2006 05:10 PM (e) GPS definitely uses relativity in order to remain accurate in timing and in space. There is no way that accurate space-time coordinates could be maintained without taking into account the relativistic effects of velocity and of gravity on the GPS satellites and their clocks, which are used to fix the coordinates of the receivers on the ground. And no, I don't have references for this. Anybody can look it up on a search engine, plus it should be obvious that any really accurate space-time measurements, which are unavoidably necessary in GPS technology, require the use of relativity theory. Glen D

A parent, you see, cannot affect a child's salvation.

— AC

But that's Calvinism.

"Isn't lying considered to be non-Christian?"

According to some Christian sects, lying is a sin, but because they are saved by faith and not by works, Christians who have Faith are forgiven their sins. Even if they knowingly and continually repeat them. This is one of the reasons you will often find very Faithful Christians whose behavior is unashamedly unethical.

Now that one I do know. If GPS did not take into account the effects of relativity, then it would have your position wrong by a significant amount. I was not doubting relativity to be more accurate. I just thought it was too difficult to use in rocket flight, for a very small difference in trajectory. The reason I asked for a link was so I could be certain I was reading the same article.

Posted by shenda on February 15, 2006 05:41 PM (e) "Isn't lying considered to be non-Christian?" According to some Christian sects, lying is a sin, but because they are saved by faith and not by works, Christians who have Faith are forgiven their sins. Even if they knowingly and continually repeat them. This is one of the reasons you will often find very Faithful Christians whose behavior is unashamedly unethical.

"Jesus (and I know this means nothing to you) said honesty was what believers should do."

How do you know that this means nothing to me? Do you know what my faith is or is not? Or are you jumping to conclusions without evidence?

Are you disputing my claim that *some* Christians sects believe as I stated? Or are you offended by *their* beliefs? Please clarify.

"Following the evidence and not believing in God is more likely to be approved than deliberate lying."

Most Christians that I know would disagree with this statement. How many do you know that would?

But that's Calvinism. I assure you that other sects of Christianity strongly disagree

Mr. Heddle, you have managed to steer yourself into a *most* unpleasant position--that of having to defend your sectarian beliefs.

But more to the point--shall we contact the people you've quote-mined and ask them what they think of the Ohio Lesson Plan, or the revised Kansas science standards? I'd be very interested in their responses.

It has been my understanding in the past that relativity is generally used in space missions, if only to keep the timing of the mission right in simple trajectories (let's say that the mission takes off from earth and goes directly to an asteroid). Newtonian physics would probably work okay in the more simple missions, it's just that the timing would drift noticeably, though not disastrously (IMO). I would guess that moon shots could work fairly well without using relativity's calculations, though again the timing and efficiency would suffer somewhat.

— Glen Davidson

Mr. Heddle, you have managed to steer yourself into a *most* unpleasant position---that of having to defend your sectarian beliefs.

shall we contact the people you've quote-mined and ask them what they think of the Ohio Lesson Plan, or the revised Kansas science standards? I'd be very interested in their responses.

Heddle wrote: it's irrelevant---since they may be just like me: ID-friendly yet opposed to teaching ID and putting ID in the science curriculum.

"However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense."

Let's hope he'll take a pass on that.

"Of course, it's irrelevant---since they may be just like me: ID-friendly yet opposed to teaching ID and putting ID in the science curriculum."

Somehow I think they'd find more to object to than that.

From Uncommon Descent Pray tell, Herb. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of evolution over the course of some 3 billion years showed it was unplanned and unguided? I'm all ears, man. Speak right up.

Well Pray tell,Bill. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of creation over the last 6 thousand years showed it was planned and guided ?I'm all ears, man. Speak right up.

However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense.

After reading this thread, I've come upon something that I think is very valuable. Ironically, it came from a lecture I heard by Phillip Johnson at Cal-State Chico.

The issue is defining the argument. Johnson wanted to define it on his terms, which was an excellent point. The problem is that later on, he kept changing what his terms meant.

In court, you can pin down a witness on definitions, and then apply those definitions to their testimony. Equivocation is rarely an effective tool when a judge is presiding over a case. I think this is part of why the ID strategy fails so blatantly, and they are caught in a true catch-22 with it. Eliminate the equivocation, and suddenly the immense misrepresentation and vacuity of their claims is clear. Keep the equivocation, and while they can engender uneducated popular support, they get annihilated in court.

So maybe the first step of the counter-attack on the attack on science, as evidenced by the "unguided" discussion, would be to begin every discussion with the ID folks by making them agree to definitions of key terms beforehand, and when they equivocate, pinning them down on definitions again.

Thus, with many of their claims, the answer becomes simple: "That's not what we are saying at all. You are objecting to something that does not exist."

If there's a Nobel Prize for alarmist nincompoopery

On-topic for once: this article was lame because it did not touch on the real underlying motivation of the science-deniers: by undermining science and science-education, they are hoping to undermine everyone's ability to think, reason, and process information for themselves, and to judge for themselves the accuracy and honesty of their leaders' statements.

Science exposes error and BS and keeps people honest, from medicine to criminal justice; and that is why dishonest people of all stripes want to destroy it.

However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense.

Interesting. Check out the March issue of Discover, the article on Mimivirus. It speculates that an ancestor of the Mimivirus may have undergone endosymbiosis with an ancient prokaryote and formed what became the eukaryotic nucleus. For those that don't know, Mimivirus is a virus so large it is bigger than some bacteria - and contains more genetic material than some bacteria. Even if it wasn't endosymbiosis, the possibility sparks some other ideas, such as an insertion event. Wonder where science, real science, will take us...

I just saw Kroemer's piece entitled "Intelligent Design": An Attack on All of Science.

You know -- I'm starting to think that Prof. John Lynch (ASU) may be right. Prof. Lynch frequently attacks the credentials of a writer before, or instead of, dealing with the writer's argument's merits. Well, I examined the background info on Prof. Kroemer and found no mention of his advanced study in the same disciplines as Prof. William Dembski. Thus, using Prof. Lynch's words, "I don't care" what Prof. Kroemer thinks about ID, because in Lynch's logic, Prof. Kroemer has no standing to critique ID.

In addition, I found no mention of Prof. Kroemer's advanced study of the methods of verbal logic or argumentation. (I do have an advanced degree in this area). So, Prof. Kroemer's background in electrical engineering, and his lack of training in argumentation, are two Lynch-strikes against him.

Mr. Doering, on this blog, wrote in "defense" of Prof. Kroemer:

"Give the guy a break. Now you know why professional writers write and scientists --- ah, er --- science. Two very different skills."

Using Prof. Lynch's logic, then Prof. Kroemer should have kept to his EE areas of excellence, and avoided tarnishing his Nobel Prizewinner status with this public display of arrogant incompetence.

Finally, if you do understand reasoning, you see that Prof. Kroemer's piece is terribly non-substantive (as Mr. Heddle observed here). No arguments are presented, only a call, in so many words, to "stop these ID people before again think for themselves! Don't let the kids anywhere near them, their ideas are poisonous."

Click on: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2000/kroemer-autobio.html

and

http://almaz.com/nobel/physics/2000b.html

to learn more about Prof. Kroemer. He's a great scientist in his field. His argument against ID, is worthless on its merits.

His argument against ID, is worthless on its merits.