The true origin of "intelligent design"

Nick,

I think everyone here will agree that your efforts at NCSE have been magnificent. I and everyone here have deeply appreciated the detailed footwork you did for the Dover case, and we all appreciate your contributions to this site. NCSE is better for having had your services.

Have a great time at Berleley. I assume you will stay in touch even though your prime commitment will be to your studies.

Re "As an example take the complex structure possessed by the female whale for suckling its young under the water without drowning the suckling."

Well, the obvious question to ask here is whether during that period of evolution, the whales might done their calf feeding on land? Or if not on land, in shallow water?

Henry

How far do you really have to move (other than office space)?

I am sure you will have a wonderful experience.

Re: Nipples. I recall a Steve Gould essay on "Why men have Nipples?" One answer was, "So men have something to do with their other hand."

Err, maybe that wasn't Gould's responce. ;)

Obviously, it's totally impossible for a critter that suckled on the beach to suckle in the same way in the water. I mean, how could anyone think that?

How far do you really have to move (other than office space)?

PS: Baby hippos nurse underwater.

Hahaha!

You should check Hugh Ross's book, Creation as Science, he goes at length about how male nipples were created for sexual arousement. There's something about these guys, Haggard included, that really perks up about nipples. Now, I think the nipple is a fine structure built by evolution, but I have no doctrine underlying my beliefs that suggests I shouldn't be thinking about such things...

Nick, you've done science, and science education a huge service, built upon the work of everyone at the NCSE and the members that sent in little bits of info that helped you dig up the transitional fossils of Intelligent Design. Now you can join the ranks of the researchers working on those problems themselves, and perhaps you may find your papers quoted in the next generation of science defenders, and maybe it will be your turn to be the expert witness at Scopes 3.0. Good luck, We're both getting going on that next stage right now!

Enjoy the honey, there's more when you publish again!

Obviously, the infamous Designer messed it up yet again.

All the nipples that I've encountered, heard or read about haven't been very intelligent at all - in fact, most of them could best be described as boobs.

Clearly this whole subject is pumped up and over blown.

The Designer's grand plan was not for an hydraulicaly assisted feeding arangement for a certain kind of animal but actually for the amusement of him and his buddies. Down at the cosmic gym where the shaved hard oiled bodies of the masters of the universe work out in front of hell to heaven mirrors it was quite accepatble to gaze longingly at the male nipple.

Why else would the designer put them there?

When the Designer made Adam, did he add nipples as an afterthought? I think not.
No, nipples were given to Adam to celebrate the The Designers gaze and so when he made Women they couldn't complain he short changed them by making them bigger than Adams. Even though he tricked them by keeping the best bit for himself.

So there you have it, The Designer made Adam in his own image and females were just a fantasy to keep straight men away from his boys.

I'm tempted to throw in a comment here, but for the sake of good taste I'll refrain.
After all, I wouldn't want to make a tit of myself.

For the pedantically inclined, I see that this book is a translation from a German original:

Herkunft und Zukunft des Menschen.
Ein kritischer Uberblick der dem Darwinismus und Christentum zugrunde liegenden naturwissenschaftlichen und geistlichen Prinzipien,
A E Wilder-Smith

Giessen, Basel, Brunnen-Verlag, 1966

I think that it is worthwhile to make a reference to this quotation in the Wikipedia article on "Irreducible Complexity" under the heading "Forerunners":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners

Nick,

You have done a great work and I have also enjoyed your kick-ass posts. Good luck in your studies and future research!

And don't worry about PT, I'm as pleased as Punch to see that Josh moves in here.

Btw, the Intelligent Nipple Design theory is a titillating addition to the zoo of woo. When they come to Intelligent Boob Design theory..., we could start field tests identifying diverse plastic surgeons. Safe-for-kids field tests of course.

This clearly adds to a large body of evidence against evolutionary theory.

Udderly ridiculous, but I'm glad they made a clean breast of it.

Why do you keep this endless debate?
Do you think you'll be able to convert a single ID believer into an evolution theory advocate?

This clearly adds to a large body of evidence against evolutionary theory.

Heddle: Damn you. I should have listened. XD

Uri: no, people who genuinely believe in ID (and it is a belief, since ID offers no evidence beyond well-thats-kind-of-like-what-a-human-does) are probably beyond help - but there are surely people still undecided who we can save from the scam.

No halfway stage of development from an ordinary nipple to that of the fully developed whale nipple, adapted for underwater feeding, is conceivable.

Why do you keep this endless debate? Do you think you'll be able to convert a single ID believer into an evolution theory advocate?

To deny planning when studying such a system is to strain credulity more than to ask one to believe in an intelligent nipple designer, who incidentally must have understood hydraulics rather well (see pp. 207-208).

Hey! Good luck with the graduate studies. It will be fun.

We've never met, but Nick is the guy who inducted me into the "ID Resistance". I'm sure scores of others of us would say the same thing.

Hi Nick!

Why do you want never even mention James E Horigan?

He used the terms "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" over 50 times in his book the "Change or Design?" (Philosophical Library, 1979).
Some examples here.

He wrote about "intelligent design" also elsewere.

Hi Nick!

Why do you want never even mention James E Horigan?

He used the terms "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" over 50 times in his book the "Change or Design?" (Philosophical Library, 1979).
Some examples here.

He wrote about "intelligent design" also elsewere.

Out of curiosity, is there a generally accepted hypothesis/theory about how underwater nursing evolved in whales. Nick mentioned that hippos also nurse under water, perhaps underwater nursing evolved even before whales, and was one of several prerequisites before proto-whales could become totally independent of land?

Good luck at Berkeley Nick! We all appreciate your hard work and dedication towards good science education in America.

Doug

No halfway stage of development from an ordinary nipple to that of the fully developed whale nipple, adapted for underwater feeding, is conceivable.

Nick,

Best of luck and many thanks again for your major contributions to NCSE. I hope you'll encourage many new colleagues to join.

To the lurkers, This is not a paid ad, nor am I employed by NCSE. I'm just a member since 1999.

I just realized that this is Behe's argument against irreducible complexity, however it denies not only "Darwinism" but also any sort of evolution at all.

analyysi: I have read Horigan's book and article.

(a) Show me someone, anyone, in the early ID literature actually citing the guy. You can't, in 2007, just dig up an obscure reference and then claim it was influential without any evidence that it actually was influential, especially when probably a dozen "histories" of ID have been published, many of them pro-ID, and none of them have ever cited Horigan as a source AFAIK. Ditto for the 1897 Schiller reference and other things dug up after Kitzmiller and retrospectively inserted into apologetic histories of ID. In the vast expanse of english writing some people will occasionally stick the two words together when discussing the Design Argument (e.g. Darwin), and these instances can be found with computer searches (e.g. Horigan's article comes up when you google the ASA website, probably no one would know about it otherwise) but this is not necessarily at all relevant to the actual history of the modern ID movement and their adoption of "intelligent design" as a term.

(b) Horigan freely mixes in creationist and Bible terminology, whereas denials of exactly this are associated with the ID of the ID movement

(c) Ain't in a glossary and not an official term in Horigan. Pandas came along and said what "intelligent design" was, instead of just using it in passing. Behe came along and said what "irreducible complexity" was. Horigan did nothing like this for his pairing of the words AFAICT.

Nick,

Thanks for everything. Enjoy grad school, it can be the greatest time of your life (with the right advisor). I'm sure we'll be hearing from you from time to time and I'm also sure that you will make your mark in Biology and have a long and succesful career. Best of luck.

Best of Luck, Nick! Remember, if you finish the Ph.D. in less time than John Wilkins took, you win!

Re "Re: Nipples. I recall a Steve Gould essay on "Why men have Nipples?" One answer was, [...]"

Funny, I sort of figured the reason would be that suppressing them in males would require additional regulatory stuff in the DNA, and there probably wasn't really any evolutionary advantage to developing that.

Ah well, at least this thread is keeping us abreast of things...

By "the liberal option," do you mean reading sacred texts as metaphor rather than literal truth? For instance, liberal Christians don't take the creation stories in Genesis as scientific fact. They read these stories more as poetry. Are you saying that option, for the most part, doesn't exist for Muslims because the Quran is seen as a text that's been handed down from God? It would be an overstatement to say that option does not exist, but it has a much weaker social position. Let me give an example. Here in the United States, the mainstream scientific community has a big problem with creationist movements and intelligent design. As scientists, one of our closest allies in trying to combat creationism is the liberal religious community. It's much more effective to send somebody to a school board meeting who's not a scientist but actually a priest or rabbi or minister in a more liberal denomination and to explain that they don't see a conflict between teaching evolution and religion. But in the Muslim world, this is much more difficult because the public affinity toward creationism is much stronger. Darwinian thinking really hasn't penetrated the popular discourse. Plus, it's very hard for scientists who work in Muslim countries to find liberal religious figures who would go out there and publicly say Darwinian evolution is not a problem for Islam.

Posted by Uri on August 15, 2007 8:17 AM (e) Why do you keep this endless debate? Do you think you’ll be able to convert a single ID believer into an evolution theory advocate?

It has no appeal to say that some internal natural life force, within the substance of things, could bring about such inter-related meaning and coordination. [referring to "designed" structures in the Universe] It does appeal, however, that the Designer of our universe is vested with such an awesomess [sic] of power, knowledge, and intellect that it would seem remiss to deny the attributes ascribed to the biblical God. This is especially so when we take into mind that the biblical account of Genesis fits quite comfortably into the sequential occurrence of events that have been reviewed herein. In this regard, too, it would seem reasonable that a Designer would have made known through revelations to man a code of conduct to accompany the freedom of choice in relation to a moral order. Indeed, such a code was presented to man through Moses and refined in meaning and interpreted in the life of Christ. (p. 207 of: Horigan, James E. (1979). Chance or design? New York, Philosophical Library.)

Long before the ID movement arose, creation scientists constantly invoked design arguments. Some deny this connection (48), but an extensive 1989 survey (50) of creationist literature notes the ubiquitous role of design: The venerable Argument from Design remains the chief weapon in creationist apologetics. Creationists consider it self-evident and incontrovertible. Although the theory of evolutionary adaptation stood the design argument completely on its head, creationists continue to appeal to Design without even a trace of defensiveness. It is featured in virtually every book or article promoting creation-science. "Actually," says John Morris [(49)], Henry Morris's son, "any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignorance of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance."

Why do you keep this endless debate? Do you think you'll be able to convert a single ID believer into an evolution theory advocate?

I'm joining the parade of those congratulating Nick for his, um, transition from the NCSE to graduate work in evolution. Nick rocks!

(And, to keep with the theme, ID sucks, heh heh...)

Congratulations once again on the superb work at the Kitzmiller trial, Nick.

Despite the occasional internecine spat/misunderstanding between the atheists and the more "moderate" science supporters, I have enjoyed Nick's posts over the years.

And it has not escaped thid pinhead's notice that Nick's provision of the "Biblical Inerrancy" post--for creationist Mark H. to post his preachments in--that finally got PT to the magical, mystical, numerologically-significant, and (AFAIK) unprecedented "mark" of 1,000 comments on a single thread. Woo-hoo!!!

For a dedicated science defender, Nick sure has the magic touch!

And since a poor starving grad student will certainly need them, I'll see what I can do to get my, ahem, buddy Lenny's Pizza Guy to send along a steady stream of hot'n'tasty virtual pizza pies!

"thid" ==> "this"

Though one does wonder where Mark H. will go now to post his responses to the many pending questions.

The "Biblical Inerrancy" thread seems to no longer be accepting comments, now that the millenium has been achieved...

And it has not escaped thid pinhead’s notice that Nick’s provision of the “Biblical Inerrancy” post–for creationist Mark H. to post his preachments in–that finally got PT to the magical, mystical, numerologically-significant, and (AFAIK) unprecedented “mark” of 1,000 comments on a single thread. Woo-hoo!!!

Hey Nick,
Do you remember taking the tour of the 'Museum of Creation Science' east of San Diego at the 'college/indoctrination center' in the warehouse after an ESRI conference a few years ago when you were a grad student (the first time, ha ha)?

Dude, send me an email, its been way to long.

Dave

What a week! First Red State Rabble announces he's going into semi retirement. Then Nick Matzke heads off to school. Sad for us, but good for you, Nick. All the best.

Hey Dave -- oh yeah, I remember. In retrospect, an initial sign of my peculiar interests...

PS: My new email will be matzkeATberkeley.edu

And it has not escaped thid pinhead’s notice that Nick’s provision of the “Biblical Inerrancy” post–for creationist Mark H. to post his preachments in–that finally got PT to the magical, mystical, numerologically-significant, and (AFAIK) unprecedented “mark” of 1,000 comments on a single thread. Woo-hoo!!!

What’s the evidence for this? I doubt very much that it is true; those who have reached this stage have demonstrated, and have honed, the sort doublethink required, and Hausam demonstrates it well. He almost certainly will still be a YEC six months from now, and far beyond.

However, Nick’s claim that “Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism…. Once they’ve gone this far, most people can’t maintain the necessary doublethink for very long” has not panned out.

About Intelligent Design
ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages http://controlled-hominization.com/ will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). The development of this kind of “draft ID” could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
Benoit Lebon

The other major figure in FTE is Charles Thaxton, its "Director of Curriculum Research." Thaxton, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry, coauthored an earlier FTE-sponsored book, The Mystery of Life's Origins. Mystery offers a skeptical look at current theories of abiogenesis and closes with a chapter advocating a hypothesis of special creation to explain the origin of life. Thaxton is also a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of theistic scientists that requires assent from its members to a statement of Christian principles. (NCSE, 1990)

(b) Horigan freely mixes in creationist and Bible terminology, whereas denials of exactly this are associated with the ID of the ID movement

— Nick Matzke

Both Plato and Aristotle regard him [Anaxagoras] as the first to attribute the evident structural harmony and order in Nature to some form of intelligent design plan rather than the change concourse of atoms. (Barrow & Tipler: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p 32

But if he was, it’s just another example of a creationist using the Design Argument, examples of which are legion.

— Nick Matzke

This important recent book takes a fresh look at an old problem - whether and to what extend the hand of an intelligent Creator can be discerned from the phenomena of the universe, as reflected overall in modern scientific fact and theory. ... With this book the reader may now seriously question whether the "reason/belief" split, long held to be an insurmountable barrier between scientific and religious thought, continues to be legitimate in the post-Modern era. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/issue_pdf/frontmatter_pdf/214/4526.pdf

Usually discussions of evolution hold out the term "chance" in opposition to "design." Chance is seen as exclusive of design. The evolution of the universe, therefore, is controlled either by chance or by design.

— John F. Haught

Nick and Popper,

FWIW I think you are both right, but that Nick was not entirely wrong before.

It’s very rare that someone stops defending pseudoscience after investing enough time and effort to be noticeable on blogs or newsgroups. Mark seemed to be near that point after which one either admits to having been being misled, or much more likely, becomes either hopelessly compartmentalized or in on the scam. So Mark may “become” a YEC in the sense of wanting to promote it, but not necessarily in the sense of actually believing it.

Frank J,

You might be right. After all, as you are fond of pointing out, we can never know for sure what anyone really thinks. However, my take on Mark was that there was never any real chance of changing his mind about anything. Don't get me wrong, I still think Nick was right in providing the opportunities that he did. But consider, Mark's views were never based on evidence. He was undoubtedly already aware that his beliefs were contrary to mainstream science and yet he choose not to even understand the basics of science, let alone examine the evidence for himself. In addition, as Mike pointed out, by this time he simply has too much invested socially and economically to admit that he could be wrong.

The only problem I had with the entire affair is that it went on far too long after Mark had proven absolutely that he had no intention of ever discussing any science and was in fact (by his own admission) incapable of doing so. Still, it served as an invaluable example of exactly the kind of childishness that the original Science article described. Nick gave everyone an opportunity to see close up the kind of mindset that is absolutely impervious to evidence. It might have been hard for some to believe that such individuals could exist in a modern technological society, but here is the proof.

I'm also pretty sure that we have not heard the last of Mark. He seems to think that he can convince people that he is right and is thus following the commandments to convert heathens. But then again, I'm sure we have not heard the last from Nick either. We will be able to contrast his approach (grad school, research, grants and publications in peer-reviewed journals) and that taken my Mark (preach until they can't stand it anymore). I know which approach I prefer.

Lebon: you probably want to discuss this on the antievolution boards, not here, but:

1) There is no theory of ID. It's a scam, not a hypothesis.
2) Evolution does not mean what you want it to mean. In the context of biology it refers to a very specific idea.
3) If you'd been following ID as long as most people here have, you'd be laughing too.

Also, because I forgot earlier, a round of applause to Mr. Matzke. :)

Do you think you'll be able to convert a single ID believer into an evolution theory advocate?

Maybe not, but if we keep on exposing and shooting down their nonsense, the general, uncommitted public will learn to stop listening to them, and they will find themselves isolated, ridiculed and irrelevant. Even if we don't convert anyone, we can still shame them into silence.

Besides, some IDers have indeed been converted. I remember reading about one of the signatories to that infamous list of "dissenting scientists" explicitly renouncing the whole ID scam.

By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe,

man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being.

It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.

Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy,

and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.

Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science.

Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future?

As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible.

ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too. Benoit Lebon

However, Nick’s claim that “Usually this sort of person is about six months away from complete deconversion from creationism…. Once they’ve gone this far, most people can’t maintain the necessary doublethink for very long” has not panned out.

Re "[...] will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible."

In order to do that, ID would first have to say something about a set of evidence. As long as all it says amounts to "evolution is wrong about something", that won't happen.

Sure, it'd be possible for formulate a hypothesis that some aspects of life were deliberately engineered by somebody or something, but so far attempts to do that either don't actually say anything about any evidence, or say something that contradicts the available evidence. So what's the point of attempting a "synthesis" of that?

Henry

However, my take on Mark was that there was never any real chance of changing his mind about anything.

— David Stanton

Besides, some IDers have indeed been converted. I remember reading about one of the signatories to that infamous list of “dissenting scientists” explicitly renouncing the whole ID scam.

— Raging Bee

Glen D and Lebon,

Minor point, but it drives me crazy. Continental drift was 'discarded and laughed at' because it was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wegener's fossil data showing the continents had moved were later accepted. But his theory of continental drift, that the continents had, for reasons best known to themselves, gone merrily plowing through the harder rock of a static ocean floor, was quite understandably laughed at by geologists.
Plate tectonics was a later, much more plausible theory of how the continents moved; then, Wegener's fossil evidence was accepted as support. But continental drift, his theory to account for the fossil evidence, never was accepted, and undoubtedly never will be.

Nick--
I've really appreciated a lot of the threads you've started. Best of luck in grad school, or as the Northwestern poly sci grad students called it, the Long March.

Glen D and Lebon, Minor point, but it drives me crazy. Continental drift was ‘discarded and laughed at’ because it was wrong, wrong, wrong. Wegener’s fossil data showing the continents had moved were later accepted. But his theory of continental drift, that the continents had, for reasons best known to themselves, gone merrily plowing through the harder rock of a static ocean floor, was quite understandably laughed at by geologists. Plate tectonics was a later, much more plausible theory of how the continents moved; then, Wegener’s fossil evidence was accepted as support. But continental drift, his theory to account for the fossil evidence, never was accepted, and undoubtedly never will be.

Nick --- Thank you for your work!

Glen D--
I knew I shouldn't have brought that up. I admire what you write here and don't want this to be a flame war, but please think about what I'm actually saying.
You say that calling Wegener's theory of continental drift wrong, is like saying, 'Darwin was “wrong” because he still considered acquired characteristics to be a part of evolutionary mechanisms....'
Well, yes. It's precisely like that. Darwin WAS wrong about the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That idea was discarded, while natural selection was tested and accepted. That's exactly why the theory of evolution is a science, not a religion.
Wegener's theory of continental drift is analogous to the inheritance of acquired characteristics. It takes into account some valid data, but is falsified by other data.
I don't really know how much Wegener's theory pushed geologists to accepting that the continents moved. The prime impulse was that oceanographers trying to get an accurate chart of the ocean floor discovered ocean floor spreading along the mid-Atlantic ridge. There was a very short-lived theory, also wrong, that the globe was expanding. I'm not sure when somebody had the bright idea to correlate the new theories with the fossil data, and whether the fossils or the discovery of the role of deep trenches tipped the balance to plate tectonics as we know it.
But my basic point was, Wegener's particular theory of how the continents moved around never was accepted. Wegener didn't deserve all the ridicule he got from geologists (scientists don't always read the fine points in Miss Manners) but he also doesn't deserve to be held up as a shining example by every crank who comes down the pike.

In 1928 Arthur Holmes (Dott and Batton 1976), despite Harold Jeffrey's objections to the contrary, argued for Wegener suggesting that convection in the Earths mantle was the mechanism that caused the drift of the continents. Harry Hess (1962) of Princeton and Bob Dietz, of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic were supporters of Wegener and Holmes and suggested that seafloor spreading was responsible for the continental drift. Hess proposed that as oceanic crust spread away from the ridges with a conveyor belt-like motion it was simultaneously descending and being consumed at the oceanic trenches. Starting in the 1950s magnetometers were used in the Atlantic to map parallel patterns of magnetic on the ocean floor that had a zebra-like pattern. Vine and Matthews in 1963 proposed that the alternating stripes of magnetically different rock were laid out in rows on either side of the mid-ocean ridge: one stripe with normal polarity and the adjoining stripe with reversed polarity. On the Leg 3 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project Glomar Challenger, 1968, drilled 17 holes at 10 different sites along a oceanic ridge between South America and Africa established that the sediments of the Atlantic were youngest close to the mid Atlantic Ridge and were older closer to the continental margins proving that the seafloor spreading hypothesis was correct. In 1965, J. Tuzo Wilson described transform faults that connected areas of ocean spreading and subduction, so initiating the new geologic discipline of Plate Tectonics.

Glen D--

To belabor this OT topic a final time, thanks for the quotation about Hess. I wasn't aware that Hess was taking Wegener into account from an early stage. (Hence my statement above, "I don’t really know how much Wegener’s theory pushed geologists to accepting that the continents moved.") I'm not in a place where I have any access to a research library, but it's my impression that the geologists had some legitimate problems with the particular way Holmes applied convection.

The more interesting point for me has always been that, given the fossil data, static continents would mean real problems for evolutionary theory. According to creationist dogma, the geologists should have jumped right on Wegener's bandwagon to shore up the theory of evolution. In fact, we all know they did nothing of the kind.(Of course, the creationists argue instead that scientists were too arrogant to listen to different ideas, blah blah blah.... So the creos are arguing out of both sides of their mouths. But what else is new?)

Nick,
Good luck in grad school. Kudos to all you have contributed here and for NCSE. Especially for your exemplary work in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Who will play you in the movie? Matt Damon or Johnny Depp?

Best Wishes
Ken

Glen D and hoary puccoon,

I think the problem here is that there are two parts to Alfred Wegener's Continental Drift hypothesis. First, is Wegener's contention that the continents did, in fact, move. Second, is his proposed mechanism, that tidal forces and "polar flight" ("centrifugal" pushing towards the equator, and yes, I know it's not really centrifugal) were responsible for the movement.

The first was based on an enormous collection of data by Wegener and others (dating back to the late 1500s!), showing that coastal outlines, geological formations, mountain ranges, mineral deposits, fossil evidence, distribution of climatic indicators such as coal beds, coral reefs, and glacial features, all pointed to (what is in hindsight) the incontrovertible conclusion that the continents are today in different positions than they used to be, and that they were at one time connected to one another.

The second idea is (and was) easily demonstrated to be incorrect. The forces suggested are too weak, continental rocks not strong enough, oceanic rocks not weak enough, and the expected evidence in ocean basins of wakes of broken rock as the continents moved through them not present. Even at the time of Wegener, these facts were known.

In hindsight, what should have happened is that geologists should have simply said that the evidence was overwhelming that the drift occurred, but that the mechanism was incorrect. What happened instead is due to a combination of factors. Not only was Wegener a meteorologist rather than a geologist, but from what I've read, he was a difficult man to get along with. In addition, a lot of his evidence came from the Southern Hemisphere, and a certain Euro-centric (and USA-centric [?]) attitude may have prevented the evidence being taken seriously. These factors (along with the usual reluctance to have an entire lifetime's learning overthrown) conspired to give geologists and geophysicists the incentive to throw out Wegener's entire thesis.

The evidence could not be entirely ignored, however, and several ideas were proposed to explain especially the fossil evidence. As hoary pointed out, one idea was that the Earth was expanding (incidentally you can find crank websites that still say this is correct). Others proposed that organisms migrated between continents through land bridges (which did in fact occur between Asia and North America in the late Pleistocene, and between North and South America about 5 million years ago and up to today), island hopping, or rafting. Although these all have been observed in recent times, none of them adequately explain the similarity of fossils on different continents. What was left is that many geologists were "stabilists" who thought the Earth's continents have been substantially in the same place over much of geologic time. Arthur Holmes, as Glen points out, came very close to the right ideas (although there were important differences between his ideas and what today we think are correct).

Geophysical discoveries during and after WWII did, as Glen points out, eventually lead to a synthesis of sea floor spreading, subduction, and transform activity into what today is known as Plate Tectonics.

So, it would be correct to say that with regard to his mechanism, Wegener was indeed, as hoary says, "wrong, wrong, wrong." But at the same time, as Glen points out, the continents do indeed drift. Just not in the same way that Wegener envisioned. Wegener was a visionary in terms of synthesizing a huge amount of data to come to the conclusion that the continents had drifted. He erred in the mechanism, but was indeed unfairly ignored by geologists for a long time. Today, though, most geologists recognize that he was one of the major players in what eventually became Plate Tectonics.

Sorry for the long post. I wanted to point out that you're both right in discussing one of my favorite parts of Geology. If you want to see more about this, the USGS has a great website on it (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html).
If I can blow my own horn, my class website is: http://inst.sfcc.edu/~gmead/platetec/Ptintro.htm

GvlGeologist,

Naturally, I'm thrilled with your long post.

In spite of the geologists' alleged rudeness to Wegener and his followers, the whole history is a good example of how science ought to work. The geologists refused to accept Wegener's dubious theory to prop up the theory of evolution. But they were willing to reverse themselves and admit the continents did move when further data and a new, more plausible theory (plate tectonics) proved a static model wrong.

Compare this to the creationists' latest attempts to use plate tectonics to shore up a 6000 yo earth, and the geologists actually look extremely good.

"I actually apparently did play a significant role in de-IDifying one guy who went by the name of “DNAunion”. This was before I was at NCSE. He kept asking questions about the origin of this or that and I kept sending references to relevant papers. So very occasionally such things can work."

I remember butting heads with DNAonion on the AOL evolution boards.
He had more brains than most creatobabblers. But not too many as he
was an IDer. He couldn't handle A1-Milano. Myself and another poster
who was more expert on that topic than I was drove him banannas.

So he underwent a change of heart did he?

Well good for him and you.

And good luck in graduate school. Given what you have produced so far,
I look forward to your accomplishments in Evolutionary biology.

Stuart

"Found at: strata.geol.sc.edu/history/tectonics.html

And while it is true that the alternating magnetic polarities on the ocean floor kickstarted Holmes’s and Wegener’s ideas into renewed prominence, according to this source (and a couple others, at least), Hess and his fellow neo-“drift” theorists were indeed influenced by Wegener, and Holmes as well.

I know that the cranks will use anything they can get their hands on, but science is not without its flaws (indeed, some of Darwin’s ideas appear racist today), and they will find genuine mistakes to misuse along with their enormous arsenal of false claims (like Lebon’s supposition that present-time dismissal of unsupported ideas mean that we’re dead-set against any notion of “design”, just as the lying IDists state).

It is not really obvious that Wegener’s ideas, even with Holmes’s superior mechanism, ought to have actually prevailed prior to mid-20th century, given the paucity of the evidence before that time. Yet the way he and his ideas were treated demonstrates that science does have its blind-spots and unfair practices. Likewise with Lynne Margulis, although one feels a tad less sympathetic toward her, given the apparently unlikely notions that she holds today (I suppose I could regret those words, and I note that I haven’t studied her claims. However, I can see no way for her to explain the usual evolutionary data sans Darwinian mechanisms being by far the dominant processes (including genetic drift, and other “neutral evolutionary” factors), unless we were to credit Behe’s puff of smoke by his God whose thoughts apparently are all dominated by genetic algorithms).

Anyhow, I hope that it can be recognized by all that the picture is not so simple as it is typically portrayed. Science, what a surprise, works quite well over decadal time scales, particularly when more evidence in favor of an idea like moving continents is discovered. Even IDists like to point out that orthodoxy eventually crumbles when the evidence is strongly against it, which is their excuse for the various dates of Jesus’ soon return (no, actually it’s the date of the end of “Darwinism”, but the two sound about as reasonable as each other, scientifically).

I suppose I should point out (for any possible lurkers) not only that these predictions pathetically fail, they have nothing going for them in the first place. Wegener went around finding evidence, and Holmes provided a mechanism consistent with observation and physics. IDists find no evidence (merely recycling old papers, and never once explaining why their shining examples of what “couldn’t possible evolve by random processes” are found to be exactly similar to the things that evolved by random processes), and have only magic as their “explanation” (their occasional alien “designers” wouldn’t come with the expectation of producing only apparently-evolved organisms, nor could aliens fine-tune the universe).

Wegener and Holmes did science, which is why the dismissal and ridicule of their ideas is lamented by those of us having the clear view of hindsight. IDists have never done any ID science (how could it be done, when they deny any expectations for said “design”?), and even if by some fantastic stroke of luck intelligent design suddenly became science, there would be no reason for us to apologize for our ridicule of Behe and Dembski."

Wegner is often portrayed as some sort of victum, but in truth he brought a lot of it on himself. His idea that continental drift
was powered by the Eotvos effect was pretty well dispatched by physicists who could easily point out that
the Eotvos effect was much to weak to have a significant effect on the figure of the Earth much less move Continents
about. Wegner's principle contribution was as a popularizer. he managed to capture some of the public's attention, but
he was also Albatross around the necks of Holmes and Dutoit who did their best to defend him.

I think there is a lesson here, and I have thought about it some. Darwin and Wegner had a similar problem. Both intuitively knew,
as well as having a lot of evidence, that something interesting was happeneing. With Darwin, it was Evolution, with Wegner it was
Drift. What neither of them had was a palatable mechanism. Darwin didn't have a clue as to how heredity worked. His theory of Gemmules was hardly satisfying and he didn't defend it much. Rather Darwin concentrated on evidence and the analogies with
animal breeders. Wegner never gave up on the Eotvos effect pushing continents through a substrate of Basalt, thus givig a
nice big bull's eye for the fixists to shoot at. Darwin didn't make it easy for the Biological fixists to dismiss him, Wegner
with his Eotvos mechanism and the occasional geological howler (he was a meteorologist, not a trained geologist) made it
too easy for his detractors to dismiss him, as well the greater geological community as whole.

Holmes was already famous for producing with Rutherford the first useful radiometric age dates. Todays modern theory of Plate Tectonics owes quite a bit to Holmes. Sir Arthur predicted the existence of subduction zones for starters. Continental Drift was
a failed hypothesis, although it headed at least in the right direction. Holmes ideas weren't taken as seriously as they should have been, but nobody dismissed Holmes as a crackpot as far as I can tell. His problem was Sir Harold Jeffreys. Jeffrys claimed that mantle convection would eventually seize up due to the phenomanon of strain hardening. However, we know now the mantle is way to hot
for strain hardening to occur.

I do think comparing Darwin and Wegner might make an intersting study, and have toyed with the idea of doing it myself. But I have
had too many earthquakes and tsunamis to deal with and can't find the time to do such a comparison justice.

For the record, Wegner is often portrayed as the first to propose non-fixity of the Continents. He wasn't. The Geologist Frank Taylor did so decades before. His mechanism didn't make much sense either, however. To his credit Wegner didn't claim the idea was all his eitther. But he certainly enjoyed himself talking and writing about it. One can't but help but admire the man's enthusiasm for the topic.

Stuart

I echo Mike Elzinga. I just re-read Edward Humes's "Monkey Girl" last week and was once again enchanted to recall that you, a humble science blogger and enthusiast, were able and energetic enough to contribute so much material research to support the side of Kitzmiller and science.

Best of luck in your PhD work, Nick!

My step-daughter is in the Yukon as we speak, doing climate and forestry research for her PhD. I've mentioned her before.... she's the one who has already equalled the output of the entire intelligent design movement when it comes to refereed papers.

Nick, thanks for your tolerance of a long OT digression in what should have been a thread entirely devoted to praising your contributions to the fight against ID (or, really, against the Wedge. I don't think many of us would care about ID if they'd just stop messing with the constitution.)

Thanks, Stuart Weinstein, for your contribution to the digression. What a pleasure to get into a disagreement with scientists! Learning new facts instead of countering snide emotional put-downs is such a relief.

The parallel between Wegener and Darwin is especially interesting, because, as you probably know, Darwin himself had some suspicions that the continents must have moved. ("...though our continents and oceans have endured for an enormous period in nearly their present relative positions, we have no reason to assume that this has always been the case...." Recapitulation, 2nd ed. OoS)

Rereading OoS, though, I was struck by how unwilling Darwin was to make leaps beyond his data and how often he admitted he didn't know. The whole book is larded with comments that could be labeled, 'ideas for further research.' No wonder other scientists couldn't resist jumping in.

Anonymous #197401--
I wasn't suggesting anything about Nick's personality. I think the work he's done deserves its own thread.

"Intelligent nipple designer" speaks, perhaps, volumes regarding Wilder-Smith's childhood psychological adjustment to weaning. But it obviously says nothing about other areas of scientific exploration.

Now if you will excuse me, I must go change into my pirate regalia.

I think that you have totally ignored the contribution of Fred Hoyles "Intelligent Universe" otherwise known as "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism" from 1981. Fred Hoyles is a self-avowed atheist, nonetheless, his arguments have been appropriated nearly verbatim by the ID movement.

Examples please... Are you sure you are familiar with Hoyles claims?

Here then is a review of Intelligent Universe:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho47.htm

Here is a discussion of the link between Hoyle and Wickramasinghes ideas and ID:

http://telicthoughts.com/the-birth-of-intelligent-design/

and Wickramasinghe appearing as a witness in a creation-science trial in 1981.

http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm

Here then is a review of Intelligent Universe:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho47.htm

Here is a discussion of the link between Hoyle and Wickramasinghes ideas and ID:

http://telicthoughts.com/the-birth-of-intelligent-design/

and Wickramasinghe appearing as a witness in a creation-science trial in 1981.

http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm

Fred Hoyles is a self-avowed atheist, nonetheless, his arguments have been appropriated nearly verbatim by the ID movement.

Fred Hoyles is a self-avowed atheist, nonetheless, his arguments have been appropriated nearly verbatim by the ID movement.

I think that you have totally ignored the contribution of Fred Hoyles “Intelligent Universe” otherwise known as “Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism” from 1981.

... the link between Hoyle and Wickramasinghes ideas and ID ... and Wickramasinghe appearing as a witness in a creation-science trial in 1981.

The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was called in behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old. [Bold added.]

Sorry to burst your bubble but intelligent design can trace its roots back to Aristotle. No amount of flailing can change that fact.

It is also very telling that the only people that conflate ID and Creation are the same people who know/ understand the least about both.

I hope to see you all at the next "ID trial". At that trial all the facts will come out- I will make sure of it. That is if some parents object to my ID presentation and actually try to stop it. It hasn't happened yet...

In the absence of intelligent design or a special creation all you have is sheer dumb luck.

IOW our existence, according to you anti-IDists and anti-creationists, is due to nothing more than sheer dumb luck.

Just how can one objectively test that premise?

And ya know what else is laughable?

1) There isn't any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.

To date the only "test" is to observe single-celled organisms and metazoans and say one had to have "evolved" into the other.

2) The isn't any data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between chimps and humans.

the only "test" of common ancestry is to say the genetic similarities could only arise via universal common descent.

And in the end the only way to refute ID and Creation is to actually find scientific data which supports your position. Yet sheer dumb luck is the antithesis of science.

Sorry to burst your bubble but intelligent design can trace its roots back to Aristotle.

No amount of flailing can change that fact.

It is also very telling that the only people that conflate ID and Creation are the same people who know/ understand the least about both.

I hope to see you all at the next “ID trial”.

At that trial all the facts will come out- I will make sure of it.

That is if some parents object to my ID presentation and actually try to stop it. It hasn’t happened yet…

...intelligent design can trace its roots back to Aristotle.

And flat-Earth-ism can trace its roots back even further. Your point...?

It is also very telling that the only people that conflate ID and Creation are the same people who know/ understand the least about both.

Please explain the significance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists."

I hope to see you all at the next “ID trial”. At that trial all the facts will come out- I will make sure of it.

Any comments on all the facts that came out at the LAST "ID trial?"

That is if some parents object to my ID presentation and actually try to stop it.

Speaking of parents, where are yours? Do they know you're making an ass of yourself in front of the whole world?

In the absence of intelligent design or a special creation all you have is sheer dumb luck.

IOW our existence, according to you anti-IDists and anti-creationists, is due to nothing more than sheer dumb luck.

Just how can one objectively test that premise?

And ya know what else is laughable?

1) There isn’t any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can “evolve” into something other than single-celled organisms.

To date the only “test” is to observe single-celled organisms and metazoans and say one had to have “evolved” into the other.

2) The isn’t any data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences between chimps and humans.

the only “test” of common ancestry is to say the genetic similarities could only arise via universal common descent.

And in the end the only way to refute ID and Creation is to actually find scientific data which supports your position.

Yet sheer dumb luck is the antithesis of science.

Okay, Joe, this should be an easy one for you.

Can you please give us Aristotle's Theory of Intelligent Design? He must have published one if you are citing it. After giving us this specific theory, can you please:

1. Compare it to the current SPECIFIC THEORY OF ID
2. Give us a couple of predictions made by each of the above theories.
3. Compare these predictions to each other
4. Give us the lowdown on how these predictions have fared

Thanks.

Exactly what current specific theory of ID are you referring to?

Can you please give us Aristotle’s Theory of Intelligent Design? He must have published one if you are citing it. After giving us this specific theory, can you please:

I hope to see you all at the next “ID trial”. At that trial all the facts will come out- I will make sure of it.

— Joe G

Witt explains the origins of the term in part here: Its roots stretch back to design arguments made by Socrates and Plato, and even the term “intelligent design” is more than 100 years old. Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller employed it in an 1897 essay, writing that “it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.”

It strikes me that there is a serious issue for a lot of people in the "sheer dumb luck" charge against evolution. Which is a bit odd, because most people really don't have trouble understanding that one may give reasons why certain trees and insects may be found in certain locales, and yet they also understand that there is certainly an important amount of chance to the fact of a bug being "exactly there", and a tree growing "in just that spot".

Ecology is not a matter of "sheer dumb luck", of course, and most people recognize this fact without much trouble. And evolution is closely tied to ecology. Indeed it is largely responsible for the ecological interactions which explain why organisms grow where they do, and capture resources in the manner that they do.

I suspect that if we didn't have the steady drumbeat of "random evolution" from the ignorant and the stupid, like Joe G, most people could be taught just how unrandom (yet partly random) evolution actually is. Thereby they would learn just how preferable it is to actually have an explanation for why organisms are as they are, and not rely on some random and unthinking "designer" to explain the random details of a supposedly designed set of organisms and their ecosystems.

One trouble we have in educating people is that the various dishonest purveyors of pseudoscience want the beginning datum to be that evolution is random, while design is not. What's so bizarre about this is that about the only innovation in ID is that nothing is to be expected from design (except ad hoc and post hoc "predictions" regarding junk DNA, fine-tuning, well, you know, anything that they think will bamboozle the Joe Gs and other versions of idiots). That is, the false expectations for evolution are claimed by the IDists, so that only by sheer dumb luck are we to explain why humans are as they are, and even more weirdly, our similarities with apes is also supposed to be due to sheer dumb luck, and not the explanatory power of heredity that they apply to explaining similarities among human families and dog breeds.

We have the same explanatory process across all scales and across all of life. They use the exact same explanatory process, then, without any different kinds of patterns or derivations, they explain everything else by sheer whim of a designer who operates without utilizing known design principles (instead, producing evolutionary patterns). And no explanation why the whim of the designer is to design according to evolutionary principles. Oddly, of course, one may still be predictive with ID, you simply have to "predict" that the designer designed everything as if it all evolved according to MET principles.

Depending on how you look at ID, then, one might actually suppose that ID is not a matter of "sheer dumb luck" except at the point of explaining the designer's whimsical 'design according to evolutionary principles', because everything falls out as MET predicts. The trouble then, though, is that the primary aspect of ID added onto evolution is the sheer dumb luck that the designer is only able or willing to design according to genetic algorithms, since that not only would not be expected of a designer, it would be the opposite of expectations for the designer.

Parsimony, of course, causes us to cut out the sheer dumb luck aspect of ID, which is the unpredictable (other than via evolutionary predictions) "designer". It goes beyond that, however, because any honest ID theory would predict regularities other than those we find in evolution, notably the matching of thought-out (rational) designs to their intended purposes. Unfortunately for them, IDists can't find any intended purposes, hence design makes no sense at all, and they feel free to call anything design. That's why ID is not a (nearly) harmless add-on, like the theistic evolutionists' God, rather it is the introduction of an uncontrolled and unknown aspect into evolution which is thereby supposed to be responsible for the non-design regularities seen during the course of evolution.

Just a whim of God, to produce a detailed design mimicking evolutionary processes, which is so accurate that it includes malaria and mosquitos to cause misery and death to Behe's telos of evolutionary "design". After all, that's the only explanation Behe really has available for malaria, he's just too dimwitted and lacking in a certain level of integrity to follow the sense of his "arguments".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Many of the antievolution arguments focus on the odds against getting particular mutations, but that's the wrong question. A better question is the odds of getting (or already having*) a mutation that improves the reproductive success rate of the individuals having it, as compared to their relatives.

*Since mutations that don't hurt the success rate will accumulate in the gene pool over time, adding to the variety existing in the species, while selection operates by removing the less successful of the existing varieties.

Henry

Exactly what current specific theory of ID are you referring to?

I was hoping that JoeG would stumble around and babble and be funny while never telling us what a current or Aristotelian ID Theory looks like.

Ummm, design is the antithesis of sheer dumb luck. Duh.

Also it is obvious that the "Dover" decision was based on the school boards' lies and deception. The judge didn't even listen to what the ID experts had to say but bought what the anti-IDists said. And those ID experts already testified that ID does not require the supernatural.

The supernatural is irrelevant- yes because all positions require either something beyond nature or some other metaphysical explanation.

As for the importance of history- history demonstrates that some/ most of the greatest scientific minds used science as a tool for understanding "God's" creation.

IOW somewhere along the way someone arbitrarily changed the rules.

Linneaus was trying to figure out what the originally created kinds were when he came up with binomial nomenclature. Was he conducting science?

And in the end all you have to do to refute ID is to actually find some scientific data that supports your position. Yet the best you can do is hide behind your computers and post nonsensical drivel.

If you want to "educate me" Glen D- just provide the data I asked for.

BTW I can hardly wait for your reactions to Ben Stein's film that should be released next Feb 12.

Ummm, design is the antithesis of sheer dumb luck. Duh.

Also it is obvious that the “Dover” decision was based on the school boards’ lies and deception.

The judge didn’t even listen to what the ID experts had to say but bought what the anti-IDists said.

And those ID experts already testified that ID does not require the supernatural.

The supernatural is irrelevant- yes because all positions require either something beyond nature or some other metaphysical explanation.

As for the importance of history- history demonstrates that some/ most of the greatest scientific minds used science as a tool for understanding “God’s” creation.

IOW somewhere along the way someone arbitrarily changed the rules.

Linneaus was trying to figure out what the originally created kinds were when he came up with binomial nomenclature.

Was he conducting science?

And in the end all you have to do to refute ID is to actually find some scientific data that supports your position.

Yet the best you can do is hide behind your computers and post nonsensical drivel.

If you want to “educate me” Glen D- just provide the data I asked for.

BTW I can hardly wait for your reactions to Ben Stein’s film that should be released next Feb 12.

One more thing- ID is not anti-evolution.

Only someone completely ID ignorant could make such a claim.

ID only argues against blind watchmaker-type processes as having sole dominion over evolution.

IOW were populations designed to evolve or did they evolve solely via culled genetic accidents?

One doesn't have to know the designer before making a design inference.

In fact REALITY says the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.

BTW Glenn D- thanks for demonstrating your stupidity. The data I asked for DOESN'T EXIST.

To Glenn Dumbass:

If it was OK to say that science was a tool for understanding "God's" Creation and now one cannot say that, then the rules changed.

If you are too stupid to understand that then you are just too stupid.

Ummm, design is the antithesis of sheer dumb luck. Duh.

As for the importance of history- history demonstrates that some/ most of the greatest scientific minds used science as a tool for understanding “God’s” creation. IOW somewhere along the way someone arbitrarily changed the rules.

One doesn’t have to know the designer before making a design inference.

In fact REALITY says the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.

BTW Glenn D- thanks for demonstrating your stupidity.

The data I asked for DOESN’T EXIST.

To Glenn Dumbass:

If it was OK to say that science was a tool for understanding “God’s” Creation and now one cannot say that, then the rules changed.

If you are too stupid to understand that then you are just too stupid.

OK Glen Dumbass I know the data I requested doesn't exist.

Now you can either show everyone how "stupid" I am by presenting it, or you can admit that you are a lying piece of shit.

As for Aristotle's link to ID, well he cared about final causes "including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities."

However I doubt the simple-minded regulars here will understand the connection.

BTW Glen Dumbass- natural selection is a RESULT. And it just so happens it is a result of random inputs.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained for the simple-minded PT regulars

OK Glen Dumbass I know the data I requested doesn't exist.

Now you can either show everyone how "stupid" I am by presenting it, or you can admit that you are a lying piece of shit.

As for Aristotle's link to ID, well he cared about final causes "including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities."

However I doubt the simple-minded regulars here will understand the connection.

BTW Glen Dumbass- natural selection is a RESULT. And it just so happens it is a result of random inputs.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained for the simple-minded PT regulars

OK Glen Dumbass I know the data I requested doesn't exist.

Now you can either show everyone how "stupid" I am by presenting it, or you can admit that you are a lying piece of shit.

As for Aristotle's link to ID, well he cared about final causes "including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities."

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle/

However I doubt the simple-minded regulars here will understand the connection.

BTW Glen Dumbass- natural selection is a RESULT. And it just so happens it is a result of random inputs.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained for the simple minded PT regulars

On a slightly less incendiary note, Joe G., the questions we ask are still:

"What designer? What did it do? When? How? How does ID apologetics explain - in all the messy details and grand sweep - the history of life, better than the explanation that seems to be working best for those who understand it best?"

So far all we've seen is neo-paleyism and arguments from incredulity, and the occasional bit of Bible-thumping. If you have more, then I for one would love to see it.

Thank you.

OK Glen Dumbass I know the data I requested doesn't exist.

Now you can either show everyone how "stupid" I am by presenting it, or you can admit that you are a lying piece of shit.

As for Aristotle's link to ID, well he cared about final causes "including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities."

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

However I doubt the simple-minded regulars here will understand the connection.

BTW Glen Dumbass- natural selection is a RESULT. And it just so happens it is a result of random inputs.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained for the simple minded PT regulars

OK Glen Dumbass I know the data I requested doesn't exist.

Now you can either show everyone how "stupid" I am by presenting it, or you can admit that you are a lying piece of shit.

As for Aristotle's link to ID, well he cared about final causes "including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities."

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

However I doubt the simple-minded regulars here will understand the connection.

BTW Glen Dumbass- natural selection is a RESULT. And it just so happens it is a result of random inputs.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained for the simple minded PT regulars:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007/07/sheer-dumb-luck-explained.html

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

"The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, all that gives purpose to behavior. The final cause of the artist might be the statue itself. (teleology)."

That is his connection with ID although I doubt the regulars here will understand it.

On a slightly less incendiary note, Joe G., the questions we ask are still:

“What designer? What did it do? When? How? How does ID apologetics explain - in all the messy details and grand sweep - the history of life, better than the explanation that seems to be working best for those who understand it best?”

ID isn't about the designer. The only way to make any determination about the designer or the specific design process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

ID is only about the detection and understanding of that design. The designer and the specific process(es) are separate questions.

Ya know just like life's origins is a separate question from its subsequent evolution yet any subsequent evolution depends on how life originated.

BTW the alleged history of life is useless to scientific endeavors. Heck we can't even objectively test the premise that we share a common ancestor with chimps. No one even knows whether or not any amount of accumulated mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

Ummm, design is the antithesis of sheer dumb luck. Duh.

— Joe G

The judge didn’t even listen to what the ID experts had to say but bought what the anti-IDists said.

... ID does not require the supernatural. ... all positions require either something beyond nature or some other metaphysical explanation.

history demonstrates that some/ most of the greatest scientific minds used science as a tool for understanding “God’s” creation.

IOW somewhere along the way someone arbitrarily changed the rules.

BTW I can hardly wait for your reactions to Ben Stein’s film that should be released next Feb 12.

The final cause of the artist might be the statue itself.

BTW I can hardly wait for your reactions to Ben Stein’s film that should be released next Feb 12.

(shrug) Okay, Joe, skip the first bit.

"How does ID apologetics explain - in all the messy details and grand sweep - the history of life, better than the explanation that seems to be working best for those who understand it best?”

Still waiting for an answer to that one.
"This looks designed" doesn't explain how things work.
Or anything else, for that matter.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained for the simple minded PT regulars: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007/07/sheer-dumb-luck-explained.html

— Joe G

Luck- an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another

— Joe G

Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.

— Dembski

Hmmm. Things seem to have wandered over into the "feeding the troll" region.

In a pathetic swipe at the original topic, I'd like to add my good wishes and thanks to Nick Matzke. Hope you have a blast.

And re. Dr. Gould's essay--the title was "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples." According to Gould, he wanted to title it "Tits and Clits," but his wife objected ;^)

And his point was that males have nipples because females need them. We're all the same species, you know. Males and females are just two versions of the same critter.

Of course, if your understanding of creatures is informed by ID instead of science, that makes no sense. Why would a designer put something like nipples where they didn't have any purpose? Doesn't matter to the Designer--she can do anything she wants, because she gets to write out the blueprints.

Lynn

Who would you believe?

1. The many men and women of several thousand years ago who determined how the Earth came to be, and eventually got it written down on tablets of stone.
Remember that the Earth was the centre of existence at that time and also that the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars (no galaxies) were still in orbit around the Earth.

2. The many thousands of men and women of the last two and a half thousand years (To include the Greeks), who have "Built on the Shoulders of Giants" (that sounds like a quote) and determined how the earth came to be, and been writing it down in books, tablets of silicon (stone), and the Internet.
Think about the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy, the Local Cluster, and the 14 or so Billion Light-Years extent of the Universe.