The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Science v Intelligent Design: Global Warming

Posted 15 October 2007 by PvM

Irony alert:

People sometimes ask me why I encourage posts on global warming here at UD, whose focus is ID. The reason is that global warming exhibits many of the same abuses of science that we see in the ID debate. Science has become a wonderful tool for social control. This role of science in modern secular culture is destructive and needs to be broken.

— William Dembski
Can anyone say Wedge Ignorance begets ignorance.

41 Comments

Bobby · 16 October 2007

I wonder what his angle is, other than an appeal to the presumed correlation between his conservative audience (creationists) and climate-change denial.

Is global warming a false conclusion that arises from our materialist approach to the study of climate? Are we going to start hearing that we shouldn't rule out supernatural explanations for the weather, too?

I have a swell explanation for thunder that Dembski could write a book about. "Einstein of atmospheric phenomena" should go well with "Newton of information theory", and could be equally well earned if he follows up on this.

Mats · 16 October 2007

Actually, what Dr Dembski is saying is that what many consider to be science (objective, neutral, evidence-based, open to scientific criticism, etc), today, is nothing more than a tool in the hands of people with a given social, philosophical or religious agenda. It this against *this* role of "science" that I believe Bill is arguing.

And yes, the same totalitarian, dismissive, condescending, and arrogant attitude found in Darwinian believers can be found among global warming alarmists. This, of course, doesn't meant global warming is as wrong as Darwinism; it only means that science has been hijacked.

Nigel D · 16 October 2007

And yet, Mats, can you explain why it is that everyone agrees how electricity works? And how gravity works?

If science were not objective, how could it achieve such universal consensus?

No, Mats, it is the religious fundamentalists, such as Dembski, who want the social control. An ignorant populace makes it far easier for the religious liars to take and keep control. Look at how well they have controlled you.

Mats · 16 October 2007

Nigel says:
And yet, Mats, can you explain why it is that everyone agrees how electricity works? And how gravity works?
Probably because it is based on solid empirical evidence, and stablished laws of science, not magic like Darwinism.
If science were not objective, how could it achieve such universal consensus?
Universal consensus is not a sign of scientific rigor.
No, Mats, it is the religious fundamentalists, such as Dembski, who want the social control.
So who has social control presently? Darwinists?
An ignorant populace makes it far easier for the religious liars to take and keep control.
Yes, we know how the unwashed masses keep having a problem in accepting the notion that thigns created themselves. I wonder why... I guess it's one of two: 1) Darwinists are bad teachers 2) The evidence for real design is too obvious to dismiss it. If I recall correctly, Reverend Dawkins said that evolution was so easy to understand that only the ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked) could reject it.
Look at how well they have controlled you.
Me, and probaly most europeans, were brainwashed into the evolutionary religion from early age. If there was any kind of control, it was probably during the time we were offered only pro-Darwin "evidence".

Raging Bee · 16 October 2007

Mats, when you were recently accused of lying, you admitted it, then tried to justify it. You’ve repeatedly proven that you have the mentality of an obnoxious junior-high mouth-breather, whose word is absolutely worthless; and you have brought nothing of value to any adult debate on this blog. Now go back to bed and stop pretending to be an adult, or a Christian.

R Rodz · 16 October 2007

Mats seems to be under the impression that science has to be 'neutral'.

Neutral in regards to what? Is there a test to be done on ideas to see if they are neutral or not? Are 'neutral' ideas the only ones to be considered valid?

Is the idea of global warming neutral? If so, how so? If not, why not?

Should it be 'objective' instead of neutral?

~!@# · 16 October 2007

Mats, mate, anti-modernism is so last century. Go back to sleep.

~!@# · 16 October 2007

Isn't a nice comfy pillow better than tossing word salad on the Internet and stewing in ignorance? Of course it is!

Raging Bee · 16 October 2007

Oh, and...

...not magic like Darwinism.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic to people who did not understand it. The fact that Mats is now insistently referring to MET as "magic" is further proof that he does not understand it, and all of his arguments are based on ignorance.

...This, of course, doesn’t meant global warming is as wrong as Darwinism; it only means that science has been hijacked.

So Mats once again admits that his hatred of science and secular society has nothing to do with the truth. Once again, he proves his total disregard for reality.

David Stanton · 16 October 2007

Mats wrote:

"Actually, what Dr Dembski is saying is that what many consider to be science (objective, neutral, evidence-based, open to scientific criticism, etc), today, is nothing more than a tool in the hands of people with a given social, philosophical or religious agenda. It this against *this* role of “science” that I believe Bill is arguing."

Well that describes Dr. Dr. Dembski to a tee. He has not one shread of scientific respectability. He has made not one real scientific contribution. He uses poor scholarship to deceive the ignorant in order to advance his own personal religious agenda. How odd that Mats cannot see the irony in his comments.

Well Mats, if real science is indeed objective, neutral, evidence-based, etc., how could it possibly be used as a tool by anyone? How could one advance their agenda using real science unless the truth was really on their side? How could real scientists ever be fooled by anyone at all if they always demand real evidence? Why do you think that there is a consensus among scientists? Is it all one big conspiracy? How could you ever get scientists to agree to that? Isn't it much more likely that the conspiracy is being perpatrated by one pseudo mathematician and one psudo biochemist, each of whom has already freely admitted to their religious agenda? And by the way, if you still don't have any evidence for any of your claims, why should any real scientist take anythng you say seriously?

M.A. · 16 October 2007

Another angle to show why Dembski is talking about Global Warming is possibly because people who support the political (and religious) Right favor less regulation on business to reduce pollutants.

The Bible can answer all questions for fundies, like Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Design. But... maybe there not the big money-makers.

PvM · 16 October 2007

So Mats, when can we expect you to provide us with some scientific hypotheses of ID?

Mats?

....

PvM · 16 October 2007

Mats: Actually, what Dr Dembski is saying is that what many consider to be science (objective, neutral, evidence-based, open to scientific criticism, etc), today, is nothing more than a tool in the hands of people with a given social, philosophical or religious agenda. It this against *this* role of "science" that I believe Bill is arguing. And yes, the same totalitarian, dismissive, condescending, and arrogant attitude found in Darwinian believers can be found among global warming alarmists. This, of course, doesn't meant global warming is as wrong as Darwinism; it only means that science has been hijacked.
ROTFL, you are so funny, we ask you to support your claims and you call this condescending or arrogant and yet you cannot even understand the difference between methodological and philosphical naturalism? You cannot even define the theory of ID, or define the concept of design? As I said, ignorance begets ignorance.

M.A. · 16 October 2007

David Stanton

I'm beginning to think that people like Dembski don't care about what the Scientific community really thinks. The people who listen to Rush Limbaugh don't really care what his critics say or think... they merely agree with him. And the same may be true for Dembski, et al.

It's almost as if there is a whole world out there that demands to go it's own way. Personally, I'd never hire somebody from Kansas! Or Texas.

Over the long run, people like Pat Robertson will go down in certain history books as being able to leg-press 2000 lbs. And, who knows, maybe living 2000 years. Well, those same books will have their own Science program, and Dembski might be prominent in their Intelligent Design chapter.

You and I aren't important. This blog isn't important. The important work is being done through massive contributions to the Discovery Institute and other conservative christian organizations that are anti-Evolution.

Lots of money.

Nigel D · 16 October 2007

And yet, Mats, can you explain why it is that everyone agrees how electricity works? And how gravity works?

— Mats
Probably because it is based on solid empirical evidence, and stablished laws of science, not magic like Darwinism.

Mats, you are lying again. You have said this before. It was wrong then, and that was pointed out. It is still wrong. MET (note: not "Darwinism", for which you have still not supplied a definition) relies on the same standards of evidence as every other branch of science. If you were to actually go and learn some biology instead of wallowing in fetid ignorance, maybe you would begin, in your own dim, slow way, to recognise that.

If science were not objective, how could it achieve such universal consensus?

— Nigel D

Universal consensus is not a sign of scientific rigor.

— Mats
True, but that does not answer the question. Besides, rigorous science attracts a consensus of experts, which does carry significant weight, as has been pointed out to you before. Since you have quoted the question without answering it, I ask again: if science were not objective, how could it achieve a universal consensus? Recall that I was responding to your point about objectivity, not about rigour.

No, Mats, it is the religious fundamentalists, such as Dembski, who want the social control.

— Nigel D

So who has social control presently? Darwinists?

— Mats
No, Mats, you and I both live in democratic societies, where social control is exercised by the most convincing con-men. What I said was that Dembski and his friends wish to have control.

An ignorant populace makes it far easier for the religious liars to take and keep control.

— Nigel D

Yes, we know how the unwashed masses keep having a problem in accepting the notion that thigns created themselves.

— Mats
Probably because modern evolutionary theory is not simple. It cannot be captured in an easy soundbite ("survival of the fittest" is misleading, and refers only to natural selection, not to any other aspect of MET). Understanding it in any depth requires quite a bit of background knowledge; it also requires the ability to consider a fairly subtle set of processes. I think it is probably fair to say that the target audience for TOOS was, on average, better educated in 1859 than the equivalent demographic today. I think this is a sad reflection on society, but it is the world in which we live.

I wonder why…

Do you, Mats? Maybe it doesn't occur to you how easy it is to be ignorant. But then, you've never known the alternative, have you? Becoming educated is, by comparison to remaining ignorant, hard work. Many people simply don't bother, because they do not understand the value.

I guess it’s one of two: 1) Darwinists are bad teachers 2) The evidence for real design is too obvious to dismiss it.

— Mats
Or none of the above, in fact. If you look at the history of education in the USA, for example, you will find that the correct teaching of evolutionary theory has always been opposed. Some teachers have received death-threats. So much for the "Christians"! (Yes, I know these are a minority, but they still claim to be Christian). Recall also that scientists only teach at the university level - at schools, the teachers typically are not actual scientists. There is no evidence for design. Despite being asked time and again, you, who seem to be the most rabid pro-design regular visitor to this blog, have utterly failed to produce even one shred of evidence. You resort to arguments from personal incredulity, non-sequiturs and question-begging. The very fact that you cannot produce evidence for design only supports my prior knowledge: There is no actual evidence for design. And, every time someone points out the evidence against Intelligent Design, you change tack, dodge the question or shift the goalposts. You have never actually engaged in the debate, Mats. Since you are more firmly convinced that ID is true than anyone else I am aware of, and since you cannot or will not produce evidence for design, how is anyone else supposed to find this imaginary "evidence for design", let alone find it compelling?

If I recall correctly, Reverend Dawkins said that evolution was so easy to understand that only the ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked) could reject it.

— Mats
Yes, it is easy to understand, once you have the background knowledge, and if you are prepared to listen. It is difficult to grasp initially IMO, and maybe I wouldn't think that if I were as brainy as Dawkins. The core concept is simple. The difficulty comes in understanding the evidence in sufficient depth and breadth to be able to parse out the nonsense uttered by IDiots such as Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson and all the other creos and DI fellows.

Look at how well they have controlled you.

— Nigel D

Me, and probaly most europeans, were brainwashed into the evolutionary religion from early age.

— Mats
Again you lie. You are becoming tiresome. If, as you claim, you were "brainwashed" in your education, why is it that your understanding of MET, that you criticise so vociferously, is so lamentably weak and shallow? I fear the evidence is against you, Mats - you were the one that just stared out the window during science lessons, weren't you? However, again you dodge the question. The creationists have brainwashed you to ignore the evidence. Every time someone on this blog points out some evidence, I can imagine you with your hands over your ears singing "La, la, la, I'm not listening,". Even if this is not true, it may as well be for all the attention you pay when people point out your factual errors. Ergo, the creationists have exercised some fairly strong control over the way you think. If I thought it would do any good I would urge you to ponder that point.

If there was any kind of control, it was probably during the time we were offered only pro-Darwin “evidence”.

Ah, so now you are only saying "if" there was control. Nice back-pedal. Unfortunately, I suspect that you were taught evolutionary theory as a fait accompli. This is often done at the lower levels, mainly because understanding the evidence for MET requires extensive background knowledge, and the evidence is normally only introduced at college level. No, not for any sinister reason, but because it would take too much time to teach it when the students have yet to learn the difference between monocotyledons and dicotyledons, or to learn how the mammalian circulatory system works, or any of hundreds of other aspects of biology that it is appropriate to teach before one introduces the evidence and lines of reason that have led to MET.

Flint · 16 October 2007

Me, and probaly most europeans, were brainwashed into the evolutionary religion from early age.

At least he understands instinctively how people come to believe religions. But, like most Believers, he projects that ALL beliefs are religious and were induced using these same techniques. He mentions evidence and logic, but here we see what he really "thinks".

M.A. · 16 October 2007

Why isn't my ATT/Yahoo RSS working for Panda's Thumb, or my prorev.com (undernews) sites?

Geeesch!

Shebardigan · 16 October 2007

Mats: Universal consensus is not a sign of scientific rigor.
Actually, to a large degree, it is. As you know, science converges, whilst religion diverges. So, whereas science may begin with a number of proposed explanation for some phenomenon, the application of the process of science will, slowly or quickly, prune off the ones that don't fit the evidence, until only one is left. Of course there will often remain smaller areas of ignorance that may be the subject of differing explanations, but they likewise succumb to the process. With religion, on the other hand, whereas we begin with one inspired teacher delivering a particular propositional message, within a generation or two we have several schools of thought as to the meaning of that message, and within centuries, if the religious system persists, there may be hundreds or even thousands of competing sects. So, for a practical lesson from history, we look at the demise of Phlogistonism as a scientific school of thought. The Lavoisierists were unable to demonstrate empirically the superiority of their "Oxygen" theory, so, gaining the ear of the King, they exercised political control to have the Phlogistonists suppressed -- their works burned, their teachers exiled, silenced or, if necessary, executed. The putting down of the Great Phlogiston Riots of 1780 marked the end of those brave and stubborn campaigners for an invisible substance having negative mass but great Explanatory Power. Thus, we are today all slaves of the magical theories of the Lavoisierists, with their bewildering away of different kinds of "atoms", not one of which has ever been seen with the naked eye.

fnxtr · 16 October 2007

Mats, people don't get evolutionary theory, because, to paraphrase George Carlin, half the population is dumber than average.

Jedidiah · 16 October 2007

I hate to say it, but I agree with Dembski. Global Warming has been very abusive towards science, as often more heat, temperature extremes, and bigger storms make it difficult to live, much less continue with standard studies. And while of course, both Global Warming and ID represent a good deal of hot air, that comparison is frankly too easy. Rather, I'd point to the destructive potential of both Global Warming and the ID debate, to completely demolish the foundations of modern society, and throw us back into the stone age, as we experience greater storms and flooding, or progressively and purposely deny science as an exploration of reality.

Chris Noble · 16 October 2007

The Lavoisierists were unable to demonstrate empirically the superiority of their “Oxygen” theory, so, gaining the ear of the King, they exercised political control to have the Phlogistonists suppressed – their works burned, their teachers exiled, silenced or, if necessary, executed. The putting down of the Great Phlogiston Riots of 1780 marked the end of those brave and stubborn campaigners for an invisible substance having negative mass but great Explanatory Power.
Not to forget the St. Lavoisier's Day Massacre. The massacre, occurring shortly after the marriage of the King's sister to a Phlogistonian, resulted in the death of an estimated 100,000 Phlogistonians. After the massacre the Phlogistonians were crippled as a political force.

Jeffrey K McKee · 16 October 2007

My scientific stances on ecology, human population overgrowth, and basic evolution have been denied by religious fundamentalists, irrespective of context or, shall we call it, data. Dembski and the rest of the far, far, religious right cannot be bothered to look at fossils, climatic patterns, or the 200,000 people added to this earth every day.

It is sad that their blind faith cannot reconcile with the objective realities of the natural world.

I'll go with the Biblical book of John (8:32): the truth will make us free.

ID folks have a huge problem with the "truth" issue. And their fundamental(ist) dishonesty completely undermines their very purpose. It imprisons their followers in an unreasonable world, and condemns them to a fate consistent with remarkably failed human endeavor.

Evolutionary scientists can do much better than that, by taking a realistic world view.

Can you tell I've been talking to a lot of Creationists lately? And working out rational responses to their distorted world views (Dembski included)??

In sum, the ID/creationist anti-science is THEIR agent of "social control," whereas we just want honesty.

Best,
Jeff

stevaroni · 17 October 2007

Mats sez... Probably because it is based on solid empirical evidence, and established laws of science, not magic like Darwinism.

Lemmee see if I have this straight; Empirical evidence good. Magical - dare I say supernatural - explanations bad. I'm glad you straightened that out for us. You won't mind if I point that standard out in the future, will you?

Universal consensus is not a sign of scientific rigor.

So, just because a bunch of people believe in something that still doesn't make it true, at least till someone provides "empirical evidence", a la' point number 1. Hmmm. You won't mind if I point that in the future either, will you? Egads Mats! We agree! maybe there is a God after all.

So who has social control presently? Darwinists?

Hmmm... well, here in the States at least, for the last 7 years, it's been a devoutly Christian administration, a vocally religious ( at least on the campaign trail ) Congress, and socially conservative courts. In the 8 years before that it was a more moderate, but still very publicly church-going administration, another vocally religious ( again at least on the campaign trail ) Congress, and moderately conservative courts. And in the 12 years before that, it was another very publicly church-going administration, another vocally religious ( once more, at least on the campaign trail ) Congress, and once again, conservative courts. In fact, now that I think hard, I can't come up with a single presidential candidate who skips church, strongly champions evolution and tells the creations that they live in a fantasy world. So, um, what great social control cabal are we talking about, I forget?

Mats · 17 October 2007

Raging Bee said:
Mats, when you were recently accused of lying, you admitted it, then tried to justify it.
I did not "admit it". I said to the person who asked me about it on what basis can he make moral judgments on my behaviour, given that his religious worldview cannot account for absolute moral values. Next time, before making juvenile accusations,try to understand what is being asked, ok ?
The fact that Mats is now insistently referring to MET as “magic” is further proof that he does not understand it, and all of his arguments are based on ignorance
Yes, we know all about that "he doesn't understand evolution because he doesn't believe in it" canard. There is some circularity in that mindset, and I think you can grasp it.
So Mats once again admits that his hatred of science and secular society has nothing to do with the truth
Not believing in the magical powers of mindless forces is not "hatred of science". David Stanton said:
Well Mats, if real science is indeed objective, neutral, evidence-based, etc., how could it possibly be used as a tool by anyone?
Well, real science can be used as a tool against falsehood. This is exacly what Darwinists think they are doing when they attack theism in general, Christianity in particular, when they use Darwinism against it. They think that they are using real science against falsehood. The problem, of course, is that their "science" is not evidence, but philosophy based. So what we think it's science at work, is in fact people with a given philosophical worldview at work.
Why do you think that there is a consensus among scientists?
Oh, here come the consensus canard again. Let me say it once more: Consensus is not QED evidence of scientific rigor
How could you ever get scientists to agree to that?
Do Darwinists agree on that? The only thing they they seem to agree is that evolution happened. After that, it's prety much an open field. Nigel said:
MET (note: not “Darwinism”, for which you have still not supplied a definition) relies on the same standards of evidence as every other branch of science.
Not really. Darwinism (or "MET" as you want to address the theory that living forms are the result of a mindless process) is a story about the past. You claim that, in the past, life apeared without any guiding inteligence, life got more and more complex by itself, sea dwelling life forms became terrestrial, then terrestrial life forms became marine, dinosaurs turned into birds, etc, etc, to give only a few examples. Those are beliefs about the past, not something you have ever seen it happening empirically. So to claim that evolutionism uses the same standard of evidence as, for example, chemistry, is a false statement.
Besides, rigorous science attracts a consensus of experts, which does carry significant weight, as has been pointed out to you before.
So the MET science is rigorous because it attracts a consensus of experts, or the fact that evolutionary scientists being atracted to evolution makes their "science" rigorous? Does it a) become rigours after it atracts scientists, or b) was it rigorous even before it atracted scientists? If a), then you know that is false. Truth is truth, regardless of what people think of it. If b) then apealing to the consensus is a fallacy, since there are things which were true, but the consensus did not think it was true. SO either way, you are bringing a dead point. Bottom line is: consensus is irrelevant to science. Evidence, experimental work, empiricism, predictive sucess, explinatory power are what most people consider to be good science. Darwinism fails on almost all of those.

Bobby · 17 October 2007

Jeffrey K McKee: ID folks have a huge problem with the "truth" issue. And their fundamental(ist) dishonesty completely undermines their very purpose. It imprisons their followers in an unreasonable world [8<]
ISTM that that *is* their purpose.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 17 October 2007

I wonder what his angle is, other than an appeal to the presumed correlation between his conservative audience (creationists) and climate-change denial.
Different brands of denialists seek each other support. ScienceBlogs denialism has written a lot about what describes denialists and cranks, and IIRC they have noticed this too. Also, the mechanisms that makes an individual a denialist in one area serves to make him a denialist elsewhere. Denialism correlates with multidenialism. One example of such a mechanism is ignorance, and a common reason for ignorance is incompetence. It is a phenomena with some evidence that incompetents are also unable to recognize their incompetence (and even inflate their own self-assessment) as discussed and referenced in the above link. The phenomena has self-perpetuating qualities. Visiting trolls often exhibits the characteristics of incompetents for example, such as Mats in this thread.
Universal consensus is not a sign of scientific rigor.
Actually, to a large degree, it is.
Indeed. We shouldn't confuse the market of ideas that is science and its process of competition for the best science, and the measure of current scientific thinking that the consensus is. Consensus can’t tell us what is the correct, verified or best science. But it can tell us what is the currently accepted science. As science is a selfcorrecting process by the market/competition, a knowledge of the accepted science shows us what is in all likelihood the most rigorous science.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 17 October 2007

Mats: For once you are on topic, as you apparently wants to help show us how ignorance begets ignorance. So let me see if I can lift out examples of where it happens among your general show of ignorance:
his religious worldview cannot account for absolute moral values
You are terribly confused about what religion is, calling all of the science of biology a religiously founded movement. This ignorance begets the ignorance that religion can't account for absolute moral values. As the rest of us know, most religions values are intended to be absolute, and most often act that way.
that “he doesn’t understand evolution because he doesn’t believe in it” canard.
You are terribly confused about what understanding is, conflating a lack of understanding with a lack of belief. This ignorance begets the ignorance that referring to a science as "magic" is not indicating lack of understanding. As the rest of us know, you can believe in something without understanding it (for example science), and you can understand something without believing it (for example creationism). Okay, this was too easy. I can keep addressing the rest of your points and apparently they will all support the post: ignorance begets ignorance. Thank you for being such a splendid nu..., um, showcase. Before I leave off, I will only point out what you still haven't defined "Darwinism", which we all would be glad if you did. Conflating it with MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory?) isn't explanatory since you doesn't define what you think MET is. Besides, the original theory called "darwinism" is still in large part a minor part of evolutionary theory. Please try again.

Mats · 17 October 2007

Larsson said:
Consensus can’t tell us what is the correct, verified or best science. But it can tell us what is the currently accepted science.
I am glad we agree. Consensus can't tell what is the correct and/or verified science.
As science is a selfcorrecting process by the market/competition, a knowledge of the accepted science shows us what is in all likelihood the most rigorous science.
Does that aply to the era in the majority of european scientists were Christian, and who used their "consensual" science as evidence for God?
You are terribly confused about what religion is, calling all of the science of biology a religiously founded movement.
I didn't call biology a religiously founded movement. You are confusing the terms "Darwinism" with "science" again. Separate those words, and you'll understand what I said.
This ignorance begets the ignorance that referring to a science as “magic” is not indicating lack of understanding.
But is Darwinism "a science"? That is the point.
Besides, the original theory called “darwinism” is still in large part a minor part of evolutionary theory. Please try again.
The belief that natural/mindless/impersonal process are able to generate the interdependent systems present in living forms, is the point many people have problems with. That is the issue I have been addressing. If you want to call it MET, or Darwinism, or evolution, be my guest. IT doesn't change the main point at stand. Remember that common descendency is accepted by some ID scientists. Almost all of them accept an old earth. What they disagree with evolutionists is in the "impersonal" part of evolution. For that, there is no evidence to confirm it. So while you can rightly claim that MET is much more than that, what we really want to know isn't much more than that. Gene frequencies change? Sure, no problem. Some living forms gain resistence to pesticides? Absolutly. It has been empirically verified. Finch beaks vary in size? Yes. Scientifically confirmed. The ratio of black-white moths changes due to natural selection? Yes, also verified scientifically. What we want to know is what is the natural force able to bring into existence moths, finches, roaches and scientists in the first place. Saying that roaches, moths and finches change doesn't say where do they come from.

David Stanton · 17 October 2007

Mats wrote:

"Well, real science can be used as a tool against falsehood. This is exacly what Darwinists think they are doing when they attack theism in general, Christianity in particular, when they use Darwinism against it. They think that they are using real science against falsehood. The problem, of course, is that their “science” is not evidence, but philosophy based."

Man this guy is really dense. I hope that everyone can see exactly what Mats is doing. Virtually every comment he has made on this thread is mere projection of his own inadequacies onto others, a classic creationist ploy. Got no evidence, accuse others of having no evidence. Got only your own philosophy not science on your side, claim that is the problem with the other side.

And by the way, as I am sure everyone has realized that, "Darwinists" do not "attack theism in general" or Christianity in particular. Sometimes evolutionary biologists do point out the logical inconsistencies when fundamentalists of any religious persuasion start spouting creationist nonsense. Man this guy has a real persecution complex. You know Mats, if you go away no one here will persecute you anymore.

And what does any of this have to do with global warming? Seems like Mats just can't stay on topic for more than two posts in a row. Maybe that short attention span is the reason he never learned any biology in school.

And then he wrote this gem:

"Do Darwinists agree on that? The only thing they they seem to agree is that evolution happened. After that, it’s prety much an open field."

Yea, that's right Mats. Scientists can't agree on anything. They are split into thousands of different factions that argue all day and kill each other over their various arbitrary interpretations of ancient scientific texts. Man this guy can project better than the equipment at a drive-in movie!

One more time for the hearing impaired: scientific consensus is only possible if hypothesis testing is based on evidence. Consensus alone does not prove that the hypothesis is correct, only that all of the available evidence supports it. Anyone is always free to present contrary evidence in science, so strong consensus is usually an indicator that very little contrary evidence exists. Contrast that with the don't ask don't tell big tent strategy of ID and I think you will see why consensus is characteristic of good science not pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. Now cue Mats to start complaining about censorship as he freely posts on this science blog. What a hypocrite.

David Stanton · 17 October 2007

Mats wrote:

"Saying that roaches, moths and finches change doesn’t say where do they come from."

Take a look at the tree of life some time Mats. We know how life forms are related. We also know a great deal about the mechanisms that are responsible for speciation and for generating biological diversity. This knowledge is based on genetic, developmental and palentological evidence. Are you at all famaliar with molecular phylogenetics? If not, why do you assume that scientists don't have a clue what they are talking about when it is really only you who doesn't have a clue.

As for your mindless, unguided comments, yes, there are unplanned and non-goal directed processes that display no foresight or planning and they are undoubtedly responsible for the diversity of life we see around us. You have been asked dozens of time to provide evidence to the contrary, you have not provided any. Go study biology and educate yourself.

Raging Bee · 17 October 2007

Mats: your failure to deny that you were lying, and your failure to back up the statements in question, constitute, for all practical purposes, an admission that you were indeed lying, and knew you were lying. Furthermore, your insistence on justifying such lies based on the denial that evolutionists have morals (also a well-known lie) further prove that you think it's perfectly okay to lie, have no respect for truth, and are unwilling, if not unable, to argue as a responsible adult. Your statements have repeatedly been demonstrated to be false, ignorant, and/or dishonest, and you repeat them relentlessly anyway, despite being told they're false. So yes, that makes you a liar, plain and simple(minded). I stand firmly by all of my previous statements.

PvM · 17 October 2007

Bottom line is: consensus is irrelevant to science. Evidence, experimental work, empiricism, predictive sucess, explinatory power are what most people consider to be good science. Darwinism fails on almost all of those.

— Mats
Lying again. St Augustine must have a field day with your behavior. You have shown to be totally unfamiliar with science, its foundation, and worse, you seem to be even less informed about intelligent design and its concepts. As a Christian and a scientist, I am shocked at the level of ignorance displayed by you and your continued repetition of lies, even though people have already shown you to be wrong. Is that the Christian message you want people to be exposed to? Why do you have such little faith that you have to reject good science in name of said faith? In Christ my dear friend. We are here to help you

Science Avenger · 17 October 2007

Mats missed his calling. He should pen a children's denialist book titled:

1,001 Ways to Say "Nu Uh"

Mats · 17 October 2007

David Stanton said
Mats wrote:
”Saying that roaches, moths and finches change doesn’t say where do they come from.”
Take a look at the tree of life some time Mats. We know how life forms are related.
Related by design not by common descendency.
We also know a great deal about the mechanisms that are responsible for speciation and for generating biological diversity.
Yes, we do.
This knowledge is based on genetic, developmental and palentological evidence.
Granted. Now please do tell me if any of these mechanisms has ever been seen to generate living forms out of dead matter, or from nothing. Remember what was said previously: we know that life forms can change. However, their change doesn't explain their origination.
As for your mindless, unguided comments, yes, there are unplanned and non-goal directed processes that display no foresight or planning and they are undoubtedly responsible for the diversity of life we see around us.
We are still waiting for any empirical evidence suporting the notion that those natural forces can generate the living forms we see in th world.
You have been asked dozens of time to provide evidence to the contrary, you have not provided any.
We have to provide evidence that mindless, impersonal forces can't create living forms out of dead chemicals?!!

PvM · 17 October 2007

We have to provide evidence that mindless, impersonal forces can’t create living forms out of dead chemicals?!!

So I guess Mats accepts the fact that such forces can explain the evolution of life, just not its origin. Fine. Seems both Mats and I have come to an agreement here. The issue of origin of life remains undecided. Although, science at least does provide some plausible pathways and ID presents exactly... None. However we have empirical evidence supporting the notion that natural forces can explain the living forms we see in the world. What does it mean to be 'related by design'? Well, design in ID speak means the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance, so design basically means that there exists no explanation (yet). In other words, related by design means related by ignorance. That's the extent of Mats argument. No wonder Mats refuses to describe how ID defines the concept of 'design'. What a farce. I thank Mats for once again showing the vacuity of the concept of design. So how does design explain the strong evidence of common descent? Oops, I forgot, that is a category error, design is not an explanation, it's merely a descriptor of our state of ignorance.

David Stanton · 17 October 2007

Mats wrote:

"Related by design not by common descendency."

Mats, it is not even logically possible to be "related by design". Relatedness means that you share common ancestors. If you don't have any common ancestors you can't possibly be related. Now you can have similarities due to common design. However, the evidence suggests that the similarities between life forms are due to common ancestry and that they are specifically NOT due to common design. SINE insertions, mitochondrial DNA gene order and the genetic code are just three examples. They make abosoutely no sense at all in terms of common design, but they are easily interpreted in terms of common ancestry. Likewise, the nested hierarchy of sequence similarities between genes, evidence from third codon positions, pesudogenes, etc. can only be reasonably be interpreted as evidenc of common descent.

"Granted. Now please do tell me if any of these mechanisms has ever been seen to generate living forms out of dead matter, or from nothing."

I don't care. The question was where do cockroaches, moths and finches come from. They come from closely related organisms. You even admitted that speciation is well understood. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with abiogenesis as PvM has patiently pointed out on many occasions. If you want to change topics fine, you already are way off-topic here, but don't expect anyone to care.

"We have to provide evidence that mindless, impersonal forces can’t create living forms out of dead chemicals?!!"

No, you know full well that you have provided no evidence whatsoever of any personal, guiding intelligent force that is capable of doing anything at all let alone planning and directing the evolution of life forms. Until you do that, then the default position, just as when studying hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, lightning, etc. is that they are the result of natural forces, not intelligence. And by the way, do you have any evidence of what natural forces can't do? Remember the argument from personal incredulity is not acceptable. If it is, then I can't believe that anyone would believe that nature could not produce life.

Science Avenger · 17 October 2007

Mats wrote: [The tree of life forms are r]elated by design not by common descendency.
Really? You know this how? So someone designed chimps and humans to lack the vitamin C all other mammels have? Someone designed humans to have a chromosome that is the fusion of two chimp chromosomes? Someone designed human eyes to be inferior to octopus eyes using intentionally inefficient design? Sorry, we know a good deal about how intelligent beings design things, and there is little to no similarity in how life forms are constructed.
We have to provide evidence that mindless, impersonal forces can’t create living forms out of dead chemicals?!!
Yes, Mats, that's how this works. In science, you don't get to merely assert that X is impossible. You have to supply evidence for your claim. When Einstein claimed nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, mere assertion was not enough. Likewise, when Intelligent Design proponents claim that there is a limit to evolution, or that living forms could not come to be as a result of mindless impersonal forces, mere assertion is insufficient. It is doubly insufficient re that second claim given the facts that: 1) We have no evidence of any kind of intelligence existing at that time, and 2) we have no evidence that intelligence is a sufficient condition for creation of something so extraordinarily complicated. As an analogy, consider the results of macroeconomies that have been managed by the intelligence of some ruling class, vs those that were allowed to be "managed" more or less by the impersonal, mindless forces of supply and demand. The less intelligent designer produced the more efficient complex economy. In short, the ID assumption that more complexity demands more intelligence for a source is completely unsupported. Those hugely complex processes for which we do know of their sources are NEVER the product of a focused intelligence. So the burdon of proof is on you, and without it, as PvM is so fond of reminding us, your theory is completely vacuous.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 18 October 2007

Mats:
Consensus can’t tell what is the correct and/or verified science.
You are argument mining. I can do the same; as my argument ends with "a knowledge of the accepted science shows us what is in all likelihood the most rigorous science" and you agree with my argument, you obviously conclude that consensus tells us what is the rigorous science. For your information, rigorous science is often both correct and verified. Perhaps you heard of correlations?
Does that aply to the era in the majority of european scientists were Christian, and who used their “consensual” science as evidence for God?
No. I said "self-correcting by market/competition". There wasn't much of that. But the real reason is that I assumed modern empirical science, ie testing.
You are confusing the terms “Darwinism” with “science” again.
Thanks for making my point again, about you being the icon for "ignorance begets ignorance". Mats, define "Darwinism"; we are still waiting.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 18 October 2007

Mats: I can as well pitch in on the general points too.
You are confusing the terms “Darwinism” with “science” again.
If you by any remote chance try to discuss evolution theory by your undefined terms, biology is evolution. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution [Theodosius Dobzhansky]" . If you ask other scientists [raises hand], biology is clearly a science. And biologists clearly accept evolution as the process they study, and its theory as the main organizing theory for describing and predicting this process. It is that simple. Then again, even if biology is absurdly complicated in parts, the minimal forms of definitions and theories aren't exactly formalized by math approaching quantum field theory complexity, so a layman can get the gist of it.
The belief that natural/mindless/impersonal process are able to generate the interdependent systems present in living forms, is the point many people have problems with.
Science is a method that uses observations on nature and natural theories to explain and predict the observations. It works, and it has explained the observable phenomena of evolution. You can pretend that it didn't happen. But you can't claim that biology isn't science, or that it hasn't described the basics of evolution to the satisfaction of biologists, and so other scientists.
What we want to know is what is the natural force able to bring into existence moths, finches, roaches and scientists in the first place.
Seems your beef isn't with the process of evolution but with the process of abiogenesis. Sorry, can't help you much there, there are hypotheses but no theory and scant data. But I can tell you as much that it wasn't a "force". Take evolution, which surely in some form or other is part of abiogenesis even before genomic life forms. Evolution is a process shaped by many forces, easiest identified by considering all the constraints that evolved traits works under. Chemical binding forces, viscosities, surface tensions, light energies, gravitation, et cetera, practically all forces on all scales. But if you want to identify the driving force, it is the light energy from the sun. Same as for abiogenesis, and not surprisingly the basic requirement for life. Since after all, evolution is the process of life. I believe what you really want to ask is what natural processes brought abiogenesis about. And that is a question that biology is interested in too.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 18 October 2007

Mats:
Saying that roaches, moths and finches change doesn’t say where do they come from.
Rereading I see that you may be so confused that you were actually trying to still discuss speciation here, even though you referred to accepting common descent earlier. But once you observe that traits changes under hereditary, speciation and common descent is easy to grasp. Take for simplicity biological species. Ie organisms are then defined to be of different species if they don't (usually) crossbreed. So typical mechanism for speciation is when a population splits up, say by moving around a geographical barrier to keep it simple. The traits continue to vary, and sooner or later the two populations are too different to (want to) breed if they come together again. The finches you referred to are speciated. The reason why Darwin's finches kept their morphologically different beaks is that they inhabit different habitats to get to their now different feed. So AFAIU they breed preferentially with each other. Violà, speciation!

Frank J · 18 October 2007

Related by design not by common descendency.

— Mats
Unfortunatlely for you the only time we do see "common designs" actuated in real time it is via "common descendency." If you think that some "common designs" are actuated differently (independent abiogenesis is your only other formal option) then you should be able to defend it independently of your "design" argument, and independently of your personal incredulity over what "Darwinism" can do. Please start by telling us which "common designs" were actuated by your alternate process, and when those events occurred. Then please critique Michael Behe's claims that the "common designs" were indeed actuated via common descendency, during a time frame that exactly matches that claimed for evolution. Show us how you would falsify Behe's claims and yours, and do both without any reference to "design" or "Darwinism." Note: I'm not asking for mechanistic details of your process, just testable hypotheses of general "whats and whens," so you won't need the pathetic "ID is not a mechanistic theory" cop-out.