Nova 'Judgment Day' show online

From discussion last night:

By george I think I am starting to understand.

So Darwinist evolutionists believe:

1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection.

2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms.

3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly
selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man).

So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being.

So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

I guess that raises another question or two, but I am not sure they are within the scope of evolution theory.

If evolution theory holds that intelligent beings can induce artificial evolutionary processes to develop life forms, does evolutionary theory also believe that there has only been one life chain ever created and that is the one line for the last 4.5 billion years on Earth.

By that I mean does the theory exclude the possible existence of any other intelligent life? Anywhere at any time.

Bach: Do you agree that Buckingham and Bonsell lied in their testimony in the Dover trial? Or were they telling the truth?

Do you agree that the CEO of the (so-called) "Foundation for Truth and Ethics" lied about the Christian focus of his foundation in his testimony in the Dover trial? Or was he telling the truth?

And do you agree that your two comments above have nothing at all to do with the subject "Nova ‘Judgment Day’ show online"?

Sorry, that should be ....So do Darwinists actual look for INTELLIGENT artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

Note that Bach is now spamming multiple threads with the same stuff.

His comment #135220 posted above at 5:22 PM is the same as his comment #135219 posted at 5:21 PM on the Morning After Judgement Day thread.

His motives are quite clear.

Paul,
Not only do I believe they lied their asses of, I believed they should be put on the rack and tortured until the admit their sins against the Church of Darwein.

I believe the F for T&E is a terrorist organization and must be routed out. We need a real Crusade of darwinists to go after this lying scum!

And I believe my comments directly relate to the on-going discusson or I should be whipped on the Alter of the Darwein Church and sent to the desert for 40 days and nights.

Bach,

Those are intelligent questions. Let me attempt an explaination:

"If evolution theory holds that intelligent beings can induce artificial evolutionary processes to develop life forms, does evolutionary theory also believe that there has only been one life chain ever created and that is the one line for the last 4.5 billion years on Earth."

A few different points. One is this: evolutionary theory does not rely or rest on there only being one connected hereditary line on earth or within the universe.

BUT, that's all we've ever discovered. If on Mars we find a microorganism which uses a different genetic code (like a non DNA or non RNA code, or DNA that codes for proteins differently than all life found (so far) on earth, that does not disprove that evolution indeed happened on earth. Evolutionary theory does not rely on UNIVERSAL common descent. We HAVE DISCOVERED global common descent because of the genetic, fossil, morphologicical, embriological, biogeographical (and many different other independent corroborating lines of) evidence.

I fully expect that elsewhere in the universe there are different chains of heredity. We just haven't found them yet.

The fact that every lifeform we've ever found on Earth is related doesn't mean that other lines don't exist somewhere.

Science also doesn't assert that there was only one line of life ever formed. We don't know how many "lines" of life (and by life here, I mean specificically heredity, to include pre-cellular protolife) have existed on earth. Perhaps there were many, but one form "ate" all the rest. There may have been millions and millions of seperate lines of heredity at some point in earth's history. But we're down to one at this point, as far as we know.

But tomorrow someone might find some type of thermophilic xenomorph microorganism from deep inside the Earth's core, and then we'd indeed have a question: Is this organism related to us or not?

read the following on another thread wher bach asked same question:

If Bach is laying out the future arguments of ID (or whatever it will be called), the ID crowd should be worried.

Bach arguments seem to be an example of evolution not proceeding toward some goal of perfection but in fact regressing considerably. One of the problems of inbreeding

***********************************************

right on, so bach is a product of inbreeding, that explains it, who else would pose such a stupid question

Damn. Reading the other posts I find I'm feeding a troll here.

Nevermind folks. Hopefully my post will be helpful to a lurker.

And I believe my comments directly relate to the on-going discusson or I should be whipped on the Alter of the Darwein Church and sent to the desert for 40 days and nights.

No Mike, I wasn't 'spamming'. I simply didn't know if the people actually go back and re-read old threads, so I thought since I said I would read everyones comments, I simply was trying to make sure I caught all those involved in that discussion. Its not spamming.

I thought my question was fairly well thought out for a novice, I spent alot of time thinking about it.

Bach: No Mike, I wasn't 'spamming'. I simply didn't know if the people actually go back and re-read old threads, so I thought since I said I would read everyones comments, I simply was trying to make sure I caught all those involved in that discussion. Its not spamming. I thought my question was fairly well thought out for a novice, I spent alot of time thinking about it.

Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

Mike Elzinga asked (of "Bach"): "Are you mentally ill?'

He's obviously a very religious person, so, obviously, yes. (G, D&R)

1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection.

2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms.

3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man).

So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

By that I mean does the theory exclude the possible existence of any other intelligent life? Anywhere at any time.

Other than IDiots, I’ve never seen anybody state that any life form was designed.

Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

I am of the definite opinion that there are numerous intelligent species on the face of the earth right now: many species of mammals and birds.

thanks for posting this. I live in a small college town and have no television stations that I can get without cable so, I was glad to see that it was online.

On a completely different note, although still having to do with the ID and religion aspect, did anyone else notice the UD post saying that Michael Medved has been named a DI fellow? I guess they're not too concerned about religious overtones anymore.

Before we decide he is Dembski, I think we need some real evidence. Maybe we should ask him if he loves fart jokes.

What's the skinny on this dropping parts out business? My local station didn't air it (orange county)and isn't listing it anytime in the next week, but I get PBS out of LA too so I still got to watch it. I'm curious to know how widely spread this little evasion of facts goes (or if theres some other reason behind it)

Well, the most important point that has been missed by the NOVA production crew is that the entire trial was about me.

MeMeMe!!!!111!!!!!1.

Why don't you people realize this odious fact?

Err, oblivious fact? OR, MEMEMEMEEMEMME.

The mirror does not lie.

Intelligent design creationism can not look in the mirror. It is nothing but old-school creationism hidden behind Dembski's mathocomplexobabble, and Behe's irrochemoguck.

New International Version Ge ^30:41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, ⁴² but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. ⁴³ In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

I noticed that NOVA's ID site has footage from the Scope's Trial. Talk about interesting....

Mr_Christopher: Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

Dale Husband:

Mr_Christopher: Any truth to the rumor that Bach is really Michael Behe????

If so, we've been STUNG! Pun intended!

Karen S: I noticed that NOVA's ID site has footage from the Scope's Trial. Talk about interesting....

You are wasting attention on "Heart of Gold." They are just jerking you (around, or off, as you like).

Is the mutual masturbatory orgasm the main attraction? Personally, I find it booring.

Toying with trolls can be useful. I am on the edge of a personal insight, “I don’t care if you assholes know anything or not.”

That feels like such a liberating thing to write. I don’t care if your ignorant creationist bullshit can be reconciled with the Bible. It can’t. I have spent years studying the Bible, studying biblical languages, and many more years studying science. I have tried to find a way to bring the Bible as conceptualized by fundamentalists into the reality shared by the majority of humans. I have finally realized that it is not MY PROBLEM ANY MORE.

The Creation is what it is, and creationist ignorant whiny bullshit can not change that reality at all. Your ignorant corruption of history, science and the Bible will ultimately be a historical footnote. Two “world” powers, Roma and Peking, failed because of material limits on communication, and resource distribution. America will be the first to fail due to raw stupidity, and creationists will lead the march off the cliff.

Masturbatory attraction?

Toying with trolls can be useful, but only when they are cleverer than you are. If they are more clever, the cretobot can force you to dig for newer, better scientific evidences, arguments or at least a TalkOrigin link. That is saddly lacking these days at PT.

Random Lurker said:
What’s the skinny on this dropping parts out business? My local station didn’t air it (orange county)and isn’t listing it anytime in the next week, but I get PBS out of LA too so I still got to watch it. I’m curious to know how widely spread this little evasion of facts goes (or if theres some other reason behind it)

I live in Orange County (California) and KCET had it at 8:00pm on Tuesday night. KOCE is going to play it also (Friday I think but not sure).

Seems like all the Darwinists went back to name calling and attacking rather then actually trying to answer my question.

I was not talking about evidence, I was talking about theory.
Don't tell me every time scientists have a theory, they already have all the evidence....

And why the constant paranoia about posters being someone else, etc. Really weird stuff.

I don't believe anyone here refuted the statements that evolution theory includes artifical selection which would affect the design of a life form. And the fact that the artificial selection could have been done by an intelligent being. If man were able to modify DNA at the molecular level to create a new species wouldn't that be an intelligence designing a life form??

Are you saying it is now and for all time will be impossible for man to intelligently design a new life form at the molecular or at the cell or DNA levels??

Are you saying Darwinists evolution theory rules out such a possibility?? And would that not be the intelligent design of a life form, albeit non-supernatural?

Therefore, is it unreasonable to teach students that it is possible for intelligent life forms to design new life forms...it actually maybe a growing field of work by the time their out of college.

Mike said: ""The current trolls have emotional ages in about the 12 to 14 year old range and are playing a Jim Carey role somewhat like “The Mask”. """

And how old do you have to be to make 'The Mask' references and think everyone has watched that movie as many times as you have. Sorry, couldn't resist. haven't seen the Mask, but I'll ask my boys to what you are referring. They enjoy kids flicks.

Come to think of it; if in the future, our current crop of students do go into science and do want to create new life forms, is there anyway we could teach them about the DESIGN of life; so at least they know what their plan will be to modify that design and create something new?

Or would we just tell them, look, there's no design to life, its a crap shoot; so if you planning on trying to create
a new form, you'll end up with a elephant just as easily as you end up with an ear.

I seem to think these young folks are pretty smart, and they'll figure out the design and how to modify it. You just wait, they will surprise you...There not all spending their time watching The Mask....

is there anyway we could teach them about the DESIGN of life

And how old do you have to be to make ‘The Mask’ references and think everyone has watched that movie as many times as you have

I recently saw a bumper sticker that does it for me: Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

The problem with ID and creationist trolls in general, and Bach in particular, is that they dont have a CLUE about what science really is. They truly dont. And they really aren't interested in learning about science at all. Only in refuting its conclusions.

They like the benefits of science, such as better health, more material wealth and creature comforts, but they couldn't give a whit about actually understanding the process. In fact, when it comes to what science says about their religion, I think they would prefer NOT to understand. Knowing might be too threatening.

Proof positive the troll knows little about science "I was not talking about evidence, I was talking about theory. Don’t tell me every time scientists have a theory, they already have all the evidence…."

he doesn't even kmow this is slightly below stupid, really sad.

Bach said:

"Seems like all the Darwinists went back to name calling and attacking rather then actually trying to answer my question."

Gary said:

"The problem with ID and creationist trolls in general, and Bach in particular, is that they dont have a CLUE about what science really is. They truly dont. And they really aren’t interested in learning about science at all."

There you have it, Bach. People CAN'T answer your questions because we can't even get you to the framework where the answers make sense. I know I tried, on another thread. I tried to explain something about how science works. All I got back from you was ridicule, followed by silence. Maybe I should have mentioned that I have a Ph.D. in the Sociology of Science (from a Big Ten university, not a bible college.) Maybe flashing my "expert" status would have earned a little respect. I didn't think I needed to do that. I expected you to pay attention to what I wrote, understand it, and see for yourself how science works-- not take an authority's word for it without checking.

And that, right there, is a major problem trying to debate with creationists-- IDers, whatever your code name is this week. A scientist says something like, "natural selection works just like artificial selection-- favored phenotypes are preserved." The creationist comes back with "Mendel was a creationist, Stalin was an evolutionist. Therefore evolution is wrong." Leaving aside the fact that Stalin completely destroyed the study of evolution and genetics in the USSR because they didn't agree with Marxist orthodoxy, the whole argument is an attack on science.

To give a real-life example, in 1953, Linus Pauling was the most famous chemist on the planet. James Watson was a post-doc in biology (a new PhD who had yet to get a real job.) Francis Crick had an old undergraduate degree in physics, but no degree at all in either biology or chemistry. Pauling came out with a proposed chemical structure for nucleic acids a few weeks before Watson and Crick came out with the double-helix model for the B structure of DNA. So, did Pauling's structure win? No! Linus Pauling conceded Watson and Crick probably had the right structure, even before their paper on it was published. It didn't matter who had the greater reputation at that point. Watson and Crick were right, and Pauling was wrong.

That's science. That's how it works. And Watson and Crick, by the way, never thought Pauling was stupid or (as you, yourself implied on another thread about scientists whose ideas are disproven, 'an idiot'.) They went right on admiring Pauling for the many things he had accomplished. That's how science works.

But, with you, we can't even get that simple idea across-- that the important thing in science isn't who said it, or when, or how nice they are to dogs and small children-- BUT HOW WELL WHAT THEY SAY AGREES WITH TESTABLE REALITY. As far as ID goes, they haven't even gotten to the point where what they say is clear enough that it can be checked against reality. And if they inadvertently make some little point that CAN be checked against reality, it invariably turns out to be wrong-- and then they argue that wasn't really what they meant to say and blah, blah blah. THAT'S why ID isn't science. Because in science, you have to test your ideas. And if they're wrong, you have to admit they're wrong. That's what the IDers aren't doing. And, as far as I can see, that's what you, specifically aren't doing.

Why don't you try this experiment, Bach? Start playing by the rules of science, and see how fast the responses you get start to change.

By george I think I am starting to understand.

So Darwinist evolutionists believe:

1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection.

2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms.

3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man).

So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being.

So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

J. G.:

Karen S: I noticed that NOVA's ID site has footage from the Scope's Trial. Talk about interesting....

Um, I'm pretty sure that would be the movie "Inherit the Wind," which, though based on the Scopes trial, is not explicitly meant to be a documentary of such.

HeartOfGold: The film Inherit the Wind is only minimally based on the Scopes trial, and is instead meant as a commentary on McCarthyism. But, it is interesting that Nova is still trying to use the same old Evolutionist mythology that the evolutionists were the ones that were picked on (when, from day one, it was the evolutionists who were using Darwin in their silly war on belief in God.)

HOG says "...evolutionists who were using Darwin in their silly war on belief in God."
there you have, don't waste your time answering an idiot

"Since there are various reports of PBS stations skipping or editing the show to avoid offending their viewers (or something – I guess reality offends some people, but you would think they wouldn’t watch Nova at all in that case)..."

Can anyone cite the source(s) of this assertion? ...or any proof that PBS stations did in fact edit the program before airing?

Thanks!

STEVE FULLER: At the very beginning of genetics— the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn't quite identify what the factor was. That was also initially regarded as supernatural as well. So, it's not that supernaturalism hasn't been part of science. In fact, it has been. And it's often led to very fruitful results. And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.

Eric,
What you've said doesn't sound any alarm bells for me as being against the current scientific view -- your definition of hypothesis isn't quite as well constrained as most people would like though. A true hypothesis needs to define an expected outcome of an experiment, which can then be refuted or upheld. It doesn't necessarily include the mechanism or explanation -- that's what theories are for, and you need much experimentation or insight to develop a good theory.

As has been noted before, there really isn't necessarily a distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" -- if you define "nature" as "everything". Nothing can really exist outside of "nature". Typical usage of "supernatural" seems, to me at least, to imply something that is fundamentally unexplainable -- and not repeatable. This is what puts it outside the realm of science.

As far as I know, Fuller was speaking out of his ass in saying that inheritance was perceived as supernatural before Watson and Crick -- I'd love to see a reference for this, but I doubt it exists. Just because people didn't know what the mechanism was, doesn't mean they assumed it was unexplainable.

Braxton Thomason: Eric, What you've said doesn't sound any alarm bells for me as being against the current scientific view -- your definition of hypothesis isn't quite as well constrained as most people would like though. A true hypothesis needs to define an expected outcome of an experiment, which can then be refuted or upheld. It doesn't necessarily include the mechanism or explanation -- that's what theories are for, and you need much experimentation or insight to develop a good theory.

One thing that did bother me about the show during the discussion of Tiktaalik was that it seemed to imply that if we hadn't found Tiktaalik in the given strata, this would somehow disprove evolution (or at least that specific hypothesis).

But, for the reasons that even Darwin was aware of, fossilization is rare, and we might not have been able to find a specific transitional fossil.

Now, I'm sure some cretin would be happy to come along and claim that this makes evolution unfalsifiable, but that isn't true either -- finding Tiktaalik in earlier strata than expected would be one good way to falsify at least that specific prediction. My point is: not finding it at all wouldn't falsify that prediction

Science nut wrote: "Can anyone cite the source(s) of this assertion? …or any proof that PBS stations did in fact edit the program before airing?"

Not editing but simply not carrying the PBS network feed: "Topic too hot for WKNO" - http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/nov/15/topic-too-hot-for-wkno/

STEVE FULLER: At the very beginning of genetics— the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn’t quite identify what the factor was. That was also initially regarded as supernatural as well. So, it’s not that supernaturalism hasn’t been part of science. In fact, it has been. And it’s often led to very fruitful results. And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.

I seem to think these young folks are pretty smart

there are at least 4 threads infected by a troll that people here have responded to (all to no avail). He will become a permanent fixture here if you continue to respond to his innane comments, taking up space and bringing nothing to the discussion. His debunked perspective will not evolve into knowledge as he doesn't accept evolution. I would consider it a personal favor if you ignore him, like many of you I enjoy Panda's Thumb, don't let this jerk carry the thread, PLEASE!

raven: I don't believe this is the least bit true. As far as I know, Mendel and those before and after him assumed that there was some physical explanation for heredity. And, in fact, there is, called DNA, genes, chromosomes etc.. His claim that supernaturalism has been a part of science also sounds like sheer nonsense. The history of science has been replacing supernatural explanations with physical ones. We no longer believe that Apollo drags the sun across the sky every day or angels push the planets around.

there are at least 4 threads infected by a troll that people here have responded to (all to no avail).

I do not see any problem in accepting supernatural (whatever they might be) elements in hypotheses.

If someone is making postings here that are filled with obscenities (Neal), unsupported false assertions (RealPC), or asks questions without any intelligent acknowledgement of the answers (HeartofGold, Bach), then their comments should be removed, and they should banned. Or, we can accept and respond to any and all postings. Either is a sensible approach.

Allowing their postings and then telling people to ignore them makes no sense whatsoever. The claim this will make them go away is baseless, and the resultant appearance that their comments went unanswered because no answer was available is inevitable. Whether they personally get satisfaction over the attention their moronic blather elicits is entirely irrelevant.

I contacted O'Reilly at Fox News and he has agreed to let me use his security staff, those of you that continue to answer the troll will be visited by these very large people,escpecially Mario, Hitlers oldest son, it will not be pleasant. So beware, feed the trolls at your own risk. This is not an idle threat.

raven:

I do not see any problem in accepting supernatural (whatever they might be) elements in hypotheses.

OK, why not? To date, I'm not aware that a single supernatural hypothesis has ever withstood the test of experiment. It's something of a myth that scientists aren't interested in the supernatural. We just have no way to study it. Finding a new oncogene or the genetic basis of schizophrenia or autism is old hat. Being able to prove the existence of ghosts or getting ESP to work would do wonders for anyone's career. Precognition, predicting the future would be useful in the stock market among other places.

Science Avenger, I respectfully disagree. On a science blogs site that was infected all posters agreed not to respond to the resident troll. The troll kept blogging and as no one responded (took the bait) he initially got obnoxious then finally went away. Carefully crafted and reasonable answers to our resisdent troll have only led to more inane comments , the majority of the comments on these threads are useless bits of troll ignorance. Panda's Thumb is a valuable resource, and I don't believe in banning anyone, but ignoring a troll is what they don't want. Let's keep this site intelligent.

Eric Finn has the germ of a useful idea (#135325), I think: "Those ideas may be perceived supernatural, if one so wishes. The essential requirement is that the hypothesis is able to make predictions that everyone is able to confirm or refute based on evidence, at least in principle."

The categories of "natural" and "supernatural" seem at bottom to be irrelevant to science.[1] First, the definitions are fuzzy. Second, science has studied some admittedly supernatural phenomena: recently a couple of trials investigated the effects of intercessory prayer. "Paranormal" phenomena are still looked at occasionally.

The relevance to science seems not to be a natural/supernatural distinction, but rather whether the subject can be classed as repeatable or not, whether it is subject to some kind of prediction, whether it operates by some kind of mechanism whose charateristics we can determine. The goals of science are understanding and control of physical entities by observation and building theories. If no possible theory will yield predictability, only then is that phenomenon outside science.

What Steve Fuller may have meant[2] in Eric's quote above is that genetics was regarded as supernatural because people thought at the time that no scientific theory was possible. So the supernatual suddenly becomes natural when we develop a theory. This is an example of why I think natural/supernatural is not a useful distinction.

Another reason for ditching this distinction is that it's too easy for the cdesign proponentsists to ambiguate and equivocate the meanings of these terms, using one definition to scientists, and another, wink-wink, definition for the fundamentalists. This tactic is often used in politics. Nixon once said, "There is but one China." Everyone liked that; the mainlanders said, "Yeah, and that's Beijing." At the same time, the Taiwanese were thinking, "Yes! And Taipei is its capital!"

=================
[1]--Yonaton Fishman, "Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews," Science & Education (2007) questions the need for materialism in science. I think this problem would go away entirely if we abandoned the categorization altogether.
[2]--Fuller's background is in an engineering, not in biology or philosophy. His views often seem muddled.

Allowing their postings and then telling people to ignore them makes no sense whatsoever. The claim this will make them go away is baseless, and the resultant appearance that their comments went unanswered because no answer was available is inevitable. Whether they personally get satisfaction over the attention their moronic blather elicits is entirely irrelevant.

STEVE FULLER: At the very beginning of genetics— the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn’t quite identify what the factor was.

That was also initially regarded as supernatural as well.

So, it’s not that supernaturalism hasn’t been part of science. In fact, it has been.

And it’s often led to very fruitful results.

And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.

Braxton Thomason: As has been noted before, there really isn't necessarily a distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" -- if you define "nature" as "everything". Nothing can really exist outside of "nature". Typical usage of "supernatural" seems, to me at least, to imply something that is fundamentally unexplainable -- and not repeatable. This is what puts it outside the realm of science.

Eric Finn:

Braxton Thomason: As has been noted before, there really isn't necessarily a distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" -- if you define "nature" as "everything". Nothing can really exist outside of "nature". Typical usage of "supernatural" seems, to me at least, to imply something that is fundamentally unexplainable -- and not repeatable. This is what puts it outside the realm of science.

It seems to me that "natural" and "supernatural" are indeed difficult concepts. For the time being, I am inclined to use your definition. Regards Eric

Oh, and to clarify, I don't actually believe there is anything that is either fundamentally unexplainable or outside the realm of science. YMMV though.

Eric Finn wrote: "...there may be limitations that we do not know because of our limitations."

Faced with this, some will simply quit looking for answers, saying "Goddidit," and rejoicing in their ignorance.

Others will keep looking and trying to figure out what those limitations are and how to get around them.

Eric Finn:

Oh, and to clarify, I don't actually believe there is anything that is either fundamentally unexplainable or outside the realm of science. YMMV though.

Don't you think that there might be matters that humans are unable to comprehend, even in principle? I am not now referring to gods, but there may be limitations that we do not know because of our limitations.

Paul Burnett: Eric Finn wrote: "...there may be limitations that we do not know because of our limitations." Faced with this, some will simply quit looking for answers, saying "Goddidit," and rejoicing in their ignorance. Others will keep looking and trying to figure out what those limitations are and how to get around them.

Braxton Thomason: Many of the things that are currently unexplained are recent questions -- old questions have been answered, and science has been profligate in coming up with new questions. It's rather exciting.

Back to the original thread - Thanks Nick for the post and the links. As a sufferer of only satellite TV I was pleased to be able to watch the show before it came out on Netflix.

Eric, the introduction to Douglas Hofstadter's book "I am a Strange Loop" contains this depressing but perhaps realistic assessment by a philosopher of philosophical questions:

"It seems to me that many philosophers believe that, like mathematicians, they can actually prove the points they believe in, and to that end, they often try to use highly rigorous and technical language, and sometimes they try to anticipate and to counter all possible counter-arguments. I admire such self-confidence, but I am a bit less optimistic and a bit more fatalistic. I don't think one can truly prove anything in philosophy; I think one can merely try to convince, and probably one will wind up convincing only those people who started out fairly close to the position one is advocating."

Goddidit is a very powerful explanation. Religions usually seem to accept the existence of an external universe, and so does science. To me, religion and science seem like two ways of trying to acquire information. Which one is better? Some say that religion is better, because it makes people more comfortable, but that is not always true. Some say that science is better, because it improves our standard of living, but that is not always true either.

RICHARD THOMPSON: I think first of all you, you have to say we had a fair trial. I'm just disturbed about the extent of his opinion that it went way beyond what, what he should have gone into deciding matters of science.

Olorin: Eric, the introduction to Douglas Hofstadter's book "I am a Strange Loop" contains this depressing but perhaps realistic assessment by a philosopher of philosophical questions: "It seems to me that many philosophers believe that, like mathematicians, they can actually prove the points they believe in, and to that end, they often try to use highly rigorous and technical language, and sometimes they try to anticipate and to counter all possible counter-arguments. I admire such self-confidence, but I am a bit less optimistic and a bit more fatalistic. I don't think one can truly prove anything in philosophy; I think one can merely try to convince, and probably one will wind up convincing only those people who started out fairly close to the position one is advocating."

Eric Finn: It is quite true that proving things is limited to mathematics. Mathematicians can prove that something (e.g. a solution to an equation) exists, or it does not exist. They are able to prove that a solution exist, even when they do not know how it would look like. Mathematics is not generally included among sciences, among natural sciences, I should add. It builds its own universes, which are simple enough that proofs are possible. In real life we have to settle with imperfect hypotheses and theories without the possibility to prove them right or wrong. Of course, we would be much worse off without mathematical models. Maybe natural sciences, such as biology, are in the business of convincing, since they lack the opportunity to prove definitely. Does this have a connection with the current debate over evolution versus creationism? Are each side making films to convince?

Eric Finn: I do agree with Dr. Fuller that scientific hypotheses may include supernatural (whatever they might be) explanations, as long as the hypotheses are able to produce verifiable predictions.

Bill Swann, excellent post. Thanks.

Eric, think "tongue in cheek" with regard to the Hofstadter quotation. But, yes, biology, and all sciences, engage in convincing others. By definition, scientific theories are not certain in the mathematical sense. And neither is evidence, nor inferences. Because nothing is certain, scientists must always convince others that the evidence is trustworthy, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the inferences from it. Mostly, scientists try to convince each other, but convincing the public is also important.

(If you'd like a more optimistic viewpoint, Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of the summa of mathematical logic, said: "The purpose of logic is to provide excuses for doing what we want." :-P)

CJO: Godditit is an idea that certainly seems to hold a great deal of power over many, but, in fact, it is not an explanation, at all, of anything. An omnipotent, transcendental force can be invoked to account for anything, and, as such, does not actually explain anything. We expect an explanation to account for a phenomenon in terms of well-understood concepts that, individually, are simpler than the phemomenon we wish to better understand.

Religion is not "a way to acquire information." And nobody says science is the best way to acquire information about the natural world "because it improves our standard of living." It's the only way to acquire reliable information about the natural world, because it's a methodology that constantly refers back to the natural world in the process of testing hypotheses and checking predictions. What information can you point to that has been uncovered by any other process?

All that said, there may still be value in religion. Finding out about the natural world is not the only worthwhile human endeavor. But if that's what you want to do, you're going to use science and religion will be, at best, a distraction; at worst, it will be a terrible hindrance, as it is to charlatans like Behe and Dembski.

Bill Swan,

One small nit about an otherwise excellent post, and I see this small nit in many places on this forum, so I'll bring it up now.

What's important is not experiment, what's important is observation. I object to what I see as an artificial distinction between "observational" science and "experimental" science with the latter more exalted than the former. The key realization is this: All science is observational and an experiment is just a means by which we create or control that which we observe.

Eric said: I would like to quote Carl Sagan. I think he once said that the fact that (almost) all societies have a clearly identifiable religion, means that religions have had an important role during the evolution of humans.

Eric said: I would like to quote Carl Sagan. I think he once said that the fact that (almost) all societies have a clearly identifiable religion, means that religions have had an important role during the evolution of humans.

This was posted on the listserver of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology:
Quote:
WKNO TV, the Memphis, Tennessee PBS affiliate, did not air the Nova ID program, saying that it was too controversial and would have been offensive to most of the audience (oh, the joys of living in the bible belt). A WKNO representative did acknowledge that they had received complaints for not showing the program, but would not say how many.JimC

In response to an email:

"Programs of a controversial nature are discussed in great length before decisions are made about broadcast on WKNO. A program with a balanced discussion on Evolution would be a concern, but we would certainly air, as we have in the past.

While accurate in its depiction of the results of the trial featured in the NOVA episode, we felt that it might look particularly one-sided to most of our audience. However, we do have a responsibility to make as much of the national PBS schedule as possible to our viewers, so it was scheduled at the same time as the POV and Independent Lens programs air on WKNO-2. It was a good fit with similar programming and allowed us the only opportunity in a very tight schedule to encore our local programs in honor Veteran's Day on our primary channel. Hopefully viewers will soon discover that access to both WKNO and WKNO-2 is essential to getting all of the great programming available on public television.

----Debi Robertson, WKNO Program Manager"

So, Debi Robertson and WKNO are promoting ignorance because it is more popular with their neighbors. I hated spelling as a child. Maybe we should drop that as well? I think they should change their call letters to DONTKNO

So I'm supposed to play by the rules of science but noone lse has too??

Anyone who slightly disagrees is immediatle labelled a creationist who believes in the literal meaning of the Bible, apparenlty to make it easy to argue with them.

It is like if I said, you scientists can only argue from Darwins Origin of Species and that's it if noone else is allowed to argue anything but supernatural creation in the Bible.

You scietists keep insisting you know what your doing because you recognize how many things Darwin claimed turned out to be wrong; you recognize that scientists 200-300-1000 years ago didn't know what we know today.

Yet you refuse to allow the other side any of that leeway.

Maybe the Bible writers were just as mystified as the scientists 5,000 years ago, maybe modern interpretations would not lead to the same conclusions just as in any science.

Yet you insist any ID talk has to be about young Earth Creationism and can't fathom any other possible explanation.

Bill Swann said: """So what would a rational, scientific proponent of ID be looking for? The temptation would be to try to record the spontanous appearance of life on our planet. If it happens frequently in the history of our world, why not watch it? One spontaneous appearance, properly recorded, would shake the evolutionary foundations of modern biological science.""""

Bill, I to very much enjoyed you post and found it enlightening.

Where I thought it fell short was in trying to fathom how an Intelligence or intellligent being could be measured today?
Scientific experiements are fine, but they must take into account the intelligence of that which is being studied. If I wanted to measure how many people followed a path, I may put a contact pad on the ground to count the number of people that step on it. But what about the intelligent people that see it and avoid being detected?

Let me see if I can give you a very different scenario. An intelligence deposits a designed life on this planet some 4 billion years ago, say its just strands of DNA/RNA, whatever, but it is building blocks that have a built in design/plan, etc.

They then depart and send signals back to earth in the form of high levels of radiation, that activate different portions and structures in that living material. Sort of like us sending a life form that we created (say a Rover) to Mars, and then sending it signals over time, to modify itself to do additional tasks. Rudimentary I know, but what would an intelligence that is 4 Billion years old be capable of??

Would we be able to measure/detect when high levels of radiation bombarded Earth and created explosion of life? Hmmm, maybe we already have detected it and don't even know it...

And what would a Martian make of the Rover if he stumbled upon it? Some may say, it was obviously created by a God.

"""In the case of the former, then ID is clearly not science. If God doesn’t want us to know about acts of creation, and is actively keeping them from us, then they can’t be studied in the empirical realm of science.

In the case of the latter, then I think we have to be a little sceptical, because it’s hard to fathom an intelligence (whether God or not) that would create life in large numbers of discreet events over the long course of planetary history, but who would *not* be the kind of “creative God” who likes to make new stuff all the time.""""

Or maybe, like us, the God-like life simply lives really really far away, and doesn't visit often like we don't vist Mars or the Moon. I mean, what we may only visit Mars once in 100,000 years. Perhaps this God-like being is spending time studying other far off parts of the Univserse and doesn't get around to our galaxy very often.

Perhaps this God is actually a group of scientists working to spread their life imprints around the Universe? Wouldn't we want to shoot some DNA out into space to a far off planet we think will sustain life??

We certainly won't be able to send humans whose life span is not long enough, so why not shoot some living material
and hope for the best.

Your coments about things just poofing up in front of you is interesting, because you see this God as an all powerful being where as I think they aren't all that great, I think they have to operate within the same universe we do, with the same constraints.

If I see a place with houses built of wood, I think there is a large supply of wood, if the houses are made of straw, I'm thinking they have straw available and not much wood. If I see the building blocks of life, I tend to think that is what they had available to work with, not different then our own scientists who can't 'poof' a rabbit into existence, but the certainly can clone sheep, and modify life forms intelligently and as they progress, they will get to the point where
you modify the building blocks of life to create the new form.
Just like you build the foundation, which dictates the buildings structure.

So I would say think of God more as a scientist, then a supernatural being and things may actually start to make
sense.

If Congress came to you and asked you how we would transfer life to a far away planet without humans actually going, how would you do it?

If they asked you to re-design living organisms? Would you 'poof' new ones, or would you work from the building blocks on up?

Swann said: ""you should be looking out for totally new species that just “poof” show up in front of you.

How many humans have observed that phenomenon? We’re all looking around us, all the time. Do we see it? So, in a sense, we are all tending to falsify a certain type of creationism as we go about our daily lives and fail to witness spontaneous speciation."""

Are we really not witnessing it? Or is it happening so slowly, we simply haven't measured it? A poof to you could be a second, a poof to an entirely different life form, maybe 100,000 years.

Bach said: So I’m supposed to play by the rules of science but no one else has too??

Anyone who slightly disagrees is immediatle labelled a creationist who believes in the literal meaning of the Bible, apparenlty to make it easy to argue with them.

You scientists keep insisting you know what your doing because you recognize how many things Darwin claimed turned out to be wrong; you recognize that scientists 200-300-1000 years ago didn’t know what we know today. Yet you refuse to allow the other side any of that leeway.

Maybe the Bible writers were just as mystified as the scientists 5,000 years ago, maybe modern interpretations would not lead to the same conclusions just as in any science.

Where I thought it fell short was in trying to fathom how an Intelligence or intellligent (sic) being could be measured today? (sic)

Eric Finn asked;

"Maybe natural sciences, such as biology, are in the business of convincing, since they lack the opportunity to prove definitely. Does this have a connection with the current debate over evolution versus creationism? Are each side making films to convince?"

I am amazed that no one mentioned Karl Popper's dictum that science proceeds by disproof.

The essential core of Charles Darwin's theory-- descent with modification, shaped by natural selection-- has stood the test of time because--

1. Thousands of attempts to disprove it have failed.

2. Time and again, totally unexpected data appeared, confirming the theory. To name just one, in Darwin's day, no one knew about atomic reactions, so the age of the solar system was thought by the best physicists to be much younger than it really was. (Chemical reactions couldn't have fueled the system for billions of years.)

3. Evolution can be observed in real time in the laboratory and in the field (unfortunately for farmers, who have to keep changing their pesticides as insects evolve resistance.)

None of that has much to do with biologists "convincing" other people in the usual way. Scientific papers are much more like, "Here's what I think I've found. I dare you to knock it down." Of course, if many other scientists rush in to try to knock it down, and end up confirming the original study instead, the biologist's reputation is made.

But note-- the whole system depends on the scientists trying to knock each other's conclusions down FAIRLY-- not by misquoting or quote-mining to twist the biologist's meaning. Not by inventing phony data and then talking around in circles when called on it. Not by refusing to use accepted definitions. (If I had $5 for every time I've heard a creationist say evolution when he meant abiogenesis....)

That's what the conflict really is between biologists and creationists. Scientists must follow a strict code of ethics to make science work, and creationists don't abide by it. Creationists like to say that the reason scientists get so angry with them is because the scientists know deep down that the creationists are right. WRONG. Scientists get so mad at the creationists because, by the standards of scientific ethics, creationists are MORALLY DEPRAVED. Really. Scientists see creationists as liars and cheats, or deluded followers of liars and cheats. They see the ID crowd as slick con artists who don't even bother to believe their own lies.

The conflict between scientists and creationists is really a fight over morals. And until the American public begins to see just how badly those good, upstanding Christians are violating scientific morals, the creationists will win.

I was shocked, absolutely shocked, that people were surprised Judge Jones and the Kinzmillers received death threats from the creationist movement. From what I've seen of the creationists, issuing death threats would be just another part of their job description.

Bach says (paraphrasing), 'What if an intelligence deposits a designed life on this planet some 4 billion years ago. What if the God-like life simply lives really really far away, and doesn’t visit often like we don’t visit Mars or the Moon. What if a poof was 100,000 years?'
and so on.

It reminds me of conversations we used to have with our five-year-old. 'What if a lion and a shark had a fight? What if an elephant and a killer whale had babies?'

Without evidence, or at least the means of obtaining evidence, these speculations are equally useless.

They then depart and send signals back to earth in the form of high levels of radiation, that activate different portions and structures in that living material. Sort of like us sending a life form that we created (say a Rover) to Mars, and then sending it signals over time, to modify itself to do additional tasks. Rudimentary I know, but what would an intelligence that is 4 Billion years old be capable of?? Would we be able to measure/detect when high levels of radiation bombarded Earth and created explosion of life? Hmmm, maybe we already have detected it and don’t even know it… And what would a Martian make of the Rover if he stumbled upon it? Some may say, it was obviously created by a God.

I am amazed at so many scientists types posting seem to not care whether a life form evolved through Natural selection or through artifical selection by an intelligent being (say dog breeds).

There seems to be no interest in what that may mean for the future. Is it too much to ask that scientists look at things from a different perspective?

Let me use an example of the Nazca lines in Peru which I saw some of on TV last night. Now evolutionist that have posted here seem to be the type who when coming upon the Nasca lines and determining when they were made would simply rule out looking at the nazca lines from high in the sky. After all, flying or being at such heights was not part of the 'natural world' of the Nazca Indians and thus would be immediateley ruled out. Anyone suggesting looking into other possibilities would be labelled a kook. Other scientists, being more open minded, may actually question whether something else was happening in the Nasca desert during the time these lines were being created. Maybe it would make sense to look at the work from high in the sky, a perspective not available to the Nasca Indians and low and behold, WOW, looking at it from a non-natural world of 200BC showed amazing drawings, etc.

So although flying high in the sky in 200 BC would have been considered a SUPERnatural feat, it is also a good perspective for comprehending what we are seeing.

Perhaps this would be a good question:

Do you believe that the Intelligent mind of man will one day be able to create an intelligently designed life form using the buildings blocks?

And if he does, won't evolutionists have to label that life as something other then artificial selection if nothing more then being able to have an intelligent conversation?

Mr. Swann said: """because it’s hard to fathom an intelligence (whether God or not) that would create life in large numbers of discreet events over the long course of planetary history, but who would *not* be the kind of “creative God” who likes to make new stuff all the time."""

This may sound good at first, but think in terms of humans and are exploration of space.

If you were a creature on Mars and you find evidence that some other being had placed a life form on Mars (EX: Rover). I know its not a living being, but it is a machine and Martians may actually not be smart enough to figure out its not a life, it moves, it sees, it interacts with its environment, etc.

So the martians look around and find that humans had also placed life on the Moon (Lunar rover, etc.) but that was decades ago.

Now, would the martians dismiss this as a intelligence not of their world simply because we hadn't populated all the planets and Mars with thousands of Rovers and returned every week?

Perhaps what people call 'God' simply is displaying the same type of behavior we are ourselves will exihibit some day if we move out in space...Maybe we'd like to place new stuff on all the planets all the time, but simply are at the reaches of our current abilities.

Bach says:

"You scietists [sic] keep insisting you know what your [sic] doing because you recognize how many things Darwin claimed turned out to be wrong; you recognize that scientists 200-300-1000 years ago didn’t know what we know today.
Yet you refuse to allow the other side any of that leeway."

Mike Elzinga says:

"Intelligent Design is a science stopper...."

As I tried to explain to you on another thread, science is progressive. We know, now, that the earth isn't a perfect sphere-- it's slightly squashed. But the people who thought the earth was a sphere were still way, way ahead of people who thought the earth was flat, with four corners. So, some of what the IDers are saying, scientists know is wrong.

But the worse problem with ID is the one Mike brought up. Even when the IDers aren't flat-out lying (which, I'll say to be generous, might be as much as 40% of the time) their ultimate conclusion always turns out to be, 'some designer beyond our powers of understanding must have been involved. That's all we can say.' No, 'it looks like this was designed. Who was the designer? How did he go about designing this?' Just, 'it's beyond our powers of understanding. Let's not waste time in the lab when we could get paid for giving speeches about this to church groups.'

Are you still reading, Bach? Can't you see that scientists CAN'T work with ID? They're not rejecting it because of some scientific snobbery. They're rejecting it because they can't see any way to use it to learn anything. (And they're also disgusted at the amount of chicanery and flat-out lying that's gone on in the ID camp.)

If you really want to study how creatures could have been 'designed' by an intelligent being (in the broadest sense of a being that has some kind of a brain and can make choices) read about co-evolution. Read about sexual selection. Your intuition that evolution can't work 'just randomly' is perfectly correct. Honeybees for millions of years have selected the brighter, sweeter-smelling flowers to pollinate, so bee-pollinated flowers are now vastly brighter and sweeter-smelling than wind-pollinated flowers.
And on and on. Peacocks have been shaped by thousands of generations of peahens choosing flashy mates. Gazelles have been shaped by thousands of generations of cheetahs picking off the slow ones.
Evolution has no foresight. The cheetahs would be doing their descendants a favor of they picked off the fastest gazelles and left the slow ones to breed. Peacocks would be safer from predators if their mates weren't so into bling.
But evolution does sometimes have direction, and when it does, it's usually because some 'intelligent' being (in the sense that a honeybee is intelligent) shaped the outcome by natural selection.
This field of evolutionary biology-- figuring out the interrelationships between species, and between members of the same species-- has been the focus of many, many entire scientific careers. And it's nowhere near exhausted. Why should working scientists waste their time on ID when there are so many studies still to do, of known 'intelligent designers'? (In the sense of an animal making choices which have an effect on evolution.)
Why don't you copy the scientists, Bach? Why don't you spend some time learning about how evolution really works? A good place to start might be Richard Dawkins's "The Ancestor's Tale" (which, I guarantee you, is about science, not about atheism.) That book includes, among other things, the story of how scientists reacted when they first found a living coelacanth. (I told you they were thrilled. I reread it last night to check. They were thrilled.)
Learn how natural selection works. Learn how beings with brains really have shaped the course of evolution. And then see if you still need a supernatural or extraterrestrial 'designer' to make it all work.

"""Peacocks have been shaped by thousands of generations of peahens choosing flashy mates."""

Here in lies the problem. Evolutionists make statements like this and assume evolution proves their theory, it's a self licking ice cream cone. Peacocks have elaborate feathers, therefore hens prefer them.

Actual scientific study would probably reveal a whole different reason for the peacock elaborate tale, rather then relying on evolutionary theory to explain it all away.

Its kind of like EvoutionDidIt rather then GodDidIt.

Joan Roughgarden is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, California.
She writes:
In social selection, the expensive tail on a peacock does not seduce a peahen. Instead, that tail is primarily a badge that earns the peacock membership in male power-holding cliques. In social selection, secondary sex characteristics like the peacock's tail are more important for same-sex power dynamics than for between-sex romance. Such traits are used to secure admission to resource-controlling coalitions and must be expensive to ensure exclusivity. They are not signs of genetic quality advertised to females.

Hmmm, so maybe we just don't know, since she totally contradicts the last great scientist on the subject....

Bach: Its kind of like EvoutionDidIt rather then GodDidIt.

Bach: Its kind of like EvoutionDidIt rather then GodDidIt.

Bach provides a quote from Joan Roughgarden, professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. Joan was born "Jonathan" but got re-plumbed. I wonder if Bach knew that...Bach may be more open-minded that we suspect.

Paul Burnett: Bach provides a quote from Joan Roughgarden, professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. Joan was born "Jonathan" but got re-plumbed. I wonder if Bach knew that...Bach may be more open-minded that we suspect.

Okay, Bach, you claim you really want to learn. Yet every time I post anything to you, all you do is put me down with a snide insult. Do you want to learn, or do you want to be nasty? Because it looks to me like all you want to do is be nasty.

You quote me as saying, “Peacocks have been shaped by thousands of generations of peahens choosing flashy mates--” and then proceed to claim-- without doing any kind of a literature review-- that scientists haven't done any actual research on peacocks.

My later statement in the same post-- "...figuring out the interrelationships between species, and between members of the same species has been the focus of many, many entire scientific careers"-- you totally ignored. Do you think scientists spend all their time inventing stuff in the comfort of their studies? What do you think Jane Goodall was doing all those years in the jungle with the chimps? Her toenails???

Here's the deal, Bach. Scientists use the theory of evolution as a basis for forming likely hypotheses. Then they take their hypothesis into the field or the lab AND THEY TEST IT. And if the hypothesis is disconfirmed, they come up with another hypothesis, and another, until they find one that fits the facts. If the theory of evolution falls in the process, too bad. The reason, though, that scientists don't think it will fall is that they've done the same thing thousands of times, and every time it looked like the theory of evolution was in any kind of trouble, somebody would discover an absolutely astonishing fact (bacteria have sex? the continents moved?? mitochondia used to be independent animals???) and the theory of evolution would emerge stronger than ever.

The above few posts are a perfect example of why people are beginning to dislike you intensely. I, not working with peacocks, used that example because it's a classic of sexual selection. Stanton corrected my statement, citing more recent studies that found sexual selection wasn't the only variable affecting the length of peacocks' tails. He didn't insult me. He didn't imply I was stupid. He didn't try to defend an uninformed opinion. He cited real research. I, in turn, will incorporate the information Stanton provided into a slightly more accurate world view. Stanton got somewhere with me.

And where did Stanton get with you? Are you ready to admit that the creationist line that the modern theory of evolution isn't based on real research is a slanderous lie? Or are you going to go on repeating creationist propoganda, while claiming you're not a creationist, and then whine when everyone gets disgusted with you? It's up to you.

Bach wrote: I am amazed at so many scientists types posting seem to not care whether a life form evolved through Natural selection or through artifical selection by an intelligent being (say dog breeds).

There seems to be no interest in what that may mean for the future. Is it too much to ask that scientists look at things from a different perspective?

Bach said: Perhaps this would be a good question: Do you believe that the Intelligent mind of man will one day be able to create an intelligently designed life form using the buildings blocks?

And if he does, won’t evolutionists have to label that life as something other then artificial selection if nothing more then being able to have an intelligent conversation?

Bach said: If you were a creature on Mars and you find evidence that some other being had placed a life form on Mars (EX: Rover). I know its not a living being, but it is a machine and Martians may actually not be smart enough to figure out its not a life, it moves, it sees, it interacts with its environment, etc. So the martians look around and find that humans had also placed life on the Moon (Lunar rover, etc.) but that was decades ago. Now, would the martians dismiss this as a intelligence not of their world simply because we hadn’t populated all the planets and Mars with thousands of Rovers and returned every week?

““”Peacocks have been shaped by thousands of generations of peahens choosing flashy mates.””” Here in lies the problem. Evolutionists make statements like this and assume evolution proves their theory, it’s a self licking ice cream cone. Peacocks have elaborate feathers, therefore hens prefer them.

Actual scientific study would probably reveal a whole different reason for the peacock elaborate tale, rather then relying on evolutionary theory to explain it all away. Joan Roughgarden is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, California. She writes: In social selection, the expensive tail on a peacock does not seduce a peahen. Instead, that tail is primarily a badge that earns the peacock membership in male power-holding cliques. In social selection, secondary sex characteristics like the peacock’s tail are more important for same-sex power dynamics than for between-sex romance. Such traits are used to secure admission to resource-controlling coalitions and must be expensive to ensure exclusivity. They are not signs of genetic quality advertised to females.

Hmmm, so maybe we just don’t know, since she totally contradicts the last great scientist on the subject….

Another problem with the ID/Creationist arguments is how to deal with the issue of the “designer’s identity”. In order to try to slip past the Constitution, the ID leaders are carefully avoiding saying it is their version of the Christian God (they aren’t fooling anyone, and they admit this to their cohorts).

But in order to look for any kind of god, you immediately have to postulate some characteristics of that god that are identifiable and reproducible in a scientific experiment.

In order for these experiments to be repeatable and verifiable by anyone (no matter what their religious, ethnic, or national background is), everyone has to agree on these characteristics. And they all have to agree the “experimental methods” are sufficient to do this.

Consider the world religions over the centuries. Consider the thousands of bickering sects just within Protestantism in the United States alone. Consider all the sectarian wars in which the blood of thousands was spilled in the name of the sectarian gods.

What characteristics are these thousands of religious sects going to agree on? How are they going to conclude that an “experiment” really identified their god?

Which sect is going to admit that the god of another sect was “proven to exist” by a “scientific experiment”? What kinds of sectarian wars are going to be fought over who did the “proper experiment” or followed the “right protocol”? Which “scientists” were “sufficiently deferential” to the “data” to say that they did the “experiment” “properly”?

Which Ayatollah, Priest, Preacher, or Self-Proclaimed Anointed One gets to “certify the results” of the “experiment”?

How is this “science” any different from what we have already been seeing in “religion” for centuries?

Stanton said:

You fail to realize that peacocks use their tails to not only impress the peahens, but to also dominate each other, as well as to startle predators with. This way, an adult peacock with the largest possible tail will be able to mate with the most peahens in his territory because a) he’s put his rivals in their places, b) he’s managed to survive predation to live to adulthood, and c) he can show the peahens that he’s been able to thrive despite having to drag around such a large tail."""

Actually Stanton, it may surprise you to know that most peacocks are raised by intelligent humans, who use completely different criteria then you suggest would have occurred under a natural selection process. The hens aren't given a natural choice on who to mate with, they get waht the intelligent being (man) has decided to provide for them.

The hens are in pens, they are not given free choice and thus an intelligent being has just screwed over your entire theory.
In fact that same intelligent being poaches the peacock, kills it with pesticides (not found in undisturbed nature)and kills them simply for that great plummage.

So while we can all pretend that the peacock does such great mating with the pea hen based on those wonderful feathers, the simply fact is those wonderful feathers are what's leading to its extinction in the wild. So much for not caring about natural or artificial selection.

I guess noone told the peacock that his great tail feathers were actually leading to extinction, not improvement of the species. So this theory of evolution totally depends on the creatures being obivious to actual results of their mutation and they relied on their dumb, perceived benefits of their mutations.

So my guess is that in 100 years, the only peacocks left will be those raised through the artificial selection of an intelligent being (Man).

Mike E,

Science appears to have the same problem, noone can agree on anything. Sure you say you all do studies and test, research, etc. etc. but scientists disagree all the time even about the big things.

In fact, scientists don't even agree that life today is based on evolution, whereas, all religions believe in a God of some form otherwise they wouldn't be a religion.

Oh, I would so totally buy a self licking ice cream cone!

Bach: Science appears to have the same problem, noone can agree on anything.

scientists don't even agree that life today is based on evolution

Bach, what do you WANT here? You say about science,

"noone can agree on anything. Sure you say you all do studies and test, research, etc. etc. but scientists disagree all the time even about the big things."

Well, of course, working scientists disagree. It's not a church. They don't sit around confirming the orthodoxy. But the scientific process leads to agreements. In 1947, scientists were arguing about whether genes were made of protein or nucleic acids. Today, every working scientist knows our genes are made of DNA, that it's shaped in a double helix, and that our DNA is extremely similar to a chimpanzee's DNA. So now, they're arguing about exactly which base pairs are different between chimps and humans, and what effect the differences have. The argument has been refined. That's what science is about.

And where are you? Spouting creationist garbage like, "scientists don’t even agree that life today is based on evolution." No, as a matter of fact, all scientists agree that life CANNOT be 'based on' evolution-- because evolution, by definition, is about what happened to life after it appeared!

Gee whiz, man, can't you get through even one post without spouting something straight out of AnswersinGenesis? If you want to read their garbage, go do it. I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms. But why drag it over here? There are some amazing people on this site, and I've learned a lot from them. Why don't you?

Science appears to have the same problem, noone can agree on anything. Sure you say you all do studies and test, research, etc. etc. but scientists disagree all the time even about the big things.

Bach Wrote: "Science appears to have the same problem, no one can agree on anything. Sure you say you all do studies and test, research, etc. etc. but scientists disagree all the time even about the big things."

But, Bach, there is a difference. Scientists disagree all the time. Their response is to do studies and tests to support their positions. Eventually, the evidence persuades them, and they all accept that position. Then move on to the next disagreement. This is called "progress."

Religions disagree all the time. Each clings to its own position, and struggles to defeat the others---by violence if necessary. Nothing gets settled or agreed upon, even after decades or centuries. The same issues persist forever. This is not progress.

So this theory of evolution totally depends on the creatures being obivious to actual results of their mutation and they relied on their dumb, perceived benefits of their mutations.

Interesting to note, if the school board members had not lied in their depositions, Judge Jones would have just issued an injunction. There would not have been a trial. Because they lied in the depositions, he allowed it to go to trial.

As has been pointed out, natural selection qualifies as a design process according to Dembski’s definition of design, which simply refers to a decision process. And without question, natural selection is a decision process - it decides (in statistical terms, to be sure) who lives and who dies. When this was pointed out on the Uncommon Design forum, it was promptly deleted, a strong indication that it couldn’t be countered. But it seems to me entirely valid to regard natural selection as a design process, and the “purposeful arrangement of parts” as the outcome of that design. The purpose being to survive better.

What a joke, Bach, to even consider claiming that "religions believe in gods therefore they agree on the big picture". Ha ha ha, made my day that one.
Yes of course, religions agree all the time, except for the Crusades. And Pogroms. And the Inquisition. And the War of Terror. And the Holocaust. And the Witch-burnings. And the Reformation. And the Helms Amendment. And every single weekend when they knock on my door to convince me that (insert church here) is the One True Way and that (insert all other faiths here) are going to Hades in a handbasket.
Funny how biologists don't respond to concepts they dispute with death threats or courtcases. They respond with research. Get it? Research.

After reading most of the posts in this discussion, It's pretty clear to me that Bach probably doesn't even read the posts that refute his tired and pathetic arguments for creationism/against evolution; or if he actually reads them, he simply chooses to ignore them.
People like him will continue to spout nonsense. It doesn't matter how much evidence you throw in their faces. They will continue to choose to ignore it. Why? It's simple, like the author Chuck Palahniuk wrote: "People don't want their lives fixed. Nobody wants their problems solved. Their dramas. Their distractions. Their stories resolved. Their messes cleaned up. Because what would they have left? Just the big scary unknown."
And that's what people like Bach are most afraid of, the big scary unknown without heaven or hell, without creationism, without God.

On a side note, people in the United States (particularly, people in the Bible Belt, aka the Midwest) can waste all the time they want arguing over evolution and creationism. I take solace in the fact that real scientific breakthroughs in biology, among other disciplines, are taking place in many other countries in the world without religious hindrance.

Genetic algorithms have a goal and therefore qualify as design.

But the conclusion about genetic algorithms is not correct. I’m not even sure it is entirely correct to refer to genes as “containing algorithms”. I know it has been used metaphorically, but I think it is misleading.

Mike Elzinga: The vast diversity of life on this planet should be enough evidence that complicated systems have many billions of possible directions they can develop. The fact that so many directions did develop indicates that there are many relatively stable configurations that can exist within the ranges of environments that have occurred on this planet.

So I guess I don’t see evolution as improbable at all. It may very well be inevitable within certain energy ranges.

I was not refering to organic “genes” with this comment,...

Physics is a field that can enjoy the privilege of having simple enough systems available for the study of the basic principles, which makes it easier to derive powerful theories. In biology, all the systems are very complicated indeed.

Physics is a field that can enjoy the privilege of having simple enough systems available for the study of the basic principles,

It was an absolutely phenomenal program. I was transfixed. It should be required viewing for every citizen of the United States of Dumb.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being.

So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural?

If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial selection occurences or evidence when doing their research?

Hey I think this post is quite interesting if some points about the main idea are expounded and clarify a bit. I read someone's comment a little bit harsh for the writer.