Dueling Blurbs: Collins vs. Coulter

Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.

— Bill Dembski

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences.

Ah, my bad, didn't know about the inside joke ... I didn't get into
the topic until 2006 and by that time Dembski had corekted his speling
mistaks.

In the current case, if I wasn't familiar with Dembski, I would
be a bit startled at his conclusion of "if they want war they've
got it." Oh ROIGHT Brayne! You and your crowd call the
evo science community frauds and fascists, throw insults and
flatulent flash animations at them, and in particular come up
with a "viceXXse strategy" specifically honed to nail theistic
evolutionists ... and now "da gloves are off"? No more
Mister NICE GUY, baby! No more Mister CLEAN!

But I am familiar with Dembski and the only way in which I can
be surprised is in finding I can't set my expectations low enough.
Oh, he's been so misjudged, so misunderstood -- when all we get is
"deja moo all over again" ... we have seen this BS someplace before.

Kwok says Miller’s first point is: “The current battles with ID creationists mean that we are engaged in a battle for America’s soul, which could well determine what a future America will resemble, not only scientifically, but also culturally and politically.”

.

What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller stipulates that the evolution of life is off-limits to God.

Miller’s view is essentially that God provided the universe with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely. IOW, the Catholic Miller, like the Catholic Behe, believes in design, it’s just that Miller declares that God’s design goes only as far as the universe itself, a universe created/designed with the necessary properties, universal constants, the fine tuning, etc., that made intelligent life extremely likely; whereas Behe believes that design extends somewhat further, making life inevitable, and that intelligence/design was also involved in the beginning and evolution of life.

Additionally, while Miller stipulates that God is not allowed to intervene in the beginning and/or evolution of life, his god nevertheless apparently can and does intervene to answer prayers. (Except prayers requesting intervention in any kind of evolution?) Go figure.

Of course design and/or intervention by a god at any level----whether at the level of a universe that happens to have the attributes that makes life extremely likely, and/or at the level of the processes that facilitated the beginning of life, and/or at the level of the processes that facilitate the evolution of life----is something that is rejected by all genuine Darwinians, that hold to a Darwinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations, like Mayr, Dennett, Dawkins, Provine, Fukuyama, Gould, etc.

To the theists/deists Miller is attempting to make Darwinism God-friendly with a god that Miller arbitrarily allows to intervene in some things but not others; and to the genuine Darwinians, the atheists, he concedes and stipulates that his god is not allowed to intervene or be involved in the evolution of life, apparently in an attempt to satisfy the Darwinian requirement that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Will the hard-core Darwinian atheists----that tend to possess some measure of intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue----buy Miller’s argument?
I doubt it; but if they have any sense they’ll remain silent about it b/c Miller’s argument, albeit not terribly convincing, at least attempts to make the evolution of life off-limits to any god.

Ah, but putting on the theist hat (just for fun) imagine that
a Creator did create the Universe. If he did so, then it
would be adequate to implement His will and He would not need to
violate His own laws.

There's an old joke about a rabbi in a flood, with the rain pouring
down and the water up to his ankles. A fellow comes along in a boat
and says: "Rabbi, get in, I'll take you to safety!"

The rabbi replies: "No, my faith is strong! The Lord will preserve
me!"

Later the rabbi is in water up to his waist and a second fellow comes
along: "Rabbi, get in, I'll take you to safety!"

The rabbi replies: "No, my faith is strong! The Lord will preserve
me!"

Later still the rabbi is in water up to his neck and a third fellow
comes along: "Rabbi, get in, I'll take you to safety!"

The rabbi replies, earnestly: "No, my faith is strong! The Lord
will preserve me!"

Not much later the rabbi is standing, dripping wet, before his Maker.
"But Lord! My faith was strong! Why did you not preserve me?!"

"Look, schlemiel, I sent three boats! What more did you want?"

Now do I see this as any more than a Terry Pratchett sort of argument?
No, but if I wanted to get into the theistic argument and do a
serious job of it I'd have to read a ton of stuff on theology, and
I neither want to nor can think of any reason to do that. Ken
Miller's theistic interests are an extracurricular activity as
far as the sciences are concerned, they neither buy him nor cost him
anything in his career as a scientist -- and he's been so earnest
in leading the charge against the Darwin-bashers that even if I
were inclined to nitpick about his extracurricular activities
I would not bother to do so.

Frank J said:

“In many respects, not only is Intelligent Design an idea that is ‘un-American’, since its very principles are antithetical to America’s defining cultural values of practicality, pragmatism and disrespect of authority...

— John Kwok

What America (& science) have, when they work best, is not a disrespect for authority, but a healthy respect, as opposed to the unhealthy idol worship that characterizes authoritarian fundamentalism and all its offshoots like Nazism and ID. Note that, unlike "Expelled" I am not pretending that ID "leads to" Nazism, but that both are derived from an unhealthy authoritarianism. I hope that we hear a lot more about anti-evolution activism being "un-American", because that's just what it is. It fuels an already dangerous anti-science attitude in the US, and that will only help the terrorists in the long run. I have not taken seriously the fears that anti-evolution activism will lead to a (Christian) theocracy. I could be wrong, but I think that most Americans, indeed most Christians, will simply not let that happen. OTOH, I do see a chance that we may wind up with a Muslim theocracy someday if we don't watch out.

bigbang said: Kwok says Miller’s first point is: “The current battles with ID creationists mean that we are engaged in a battle for America’s soul, which could well determine what a future America will resemble, not only scientifically, but also culturally and politically.” . What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller stipulates that the evolution of life is off-limits to God. Miller’s view is essentially that God provided the universe with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely. IOW, the Catholic Miller, like the Catholic Behe, believes in design, it’s just that Miller declares that God’s design goes only as far as the universe itself, a universe created/designed with the necessary properties, universal constants, the fine tuning, etc., that made intelligent life extremely likely; whereas Behe believes that design extends somewhat further, making life inevitable, and that intelligence/design was also involved in the beginning and evolution of life. Additionally, while Miller stipulates that God is not allowed to intervene in the beginning and/or evolution of life, his god nevertheless apparently can and does intervene to answer prayers. (Except prayers requesting intervention in any kind of evolution?) Go figure. Of course design and/or intervention by a god at any level----whether at the level of a universe that happens to have the attributes that makes life extremely likely, and/or at the level of the processes that facilitated the beginning of life, and/or at the level of the processes that facilitate the evolution of life----is something that is rejected by all genuine Darwinians, that hold to a Darwinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations, like Mayr, Dennett, Dawkins, Provine, Fukuyama, Gould, etc. To the theists/deists Miller is attempting to make Darwinism God-friendly with a god that Miller arbitrarily allows to intervene in some things but not others; and to the genuine Darwinians, the atheists, he concedes and stipulates that his god is not allowed to intervene or be involved in the evolution of life, apparently in an attempt to satisfy the Darwinian requirement that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. Will the hard-core Darwinian atheists----that tend to possess some measure of intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue----buy Miller’s argument? I doubt it; but if they have any sense they’ll remain silent about it b/c Miller’s argument, albeit not terribly convincing, at least attempts to make the evolution of life off-limits to any god.

Interesting remarks, but you fail to acknowledge that Ken recognizes that God's "production" of "natural design" in the Universe was through the agency of physical laws and principles unfolding over time, not the capricious acts of an "Intelligent Designer" according to Dembski et al.'s conception of one. Regards, John

What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller stipulates that the evolution of life is off-limits to God.

Dear Mr Kwok, I strong recommend against attempting to engage bigbangBigot in conversation. bigbangBigot has demonstrated that he is incapable of communicating or recognizing any facts, and his idea of arguing is to engage in extraordinarily sloppy quotemining and grotesquely clumsy character assassinations. He also insists that simultaneously accepting the theory of evolution and keeping one's faith is intellectual dishonesty, as opposed to claiming that, without any evidence, it was Darwin, and not Martin Luther, who directly influenced Adolf Hitler into committing his atrocities, or that evolution turns people into evil, atheistic, commu-nazi nihilists.

PvM said: In other words, evolutionary science like any other science is and should be reconcilable with our religious beliefs, or we may have to ignore science, like so many YECers have chosen to do.

PvM said: Not surprisingly, ID Creationists are moving more and more towards a Miller perspective and position.

Stanton said: Dear Mr Kwok, I strong recommend against attempting to engage bigbangBigot in conversation. bigbangBigot has demonstrated that he is incapable of communicating or recognizing any facts, and his idea of arguing is to engage in extraordinarily sloppy quotemining and grotesquely clumsy character assassinations. He also insists that simultaneously accepting the theory of evolution and keeping one's faith is intellectual dishonesty, as opposed to claiming that, without any evidence, it was Darwin, and not Martin Luther, who directly influenced Adolf Hitler into committing his atrocities, or that evolution turns people into evil, atheistic, commu-nazi nihilists.

MrG said:

Interesting remarks, but you fail to acknowledge that Ken recognizes that God's "production" of "natural design" in the Universe was through the agency of physical laws and principles unfolding over time, not the capricious acts of an "Intelligent Designer" according to Dembski et al.'s conception of one. Regards, John

I would add that, given a scenario involving Dembski and Miller, it's hard to understand anyone would see the need to expend ammo on Miller. Imagine (as a nonviolent scenario) you're on a close-combat training course and you have only two rounds left. Two pop-up targets snap up simultaneously: one is a picture of Dembski in a cardigan labelled CDESIGN PROPONENTSIST and the other is Ken Miller labelled THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST. So what do you do? Well, DUH, shoot the CDESIGN PROPONENTSIST twice. No-brainer, dude.

I'll add here that Dembski has a rather hostile, bizarre personality that some would consider sane but many would not. What one finds often among crackpots.

1. He didn't last long at his first appointment at Baylor. Shortly after he got there, he started a pointless war with the adminstration, declared an early victory, and was shortly thereafter fired.

2. His crowning achievement other than endless bafflegab was falsely denouncing Eric Pianka to Homeland Security and orchestrating a death threats campaign against Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.

3. His second attempt to use Baylor as intellectual cover ended with him being thrown out again even though he wasn't even supposed to be there.

I'm sure there is more but paying attention to him isn't high on my list. He also believes that hordes of angels and demons roam the earth doing things. This is bad theology but bad theology and pseudoscience go together well.

It turns out that Dembski also has a new book coming out called Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language.

John Kwok said: Dear MrG, I wouldn't lose any sleep if the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design, Bill Dembski, fulfilled his destiny in the same manner that his idol did during the closing days of World War II in Europe.

Will the hard-core Darwinian atheists—-that tend to possess some measure of intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue—-buy Miller’s argument?

Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language? I believe this was already covered quite thoroughly by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross in Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.

James F said: Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language? I believe this was already covered quite thoroughly by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross in Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.

raven said: I'll add here that Dembski has a rather hostile, bizarre personality that some would consider sane but many would not. What one finds often among crackpots. 1. He didn't last long at his first appointment at Baylor. Shortly after he got there, he started a pointless war with the adminstration, declared an early victory, and was shortly thereafter fired. 2. His crowning achievement other than endless bafflegab was falsely denouncing Eric Pianka to Homeland Security and orchestrating a death threats campaign against Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences. 3. His second attempt to use Baylor as intellectual cover ended with him being thrown out again even though he wasn't even supposed to be there. I'm sure there is more but paying attention to him isn't high on my list. He also believes that hordes of angels and demons roam the earth doing things. This is bad theology but bad theology and pseudoscience go together well.

This year at Uncommon Descent he ranted and raved about “rich Darwinists” like Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller and is in the midst of ranting and raving about Ken Miller’s new book.

I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.

There are of course plenty of nasty things that can be said about
Dembski's personal style but I think the real issues come up
with trying to follow his thinking. I read through his 2004 essay
on human origins and wondered: "Mr. Dembski, would I be more
considerate to think this is a deliberate exercise in misinformation
than to think you honestly believed it yourself?"

The really Wile E. Coyote feel of the whole matter comes from how
oblivious he is to the logical box his ID position has placed him
in, while he tries to construct logical boxes around everyone else.
Morton's Demon is putting in overtime here.

raven said: He also believes that hordes of angels and demons roam the earth doing things. This is bad theology but bad theology and pseudoscience go together well.

tomh said: I can understand ridiculing pseudoscience but how do you decide what is "bad" theology?

There are certainly plenty of concerns about the propagation of misconceptions and mischaracterizations of science besides those generated by the ID/Creationists. But the Creation Research Institute, Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute with its Wedge Document have clearly raised the level of concern to somewhere in the “orange category”.

It is one thing to have honest misconceptions about scientific ideas. After all, some concepts in the sciences are subtle and require time and experience to absorb.

It is quite another thing for organizations to be consciously and actively spreading misconceptions and mischaracterizations in the form of consciously practiced memes to sectarians who, in turn, propagate them to innocent individuals who don’t subscribe to sectarian dogma. Issuing talking points and “model legislation” based on these misconceptions and mischaracterizations to grass roots political groups and legislators is further evidence that there is something suspicious going on here.

Furthermore, when these organizations repeat these memes after scientists have demonstrated that they are mischaracterizations and misconceptions, we begin to have further evidence of malicious intent.

This appears to cross the line into premeditated fraud on the part of the staff of these organizations. They get paid good money to scan the contributions of honest working scientists and quote mine and distort the meaning.

I wonder if the Discovery Institute is becoming aware of how close to the line they are treading (if they haven’t already crossed it) into becoming an organization that is committing fraud across state lines (people as taxpayers are financially impacted by this). Their contorted denials and disclaimers suggest that they may realize they could be headed for serious trouble if enough evidence accumulates that this is precisely what they are doing.

I make it a firm rule never to spend mony on, and seldom to read, or even glance through, a book with a blurb by Ann Coulter. It's stood me in very good stead so far.

I make it a firm rule never to spend mony on, and seldom to read, or even glance through, a book with a blurb by Ann Coulter. It’s stood me in very good stead so far.

Sort of like seeing that Adam Sandler is in a movie. A very helpful big STAY THE HELL AWAY sign.

I wonder if the Discovery Institute is becoming aware of how close to the line they are treading (if they haven’t already crossed it) into becoming an organization that is committing fraud across state lines (people as taxpayers are financially impacted by this).

I can understand ridiculing pseudoscience but how do you decide what is “bad” theology?

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for Miller’s God as there is for Dembski’s angels and demons so how can one be a good belief and one bad? Besides, millions of people believe in angels and demons, including respected leaders like the Pope. To label this bad theology seems rather arbitrary.

MTS said: I make it a firm rule never to spend mony on, and seldom to read, or even glance through, a book with a blurb by Ann Coulter. It's stood me in very good stead so far.

tomh said:

raven said: He also believes that hordes of angels and demons roam the earth doing things. This is bad theology but bad theology and pseudoscience go together well.

I can understand ridiculing pseudoscience but how do you decide what is "bad" theology? There are thousands of religious beliefs, or theologies if you will, all based upon an individual's personal interpretation of their perception of the supernatural. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for Miller's God as there is for Dembski's angels and demons so how can one be a good belief and one bad? Besides, millions of people believe in angels and demons, including respected leaders like the Pope. To label this bad theology seems rather arbitrary.

MrG said: There are of course plenty of nasty things that can be said about Dembski's personal style but I think the real issues come up with trying to follow his thinking. I read through his 2004 essay on human origins and wondered: "Mr. Dembski, would I be more considerate to think this is a deliberate exercise in misinformation than to think you honestly believed it yourself?" The really Wile E. Coyote feel of the whole matter comes from how oblivious he is to the logical box his ID position has placed him in, while he tries to construct logical boxes around everyone else. Morton's Demon is putting in overtime here.

Mike Elzinga said: It is one thing to have honest misconceptions about scientific ideas. After all, some concepts in the sciences are subtle and require time and experience to absorb. It is quite another thing for organizations to be consciously and actively spreading misconceptions and mischaracterizations in the form of consciously practiced memes to sectarians who, in turn, propagate them to innocent individuals who don’t subscribe to sectarian dogma. Issuing talking points and “model legislation” based on these misconceptions and mischaracterizations to grass roots political groups and legislators is further evidence that there is something suspicious going on here.

John kwok said: Dear MrG, Others here at Panda's Thumb have referred to my "pal" Bill Dembski as Saint Goebbels and the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design Movement (which is what I had meant to say in my previous post in reply to yours.). ... Last year I sarcastically observed at Amazon.com how much I would welcome the prospect of having Bill stuffed and put on display at the California Academy of Sciences, and other natural history museums, including my local American Museum of Natural History, as a sterling example of intellectual stupidity. I haven't seen anything from my ever delighted "pal" Bill that would cause me to retract that statement; in fact, in light of his recent acts, he is truly more worthy of such honors than he was before.

John kwok said: Trouble is Bill has a lot of trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. Last December, in private e-mail correspondence, he accused me of being "childish" ...

So I would strongly encourage you to read Ken’s book.

— John Kwok

What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller stipulates that the evolution of life is off-limits to God.

— bigbang

If "I.D." means that an agent (or agents?) deliberately engineered the details (of anatomy, biochemistry, and time and location) of life, then theism (i.e., believing that God caused there to be a universe with life in it) does not imply "I.D.".

Lumping creation of the universe and setting up the physical constants in with I.D. changes the meaning (such as it is) implied by most usages of that term.

Say, maybe if they'd say "deliberately engineered" when that's what they mean, and use some other fairly clear phrase when they mean something else, it might reduce the confusion? (Oh wait, their scheme depends on confusion, doesn't it? Never mind.)

Henry

Henry J said: Say, maybe if they'd say "deliberately engineered" when that's what they mean, and use some other fairly clear phrase when they mean something else, it might reduce the confusion?

FL: You are absolutely correct on these points, Tomh. Such labeling IS clearly arbitrary.

MrG said: ...This is not about coming up with insights. It's about "dumbing down" the discourse in hopes of lowering the barrier until the argument can squeak through.

Stanton said: By the time the discourse has been suitably dumbed down enough to allow the argument of Intelligent Design to enter, all of science will be totally and irreparably destroyed. Behe, Dembski and the rest of the staff of the Discovery Institute realize this, and they don't care.

Another angle on this is that there are in fact “designs” in nature. You see shark-type designs – icthyosaurs, dolphins – bird-type designs – pterosaurs, bats, insects – and even design elements at a lower level – the recurrent appearance of the Fibonacci sequence in nautilus shells, pine cones, sunflower heads, and so on.

But a person prone to seeing design sees it because he/she is connecting patterns in nature to patterns studied by humans and then unconsciously attributing it to a “designer” having human attributes but more omnipotent.

— Mike Elzinga

Kwok says: “Interesting remarks, but you fail to acknowledge that Ken recognizes that God’s “production” of “natural design” in the Universe was through the agency of physical laws and principles unfolding over time”

.

Behe wouldn’t disagree that God’s “production” of “natural design” in the Universe was through the agency of physical laws and principles unfolding over time; he’d only argue that those laws and principles go a bit further and deeper that Miller has allowed, has arbitrary stipulated. Plus they both seem t believe that God answers prayers (intervenes in some sense).

P. Z. Meyers at a talk at Seattle's Pacific Science Center recently said, "I personally feel that religion itself is a lie and a danger," and that those who hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy" in one way or another. When asked whether that meant Miller, was being a wishy-washy scientist, Meyers said, "No, I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic." (MSNBC Cosmic Log, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/03/1101860.aspx,)

Provine's said something, somewhere, to the effect that if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, you have to check your brains at the church-house door.

Undoubtedly the Darwinian atheists, like Provine, Meyers, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, are the ones being intellectually honest and rigorous here regarding the blatantly obvious irreconcilability of Christianity/theism and Darwinism, but Miller’s Darwinism plus his wishy-washy check your brains at the door theism is probably more palatable then the genuine Darwinism of Meyrs et al that inevitably engenders atheism, so I suppose Miller’s is the version to go with; assuming the genuine Darwinians (the atheists) can control their gag reflexes.

Mike Elzinga said: You picked some nice examples that illustrate why the inference of “design” in living creatures can be misleading. These creatures develop within the constraints of physics and the patterns produced by the underlying fundamental rules of physics. ... But a person prone to seeing design sees it because he/she is connecting patterns in nature to patterns studied by humans and then unconsciously attributing it to a “designer” having human attributes but more omnipotent.

bigbang said: ... assuming the genuine Darwinians (the atheists) can control their gag reflexes.

bigbang said: Undoubtedly the Darwinian atheists, like Provine, Meyers, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, are the ones being intellectually honest and rigorous here regarding the blatantly obvious irreconcilability of Christianity/theism and Darwinism, but Miller’s Darwinism plus his wishy-washy check your brains at the door theism is probably more palatable then the genuine Darwinism of Meyrs et al that inevitably engenders atheism, so I suppose Miller’s is the version to go with; assuming the genuine Darwinians (the atheists) can control their gag reflexes.

Behe wouldn’t disagree that God’s “production” of “natural design” in the Universe was through the agency of physical laws and principles unfolding over time; he’d only argue that those laws and principles go a bit further and deeper that Miller has allowed, has arbitrary stipulated.

— bigbang

Sheesh! Why does Dembski need to write yet another book? It's not like many people can be bothered to reads them anymore; not even the choir to whom he's preaching judging by his Amazon rankings.

Sheesh! Why does Dembski need to write yet another book?

bigbang said: Kwok says Miller’s first point is: “The current battles with ID creationists mean that we are engaged in a battle for America’s soul, which could well determine what a future America will resemble, not only scientifically, but also culturally and politically.” What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller stipulates that the evolution of life is off-limits to God. Miller’s view is essentially that God provided the universe with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely. IOW, the Catholic Miller, like the Catholic Behe, believes in design, it’s just that Miller declares that God’s design goes only as far as the universe itself, a universe created/designed with the necessary properties, universal constants, the fine tuning, etc., that made intelligent life extremely likely; whereas Behe believes that design extends somewhat further, making life inevitable, and that intelligence/design was also involved in the beginning and evolution of life. Additionally, while Miller stipulates that God is not allowed to intervene in the beginning and/or evolution of life, his god nevertheless apparently can and does intervene to answer prayers. (Except prayers requesting intervention in any kind of evolution?) Go figure.

Of course design and/or intervention by a god at any level----whether at the level of a universe that happens to have the attributes that makes life extremely likely, and/or at the level of the processes that facilitated the beginning of life, and/or at the level of the processes that facilitate the evolution of life----is something that is rejected by all genuine Darwinians, that hold to a Darwinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations, like Mayr, Dennett, Dawkins, Provine, Fukuyama, Gould, etc.

To the theists/deists Miller is attempting to make Darwinism God-friendly with a god that Miller arbitrarily allows to intervene in some things but not others; and to the genuine Darwinians, the atheists, he concedes and stipulates that his god is not allowed to intervene or be involved in the evolution of life, apparently in an attempt to satisfy the Darwinian requirement that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. Will the hard-core Darwinian atheists----that tend to possess some measure of intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue----buy Miller’s argument? I doubt it; but if they have any sense they’ll remain silent about it b/c Miller’s argument, albeit not terribly convincing, at least attempts to make the evolution of life off-limits to any god.

Ron Okimoto said:

bigbang said: [some illogical garbage]

I don't view it as checking your brains at the door. All any scientists has to do is to just admit that they have no idea of how creation of what we call nature unfolded and you are on an even plane. You just spend your life trying to understand the pieces that you can understand. Whether you believe that some great Sky Father created everything or some unknown set of natural phenomena resulted in the Big Bang, you can stil work to understand nature. As long as you set off with the understanding that you have no privilaged source of knowledge and that nature or the creation is open to understanding there is no conflict between being a scientist and being religious. If you can't do that, you end up like the guys at the ICR or the Discovery Institute, or an atheist so that you don't have the option.

bigbang said: What most people seem to miss is that Miller himself believes in creation/design, albeit a design that’s not quite as extensive as Behe’s; a design where Miller stipulates that the evolution of life is off-limits to God.

Frank J said: It is Behe, not Miller, who pretends (and I say "pretends" because I think that he privately believes otherwise) that laws and principles go only so far, and that "something else" must kick in past that "edge."

Undoubtedly the Darwinian atheists, like Provine, Meyers, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, are the ones being intellectually honest and rigorous here regarding the blatantly obvious irreconcilability of Christianity/theism and Darwinism, but Miller’s Darwinism plus his wishy-washy check your brains at the door theism is probably more palatable then the genuine Darwinism of Meyrs et al that inevitably engenders atheism, so I suppose Miller’s is the version to go with; assuming the genuine Darwinians (the atheists) can control their gag reflexes.

So, bigbang, where you were trying to emphasise the similarities of Miller’s and Behe’s positions, you have omitted a critical and fundamental difference.

PvM said: How sad to hear him continue his errors despite being corrected time after time...

Nigel D said: I think the key difference between Behe and Miller is a very important one. That is, Miller accepts that reality as we find it is what it is, whereas Behe does not. To Behe, reality as we find it is not good enough. He insists that God (sorry, the Designer) actively tinkers with the processes whereby new species arise. Miller, OTOH, appears to accept that natural processes are quite sufficient to generate the diversity of life that we find today and in the fossil record. He seems to be quite happy to accept evolution as a consequence of the natural laws that are a part of the universe. In a more general sense, most people who would consider themselves to be theistic evolutionists appear to accept that God could have set everything up in the beginning to proceed in exactly the way we have found (i.e., through evolutionary processes), without the need for any tinkering.

PvM said: Bigband is still granting too much power to atheists over his own believes and uncritically 'argues' that since Atheists say something, we should take it seriously.

PvM said: ... the simple fact that science cannot address the supernatural in any meaningful manner ...

tomh said:

PvM said: ... the simple fact that science cannot address the supernatural in any meaningful manner ...

Of course, it's not just science, the same is true for religion. In fact, it's true for all human endeavors since no one can address the supernatural in any meaningful manner. The difference seems to be that while scientists generally admit that they can't address a subject which has no natural component, religionists generally claim they can address such a subject in a meaningful manner and then proceed to make up a lot of stuff in an attempt to prove their point.

PvM said: I find the search for the 'meaning of life' to be quite important ...

The analogy I like is from Bart Kosko’s “Fuzzy Thinking” where he compares humans looking at nature to ants walking across a calculus text. The ants see gibberish. Similarly, things that look “random” to us could have all sorts of “design” beyond our ability to recognize.

But of course no matter how anyone reads the teleological argument, it has nothing to do with evolutionary science, which works exactly the same no matter which way the argument spins.

PvM proclaims: “science cannot address the supernatural in any meaningful manner and thus the position God did it, is never at odds with science.”

.

As I’ve noted b/f, PvM, neither you nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for. Wherever your subjective demarcation happens to be----between what you happen to perceive is natural, and what’s “supernatural”----is arbitrary and based only on your own ignorance and/or superstitions. If something is real, somehow exists, I think that we, through science (and/or of course mathematics), have a good chance of finding it, discovering it, understanding it.

Unlike you PvM, I’m a realist, and don’t buy into your or anyone else’s “supernatural” nonsense, in you case a check your brains at the church door, wish-washy, so-called “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.” Sorry, but I tend to have far more respect for the Darwinian atheists that have no need for such nonsense, and that see such notions for what they are: delusions.

bigbang said: PvM proclaims: “science cannot address the supernatural in any meaningful manner and thus the position God did it, is never at odds with science.” . As I’ve noted b/f, PvM, neither you nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for.

Wherever your subjective demarcation happens to be----between what you happen to perceive is natural, and what’s “supernatural”----is arbitrary and based only on your own ignorance and/or superstitions. If something is real, somehow exists, I think that we, through science (and/or of course mathematics), have a good chance of finding it, discovering it, understanding it.

Unlike you PvM, I’m a realist, and don’t buy into your or anyone else’s “supernatural” nonsense, in you case a check your brains at the church door, wish-washy, so-called “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.” Sorry, but I tend to have far more respect for the Darwinian atheists that have no need for such nonsense, and that see such notions for what they are: delusions.

Hi all,

Ken Miller will be a guest again of Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report, which I understand is airing at 8 PM EDT. Would anyone care to guess whether my "pal" Bill Dembski - the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design Movement - will be ranting and raving about Ken's television appearance? I am predicting he will, in light of his recent ranting and raving about Ken as a "rich Darwinist".

Cheers,

John

Apparently Mike Behe is so afraid of adverse public reaction that he's decided not to post his latest Blog post on the product page of his latest solo exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Edge of Evolution".

Well, I'll do the honors for him here:

"Once More With Feeling
11:11 AM PDT, June 16, 2008
Dear Readers,
Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, has written a new book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, in which he defends Darwinism, attacks intelligent design, and makes a case for theistic evolution (defined as something like "God used Darwinian evolution to make life"). In all this, it's pretty much a re-run of his previous book published over a decade ago, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. So if you read that book, you'll have a very good idea of what 90% of the new book concerns. For people who think that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because parts of it can be used as a paperweight or tie clip, and so would be easy to evolve by chance, Miller is their man. Despite the doubts of many - perhaps most - evolutionary biologists of the power of the Darwinian mechanism, to Miller's easy imagination evolving any complex system by chance plus selection is a piece of cake, and intermediates are to be found behind every door. A purer devotee of Darwinian wishful thinking would be hard to find.

A few events of the last ten years seem to have caught his attention. He discusses The Edge of Evolution for several pages, reprising his superficial review for Nature that I critiqued on this site last year. At a number of points he lovingly quotes Dover trial Judge John Jones, either not recognizing or purposely ignoring the fact that Jones' opinion was pretty much copied word for word from a document given to him by the plaintiff's attorneys; there's no evidence that Jones comprehended any of the expert testimony at the trial - even Miller's own testimony. Miller even quotes the passage from "Jones"' opinion which blatantly mischaracterized my testimony, placing in my mouth words that the plaintiff's attorney had actually spoken. But even that has been gone over many times; if you read the newspaper and some blogs, all this is very old hat.

The theistic evolution is the same too. (I have nothing against theistic evolution - I used to agree with it - except now I think it doesn't fit the data.) We live in a finely tuned universe, so that points to God. Miller pointedly denies that that is a scientific argument, but it's hard to see why not. How many other theological or philosophical arguments depend on the exact values of physical constants - to many significant figures - such as the charge on the electron, the strength of gravity, and so on? Reasoning based on quantitative, precise measurements of nature is science. Ironically, Miller is an intelligent design proponent when it comes to cosmology, but is contemptuous of people who see design extending further into nature than he does.

The only "new" argument in the book is Miller's complaint that his intellectual opponents are threatening America and civilization, and so must be stopped for the good of the country. (Now, how many times have you heard a politician or special pleader use that line?) America is a science-based society, you see, so we should all bow when the National Academy of Sciences speaks - anything less is un-American.

Well, it seems to me that a country which places control of the military in civilian hands is a country which recognizes that experts, like other people, can be blinded by their biases. If control of the military is too important to be left to the experts, control of education is, too. Even to experts who are as sure of themselves as Kenneth Miller is."

Ken's two major points - of which Behe "gets it" with regards to one - are these:

1) America is battling for its soul, since modern science is part and parcel as to what we are as Americans - as eloquently noted by both Ken Miller in his latest book and his eminent colleague at Brown, American historian Gordon Wood, who is regarded by many as our foremost living authority on the American Revolution and the early history of the American republic. America is battling for its soul simply because Intelligent Design advocates like Behe wish to overthrow "methodological naturalism" (in plain English, the scientific mehtod), allowing a more expansive definition of science that would also include supernatural phenomena and such sciences as astrology (which Behe admitted under oath during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District Trial). This definition threatens not only evolutionary biology, but all of the natural sciences, asking us to consider theories like relativity and quantum mechanics and the periodic table of the elements in a new, irrational light.

2) Does Intelligent Design represent a credible, better, scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity? Ken did not pose this question in "Finding Darwin's God", so he could be less selective in choosing those examples which illustrate his - and mine (which I have made here at Amazon for more than a year now) - points that Intelligent Design fails to be that alternative since it doesn't make predictions, generate research, or provide a unifying theory that allows paleontologists to talk to molecular biologists and developmental biologists (as Ken himself notes in the concluding chapter).

In private e-mail correspondence I have challenged Behe to explain how Intelligent Design represents a credible, better, scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity. I wrote him back in August 2007, after he replied to an e-mail I sent him, and have not yet received an answer. So who is Behe kidding? Intelligent Design isn't a valid scientific theory; it is, quite simple, pseudoscientific religious nonsense that is mendacious intellectual pornography.

Respectfully submitted,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Apparently Mike Behe is so afraid of adverse public reaction that he's decided not to post his latest Blog post on the product page of his latest solo exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Edge of Evolution".

I would propose an additional intermediate “species” between Behe and Miller: someone who believes that God could have tinkered, but who also believes that such tinkering is unlikely to be detected by science and thus outside of the realm of science. Such a person would sound like Miller but think like Behe. This state is a common way-station for ex-YECs like myself who are still in the process of trying to reconcile the “faith of our fathers” with the observations of modern science (a process which is considerably hindered by those on both sides who insist that one must choose between evolution and theism).

— jkc

Well, it seems to me that a country which places control of the military in civilian hands is a country which recognizes that experts, like other people, can be blinded by their biases. If control of the military is too important to be left to the experts, control of education is, too. Even to experts who are as sure of themselves as Kenneth Miller is.

bigbang said: [I] don’t buy into your or anyone else’s “supernatural” nonsense, in you case a check your brains at the church door, wish-washy, so-called “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.” Sorry, but I tend to have far more respect for the Darwinian atheists that have no need for such nonsense, and that see such notions for what they are: delusions.

PvM asks: “So explain to us in simple words why you believe science can prove or disprove the existence of a God.”

.

Obviously neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions.

OTOH, I have some sense of what a first cause creator might be, Einstein’s spirit vastly superior to that of man, or perhaps Planck’s "Mind" that is the matrix of all matter, if indeed such a first cause creator is real, exists.

Again, PvM, neither you nor anyone can state what we, employing our science and mathematics, may or eventually will be able to discover, prove, find evidence for, study. I refuse to put limits on what realities science may eventually be able to discover and/or study. If something is somehow real, somehow exists (or existed), it’s not unreasonable to think that we eventually will discover it, find evidence for it, prove it, at least as mush as science can “prove” anything.

But really PvM, the burden here is on you since you're the one putting superficial limits----based only on your subjective presuppositions and/or delusions----on what realities, what things that exist, that science is prohibited from discovering and/or studying . . . and again PVM, neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your meaningless “supernatural” god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing obviously isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions.

Kwoke quotes Behe: “Miller is an intelligent design proponent when it comes to cosmology, but is contemptuous of people who see design extending further into nature than he does.”

.

Indeed, Miller is a design proponent, even if only at the level of cosmology, and regardless of his trashing of fellow Catholic Behe. Hell, the Catholics have been beating up on each other for centuries. You Darwinian atheists best keep an eye on Miller----we already know his contempt for atheism and atheists like Dawkins, and I’d not be at all surprised if he eventually extends his design beliefs a bit further into nature; and don't forget Meyer’s truism that religion itself is a lie and a danger....

bigbang said: Indeed, Miller is a design proponent, even if only at the level of cosmology, and regardless of his trashing of fellow Catholic Behe. Hell, the Catholics have been beating up on each other for centuries. You Darwinian atheists best keep an eye on Miller----we already know his contempt for atheism and atheists like Dawkins, and I’d not be at all surprised if he eventually extends his design beliefs a bit further into nature; and don't forget Meyer’s truism that religion itself is a lie and a danger....

Indeed, Miller is a design proponent, even if only at the level of cosmology, and regardless of his trashing of fellow Catholic Behe. Hell, the Catholics have been beating up on each other for centuries. You Darwinian atheists best keep an eye on Miller—-we already know his contempt for atheism and atheists like Dawkins, and I’d not be at all surprised if he eventually extends his design beliefs a bit further into nature; and don’t forget Meyer’s truism that religion itself is a lie and a danger.…

bigbang said: PvM asks: “So explain to us in simple words why you believe science can prove or disprove the existence of a God.” . Obviously neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions.

OTOH, I have some sense of what a first cause creator might be, Einstein’s spirit vastly superior to that of man, or perhaps Planck’s "Mind" that is the matrix of all matter, if indeed such a first cause creator is real, exists.

Again, PvM, neither you nor anyone can state what we, employing our science and mathematics, may or eventually will be able to discover, prove, find evidence for, study. I refuse to put limits on what realities science may eventually be able to discover and/or study. If something is somehow real, somehow exists (or existed), it’s not unreasonable to think that we eventually will discover it, find evidence for it, prove it, at least as mush as science can “prove” anything.

PvM said:

bigbang said: PvM asks: “So explain to us in simple words why you believe science can prove or disprove the existence of a God.” . Obviously neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions.

Again you have chosen to misrepresent my position in another foolish act.

OTOH, I have some sense of what a first cause creator might be, Einstein’s spirit vastly superior to that of man, or perhaps Planck’s "Mind" that is the matrix of all matter, if indeed such a first cause creator is real, exists.

So nothing really to show support for Bigbang's vacuous position about science and the supernatural.

Again, PvM, neither you nor anyone can state what we, employing our science and mathematics, may or eventually will be able to discover, prove, find evidence for, study. I refuse to put limits on what realities science may eventually be able to discover and/or study. If something is somehow real, somehow exists (or existed), it’s not unreasonable to think that we eventually will discover it, find evidence for it, prove it, at least as mush as science can “prove” anything.

That of course is a position you may chose to believe, and indeed, fairy tales will always remain a possibility as well. Your choice to believe if science can show evidence for such beliefs. I am not sure who is delusional here though.

bigbang said: PvM asks: “So explain to us in simple words why you believe science can prove or disprove the existence of a God.” . Obviously neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions.

OTOH, I have some sense of what a first cause creator might be, Einstein’s spirit vastly superior to that of man, or perhaps Planck’s "Mind" that is the matrix of all matter, if indeed such a first cause creator is real, exists.

Again, PvM, neither you nor anyone can state what we, employing our science and mathematics, may or eventually will be able to discover, prove, find evidence for, study. I refuse to put limits on what realities science may eventually be able to discover and/or study. If something is somehow real, somehow exists (or existed), it’s not unreasonable to think that we eventually will discover it, find evidence for it, prove it, at least as mush as science can “prove” anything.

Evolutionary Biology is to science as astrology is to astronomy.

Using the molecular clock methodology, how long ago did the common ancestor of the red wood tree and the monarch butterfly exist and what was it a plant,an animal or a bacterium? Maybe an animaplant, plantaniml.

I see where Expelled is opening in Canada...YUK YUK.

"The Happening" is number two in the salvo.

Tick Tock.. Tick Tock

bigbang said: Indeed, Miller is a design proponent ...

Robin said: Why he can't grasp the concept that scientific methodolgical principles apply ONLY to science is beyond me.

Evolutionary Biology is to science as astrology is to astronomy.

Using the molecular clock methodology, how long ago did the common ancestor of the red wood tree and the monarch butterfly exist and what was it a plant, an animal or a bacterium? Maybe an animaplant, plantaniml.

Keith wrote:

"Evolutionary Biology is to science as astrology is to astronomy."

Actually, evolutionary biology is to science as stellar evolution is to astronomy. ID is to science as astrology is to science.

The last common ancestor of trees and insects was probably a protistan. It probably lived over 500 million years ago.

Branches of eukaryotes: http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

In Genesis 1, God says "Let the earth bring forth grass ... Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ... Let the earth bring forth the living creature." In short, God does not create life, but instead tells the earth and the waters to generate life. The idea that God created life is inconsistent with a literal reading of Genesis. Genesis doesn't say how the earth and the waters generated life, although today we call that process evolution. The inescapable conclusion: evolution is more closely consistent with the Bible than creationism is.

Knock it off, mate. We get enough trash science here to diseducate a regiment. We don't need trash Scripture. I recommend that one confine oneself to self-inflicted science trivia. "And God SAID, 'Let the earth bring forth grass ....." The speaking carried its own vivifying ability. When God incarnate said, "Lazarus, come forth!", he was obliged to specify Lazarus, or every corpse in the graveyard would have got up. When he spoke to the earth regarding vegetation, vegetation got up and went crazy.

Yes I know some of it was time delayed in appearing. The Bible explains that.

There is no room for common descent Darwinism, nor for spontaneous generation of life, within a biblical view. God's word empowered the earth to do the bringing forth. Except for the actual empowering/vivification, science will go close to seeing how it happened.

Similarly, there's no room within a biblically founded outlook for transubstantiation - a cornerstone of certain sectarian, non-scriptural, non-scientific religious thinking. I suspect that's one reason why many adherents to "Catholic" religion don't tend to look twice at Darwinist teachings. Ah, but there are some very fine Catholic people out there.

I do note, with all the publicity, that this "battle for America's soul", could be a handy little battle for Americans' dollars. We all should write a book.

Oh look. It must have stopped raining. Keith has emerged from under his rock, head lolling from side to side, hurling insults and dragging his bloated, towering, gargantuan ego through the mud. Which is really very appropriate for this thread, as he can substitute for Ann Coulter. It is simply stunning that Dembski would put something from her in his book, and expect to be taken seriously by the general public. Coulter has so discredited herself through her rants that even conservatives shy away from her.

Frank J said: But ID is not about personal beliefs and honest attempts to explain them to others. Rather it is deliberate misrepresentation of science - cherry picking, goal post moving, definition and concept switching, quote mining, evasion from testable claims, refusal to test any claims that slip out, etc., etc. There is no mid ground between real science and the ID scam. ... For those looking for honest interpretation of the evidence, but perhaps more religion-friendly language, scientists like Francis Collins and theologians like John Haught may resonate better than Miller. But in terms of the whats, whens and hows of biological history, they believe the same exact thing.

keith said: Evolutionary Biology is to science as astrology is to astronomy.

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said: Apparently Mike Behe is so afraid of adverse public reaction that he's decided not to post his latest Blog post on the product page of his latest solo exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Edge of Evolution".

P. S. Ken Miller and I think Behe's next opus ought to be a textbook on Klingon biochemistry. Why? With the publication of "The Edge of Evolution", Behe demonstrated that his true calling is that of a fantasy writer, emulating, at last, his hero J. R. R. Tolkien.

bigbang said: PvM asks: “So explain to us in simple words why you believe science can prove or disprove the existence of a God.” . Obviously neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions. OTOH, I have some sense of what a first cause creator might be, Einstein’s spirit vastly superior to that of man, or perhaps Planck’s "Mind" that is the matrix of all matter, if indeed such a first cause creator is real, exists.

Again, PvM, neither you nor anyone can state what we, employing our science and mathematics, may or eventually will be able to discover, prove, find evidence for, study.

I refuse to put limits on what realities science may eventually be able to discover and/or study.

If something is somehow real, somehow exists (or existed), it’s not unreasonable to think that we eventually will discover it, find evidence for it, prove it, at least as mush as science can “prove” anything.

bigbang said: PvM proclaims: “science cannot address the supernatural in any meaningful manner and thus the position God did it, is never at odds with science.” As I’ve noted b/f, PvM, neither you nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for.

Wherever your subjective demarcation happens to be----between what you happen to perceive is natural, and what’s “supernatural”----is arbitrary and based only on your own ignorance and/or superstitions.

If something is real, somehow exists, I think that we, through science (and/or of course mathematics), have a good chance of finding it, discovering it, understanding it.

Unlike you PvM, I’m a realist

, and don’t buy into your or anyone else’s “supernatural” nonsense, in you case a check your brains at the church door, wish-washy, so-called “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.” Sorry, but I tend to have far more respect for the Darwinian atheists that have no need for such nonsense, and that see such notions for what they are: delusions.

bigbang said: PvM asks: “So explain to us in simple words why you believe science can prove or disprove the existence of a God.” . Obviously neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions. OTOH, I have some sense of what a first cause creator might be, Einstein’s spirit vastly superior to that of man, or perhaps Planck’s "Mind" that is the matrix of all matter, if indeed such a first cause creator is real, exists.

Again, PvM, neither you nor anyone can state what we, employing our science and mathematics, may or eventually will be able to discover, prove, find evidence for, study. I refuse to put limits on what realities science may eventually be able to discover and/or study. If something is somehow real, somehow exists (or existed), it’s not unreasonable to think that we eventually will discover it, find evidence for it, prove it, at least as mush as science can “prove” anything.

But really PvM, the burden here is on you since you're the one putting superficial limits----based only on your subjective presuppositions and/or delusions----on what realities, what things that exist, that science is prohibited from discovering and/or studying . . . and again PVM, neither science nor anyone will ever discover or prove your meaningless “supernatural” god “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” since such a thing obviously isn’t real, doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your delusions.

Using the molecular clock methodology, how long ago did the common ancestor of the red wood tree and the monarch butterfly exist and what was it a plant,an animal or a bacterium? Maybe an animaplant, plantaniml.

Maybe an animaplant, plantaniml.

Euglena From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Euglena are common protists, of the class Euglenoidea of the phylum Euglenophyta. Currently, over 1000 species of Euglena have been described. Marin et al. (2003) revised the genus so and including several species without chloroplasts, formerly classified as Astasia and Khawkinea. Euglena sometimes can be considered to have both plant and animal features. A euglena is a protist that can eat food like animals do (partly heterotrophic) and can make food like plants do (partly autotrophic). Euglena can surround a particle of food and eat it (phagocytosis). Many Euglena contain chloroplasts and chlorophyll a and b. Euglena live in fresh water, salt water and in the soil. Many Euglena are able to move by using a flagellum, a long whip-like structure. When the water dries up, a euglena forms a thick protective wall around itself and lies dormant in the form of a spore until the environment improves. It reproduces by fission like amoeba.

Is anyone keeping track of whether there's a cycle to the loon's postings? Maybe we should start. Could be a body chemistry thing...

Robin said:

bigbang said: PvM proclaims: “science cannot address the supernatural in any meaningful manner and thus the position God did it, is never at odds with science.” As I’ve noted b/f, PvM, neither you nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for.

Which has ZERO to do with whether science can, in any practical and/or rational way include the supernatural. BY DEFINITION, it cannot be studied through the physical senses. Or did you have some other concept of "supernatural" in mind?

David Stanton said: The last common ancestor of trees and insects was probably a protistan. It probably lived over 500 million years ago.

Well, I see both FL and bigbangingbigot, having been totally debunked in one thread, are now trying to peddle the same discredited blithering in another. Not only that, but FL, at least, is even trying to take over the thread and drive out more intelligent respondents:

But this particular thread is focussed in other directions, and so you may well have to offer your questions/arguments in another forum or forums in order to obtain the really serious discussion that they deserve.

Yeah, because you won't get "serious discussion" with people like FL and bigbangingbigot spewing nonsense all over the place.

And speaking of nonsense, here's some of bigbangingbigot's latest -- which is surprisingly similar to his earliest:

Provine’s said something, somewhere, to the effect that if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, you have to check your brains at the church-house door.

Yeah, right, someone said something somewhere that you can't reliably remember -- or cite as a reference -- so we can't verify that you understand what he actually said.

Undoubtedly the Darwinian atheists, like Provine, Meyers, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, are the ones being intellectually honest and rigorous here regarding the blatantly obvious irreconcilability of Christianity/theism and Darwinism, but Miller’s Darwinism plus his wishy-washy check your brains at the door theism is probably more palatable then the genuine Darwinism of Meyrs et al that inevitably engenders atheism, so I suppose Miller’s is the version to go with; assuming the genuine Darwinians (the atheists) can control their gag reflexes.

This rubbish has already been conclusively refuted in the last thread you tried to hijack, and you know it. Your repetition of it here, unaltered, proves you're unwilling, if not unable, to function in an adult debate, or to treat others with the respect you expect from us. In fact, you're starting to sound as laughably oblivious as the Iraqi Information Minister.

Robin realizes: “Such a “first cause” would not be ‘supernatural’ . . . ”

.

Bingo.

Obviously science doesn’t address or prove “supernatural” nonsense. IOW, science doesn’t address what isn’t in some way real, what doesn’t in some way exist or hasn’t ever existed. Blatantly obvious, isn’t it?

Since PvM’s “supernatural” “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance” is something that obviously isn’t real, that doesn’t exist and never has (except perhaps in PvM’s delusions), science doesn’t and can’t address it . . . b/c it’s nonsense (except perhaps as some sort of mental disorder). And really, if God isn’t somehow real, doesn’t somehow exist, why bother?

But keep in mind that it wasn’t until the 1960s that we discovered the CMBR—which convinced most of the remaining skeptics of the validity of the BB scenario. Discovering more convincing evidence for first cause may take somewhat longer . . . or maybe science and evidence will instead point to some sort of infinite, eternal multiverse (the preferred model of Darwinian atheists).

Oops, wrong link, sorry. Here's the place:

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/mss_history.html

This guy's already got a cushy job doing talk shows in Dubai or somewhere nearby, so he probably won't need to ask the creationists for work. Besides, he's a Ay-rab, so Ann Coulter would probably resent having to work near him.

raging bee: This rubbish has already been conclusively refuted in the last thread you tried to hijack, and you know it. Your repetition of it here, unaltered, proves you’re unwilling, if not unable, to function in an adult debate, or to treat others with the respect you expect from us. In fact, you’re starting to sound as laughably oblivious as the Iraqi Information Minister.

Raging bee rages regarding Provine’s comment----"that if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, you have to check your brains at the church-house door"----and that bigbang didn’t cite a reference for that comment so that raging bee could verfy it.

Glad you asked. And I’m sorry that you couldn’t find that reference yourself. Here it is----Provine, William. 1988. "Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible." The Scientist, September 5, p. 10.

Verify away, and have a nice day.

Protistans as a group do not have specific ancestors. What identifiable organism gave riser to each entity. Answer.. you don't have the slightest idea..usual evo double-speak.

People ask what distinguishes microevolution from macroevolution as a specific limiting law.

It's very simple to understand if one considers that there is no physical law that keeps time and all processes from running backwards unless one considers the statistical probability that that such unlikely events occur. Thus the various ways of looking at the SLOT all arrive at the conclusion that all natural processes over time flow in one direction, times arrow applies, and energy becomes increasingly unusable to accomplish real processes and useful work.
And where codes and patters are a necessary aspect of operational accomplishment the same will always tend toward breakdown, error, and disfunction.

One can make perhaps 20 passes at the crap table and there is no physical law preventing 50 or 100 but as the specified complexity of the process output increases the less likely it occurs until cosmic improbability says never...never...never.

People here go berserk over some accumulation of 2-3 random point mutations when the evolutionary paradigm at the macro level require thousands of such coordinated, viable, accumulations in a specified sequence. The mistake is to ignore the cosmic unlikelihood of such extrapolations being possible, likely, or even sound reasoning.

I believe "Sears and Zemanski" illustrated the possibility of an inflated ball suddenly flying straight up 5-6 feet in the air under classical statistical mechanics. It could happen, but the probability rules it as cosmically impossible.

This group constantly proposes physically realizable events in very simplistic terms that are statistically impossible.

How does talking about currently extant organisms with certain characteristics of plants and animals in any way identify the last common ancestor of a redwood tree and a monarch butterfly?

Supposedly one can examine the DNA differences, estimate the number of mutations leading to the observed differences and calculate the time required to find a convergence to a common DNA organism. All this crap you rattle is a non-answer.

bigbang said: Robin realizes: “Such a “first cause” would not be ‘supernatural’ . . . ” Bingo. Obviously science doesn’t address or prove “supernatural” nonsense. IOW, science doesn’t address what isn’t in some way real, what doesn’t in some way exist or hasn’t ever existed. Blatantly obvious, isn’t it?

Since PvM’s “supernatural” “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance” is something that obviously isn’t real, that doesn’t exist and never has (except perhaps in PvM’s delusions), science doesn’t and can’t address it . . . b/c it’s nonsense (except perhaps as some sort of mental disorder). And really, if God isn’t somehow real, doesn’t somehow exist, why bother?

But keep in mind that it wasn’t until the 1960s that we discovered the CMBR—which convinced most of the remaining skeptics of the validity of the BB scenario. Discovering more convincing evidence for first cause may take somewhat longer . . . or maybe science and evidence will instead point to some sort of infinite, eternal multiverse (the preferred model of Darwinian atheists).

keith said: I see where Expelled is opening in Canada...YUK YUK.

zemblan said:

keith said: I see where Expelled is opening in Canada...YUK YUK.

That's what the Canadian audiences will say -- except they'll spell it "yuck, yuck," just like they did in the US. Where, by the way, the movie sank without a trace, exactly as it deserved.

Keith,

Look up cladistics in your introductory biology textbook (buy on if you have to). Animals are eukaryotes that have mitochondria but lack chloroplasts. Plants are eukaryotes that have mitochondria and chloroplasts. They are most closely related genetically to two distnct groups of protists. Both molecular clock estimates and the fossil record give the same answer. If you think that this is a non-answer, what is your answer?

As for your other conjectures, I think that it should be obvious that genetic changes need not be "coordinated" in order to produce novel features. See the thread on de novo protein evolution for an example. Why do you continue to claim that events which obviously occured are statistically impossible? Events are either possible or impossible. No event is "statistically impossible" since the numerator is always greater that zero if statistics are required.

keith said: ... where codes and patters are a necessary aspect of operational accomplishment the same will always tend toward breakdown, error, and disfunction.

keith said: ...but as the specified complexity of the process output increases...

keith said: ...accumulation of 2-3 random point mutations when the evolutionary paradigm at the macro level require thousands of such coordinated, viable, accumulations in a specified sequence. The mistake is to ignore the cosmic unlikelihood of such extrapolations being possible, likely, or even sound reasoning.

keith said: ...simplistic terms...

Such an entity could be literally ANYTHING at ANY POINT IN TIME and thus completely outside the ability of science to study regardless of its practical “existence”. So no, your argument still has no validity.

And besides, if scientists ever discovered such an entity, the religious would, in all likelihood, immediately protest that that entity didn't look like THEIR God, therefore science has still not got a handle on "the real God." (Then, of course, they'd blame science for not reinforcing their beliefs.)

bigotbang: And how many Christians agree that their doctrine is incompatible with science? I've met many Christians who don't believe any such thing, so obviously -- in addition to being already refuted elsewhere -- your assertion doesn't quite fit the observable reality.

Oh, and before you try to pretend they weren't "real Christians," let me just point out that they obey the teachings of Christ (the guy the religion was named after, remember?) more consistently and honestly than you do.

Thus the various ways of looking at the SLOT all arrive at the conclusion that all natural processes over time flow in one direction, times arrow applies, and energy becomes increasingly unusable to accomplish real processes and useful work. And where codes and patters are a necessary aspect of operational accomplishment the same will always tend toward breakdown, error, and disfunction.

Nigel D said:

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said: Apparently Mike Behe is so afraid of adverse public reaction that he's decided not to post his latest Blog post on the product page of his latest solo exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Edge of Evolution".

P. S. Ken Miller and I think Behe's next opus ought to be a textbook on Klingon biochemistry. Why? With the publication of "The Edge of Evolution", Behe demonstrated that his true calling is that of a fantasy writer, emulating, at last, his hero J. R. R. Tolkien.

John, I resent this comparison. I have a great deal of respect for JRR Tolkien as a philologist, linguist, lexicographer, professor of Anglo-Saxon and author. Conversely, I have very little respect for Michael Behe, who discarded any pretense of intellectual integrity in order to purvey his mendacious and breathtakingly inane brand of pseudoscientific claptrap.

I have looked at William Provine's brief essay
"Scientists, Face It! Science And Religion Are Incompatible"
(The Scientist, 5 September 1988, 2(16):10)

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/8667/

It is clearly labeled "OPINION", and in the first two paragraphs he is generous and accurate in stating that large numbers of scientists don't share his opinion.

Provine says "Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists." This is very easy to do. For example, I believe that chicken is tastier than beef. This is a demonstrably unscientific belief -- science says nothing one way or the other about the tastiness of beef relative to chicken. We all have beliefs that are demonstrably unscientific, so every person falls within category (2). Provine is very safe in saying that every person who holds science and religion to be compatible will fall into category (2), because every person falls into category (2).

The poster known as "bigbang" however, thinks that science might one day grow to give a definitive answer to every question, including the question of relative tastiness of beef and chicken.

I support Bill Provine's right to his opinion, and I support bigbang's right to his/her opinion. However bigbang has confused Provine's opinion with a fact, and I can't support anyone confusing facts and opinions.

Dan said: The poster known as "bigbang" however, thinks that science might one day grow to give a definitive answer to every question, including the question of relative tastiness of beef and chicken. I support Bill Provine's right to his opinion, and I support bigbang's right to his/her opinion. However bigbang has confused Provine's opinion with a fact, and I can't support anyone confusing facts and opinions.

keith said: All this crap you rattle is a non-answer.

Aren't all of Charlemange's incoherent posts rants supposed to be moderated or sent immediately to the Bathroom Wall?

Keith says People here go berserk over some accumulation of 2-3 random point mutations when the evolutionary paradigm at the macro level require thousands of such coordinated, viable, accumulations in a specified sequence.

Provine, William. 1988. “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible.” The Scientist, September 5, p. 10.

jkc said: I would propose an additional intermediate "species" between Behe and Miller: someone who believes that God could have tinkered, but who also believes that such tinkering is unlikely to be detected by science and thus outside of the realm of science.

Such a person would sound like Miller but think like Behe.

This state is a common way-station for ex-YECs like myself who are still in the process of trying to reconcile the "faith of our fathers" with the observations of modern science (a process which is considerably hindered by those on both sides who insist that one must choose between evolution and theism).

Hi All,

Have decided to post this review of the latest book from Michael Ruse and William Dembski in the event Amazon.com decides to remove it. Over the past week they have removed, then restored, and then, removed again, two reviews I wrote which are humorous parodies of the Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" and the Elton John song "Sad Songs (Say So Much)" of Behe et al.'s "Intelligent Design 101" and David Berlinski's "The Devil's Disciple". Amazon claims what I wrote is offensive and contrary to their guidelines, but frankly, I think they were pressured by the Disco Tute. If you have a chance, please ask Amazon.com to rescind its decision - I've just alerted them to the fact that I have sent copies of our e-mail correspondence to journalists at SEED magazine, the Washington Post and the New York Times. And if you haven't done so already, please take a look at my other reviews, especially those of Ken Miller's new book and Lauri Lebo's too and please vote accordingly.

"Where to Now, Bill Dembski?"

Kept reading about Intelligent Design till my eyes were paralyzed.
Thought Bill Dembski's comments were most strange.
Recognizing that his defense of explanatory filter and
specified complexity were so queer.
Gratified to be reading the real truth from Nick Matzke.
Reading the science truth from Wes Elsberry too.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

Recognize that Intelligent Design is
pathetic Klingon Cosmology
Recognize why it's just queer
mendacious intellectual pornography.
Understanding why you're so wrong Bill Dembski
Your mind paralyzed by your Christian God.

Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity,
Just all the same to me.
Mendacious religious nonsense,
Pretending to be scientific theory.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

(with apologies to the person formerly known as Reg Dwight and his long-time partner Bernie Taupin)

Regards,

John

Hi All,

Have decided to post this review of the latest book from Michael Ruse and William Dembski in the event Amazon.com decides to remove it. Over the past week they have removed, then restored, and then, removed again, two reviews I wrote which are humorous parodies of the Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" and the Elton John song "Sad Songs (Say So Much)" of Behe et al.'s "Intelligent Design 101" and David Berlinski's "The Devil's Disciple". Amazon claims what I wrote is offensive and contrary to their guidelines, but frankly, I think they were pressured by the Disco Tute. If you have a chance, please ask Amazon.com to rescind its decision - I've just alerted them to the fact that I have sent copies of our e-mail correspondence to journalists at SEED magazine, the Washington Post and the New York Times. And if you haven't done so already, please take a look at my other reviews, especially those of Ken Miller's new book and Lauri Lebo's too and please vote accordingly.

"Where to Now, Bill Dembski?"

Kept reading about Intelligent Design till my eyes were paralyzed.
Thought Bill Dembski's comments were most strange.
Recognizing that his defense of explanatory filter and
specified complexity were so queer.
Gratified to be reading the real truth from Nick Matzke.
Reading the science truth from Wes Elsberry too.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

Recognize that Intelligent Design is
pathetic Klingon Cosmology
Recognize why it's just queer
mendacious intellectual pornography.
Understanding why you're so wrong Bill Dembski
Your mind paralyzed by your Christian God.

Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity,
Just all the same to me.
Mendacious religious nonsense,
Pretending to be scientific theory.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

(with apologies to the person formerly known as Reg Dwight and his long-time partner Bernie Taupin)

Regards,

John

Elzina, alias butthead, thinks the formation of highly ordered but totally non-complex , non-living snowflakes are the same as living organisms and cellular operations in terms of their heterogeneity, information content dependence as in the genetic CODE, and the number of interoperational components.

All of the examples you think counter certain aspects of the SLOT argument in its broadest interpretation are simply non-living physical phenomenon that comport completely with the laws of physics and chemistry, have no known dependencies on information content or codes, and are not particularly complex in a comparative sense.

The difference between us is that I actually have taken thermo in engineering school and an advanced class in the physics school as well as performing process engineering modeling activities requiring such notions as SLOT to be accounted for in the modeling work.

Your so called examples display a level of ignorance on the expanded subject common throughout the evo community and are so laughable as to hardly deserve comment.

You might consider Lee Spetner's "Not by Chance".... oh and those little curvy vertical lines are called integral signs.

Give me your address so I can send you the 2008 Dumbass Trophy. From now on you'll be known as Snowflake.

keith said: People here go berserk over some accumulation of 2-3 random point mutations when the evolutionary paradigm at the macro level require thousands of such coordinated, viable, accumulations in a specified sequence.

The mistake is to ignore the cosmic unlikelihood of such extrapolations being possible, likely, or even sound reasoning.

Make that "heel", blame the Celtics and Lakers.

Hi all,

This is my Amazon review of "Intelligent Design 101" which Amazon has removed:

"I want my IDiot-cy"

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

Look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it. You put fat Mike Behe on the Christian TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it. You get your money for nothing like those books from Dembski!

That ain't working - that's the way you do it. Them DI guys ain't dumb. Maybe buy this book at Amazon.com; maybe buy this book at Barnes and Noble.com.

We gotta brainwash American high school children, custom Creo deliveries. We gotta move these IDiot books. Gotta move these ID videos....

That ain't working... that's the way you do it. You put old Ben Stein on the Fox TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it . You get your money for nothing like those books from Behe!

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

(With apologies to Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler. With profound thanks to Stephen Marley for writing the last stanza.)

Cheers,

John

Who says thousands are needed for a specified sequence? Three mutations were needed for a specific trait (Citrate Utilization), thousands were accumulating over time that can lead to future changes.

All of the examples you think counter certain aspects of the SLOT argument in its broadest interpretation are simply non-living physical phenomenon that comport completely with the laws of physics and chemistry, have no known dependencies on information content or codes, and are not particularly complex in a comparative sense.

The difference between us is that I actually have taken thermo in engineering school and an advanced class in the physics school as well as performing process engineering modeling activities requiring such notions as SLOT to be accounted for in the modeling work.

Your so called examples display a level of ignorance on the expanded subject common throughout the evo community and are so laughable as to hardly deserve comment. You might consider Lee Spetner’s “Not by Chance”.… oh and those little curvy vertical lines are called integral signs. Give me your address so I can send you the 2008 Dumbass Trophy. From now on you’ll be known as Snowflake.

Keith: instead of stamping your little feet and loudly insisting that you took courses and know stuff, why don't you explain exactly how the formation of living systems violates SLOT and the formation of snowflakes from unordered water does not. In order to do this, you'll have to define, and quantify, the central concepts of "complexity," "information," and -- the last-ditch dodge -- "specification." Did they teach you any of that in the physics courses you took?

The obvious answer, of course, is that you can't; the concepts are empty abstractions. That's why you fall back on name-calling even as you protest your superior knowledge.

Keith pulls the "I am an engineer therefore what I say must be true" argument. Well, Keith, let's see. Obviously you are not going to accept empirical argument and evidence as a rebuttal (as amply demonstrated on this blog), and you refuse to acknowledge that anyone without an engineering degree knows anything about thermodynamics. So let's put your "credentials" argument to the test. My brother in law is a PhD. in nuclear physics. He runs a major research project. He knows a tad about thermodynamics. His wife is a nuclear engineer with a masters degree. The both think that your argument is retarded. My neighbor is a PhD. nuclear physicist. He thinks your idea is incomprehensibly bizarre, especially given that you are an engineer and should know better (he looked puzzled and laughed at the argument, actually). My son's best friend's father is a PhD. engineer. He finds your argument "stupid", and in fact points out that ALL of the engineers in his department (all PhD.'s) think that the SLOT argument is "stupid." I know three other PhD. physicists. They think that your argument is bizarre, and that you do not comprehend thermodynamics, at least as far as biological systems go. I'm sure that we can find a number of folks on this list who are similarly willing to show your arguments (and the standard creationist SLOT stuff) to PhD.'s in physics, chemistry and engineering, and have a veritable plethora of testimonials to the fact that you have no clue about what you are talking about. And remember, this is not ME critiquing you. This is the physicists and engineers with equal, or more likely BETTER, qualifications than you (at least by your definition).

Mplavkin,

Claiming to have such reviews of some unidenified post by a dozen people in about 1 hour is of course pure BS. You are a liar and a pig period.

You fail to even identify what arguments you had reviewed.

I have yet to see a single evo who can even identify the proper definitions of a closed, open, isolated, or flow-through system or recognize that systems are defined by arbitrary boundaries chosen for problem solving expediency.

No one doubts that the chemistry of currently extant life processes overcome thermo restraints by a constant supply of energy rendered useful by precise and well defined physio-chemical processes such as photosynthesis and metabolism. The question posed is how did such conversion processes arise from raw non-living matter to be operative. Unless you think unrectified sun energy was sufficient to operate directly by just making matter hot.

Your criticism and imaginary expert reviews are pure BS and mean zippo.

Do your experts agree with your team that snowflakes and crystals are illustrative of overcoming SLOT ...WOW they are as dumb as the rest of you.

As I recall Spetner is an MIT PhD physicist with an extensive research and publication CV including the life sciences, mathematics, and physics. Why don't your friends take up the arguments with Lee since he is on my side of the argument.

So now we see you proposing a new biology where change occurs not by new sequences of the molecules comprising the genetic code developed by mutation producing altered proteins from a specific sequence of "letters" read and processed in the cell but by some mysterious multi-gene, scattered pick and choose sequence of letters from multiple sites, wherein the order in which these "letters are read makes no particular difference to the result".

Wow, a total new biology presented right here by the BS boys.

Of course every biological feature of interest produced by the expression of the proteins produced by specified sequences is totally non-functional unless accompanied by the neurological, nervous system, capabilities integrated into the organism.

Oh look I have a sensitive light molecule , whoops, I have no connection to nervous system to communicate with that spot, no processing capacity for that information, what the hell is that spot for. End of spot.

Oh I forgot all the changes occurred simultaneously to enable the entire organism to integrate the new local physical change..Yeah for sure uh huh.

Bye Bye Snowflake

Hit a nerve, eh Keith? Yes, I actually have discussed your arguments at length, because the SLOT arguments that you make are common and have been around ever since Morris published his book. When you come up with something new, I'll pass it along. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Claiming to have such reviews of some unidenified post by a dozen people in about 1 hour is of course pure BS. You are a liar and a pig period.

Eric Finn said: However, even Dawkins, in his books, states clearly that science can't disprove theistic gods, although he thinks that their existence is very improbable.

No one doubts that the chemistry of currently extant life processes overcome thermo restraints by a constant supply of energy rendered useful by precise and well defined physio-chemical processes such as photosynthesis and metabolism.

bigbang said: Raging bee rages regarding Provine’s comment----"that if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, you have to check your brains at the church-house door"----and that bigbang didn’t cite a reference for that comment so that raging bee could verfy it. Glad you asked. And I’m sorry that you couldn’t find that reference yourself. Here it is----Provine, William. 1988. "Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible." The Scientist, September 5, p. 10. Verify away, and have a nice day.

John Kwok said: Dear Nigel, I understand completely, since I am also a fan of Tolkein's:

Nigel D said: John, I resent this comparison. I have a great deal of respect for JRR Tolkien as a philologist, linguist, lexicographer, professor of Anglo-Saxon and author. Conversely, I have very little respect for Michael Behe, who discarded any pretense of intellectual integrity in order to purvey his mendacious and breathtakingly inane brand of pseudoscientific claptrap.

However, I think dear old Mike Behe has lost his grip on reality. About a year ago I sarcastically referred to him as "Gandalf". Maybe Saruman might be a better nickname. Regards, John

mplavcan said: Keith pulls the "I am an engineer therefore what I say must be true" argument. Well, Keith, let's see. Obviously you are not going to accept empirical argument and evidence as a rebuttal (as amply demonstrated on this blog), and you refuse to acknowledge that anyone without an engineering degree knows anything about thermodynamics. So let's put your "credentials" argument to the test. My brother in law is a PhD. in nuclear physics. He runs a major research project. He knows a tad about thermodynamics. His wife is a nuclear engineer with a masters degree. The both think that your argument is retarded. My neighbor is a PhD. nuclear physicist. He thinks your idea is incomprehensibly bizarre, especially given that you are an engineer and should know better (he looked puzzled and laughed at the argument, actually). My son's best friend's father is a PhD. engineer. He finds your argument "stupid", and in fact points out that ALL of the engineers in his department (all PhD.'s) think that the SLOT argument is "stupid." I know three other PhD. physicists. They think that your argument is bizarre, and that you do not comprehend thermodynamics, at least as far as biological systems go. I'm sure that we can find a number of folks on this list who are similarly willing to show your arguments (and the standard creationist SLOT stuff) to PhD.'s in physics, chemistry and engineering, and have a veritable plethora of testimonials to the fact that you have no clue about what you are talking about. And remember, this is not ME critiquing you. This is the physicists and engineers with equal, or more likely BETTER, qualifications than you (at least by your definition).

Mike Elzinga said:

No one doubts that the chemistry of currently extant life processes overcome thermo restraints by a constant supply of energy rendered useful by precise and well defined physio-chemical processes such as photosynthesis and metabolism.

There it is again; thermodynamics introduces “restraints” which must be overcome. Yet he offers no explanation how thermodynamics produces some kind of obstacle(s) or barrier(s) that must be “overcome”. No explanation of the mechanism(s) by which thermodynamics does this. I would venture a guess that keith can’t even conceive of an explanation that elaborates the mechanism(s) by which thermodynamics places “barriers” in the way of evolution or any other organized behaviors of physical systems. It appears that keith can't even produce a single sentence about thermodynamics that does not contain major misconceptions and mischaracterizations.

keith said: You might consider Lee Spetner's "Not by Chance"

keith said: .... oh and those little curvy vertical lines are called integral signs.

So let's see if your logic is somewhat comparable to that of of an an imbecile.

Evolution is a random walk through animal space wherein the process of RM and NS wander from one reproductively viable state of being to another wherein each and every step without exception is undirected, unplanned, without goals, and totally unpredictable. (Straight from the same Dawkin's book)

Goofball's like this crowd are the only pseudo scientific group that can propose such definitive language and yet define the same process as deterministic. Perhaps (if one can read the prior posters driving at random and arriving SOMEWHERE as a proof of statistical likelihood, without puking on your keyboard) one can then accept RANDOM mutations as actually being deterministic, the environment of the population and its effects such as climate, weather, predation, disease, floods, cosmic catastrophe, etc. as all being perfectly predictable and non-random, then you can be a Stirling evolander.

Or you can choose to be sane, non-psychotic, intelligent, informed, mentally balanced and capable of rational thought.

Yes quintessentially non-random does not mean deterministic. Random mutations are not indicative of randomness. Random walks and Markov processes are actually deterministic and not random. Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

Such is the sad state of biological science at this date... a cadre of double-speaking morons entrenched in their delusions. The children left behind.

Keith raved/blithered thusly:

Claiming to have such reviews of some unidenified post by a dozen people in about 1 hour is of course pure BS. You are a liar and a pig period.

Your SLOT arguments are among the oldest in the creationist playbook. They've been so solidly debunked, even most creationists no longer use them. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that any engineer familiar with the issues would have already had plenty of time to address, and debunk, any of your SLOT arguments.

I have yet to see a single evo who can even identify the proper definitions of a closed, open, isolated, or flow-through system or recognize that systems are defined by arbitrary boundaries chosen for problem solving expediency.

That's because you refuse to look. If you had, you would know that the boundaries, as drawn for purposes of discussing ecosystems, are anything but "arbitrary." If a boundary is set for "expediency," then, by definition, it's not "arbitrary."

Do your experts agree with your team that snowflakes and crystals are illustrative of overcoming SLOT …WOW they are as dumb as the rest of you.

There's no need for them to "overcome" SLOT. SLOT does not prevent them from happening.

Every time your arguments are refuted, or your "authority" exposed and discredited, you turn up the insults, bluster, phony authority, and lame verbal bullying, obviously expecting machismo to substitute for good sense. The fact that you use the tactics of drunken barroom shouting-matches on a written forum, speaks volumes about your intellect.

Okay, now he's starting to sound like Phil. Maybe he should put up his own timecube page.

keith said: Goofball's like this crowd ...

Oh, and hey, didja notice how he snuck in that abiogenesis argument, too? Way to crank up the incoherence factor, there, Keith.

Or you can choose to be sane, non-psychotic, intelligent, informed, mentally balanced and capable of rational thought.

keith said: Or you can choose to be sane, non-psychotic, intelligent, informed, mentally balanced and capable of rational thought.

Nigel D said: In other words, you have utterly failed to present any argument that religion and science are incompatable.

Nigel asks: “So, bigbang, in what way is a 20-year-old reference relevant to the debate today?”

.

In the same way that Darwinian P. Z. Meyers’s current statement has today, that “religion itself is a lie and a danger,” and that those that hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy"; in the same way uber-Darwinian Dawkins’s recent God Delusion is relevant. Hello?

The more you people deny what is so utterly slam-dunk obvious----that Darwinism does indeed typically and inevitably engender atheism (and often a militant anti-theism), the more you expose your utter lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor.

The unavoidable conclusion, I’m sorry to say, is that Darwinians are atheists or liars. (Although there are those who modify their Darwinism enough to adopt a theistic evolution, like Ken Miller, who does indeed believe in design, but stipulates that the design extends only to the extent of the Universe, a universe created by God with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely---IOW, essentially inevitable; since, after all, we’re here and since their omniscient God answers prayers. Still, why their God set things up so that an undirected RM+NS crapshoot was responsible for generating we humans, made in the image of their God, is a bit muddled; except that it helps square with their belief that an undirected RM+NS actually did somehow eventually generate us made in the image of God sentient beings.)

bigbang wrote:

"Still, why their God set things up so that an undirected RM+NS crapshoot was responsible for generating we humans, made in the image of their God, is a bit muddled; except that it helps square with their belief that an undirected RM+NS actually did somehow eventually generate us made in the image of God sentient beings.)"

In other words, their views are consistent with reality.

Now if only bigbang could figure out why that is desirable.

keith said: Evolution is a random walk through animal space ...

keith said: ... wherein the process of RM and NS wander from one reproductively viable state of being to another wherein each and every step without exception is undirected, unplanned, without goals, and totally unpredictable. (Straight from the same Dawkin's book)

bigbangBigot said: Nigel asks: “So, bigbangBigot, in what way is a 20-year-old reference relevant to the debate today?” . In the same way that Darwinian P. Z. Meyers’s current statement has today, that “religion itself is a lie and a danger,” and that those that hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy"; in the same way uber-Darwinian Dawkins’s recent God Delusion is relevant. Hello?

The more you people deny what is so utterly slam-dunk obvious----that Darwinism does indeed typically and inevitably engender atheism (and often a militant anti-theism), the more you expose your utter lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor.

The unavoidable conclusion, I’m sorry to say, is that Darwinians are atheists or liars. (Although there are those who modify their Darwinism enough to adopt a theistic evolution, like Ken Miller, who does indeed believe in design, but stipulates that the design extends only to the extent of the Universe, a universe created by God with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely---IOW, essentially inevitable; since, after all, we’re here and since their omniscient God answers prayers. Still, why their God set things up so that an undirected RM+NS crapshoot was responsible for generating we humans, made in the image of their God, is a bit muddled; except that it helps square with their belief that an undirected RM+NS actually did somehow eventually generate us made in the image of God sentient beings.)

bigbang said: The unavoidable conclusion, I’m sorry to say, is that Darwinians are atheists or liars.

keith said: Thus the various ways of looking at the SLOT all arrive at the conclusion that all natural processes over time flow in one direction, times arrow applies, and energy becomes increasingly unusable to accomplish real processes and useful work.

keith said: Do your experts agree with your team that snowflakes and crystals are illustrative of overcoming SLOT .

keith said: Or you can choose to be sane, non-psychotic, intelligent, informed, mentally balanced and capable of rational thought.

In an above post Stanton says bigbang has yet to explain “why religion and science are incompatible until the “first cause” is found.”

.

How utterly disingenuous of Stanton, but then that seems to be his MO----a deceitful whiner of sorts. (I've never said or suggested such nonsense.) I find his lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor rather pathetic.

Belief in a first cause God (the essential belief of monotheism) and science are not, of course, incompatible, especially since there is much evidence and science that points to first cause.

Pop quiz for everyone else----what atheist said “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known”? Hint: initials are CS, as in Carl Sagan.

sylvilagus said: The mere fact that you sue the phrase "overcoming SLOT" shows that you don't understand SLOT. Nothing overcomes SLOT. Period. Instead there are specific circumstances under which SLOT predicts "backwards" processes. These are fully consistent expressions of SLOT, not some kind of violation or process "overcoming" it. This is a pretty basic stuff for someone who claims the level of knowledge you do. Let me guess, was your thermo course pretty much "plug and chug"?

Dan asks: “Okay, so as for Pope Benedict … is he an atheist or a liar?”

.

No Dan, I doubt the Pope is an atheist or a liar. Read the next sentence, right after that one Dan, about those who modify their Darwinism enough to adopt a theistic evolution. Are you really that dense, Dan? Hello?

And recall Pope John Paul’s statement on “natural evolution”----“the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis."

See that Dan, and all the rest of you people? The Pope, similar to the Catholic Ken Miller (and Behe too), all believe in a first cause God that created, i.e. designed, the universe that we find ourselves in, a universe created by God with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely---IOW, essentially inevitable, wherein an omniscient God could then answer our prayers. Hello?

How many times must I repeat what is so blatantly obvious? WTF is wrong with you people?

So let’s see if your logic is somewhat comparable to that of an imbecile.

a cadre of double-speaking morons entrenched in their delusions.

Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

please tell us why you think that the last 3 Popes are militant atheists

keith said: Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

Evolution is a random walk through animal space wherein the process of RM and NS wander from one reproductively viable state of being to another wherein each and every step without exception is undirected, unplanned, without goals, and totally unpredictable. (Straight from the same Dawkin’s book) Goofball’s like this crowd are the only pseudo scientific group that can propose such definitive language and yet define the same process as deterministic.

And recall Pope John Paul’s statement on “natural evolution”—-“the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis

How many times must I repeat what is so blatantly obvious? WTF is wrong with you people?

bigbangBigot said: In an above post Stanton says bigbang has yet to explain “why religion and science are incompatible until the “first cause” is found.” . How utterly disingenuous of Stanton, but then that seems to be his MO----a deceitful whiner of sorts. (I've never said or suggested such nonsense.) I find his lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor rather pathetic.

Belief in a first cause God (the essential belief of monotheism) and science are not, of course, incompatible, especially since there is much evidence and science that points to first cause.

Pop quiz for everyone else----what atheist said “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known”? Hint: initials are CS, as in Carl Sagan.

bigbangBigot said: Dan asks: “Okay, so as for Pope Benedict … is he an atheist or a liar?” . No Dan, I doubt the Pope is an atheist or a liar. Read the next sentence, right after that one Dan, about those who modify their Darwinism enough to adopt a theistic evolution. Are you really that dense, Dan? Hello?

And recall Pope John Paul’s statement on “natural evolution”----“the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." See that Dan, and all the rest of you people? The Pope, similar to the Catholic Ken Miller (and Behe too), all believe in a first cause God that created, i.e. designed, the universe that we find ourselves in, a universe created by God with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely---IOW, essentially inevitable, wherein an omniscient God could then answer our prayers. Hello? How many times must I repeat what is so blatantly obvious? WTF is wrong with you people?

Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

Why is Keith so intent on making Christianity look so foolish by his ill informed comments about science?
Is this an epidemic?

Why is Keith so intent on making Christianity look so foolish by his ill informed comments about science?
Is this an epidemic?

I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained, — namely, that each species has been independently created, — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable ; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main, but not exclusive, means of modification."

— Darwin

cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class." Furthermore, "I believe that all animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number."

— Darwin

Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

Two hypotheses divide the scientific world, very unequally, upon the origin of the existing diversity of the plants and animals which surround us. One assumes that the actual kinds are primordial ; the other, that they are derivative. One, that all kinds originated supernaturally and directly as such, and have continued unchanged in the order of Nature ; the other, that the present kinds appeared in some sort of genealogical connection with other and earlier kinds, that they became what they now are in the course of time and in the order of Nature. Or, bringing in the word Species, which is well defined as " the perennial succession of individuals," commonly of very like individuals, — as a close corporation of individuals perpetuated by generation, instead of election, — and reducing the question to mathematical simplicity of statement : species are lines of individuals coming down from the past and running on to the future, lines receding, therefore, from our view in either direction. Within our limited observation they appear to be parallel lines, as a general thing neither approaching to nor diverging from each other. The first hypothesis assumes that they were parallel from the unknown beginning and will be to the unknown end. The second hypothesis assumes that the apparent parallelism is not real and complete, at least aboriginally, but approximate or temporary; that we should find the lines convergent in the past, if we could trace them far enough ; that some of them, if produced back, would fall into certain fragments of lines, which have left traces in the past, lying not exactly in the same direction, and these farther back into others to which they are equally unparallel. It will also claim that the present lines, whether on the whole really or only approximately parallel, sometimes fork or send off branches on one side or the other, producing new lines, (varieties,) which run for a while, and for aught we know indefinitely when not interfered with, near and approximately parallel to the parent line. This claim it can establish ; and it may also show that these close subsidiary lines may branch or vary again, and that those branches or varieties which are best adapted to the existing conditions may be continued, while others stop or die out. And so we may have the basis of a real theory of the diversification of species ; and here, indeed, there is a real, though a narrow, established ground to build upon. But, as systems of organic Nature, both are equally hypotheses, are suppositions of what there is no proof of from experience, assumed in order to account for the observed phenomena, and supported by such indirect evidence as can be had. Even when the upholders of the former and more popular system mix up revelation with scientific discussion, — which we decline to do, — they by no means thereby render their view other than hypothetical.

Yes, Stanton, Bigbang is not very consistent in these matters and easily convinced by Atheist arguments.

...Darwinism does indeed typically and inevitably engender atheism (and often a militant anti-theism)...

Nothing "engenders atheism" as much as being exposed to ignorant, illogical, bigoted, hateful and/or useless religious doctrines that clearly contradict observable reality and/or basic decency. Your attempt to blame evolution for this phenomenon is nothing more than another cowardly dodge. Every time people like YOU insist that a proven scieitific theory or explanation is "irreconcilable" with YOUR religion, it is YOU who "engender atheism" by forcing us to choose between YOUR belief and reality. If you make your religion look stupid, and we abandon it in droves, that's not evolution's fault, it's yours.

If one adopts a religious belief that works in one's life, and doesn't flatly contradict objective reality, then evolution won't take one away from it, any more than would heleocentrism or germ-theory. (And I'm quite sure both of those theories were once accused of "engendering atheism" too.)

Christianity has been dealing with reality for over TWO THOUSAND YEARS; and you haven't learned from a single one of them.

fnxtr said:

Or you can choose to be sane, non-psychotic, intelligent, informed, mentally balanced and capable of rational thought.

SPROING!!! Guess what that was. Go on, guess.

Thank you Brighton and Larryboy for submitting posts that eviscerate the encapsulated commonly held position of the evolander ignoramuses on the subject of probability, statistics, random processes, and their application of these terms to the ongoing debate.

If you were paying attention to the posts you would be aware that my comment was a sarcasm directed at the posts by your team concerning driving at random across country making arbitrary turns, etc. and after arriving " SOMEWHERE" declares that the final state was not the result of a statistical improbability because it occurred , was not random in that sense. And that snowflakes are examples of spontaneous processes forming complex systems.

I appreciate your argument demonstrating the total ignorance of the evolanders who constantly state such imbecilic arguments. Oh and let's not forget the perfect bridge hand that is not more unlikely because all hands are equally probable regardless of the usefulness or efficacy of the hand.

As for SLOT the examples always and forever by evodolts ignore the coupling of the so called "backward or neg-entropy processes" to sources of energy which when considered always satisfy the SLOT demand of increased entropy. Of course ignoring the coupling mechanisms is a sophomoric error and indicates again the total ignorance of the evolander community on the subject.

Prigogine specifically stated his theory held no support for application to biological systems..,,.period.

Eddies flow up stream for short periods because they are coupled to the turbulent flow characteristics of the stream, channel roughness, etc. and derive energy from the turbulence which when considered in the proper application of the laws again always result in net entropy production. Eddies are a circular pattern and thus partly upstream flows and partly downstream flows. Upstream paddlers can eddy hop if they are careful observers.

As for entropy barriers I would assume people are referring to the limits on the efficiency of processes involving cycles, heat transfer and pv work imposed by temperature differentials as limiting said efficiencies. Heat pumps are nearly useless at about 10 degrees F. outside temperature for a 70 defree inside temperature.

In the chemistry of life most reactions will not spontaneously occur because of the Gibbs free energy considerations and require continuous enzymatic catalytic energy to proceed as well as product removal. Any student will be aware that the laws of thermo can be stated as maximum entropy or minimum energy formulations and yield identical results and conclusions.

Do I need to dumb this down a little further?

If you were paying attention to the posts you would be aware that my comment was a sarcasm directed at the posts by your team concerning driving at random across country making arbitrary turns, etc. and after arriving “ SOMEWHERE” declares that the final state was not the result of a statistical improbability because it occurred , was not random in that sense. (My emphasis)

Do I need to dumb this down a little further?

You tell us -- you're the dumbest one here.

keith said: If you were paying attention to the posts you would be aware that my comment was a sarcasm directed at the posts by your team concerning driving at random across country making arbitrary turns, etc. and after arriving " SOMEWHERE" declares that the final state was not the result of a statistical improbability because it occurred , was not random in that sense. And that snowflakes are examples of spontaneous processes forming complex systems.

As for SLOT the examples always and forever by evodolts ignore the coupling of the so called “backward or neg-entropy processes” to sources of energy which when considered always satisfy the SLOT demand of increased entropy. Of course ignoring the coupling mechanisms is a sophomoric error and indicates again the total ignorance of the evolander community on the subject.

keith wrote: Thank you Brighton and Larryboy for submitting posts that eviscerate the encapsulated commonly held position of the evolander ignoramuses on the subject of probability, statistics, random processes, and their application of these terms to the ongoing debate. If you were paying attention to the posts you would be aware that my comment was a sarcasm directed at the posts by your team concerning driving at random across country making arbitrary turns, etc. and after arriving “ SOMEWHERE” declares that the final state was not the result of a statistical improbability because it occurred , was not random in that sense. And that snowflakes are examples of spontaneous processes forming complex systems.

BrightonRocks wrote:

Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

This is utterly wrong, showing a complete misunderstanding of randomness and probability. A process is random if the results show no determined pattern but form a probability distribution. The observation that a result occurred does not make the process non-random. You seem hopelessly confused between the a priori probability distribution of the results of a process and the post hoc observation of a result. What you are saying is that if I throw a dice and observe that the result is a ‘3’ then the mere fact that I have ‘realized’ an outcome means that the result was non-random. For this to be true then there must be no probability distribution but a determined pattern, thus all future throws have now been made non-random by merely observing a result. This is so completely wrong that it could not have been written by someone with any understanding of randomness or probability.

Larry Boy wrote:

keith said: Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

Wait wait wait… This does not make sense. How the heck are you defining random? Most people would call a flip of a fair coin ‘random’. This is standard usage of the word. If you would like to invent a new word for whatever you are talking about, please feel free, but using the word ‘random’ to mean something other than random is ridiculous. To prevent any argument over whether a coin toss is random (which it is), we can instead refer to a quantum phenomenon, which reach single realized end states which are the result of a random process. Or perhaps your sentence doesn’t mean anything at all.

Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred.

keith wrote: So let's see if your logic is somewhat comparable to that of of an an imbecile. Evolution is a random walk through animal space wherein the process of RM and NS wander from one reproductively viable state of being to another wherein each and every step without exception is undirected, unplanned, without goals, and totally unpredictable. (Straight from the same Dawkin's book) Goofball's like this crowd are the only pseudo scientific group that can propose such definitive language and yet define the same process as deterministic. Perhaps (if one can read the prior posters driving at random and arriving SOMEWHERE as a proof of statistical likelihood, without puking on your keyboard) one can then accept RANDOM mutations as actually being deterministic, the environment of the population and its effects such as climate, weather, predation, disease, floods, cosmic catastrophe, etc. as all being perfectly predictable and non-random, then you can be a Stirling evolander. Or you can choose to be sane, non-psychotic, intelligent, informed, mentally balanced and capable of rational thought. Yes quintessentially non-random does not mean deterministic. Random mutations are not indicative of randomness. Random walks and Markov processes are actually deterministic and not random. Any process that has some possible result, once realized is by definition non-random because it occurred. Such is the sad state of biological science at this date... a cadre of double-speaking morons entrenched in their delusions. The children left behind.

The inability of this crowd to appreciate sarcasm and just about every other literary form ourside their narrow vision of reality and psychologically imbalanced view of same is one reason why I enjoy posting here. It's so entertaining to test the depth of their ignorance of legitimate science, critical thinking, ability to appreciate and understand even the most simplistic concepts.

I do not accept the evolutionary construction of a man or anything else since I don't even accept the abiogenesis of a first living first replicator. Which ad finitum has never been elucidated in any remotely scienctific manner by this crowd of metaphysical true believers.

Since there is plenty of short and long wavelength light around from the sun I suppose your explanation of abiogenesis by sunburn is your next immediate post.

What an idiot.

I made an email proposal to Dembski and explained his reply some time ago. When he contacts me that he is ready and can schedule, I will proceed. I cannot force the issue further.

Stick it in your ear.

Keith-
It the creationists who look at the current endpoint of the random walk and then argue that we must have been guided here because there are so many other points we could have wound up at.
Projection much?

keith said: The inability of this crowd to appreciate sarcasm and just about every other literary form ourside their narrow vision of reality and psychologically imbalanced view of same is one reason why I enjoy posting here. It's so entertaining to test the depth of their ignorance of legitimate science, critical thinking, ability to appreciate and understand even the most simplistic concepts. I do not accept the evolutionary construction of a man or anything else since I don't even accept the abiogenesis of a first living first replicator. Which ad finitum has never been elucidated in any remotely scienctific manner by this crowd of metaphysical true believers. Since there is plenty of short and long wavelength light around from the sun I suppose your explanation of abiogenesis by sunburn is your next immediate post. What an idiot.

The deceitful Stanton asks: “Then why have you been saying that religion and science are incompatible?”

.

Again, how utterly dishonest of this Stanton fellow. Where have I ever said that belief in a first cause God (the essence of all monotheism) and science is incompatible? Nowhere.

It’s only the Darwinians that assert such nastiness.

Another pop quiz for everyone else. Who said: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary"?

Hint: It wasn’t a Darwinian.

Answer: It was Pope Benedict, from his April 2005 installation Mass.

Ken Miller, a Catholic, uses that quote in his “Only a Theory,” but then that shouldn’t be too surprising since Miller is, after all, a Catholic creationist of sorts, who believes in a first cause God that created, i.e. designed, the universe that we find ourselves in, a universe created by God, primed for life, with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely---IOW, essentially inevitable wherein an omniscient God could then answer the prayers of the sentient beings that were a virtual inevitability of the evolution that an omniscient God set in motion. The more you read Miller, the more you realize how dangerously close he is to his fellow Catholic Behe----it’s merely a matter of degree; Miller just seems to currently have more faith that undirected RM+NS is essentially the total complete explanation for the evolution of life.

As I noted b/f, you atheist Darwinians best keep an eye on Miller, and the Pope too. History should tell you that you atheists can never really trust those Catholics.

Snow flakes are not used as examples of complex systems, but systems which are highly ordered, that is highly non-random. The least complex systems can be the most ordered, since there are the fewest ways to make them, hence they have very low entropy. Since the second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy and not complexity, it is generally assumed that you are discussing what the law applies to, and not discussing what it does not.

The coupling mechanism itself is incidence of shortwave length radiation on molecules, and the reemission of the radiation at longer wavelengths (though it is originally emitted as the kinetic energy of molecules, but most of this is bled off into space as black body radiation.) essentially a heat engine utilizing viable light and converting it to near infrared. The same process can be responsible for increasing the order of your room, write a play, reproduce, etc.

. Again, how utterly dishonest of this Stanton fellow. Where have I ever said that belief in a first cause God (the essence of all monotheism) and science is incompatible? Nowhere. It’s only the Darwinians that assert such nastiness.

So, tell us again why we let bigbangBigot continue spreading his perfidy and hate so he can disrupt every single thread he infests?

keith said: I do not accept the evolutionary construction of a man or anything else since I don't even accept the abiogenesis of a first living first replicator.

That is a lie.

— PvM

keith is no better than Ann Coulter's asshat fans: when his arguments get exposed and discredited, he turns around and pretends he was being "sarcastic" the whole time, and blames us for not understanding him.

So he's stuck in the worst of both worlds: he can't be taken seriously, and his "humor" is lame.

Raging Bee said: keith is no better than Ann Coulter's asshat fans: when his arguments get exposed and discredited, he turns around and pretends he was being "sarcastic" the whole time, and blames us for not understanding him. So he's stuck in the worst of both worlds: he can't be taken seriously, and his "humor" is lame.

sylvilagus said: Nothing overcomes SLOT. Period. Instead there are specific circumstances under which SLOT predicts "backwards" processes. These are fully consistent expressions of SLOT, not some kind of violation or process "overcoming" it.

If one adopts a religious belief that works in one’s life, and doesn’t flatly contradict objective reality, then evolution won’t take one away from it, any more than would heleocentrism or germ-theory. (And I’m quite sure both of those theories were once accused of “engendering atheism” too.)

Larry Boy said:

Goofball’s like this crowd are the only pseudo scientific group that can propose such definitive language and yet define the same process as deterministic.

Finally, it would be extremely odd if the vast majority of scientist were completely ignorant of basic scientific reasoning skills, and unfamiliar with fundamental results of physics and mathematics.

I don’t see how you could expect anything but repeated lies and misrepresentations from BB considering how he has blatantly misrepresented your theological ideology and science in general. He has proved over and over again that he is only capable of dishonesty. That is why I ignore his posts.

keith said: Prigogine specifically stated his theory held no support for application to biological systems..,,.period.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Btw, on Prigogine and non-equilibrium statistics, which I hear also leads to systems where entropy can decrease;

Biochemical pathways operate, for the most part, under near-equilibrium conditions. What this means is that there is a steady state concentration of all reactants in the pathway. These concentrations correspond to the equilibrium values for each reaction. The flux in a pathway depends on how quickly the end product is utilized. Under normal conditions leucine will be used up in protein synthesis at a nearly constant rate but that rate might rise if the cell is growing rapidly and it might fall if the cell is starved for nutrients.

The key to understanding metabolic pathways is to appreciate that there is a pool of leucine in the cell and a pool of the last intermediate. These pools of metabolites are at steady-state concentrations and the enzyme is constantly making leucine and converting leucine back to the intermediate because that's what happens under equilibrium conditions. The rates of the forward and reverse reactions are equal, and fast.

For the sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring regulation. Some enzymes in the pathway might be regulated in which case the steady-state concentrations might not correspond to the equilibrium concentrations.

PvM says: “That’s a lie?” [That Darwinians assert that science and religion are incompatible.]

.

What is wrong with you PvM? Darwinians like Meyers, Provine, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Dennett, etc., etc. have all said things to the effect that science and religion are incompatible; and it’s by far what most Darwinians believe. Everyone knows this.

Here’s something Dennett said when commenting on the Kitzmiller case: “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.”

bigbang said: The unavoidable conclusion, I’m sorry to say, is that Darwinians are atheists or liars. (Although there are those who modify their Darwinism enough to adopt a theistic evolution...

bigbang rephrased: Darwinians are atheists or liars or theistic evolutionists.

bigbang rephrased: Darwinians are atheistic evolutionists or liars or theistic evolutionists.

Dan says: Darwinians are atheistic evolutionists, or agnostic evolutionists, or theistic evolutionists.

bigbang rephrased: Atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists are okay, but agnostic evolutionists are liars.

You might consider that living systems are not "far from equilibrium", all the reactions are reversible, and though non-linear certainly, no one has demonstrated any dissipative structures.

But then why argue myself when others eminently qualified have done so:
.http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/prigogine.html

As regarding the non-random nature of evolution one wonders whether to believe Monod or the google heads on this post.

"As Monod emphasizes, evolution depends on chance, in the sense of two independent causal chains, operating in living organisms: one is at the genetic level, including changes in the nucleotide bases of DNA; the other is at the level of the organism, including interactions between the organism expressing these changes and its environment. Chance also arises here in the sense that we cannot now (nor may we ever be able to) specify the mechanisms underlying genetic mutations."

Ah, vindication of my entire position by one of your principals...it's hysterically amusing.

Now let's hear from the butthead element.

bigbangBigot can not comprehend that Christians such as PvM, are under absolutely no obligation to view the stated opinions of atheists to heart if they do not feel like it. Christians are also obligated to not accept the faux advice of demonstrated liars, such as bigbangBigot.

Having said that, can we just kill this thread, given as how bigbangBigot and keith have absolutely no interest other than depositing their mental diarrhea here?

Dan said:

bigbangBigot rephrased: Atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists are okay, but agnostic evolutionists are liars.

Is this a fair statement of your beliefs, bigbang? And if so, why do you hold that agnostics are liars?

bigbang said: PvM says: “That’s a lie?” [That Darwinians assert that science and religion are incompatible.] . What is wrong with you PvM? Darwinians like Meyers, Provine, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Dennett, etc., etc. have all said things to the effect that science and religion are incompatible; and it’s by far what most Darwinians believe. Everyone knows this.

Here’s something Dennett said when commenting on the Kitzmiller case: “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.”

Chance also arises here in the sense that we cannot now (nor may we ever be able to) specify the mechanisms underlying genetic mutations

"Note, 17 April 2003: I've just discovered a Turkish creationist (and anti-Masonic conspiracy theorist) has linked to this page, and mined my quotations here, to try to make it sound like self-organization is a "myth", and evolution is thermodynamically impossible. For the record, this is repugnant and I have nothing to do with it. His arguments about evolution and thermodynamics are century-old fallacies. And to go from the failure of Prigogine's theories to explain self-organization, to claiming that self-organization doesn't happen, is just (forgive me) bullshit. Self-organization can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature to anyone with eyes to see."

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/prigogine.html

Hmmm, they seem to anticipate your quote mining keith.

You might consider that living systems are not “far from equilibrium”, all the reactions are reversible, and though non-linear certainly, no one has demonstrated any dissipative structures.

Keith is a disciple of Duane Gish, not Jesus. So in emulating his mentor, keith responds to being exposed as a fraud by simply ignoring any of the arguments that exposed him and just plowing ahead spewing out more bullshit, just as Gish did.

This apparently does at least three things in the minds of pseudo-science types like the ID/Creationists; (1) the taunting and bullshit attempts to draw a legitimate scientist into a debate in which the pseudo-scientist leverages “respectability” by being associated with a real scientist, (2) it makes it appear to adoring followers that they are masters of a vast array of knowledge in multiple fields and can easily defeat multiple “enemies” and experts simultaneously and, (3) it pisses-off scientists, which creationists then exploit as proof that scientists are a defensive lot in terror of their “lies” being exposed.

Unfortunately, keith is an anachronism who doesn’t realized that the world has moved on without him. We figured out his shtick long ago. All his attempts at name-calling, bullshitting, bullying, and blustering says it all. Don’t expect anything else from him.

I am amused by the mental contortions your team finds necessary to maintain a modicum of intellectual persuasion. The critique of Prigogine (1978 vintage science) presented is typical of the advance of knowledge and points out clearly the repetitive arror of extrapolation of data and evidence beyond the base of applicability which evobutts thrive on , thus the metaphysical leap of macroevolution from microevolution without a scintilla of evidence.

You have no idea how enjoyable and amusing it is to watch the complete chaos of your team floundering about trying to cover your butts, excuse your contemporaries, modify clear word definitions into doublespeak, attempt to use high sounding technical terminology which is so convoluted and misplaced as to be laughable., it's really a lot of fun you must forgive my hilarity.

I will be pleased to listen to your description of a frog's digestive tract if you like.

Thanks again to the late Dr. Monod for vindicating my position on the random and unpredictable nature of evolution in such precise and absolute detail. Despite the buttbabies of ignorance screeds on the subject, the intellectual mind prevails.

That far from equilibrium human body goes to equilibrium in about one pico second when you die.

Seems that Keith is full of himself even though he remains as usual vacuous.

Fascinating, the level of denial.

Seems that Keith is full of himself even though he remains as usual vacuous.

Fascinating, the level of denial.

PvM said: Seems that Keith is full of himself even though he remains as usual vacuous. Fascinating, the level of denial.

Dan ponders the meaning of “Darwinian.”

.

Ponder no more my Darwinian friend. Fellow Darwinian PvM graciously provided the Mayr quote in another thread that explains it all. Here it is again:

.

“First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer. (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution [and of one would also be free to believe in IPUs in the Darwinian materialistic world, but WTF for?] ). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world.”

.

Bottom line: A genuine Darwinian rejects all supernatural phenoena and causations in their solely materialistic world, which of course excludes a primed for life universe having a first cause creator; e.g. Ken Miller’s designed universe having the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely---IOW, essentially inevitable wherein an omniscient God could then answer the prayers of the sentient beings that were a virtual inevitability of the evolution that that omniscient God had set in motion.

As Dennett, a genuine Darwinian tells us: “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.” And recall Darwinian P. Z. Meyrs declaration: “Religion itself is a lie and a danger.”

Which explains why xians tend to get rather upset whenever they see anyone attempting to indoctrinated their kids into the solely materialistic world of Darwinism, doesn’t it?

bigbang said: Fellow Darwinian PvM graciously provided the Mayr quote in another thread...

Somebody who actually had an real argument against some aspect of evolution theory (or any science, for that matter) would be able to express it without such non-terms as "Darwinian" or "evobot" or whatever. Also of course they'd be able to state exactly which part of the theory their argument deals with, as well as describe the particular pattern of evidence that supports that argument.

Henry

Louisiana ... the first of many children of Expelled.

Looks like your team and the buttheads at NCSE are getting flushed.

I told you so.

Bigbang once again quotes the comment out of context respectable scientists to further his foolish position. I can barely comprehend the disdain he is showing for logic and the damage he is doing to faith by not only misrepresenting the position of others but by making Christianity look foolish.

Mayr is clear, science which includes Darwinian theory, cannot and does not deal in the supernatural. Simple as that and although BB claims that he has an open mind, he is quite closed minded about sharing how science could deal with the supernatural.

Since science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, the suggestion that science rejects or is at odds with Christianity is flawed. That BB grants so much power over atheists that lead BB to reject Christianity and/or science shows how dangerous foolish arguments can be on faith and science.

Looks like your team and the buttheads at NCSE are getting flushed.

Oh and remember that Louisiana is one out of several attempts to get creationism taught in schools, most failed and in Louisiana we will see yet another defeat of creationism in the courts.

Simple really. In the mean time the state will be considered rightly to be foolish.

Now that we once again have shown that science in the form of Darwinism is not irreconcilable with Christian faith and now that we have once again educated keith on issues of science, it is time to take a quick and well deserved rest before undoubtably they will continue to place their feet in their mouth and misrepresent, misunderstand and misinterpret facts of science and faith.

Mayr said: The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the [living] world ... one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution

bigbang remarks: and of one would also be free to believe in IPUs in the Darwinian materialistic world, but WTF for?

Keith,

Sarcasm eh?

That's a good one, post endless streams of nonsense and then claim that you didn't actually mean it when something that you wrote is held up for examination and shown to be utterly wrong.

I'm from the U.K where sarcasm and parody are used far more often than in the U.S and there is no hint that the statement in question was written sarcastically. One of the reasons is that for sarcasm to work you have to be addressing something that someone has actually said or done. As mentioned earlier no one has made these arguments that you are claiming are sarcastic so your attempt falls flat on its face as there is no discernible target. You are either as bad at sarcasm as you are at presenting a rational argument or you are being a bit liberal with the truth.

A further difficulty in recognising your sarcasm is that if we ignore your self congratulatory rhetoric and childish insults (sure signs of the desperately insecure and self deluded) then all that is left is incoherent gibberish and well worn canards. It is therefore difficult to determine which (if any) of this is intended as sarcasm and which is what you actually think. Maybe you could help us out by trying to present coherent, rational arguments with some degree of clarity as to what exactly they are addressing. Failing this you could always flag your sarcasm by writing it in italics.

bigbang said: Nigel asks: “So, bigbang, in what way is a 20-year-old reference relevant to the debate today?” . In the same way that Darwinian P. Z. Meyers’s current statement has today, that “religion itself is a lie and a danger,” and that those that hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy"; in the same way uber-Darwinian Dawkins’s recent God Delusion is relevant. Hello?

Nigel D said:

bigbang said: Raging bee rages regarding Provine’s comment----"that if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, you have to check your brains at the church-house door"----and that bigbang didn’t cite a reference for that comment so that raging bee could verfy it. Glad you asked. And I’m sorry that you couldn’t find that reference yourself. Here it is----Provine, William. 1988. "Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible." The Scientist, September 5, p. 10. Verify away, and have a nice day.

So, bigbang, in what way is a 20-year-old reference relevant to the debate today? All that aside, you have failed to notice (and raging bee failed to point out) that you are arguing from authority. Just because the opinion of one (or perhaps three) atheist scientist(s) happens to fit with your preconceptions does not mean any of the following: - That these people speak for all scientists; - That these people speak for all atheists; - That their opinion is in any way relevant to the debate over the teaching of evolutionary theory. In other words, you have utterly failed to present any argument that religion and science are incompatable.

In the same way that Darwinian P. Z. Meyers’s current statement has today, that “religion itself is a lie and a danger,” and that those that hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being “wishy-washy”; in the same way uber-Darwinian Dawkins’s recent God Delusion is relevant. Hello? The more you people deny what is so utterly slam-dunk obvious—-that Darwinism does indeed typically and inevitably engender atheism (and often a militant anti-theism), the more you expose your utter lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor.

— Bigbang

Dan said: ... There it is. Bigbang admits that the only reason s/he can think of to believe in a God is to explain the adaptedness and diversity of living things. ...

bigbang said: Belief in a first cause God (the essential belief of monotheism) and science are not, of course, incompatible, especially since there is much evidence and science that points to first cause.

...what is so utterly slam-dunk obvious—-that Darwinism does indeed typically and inevitably engender atheism ...

— Bigbang

The deceitful Stanton asks: “Then why have you been saying that religion and science are incompatible?” . Again, how utterly dishonest of this Stanton fellow. Where have I ever said that belief in a first cause God (the essence of all monotheism) and science is incompatible? Nowhere.

— bigbang, now revealing himself to be a liar

...what is so utterly slam-dunk obvious—-that Darwinism does indeed typically and inevitably engender atheism...

— bigbang

It’s only the Darwinians that assert such nastiness.

... simple undergraduate physics ...

— Torbjorn Larsson, OM

bigbang said: What is wrong with you PvM? Darwinians like Meyers, Provine, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Dennett, etc., etc. have all said things to the effect that science and religion are incompatible; and it’s by far what most Darwinians believe. Everyone knows this.

Here’s something Dennett said when commenting on the Kitzmiller case: “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.”

keith said: You might consider that living systems are not "far from equilibrium", all the reactions are reversible, and though non-linear certainly, no one has demonstrated any dissipative structures.

sylvilagus said: First [Keith] make[s] a claim. Then the claim is challenegd, then [Keith] shift[s] to a tangent, as if [he] never made the original claim. If [he] won't even follow basic principles of intellectual honesty in these discussions, then why [is he] even here?

I have a different view of his posts.
They are entertaining.
Kind of like the guy who spoke "Authentic Frontier Gibberish" in Blazing Saddles.

PS I do admit the downside that they side track the discussion of the original PT post though...

keith said: You might consider that living systems are not "far from equilibrium", all the reactions are reversible, and though non-linear certainly, no one has demonstrated any dissipative structures.

keith said: People ask what distinguishes microevolution from macroevolution as a specific limiting law. It's very simple to understand if one considers that there is no physical law that keeps time and all processes from running backwards unless one considers the statistical probability that that such unlikely events occur. Thus the various ways of looking at the SLOT all arrive at the conclusion that all natural processes over time flow in one direction, times arrow applies, and energy becomes increasingly unusable to accomplish real processes and useful work. And where codes and patters are a necessary aspect of operational accomplishment the same will always tend toward breakdown, error, and disfunction. One can make perhaps 20 passes at the crap table and there is no physical law preventing 50 or 100 but as the specified complexity of the process output increases the less likely it occurs until cosmic improbability says never...never...never.

Note, 17 April 2003: I've just discovered a Turkish creationist (and anti-Masonic conspiracy theorist) has linked to this page, and mined my quotations here, to try to make it sound like self-organization is a "myth", and evolution is thermodynamically impossible. For the record, this is repugnant and I have nothing to do with it. His arguments about evolution and thermodynamics are century-old fallacies. And to go from the failure of Prigogine's theories to explain self-organization, to claiming that self-organization doesn't happen, is just (forgive me) bullshit. Self-organization can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature to anyone with eyes to see.

Nigel D said:

... simple undergraduate physics ...

— Torbjorn Larsson, OM

Hehee. When I was an undergrad, I knew some physics students who would disagree with this!

Surely, since it was central to a comment you posted, you must consider it relevant. Since your comment did not make it clear how it is relevant, I asked for clarification. You have not clarified, instead you just went off at a tangent about PZ Myers’s opinions.

keith wrote: I made an email proposal to Dembski and explained his reply some time ago. When he contacts me that he is ready and can schedule, I will proceed. I cannot force the issue further.

keith wrote: Stick it in your ear.

keith wrote: The inability of this crowd to appreciate sarcasm and just about every other literary form ourside their narrow vision of reality and psychologically imbalanced view of same is one reason why I enjoy posting here.

Person 1: "The sky is green." Person 2: "No, it's not; the sky is blue." Person 1: "That's what I meant; God, you're a moron!"

keith wrote: What an idiot.

Perhaps it’s the inescapable effect of keith’s delusional fantasyland version of the Second Law.…

Many writers conflate the notion of self-organization with that of emergence. Properly defined, however, there can be self-organization without emergence and emergence without self-organization. There is a link between them, but it's fairly subtle.

The ability of the butthead crowd to distrort, restate with distortion, illustrate a form of science alien to the common understanding of the original developers, engage in double speak and of course outright intellectual dishonesty is this group of psychotics.

Let's clarify:

1) No one can answer the abiogenesis and first replicator question and part of the difficulty is of course the SLOT considering both the chemical,configurational, and information aspects. Not one cogent argument has been presented.

2) The current state of life is of course consistent with SLOT because the requirements were met and enabled and preserved as in all the mechanisms, information, energy conversion processes are extant and thus SLOT is observed in the proper interpretation.

3) The statistical nature of SLOT in its broadest interpretation as above presents cosmic improbability to the abiogenesis issues and further to the extensibility of RM and NS to account for the proposed macroevolutionary events.

Anyone acquainted with the literature on the full expression of slot since 1940 would be appraised of same.

As for the Brit butthead language expert you might find a review of the cybernetics literature, works by linguistics people who disagree violently with your simplistic analysis.

Any if you can't grasp sarcasm it's due to your limited and narrow view of literature... as in moron.

Your team is the group in all of academia that is so psychotically warped as to be encapable of admission of any imperfection in their theory , their thought, or their interpretations. Never in two decades have I encountered a more mentally ill group.

keith said: ... Let's clarify: 1) No one can answer the abiogenesis and first replicator question and part of the difficulty is of course the SLOT considering both the chemical,configurational, and information aspects. Not one cogent argument has been presented. 2) The current state of life is of course consistent with SLOT because the requirements were met and enabled and preserved as in all the mechanisms, information, energy conversion processes are extant and thus SLOT is observed in the proper interpretation. 3) The statistical nature of SLOT in its broadest interpretation as above presents cosmic improbability to the abiogenesis issues and further to the extensibility of RM and NS to account for the proposed macroevolutionary events. Anyone acquainted with the literature on the full expression of slot since 1940 would be appraised of same. As for the Brit butthead language expert you might find a review of the cybernetics literature, works by linguistics people who disagree violently with your simplistic analysis. ...

keith wrote: As for the Brit butthead language expert you might find a review of the cybernetics literature, works by linguistics people who disagree violently with your simplistic analysis.

keith wrote: Any if you can't grasp sarcasm it's due to your limited and narrow view of literature... as in moron.

The ability of the butthead crowd to distrort, restate with distortion, illustrate a form of science alien to the common understanding of the original developers, engage in double speak and of course outright intellectual dishonesty is this group of psychotics

3) The statistical nature of SLOT in its broadest interpretation as above presents cosmic improbability to the abiogenesis issues and further to the extensibility of RM and NS to account for the proposed macroevolutionary events.

Because it’s simply not possible that keith is just a bad writer; it must be that everyone who reads his stuff is stupid.…

PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

Your pride in giving up Biblical authority, YEC, and such is simply running up the white flag of surrender and joining arms with the demoniac community that dominates the evo crowd.

Are you next to tell us that Jesus was a great moral teacher like Plato, Buddha, and Confucius.

Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions.

One of my teachers is a fellow who after some 10 weeks in his class has made a substantial impact on me as an OE progressive creationist who sees scientific merit in ID. Of course he is merely a PhD Nuclear Physicist of world reknown with accomplishments in particle physics, QM, and related research.

As for the Brit linquist, I suggest a reading of "How We Became Post Human" might be enlightening or you could explain why I should take counsel from the people who threw away an empire in 50 years, became a socialist welfare state dependent on the US for its survival, and who run around bootlicking some fat squab Queen and her degenerate family.

Popularity among a highly biased group is hardly a logical position to adopt, I would be quite worried if I were to be in agreement with the major posters in this cult of sychophantic true believers.

Does heat flow from cold resevoirs to hot ones spontaneously in those open far from equilibrium systems...does time flow backwards....geez you've discovered perpetual motion machines.

I suspect Blazing Saddles is the most intellectual movie most of you have watched in years. Of course that excludes documentaries on tractor pulls, mud wrestleing, and cock fights.

keith said: PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

As opposed to those who use gratuitous insult, are unfamiliar with scientific issues and refuse to be educated? I am sure that such people would be allergic to common sense.

Your pride in giving up Biblical authority, YEC, and such is simply running up the white flag of surrender and joining arms with the demoniac community that dominates the evo crowd.

I am not giving up Biblical authority, just YEC which is scientifically speaking flawed and theologically speaking unnecessary. Instead of giving up however I have found renewed faith while maintaining a solid scientific footing.

Are you next to tell us that Jesus was a great moral teacher like Plato, Buddha, and Confucius.

I am not sure if I want to compare Jesus to these people, but yes, Jesus was a great moral teacher.

Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions. One of my teachers is a fellow who after some 10 weeks in his class has made a substantial impact on me as an OE progressive creationist who sees scientific merit in ID. Of course he is merely a PhD Nuclear Physicist of world reknown with accomplishments in particle physics, QM, and related research.

Wow, a wonderful appeal to authority. After all what better authority when it comes to evolution than a PhD nuclear physicist. I must obviously surrender to such wonderful logic. PS: Hanging out with well informed crowds is no guarantee to become well informed oneself. In fact, your comments on SLOT suggest quite the opposite.

keith said: PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

Your pride in giving up Biblical authority, YEC, and such is simply running up the white flag of surrender and joining arms with the demoniac community that dominates the evo crowd.

Are you next to tell us that Jesus was a great moral teacher like Plato, Buddha, and Confucius.

Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions. One of my teachers is a fellow who after some 10 weeks in his class has made a substantial impact on me as an OE progressive creationist who sees scientific merit in ID. Of course he is merely a PhD Nuclear Physicist of world reknown with accomplishments in particle physics, QM, and related research.

Your team constantly excuses all aspects of evolution from thermodynamic considerations , particularly the efficacy of reactions and processes in consideration of entropy relationships or equivalently Gibbs free energy considerations in origins discussions by noting that the earth is open to the energy of the sun in the form of radiant energy.

Of course essentially every process conceivable on the earth is open to the suns energy yet no one has successfully built a perpetual motion machine, say a heat pump that warms ones home and consistently always returns excess energy back to the power company for a profit. All the heat pumps I see sit right outside in the open where the sun's energy is constantly available...what's the problem?

Or maybe just permitting the heat outside in the winter atmosphere to flow through the glass windows and warm my home for free...it's a process open to the sun's energy after all.

I know, picture a warm little pond where all the amino acids of life form spontaneously and polymerize right up to proteins and enzymes spontaneously and neatly separate themselves into distinct levo and dextro forms exclusively for enzymes, and sugars as appropriate...no problem since it's obviously an open system ...right? And that rna and dna just spontaneously forming as well..no problem there.

Perhaps a bit more specificity as to the definition and particularity of the boundary conditions for the claim is required, perhaps more than some hackneyed phraseology committed to memory or carried about on cue cards is required.

Oh and for the record there's a bit of sarcasm here.

Your team constantly excuses all aspects of evolution from thermodynamic considerations , particularly the efficacy of reactions and processes in consideration of entropy relationships or equivalently Gibbs free energy considerations in origins discussions by noting that the earth is open to the energy of the sun in the form of radiant energy.

Another vacuous non-answer in the form of a dumb assertion. Is that your best shot?

How many one liner quotes on the open to the sun system would you like, 50 or 100?

You are just an intellectually dishonest quisling for Myers and Dawkins.

keith said: PvM, ... Keep you phoney faith to yourself and quit lecturing me on my personal positions.

keith said: Your team constantly ...

keith said: Another vacuous non-answer in the form of a dumb assertion. Is that your best shot? How many one liner quotes on the open to the sun system would you like, 50 or 100? You are just an intellectually dishonest quisling for Myers and Dawkins.

keith said: ... I suspect Blazing Saddles is the most intellectual movie most of you have watched in years...

Chuck,

So far I have completed 15 hours toward the 38 required for the MS in Liberal Studies. Not all of the classes are dedicated to the HOS but most are.

The current one has as required reading The History of Art History, The Truth About History, Beyond Ethics, and How We Became Post Human.

I enjoy the reading and paper writing quite a bit.

Dan says: “Bigbang is the ultimate materialist, because to him/her, if the evidence for God isn’t material, then that evidence doesn’t exist.”

.

Hmmm, you have mucked it up a bit----well, more than a bit----but perhaps you really are trying . . . think of it this way: bigbang is the ultimate realist b/c to bigbang, if God isn’t real, then God isn’t, well, real.

And of course if something obviously isn’t real, e.g. IPU’s, or PvM’s “Christian God” “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” then it isn’t real----it’s nonsense.

keith said: Another vacuous non-answer in the form of a dumb assertion. Is that your best shot? How many one liner quotes on the open to the sun system would you like, 50 or 100? You are just an intellectually dishonest quisling for Myers and Dawkins.

Dan,

I'm sure your approach to making your moral choices, as in every other expressed position, is quite "nuanced". LOL!

Gravitas is your middle name...puke!

keith said: PvM, So far your posts are in lockstep with the vomit bag demon possessed element that have as their primary goal the destruction of all religious faith particularly the Christian faith as in Pee Wee Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Barby Doll, and the cadre of atheists herein and your beloved NCSE.

Welp, I think this thread has sunk beneath the waves. That's all, folks.