More evidence for the increasing YECiness of ID

The afternoon lectures examined the evolutionary hypothesis from an historical and philosophical perspective. Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany, exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther [...]

Nick (Matzke) quoted: Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany, exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther [...]

But Nick,

(Begin channelling Tom Gilson) Just because one creationist thinks there's a link between ID and YECism, doesn't mean there is one. I mean, he's only the the primary author of the flagship ID textbook. Its clearly not logical on your part to give his personal opinion more weight than, say, that of a relatively unknown blogging priest who says they aren't related. (/channeling)

Nick (Matzke) said: This is from a previous conference by the same people, the Kolbe Center (catholic YEC group). I'm really quite sorry I missed this:

The afternoon lectures examined the evolutionary hypothesis from an historical and philosophical perspective. Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany, exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther [...]

I'm curious how they reconcile this with comments like those of Behe. In "The Edge of Evolution" and elsewhere Behe makes quite clear that he accepts both common descent and an old earth and thinks that not accepting an old earth requires a certain degree of silliness. I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

Joshua Zelinsky said: I'm curious how they reconcile this with comments like those of Behe. In "The Edge of Evolution" and elsewhere Behe makes quite clear that he accepts both common descent and an old earth and thinks that not accepting an old earth requires a certain degree of silliness. I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

Dean wrote:

"This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Great Dean, some recent research. Let's see it. Where is it published? Man you must be famous for overturning two hundred years of research in establishing the geologic time scale. Or maybe you have evidence the the fossil record is all wrong. Yea, that must be it. Everyone else for the last three hundred years is wrong, but you finally got it right. Of wait, it's not the fossil record that's wrong, it's the "interpretation" that's wrong. Well now, how does having a different "interpretation" constitute research? Man, no wonder you haven't published anything.

Here is a news flash for you. No one in science teaches any theory as a proven fact. If that is your goal then all you have to do is enforce the current teaching standards. Now why does that require research or interpretation or anything else? Oh wait, you really meant . . . never mind.

Great Dean, some recent research. Let’s see it. Where is it published? Man you must be famous for overturning two hundred years of research in establishing the geologic time scale.

Paul Nelson is also a YEC. If you had asked me a year ago I would have thought that most IDers were OEC but reading the Uncommon Descent blog lately, I think that most of them are in fact YEC. In fact I have a hypothesis that there are very few OEC people out there.

I wonder if once you accept the earth is old that it is a slippery slope to becoming a theistic evolutionist.

What *I* would like to know is: Are they now admitting they were lying (YECs pretending to be OECs), or is there some "evidence" that changed their minds? What a colossal farce! The term I learned here at PT a few weeks ago comes to mind: pseudoskepticism.

There was a time when the YECs and OECs argued, then they said 'Let's not argue now, get creationism into the schools, then we can discuss the age of the earth.' Does this represent another change to circle the wagons for political purposes?

Ten years ago Nick, was basically wrong to equate YEC and ID, but consistently since then ID has become more YEC.

Consider the YEC bias of Uncommon descent and the way many YECs appeal to Design as they do in Britain.

I now see them as very similar on the age of the earth though some like Behe still accept an ancient earth

Few scientists would contest this statement.

Dawkins does - in his most recent book he is adamant that without the fossils, the genetic evidence alone proves evolution.

But image what that information is worth to people like energy companies! All these years their exploration model has been wrong! It’s always assumed organic deposits accumulating in shallow seas and warm swamps millions of years ago. ... You Dean, you are poised to be a freakin zillionaire, bro!

most people (allegedly) would assume that creationism = young-earth creationism, and linking ID to young-earth creationism was oh-so-wildly unfair.

— Nick Matzke

I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

— Joshua Zelinsky

vhutchison said: There was a time when the YECs and OECs argued, then they said 'Let's not argue now, get creationism into the schools, then we can discuss the age of the earth.' Does this represent another change to circle the wagons for political purposes?

To those discussing Uncommon Descent:

I haven't lurked there much in the past 2-3 years, but it would not surprise me if UcD commenters are mostly YEC or old-earth-young-life. IOW some sort of Genesis-literalist. Few others (e.g. Raelians) take ID seriously.

As for the "leaders," IIRC, DaveScot, who defended common-descent, is still banned (his banning had nothing to do with his acceptance of CD), and Denyse O'Leary is one of those YECs who got on the "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did when" bandwagon. Dembski has consistently conceded old-earth-old-life, and has been "agnostic" about CD (though strictly against any Darwinian version). But he has made it clear that his political sympathy lies with YECs. But as Behe did with CD-deniers, it wouldn't surprise me if Dembski has complimented some YECs for being more familiar than he is with the relevant science.

If my thoughts above require some updating, I'd appreciate it. But note that I'm not interested in what anyone might believe, only what they are trying to promote, and what strategies they are using to do it.

At least one of the current contributors/moderators at UD, Clive Hayden, is clearly a YEC, as evidenced by this recent comment:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-start/#comm ent-337843

I believe the same is also the case for Cornelius Hunter, and it is clearly the case for a large number of regular commentators. Pick almost any thread and read down through; you will find many of the regular commentators expressing views that are clearly those of committed YECs. Over the past year, there have been threads at UD that have eventually degenerated into nitpicking arguments between a small cadre of YECs, who argue about arcane details of the YEC creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 (and related versions).

This is not to say that the two most notable contributors at UD, Michael Behe and William Dembski, are YECs. Behe has consistently and repeatedly denied that he is a YEC (indeed, he says he "strongly" believes in common descent). Dembski has asserted repeatedly that he is strongly sympathetic to the YEC viewpoint, but cannot adopt it because the empirical evidence for an old Earth is so "strong"…at least he cannot adopt it publicly, and still retain any credibility as a scientist.

BTW, in searching for the names of contributors and moderators at UD, I discovered that there is no longer any publicly accessible link to such a list. This means that the only way anyone can figure out who is a contributor/moderator at UD is to pay attention to the background color of a comment; those that appear against a white background are those of a contributor/moderator, while the hoi polloi's comments appear against the usual olive drab background.

I find this very interesting; why don't the contributors/moderators at UD want the public to know who they are? The contributors/moderators at Panda's Thumb are quite publicly listed under the button in the right menu bar labeled "Select an Author". Do the contributors/moderators at UD have something to hide?

Several posters here have noted that both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dr. Dembski have denied to one extent or another YEC, yet have expressed sympathies for it.

I'm trying to imagine an actual scientist saying something along the lines of, "I acknowledge that all the evidence points to the existence of atoms as the constituents of matter, but my sympathies lie with those who say that Earth, Air, Water, and Fire are what matter is made of." Or, "Of course, I accept the data that show that the Sun is at the center of our solar system, but I concede that there are Geocentrists that know more than I do about the topic."

This, as much as anything else, shows that these self-identified scientists have no idea what science or the scientific method is, and are totally out of touch with reality.

Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson has picked up on this posting. But incredibly (or perhaps not...) he doesn't comment on the substantive issue of Kenyon's explicit endorsement of YEC; instead he moans that this is all the fault of the anti-IDers, and that we're really just hurting ourselves.

I've dumped the steaming pile of his hypocrisy into the comments thread; it will be amusing to see where this goes. Watch him twist, watch him feint...

(I tried to include a link to the TC thread, but Movable Type doesn't seem to like hyperlinks.)

Jimmy D said: I demand that they start teaching the YE/OE Controversy in Sunday School.

If anything I have always thought that linking ID to YEC, if done hastily, is too generous to the ID activists. YECs at least make testable statements regarding “what happened when,” while IDers increasingly pander to the big tent, whatever they believe.

Good grief. I cannot believe that you linked to that post without commenting on the substantive issue that it raised. Let’s get the rest of the post on the table: [Quoted text from Nick.] So let’s get this straight. A prominent figure in the ID movement endorses a YEC conference. This isn’t “careless, unspecified linkage to creationism”, it’s deliberate, specific and enthusiastic linkage to creationism – isn’t it? But do you criticize Dean Kenyon? Of course not; according to you, Tom, the fault lies with “ID opponents” like Nick being “careless”, and that “ID’s opponents are the ones being damaged.” It’s amusing to compare your treatment of Dawkins from that of Kenyon. If you can twist Dawkins’ actions into a lack of commitment to science, how do you feel about Kenyon’s? Don’t be shy…. Geoff (in Shenzhen, trip extended for another two weeks)

Tom Gilson's apparent tactic is to edit out any comments that address the increasing YECness of the (rapidly failing) ID movement. Not surprising, I suppose, but unfortunate, especially as it simply reinforces the impression that ID supporters (such as himself) are not interested in actual debate, but rather in "arguments by assertion".

What makes you think this doesn’t already occur? Since {YE or OE} is clearly scriptural, while {OE or YE} is clearly a misinterpretation, it’s a fine topic for discussion “in house.”

— SWT

Geoff Arnold said: Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson has picked up on this posting.

I’d bet that it’s very rare, but for a different reason that anti-evolution activists hate to debate their differences.

“OEC” has very little appeal to anyone, for an obvious logical reason. If parts of the Bible metaphorical or symbolic, then it isn’t contradicted by evolution. (But then, it’s useless for the advancement of a harsh social agenda.)

— harold

I got kicked out of TC last week or so (after having posted criticism there for more than year) over exactly this issue. TC seems to want to ignore the recent history of ID's strategy of deception and to (in a way that seems typically a case of psychological projection) while branding the IT antagonists as the ones who are using imprecise language to disguise reality.

When I brought up the false summary he posted following the initial discussion, and cited the contradictory instances of his defining ID scientific but not a science, etc., he booted me out. (I join a select company, so it's really quite an honor.)

For a nutshell summary of the reality-denial (and psychological projection and authoritarianism) that it appears ID proponents must adopt in order to argue their case, I'd look at this post ( http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/10/concluding-unscientific-postscript/). The discussion is in comments: 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27.

If this is the kind of conduct we can expect from the most "thoughtful" of the ID proponents it doesn't bode well for the movement broadening its reach anytime soon.

Tony Hoffman said: If this is the kind of conduct we can expect from the most "thoughtful" of the ID proponents it doesn't bode well for the movement broadening its reach anytime soon.

Mike Elzinga said:

Tony Hoffman said: If this is the kind of conduct we can expect from the most "thoughtful" of the ID proponents it doesn't bode well for the movement broadening its reach anytime soon.

In a related topic, there have been reports in the news of a recent, large conference of evangelicals attempting to find unity and discover why they are losing so many members.

The reason TC and his cohorts think in circles is that they don’t use words and concepts that connect to the real world. Hence, they don’t know about the real world and cannot grasp the meanings of any words or concepts that are used to describe the real world. These sectarians have spent their entire lives in exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, word-gaming, and trying to extract “meaning” from rubber words. Not only is attempting to help them a waste of time, it puts weapons in the hands of children. And I am not about to leave an e-mail address with any of them.

But there’s nothing special about YEC, other than it being the first attempt to sound scientific. I’m not sure about flat-earthism, but if you really want to be literal, I think you’d have to go with at least geocentrism.

Although I’m offering a post hoc, highly subjective explanation here, I will note that the fact that a huge proportion of DI fellows and other advocates of “ID” are also advocates of YEC - yet weaselly about it - suggests that I am somewhere near the truth.

— harold

eric said:

Geoff Arnold said: Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson has picked up on this posting.

I think any post that begins "Thank you, Larry Fafarman..." can safely be ignored. Having said that, I won't. :) Tom's argument seems not to have changed. He demands everyone limit debate to his definition of ID without any consideration of how the term ID used in the actual world by others, and historically. To the extent that his argument is sound, its also irrelevant: it is the real world use and understanding of the term ID that matters for court cases, biology classes, etc... Not Tom's personal definition.

I read that original Tom Gilson comment thread and I can say without reservation that Tom is a douchebag of the most exalted order and I could infer that after reading two of his initial comments.

There is an endless supply of these disengenuous turds who love to dish it out but can not tolerate criticism. A blog is the perfect place for someone like Tom to act out his worst antisocial tendencies, a microuniverse he can lord over, quickly "casting out" those who dare to disagree with him (especially after he warned them!!!!!!), and always reaching the desired result (a self-affirming pseudo-intellectual circle jerk).

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Hannah Maxson?

Hey Registered User, and others, I don't edit comments, but please keep the rhetoric proportional. Tom Gilson is a reasonably civilized guy. Slightly deluded about some of the finer points of creationism/ID != dbag.

Creationism, not just ID, is increasingly political and increasingly YEC (ie, reactionary vs science). Perhaps the ID big tent strategy is slowly becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Frank J said: All Tom Gilson needs to do to end this "debate" is put his money where his mouth is. If he disagrees with YEC and "Darwinism," and has a strictly "scientific" objection, he can just devote equal time to refuting the claims of YECs. It won't matter which definitions he uses.

Nick,

I agree that “slightly deluded about some of the finer points of creationism/ID != dbag” and I think we should try to avoid that kind of language for a lot of good reasons. But at the edge of these discussions is the broader debate about the proper tone to adopt in the face of persistent theistic fundamentalism. Make no mistake, fundamentalists like TC believe that revelation is real (I would even say that they consider it supreme), that the words of the Bible can trump scientific understanding (try asking TC about what possible reason he could have for believing in special creation instead of common descent – hint: it has nothing to do with science) and that personal experience of God is tantamount to empirical evidence.

While believing the above to be true doesn’t make one a “dbag,” it does become more problematic when one tries to portray oneself as also being pro-science, etc.

I think that the cadres of apologists today like TC are ultimately accountable for the contradiction between what they put forth as a public face and what, when pressed, they actually allow. The accommodation of YEC in the supposedly more respectable ID tent that you confronted is one example. The link I provided earlier is another, where any “dialogue” that doesn’t lead to the apologist’s pre-determined conclusion is disallowed for arbitrary reasons. I wouldn’t use the term “dbag,” but terms like hypocritical, disingenuous, and several others do come to mind.

In other words, it’s not delusion that I mind, because I allow that I could be deluded as well. But at what point does one side’s being closed minded while accusing the other of the same should the dialogue be ended, and a sham called what it is?

I have seen as well how these apologists publicly point to their “dialogue” with skeptics, scientists, naturalists, etc. as evidence of both their open-mindedness and the existence of a real debate. If a real debate were allowed, I would have no I dispute. But when real debate is in fact closed by those who claim it, and misinformation spread, I think responsible engagement risks a level of accommodation that becomes appeasement.

Based on the tone, some of the phrasing, and the inquiry about Hannah Maxson, I think it's quite likely that "Registered User" is a pro-ID troll. Specifically, I believe that Registered User is the same commentator as "Great White", who a couple of years ago was shown to be an ID proponent trying to increase the static level here and at other pro-evolution sites.

BTW, when I last heard from her (in March of this year), Hannah Maxson was caring for a group of infants in an orphanage in Ulaan Baator, Mongolia (she grew up in Mongolia and returned there following her graduation from Cornell to volunteer at an orphanage for Mongolian children).

"I have seen as well how these apologists publicly point to their “dialogue” with skeptics, scientists, naturalists, etc. as evidence of both their open-mindedness and the existence of a real debate. If a real debate were allowed, I would have no I dispute. But when real debate is in fact closed by those who claim it, and misinformation spread, I think responsible engagement risks a level of accommodation that becomes appeasement."

In that entire series, all the way up to that “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”, the conversation over there simply keeps revolving in an infinite regress of circles within circles, and arguing over exactly what someone said or did not say. [...]

Henry J said: Have you been following the FL "Debate" thread on AtBC? Very similar to the verbal epicycles you just described. Henry

Michael J said: Paul Nelson is also a YEC. If you had asked me a year ago I would have thought that most IDers were OEC but reading the Uncommon Descent blog lately, I think that most of them are in fact YEC. In fact I have a hypothesis that there are very few OEC people out there. I wonder if once you accept the earth is old that it is a slippery slope to becoming a theistic evolutionist.

Gilson still seems to believe there is an ongoing research program in place for ID. I suspect that is simply delusional, or that Gilson has absolutely no idea what a research program really entails. If anyone at DI says ID is a research program, Gilson apparently believes it without checking or even knowing what to check.

— Mike Elzinga

Reverting to the YEC position is the only way Bible and creationism can be reconciled.

— Rolf Aalberg

Isn't it interesting that somehow or other YEC went from being an insignificant minority opinion among creationists to a very popular opinion in the 1960s, while geocentrism remains as a fringe idea.

Why the different reception?

Isn't it interesting that somehow or other YEC went from being an insignificant minority opinion among creationists to a very popular opinion in the 1960s, while geocentrism remains as a fringe idea. Why the different reception?

— TomS

So the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of Richard Dawkins?

Or is it a Creationist theory because of Charles Darwin:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Would anyone here have a problem with biology teachers reading that to theur biology classes?

Also why do people say ID is anti-evolution when obviously ID accepts that organisms change over time- ie they evolve?

Actually even YECs say that organisms change over time.

So what definition of "evolution" are you people using?

And why do you conflate ID with the people who promote it?

Again if we do that across the board then the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

Or is it a Creationist theory because of Charles Darwin: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Would anyone here have a problem with biology teachers reading that to theur (sic) biology classes?

So the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of Richard Dawkins? ... Again if we do that across the board then the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

JoeG has the tone and style of the sock puppet Jacob...Bobby

JoeG said: So the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of Richard Dawkins? Or is it a Creationist theory because of Charles Darwin: [quote deleted]

Also why do people say ID is anti-evolution when obviously ID accepts that organisms change over time- ie they evolve? Actually even YECs say that organisms change over time.

Again if we do that across the board then the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

Rob said: JoeG has the tone and style of the sock puppet Jacob...Bobby

SWT,

Evolutionists use the term "Darwinism".

In order for populations to change first individuals must change.

Natural selection "acts" on individuals. Mutations occur in individuals.

And as I said if we use Nick Matzke's "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Richard Dawkibs sez so.

GvlGeologist,

ID does NOT promote Creationism yet that isn't stop you people from linking the two.

The Darwin quote is what it is- and it provides a solid link to a Creator. Creator = Creationism.

As for bullshit, conflating ID with Creationism is bullshit yet you do it on a daily basis.

As for PT and "debunking" well that is an oxymoron.

And I am just using the same "logic" as Matzke and his ilk.

That ypou cannot grasp that concept sez quite a bot about you and your agenda.

Joe wrote:

"And why do you conflate ID with the people who promote it?"

Easy. Take away the people who promote it and there is no ID. Regardless, there is no theory of ID, but without the people who insist that they are right with absolutely no evidence, with absolutely no publications in the scientific literature, with absolutely no real explanations or predictions, exactly what have you got left?

Now, ask yourself if the same theing is true of Dawkins and evolution.

DS,

I promote ID and I am not religious.

There is a theory of ID.

ID makes predictions.

ID is based on observations and experience and it can be tested.

OTOH all you can do is say that "populations change"- that is the only thing your "theory" explains.

You don't even know what makes an organism what it is.

You have no idea whether or not mutations can account for the transformations required.

And you certainly don't have any predictions based on any non-telic processes.

Joe,

The old "You don't know everything so I don't have to believe in anything you say" routine is a worthless game. Of course we don't have all of the answers, but we have many answers that we have good evidence for and a high degree of confidence in. The same is not true of ID or creationism.

We do know the basics of what constitutes an organism. Exactly what is it that you think that is not understood? What level of understanding do you demand and why?

We do know what mutations account for many physiological and morphological changes and we are discovering more every day. Exactly what transformations would you like more details for? Exactly what level of detail would satisty you?

We can most certainly make many predictions which are tested every day in countless laboratories and field experiments around the world. Exactly what level of detailed prediction do you require? Are you willing to demand the same level of detail from your ID "theory"?

Speaking of which. exactly what is the theory of ID? Exactly what does it predict? Exactly how can it be tested? Exactly whot do you propose happened, how and when? If you address these questions why haven't you? Why haven't you published anything in the scientific literature?

Joe,

I guess what it boils down to is my orginal point. You can "promote" ID all you want, but that doesn't make science and it doesn't make it real. What have you got besides your personal beliefs to back it up? Anything?

Joe wrote:

"OTOH all you can do is say that “populations change”- that is the only thing your “theory” explains."

Exactly what else would you like it to explain? Exactly what else do you think that it tries to explain? Exactly how does ID explain how and why poplations change? Exactly why do you think that that is a better explanation than that provided by evolution?

JoeG said: DS, I promote ID and I am not religious. There is a theory of ID.

ID makes predictions.

ID is based on observations and experience and it can be tested.

OTOH all you can do is say that "populations change"- that is the only thing your "theory" explains.

You don't even know what makes an organism what it is.

You have no idea whether or not mutations can account for the transformations required.

And you certainly don't have any predictions based on any non-telic processes.

JoeG said: I promote ID and I am not religious.

DS,

We don't know what makes an organism what it is.

Nothing you can say will change that.

And what predictions are based on random mutations and natural selection?

What do I have to support ID- observations and experience.

What do you have to support your position?

IOW what do we have that would lead to the inference that unguided processes can account for living organisms?

There is a theory of ID

ID makes predictions

ID...can be tested

JoeG said: There is a theory of ID.

ID makes predictions.

ID is based on observations and experience and it can be tested.

JoeG said: We don't know what makes an organism what it is.

Just Bob said:

JoeG said: We don't know what makes an organism what it is.

Well, it's obvious that YOU sure don't. It's unclear what you even mean by that. Many folks here make their livings knowing lots of that, and finding out finer and finer detail all the time. Hell we're down to knowing what individual ATOMS do in DNA. What exactly do you want?

Joe wrote:

"We don’t know what makes an organism what it is."

Asked and answered. If you want to elaborate please do so, if not than the "discussion" is over.

"Nothing you can say will change that."

Great, so why should I bother to respond if you have already made up your mind?

"And what predictions are based on random mutations and natural selection?"

For example, we can predict with great accuracy exactly what mutations are likely to evolve and confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria. These predictions have been tested and have been confirmed experimentally. And of course selection is highly deterministic and many predictions have been confirmed experimentally. If you want examples just read the scientific literature. I can provide references if you want, but you will have to promise to read them.

"What do I have to support ID- observations and experience."

Experience is worthless. If you have obvservations, have you published them? If not, why not?

"What do you have to support your position?"

Asked and answered. There are literally millions of references in the scientific literature that confirm the predictions of evolution. I can provide you with all of the references, but then I would have to kill you (by suffocation under a mountain of evidence).

"IOW what do we have that would lead to the inference that unguided processes can account for living organisms?"

The evidence that it did indeed occur and the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever of any planning or foresight in the process. You know, all of that evidence from palentology, morpohology, genetics, development, etc. Once again, what evidence do you have for intelligent intervention?

Look Joe, let me make this simple for you. No one here cares what you believe. You can demand evidence and proof all you want, but everyone can already see that you have absolutely no intention of holding your own nebulous ideas to the same standard. Why don't you just admit that there is lots of evidence that you are not familiar with and leave it at that?

Joe,

I have asked you at least a dozen questions already. So far you have ignored or evaded every one of them. I on the other hand have answered all of your questions, some more than once already. If you don't want to be called Bobby or Jacob or troll you should start thinking about having a real conversation here or just going away now.

JoeG said: And why do you conflate ID with the people who promote it?

JoeG said: GvlGeologist, ID does NOT promote Creationism yet that isn't stop you people from linking the two. The Darwin quote is what it is- and it provides a solid link to a Creator. Creator = Creationism. As for bullshit, conflating ID with Creationism is bullshit yet you do it on a daily basis. As for PT and "debunking" well that is an oxymoron. And I am just using the same "logic" as Matzke and his ilk. That ypou (sic)) cannot grasp that concept sez (sic) quite a bot (sic) about you and your agenda.

I promote ID and I am not religious.

— JoeG

Alan MacNeill: Tom Gilson’s apparent tactic is to edit out any comments that address the increasing YECness of the (rapidly failing) ID movement.

Tom Gilson’s apparent tactic is to edit out any comments that address the increasing YECness of the (rapidly failing) ID movement.

I promote ID and I am not religious

ben said:

I promote ID and I am not religious

That there exists a very small number of ID flacks who do not reflexively start babbling about Jesus the moment they think they're among friends doesn't do much to disassociate ID from fundamentalist religious apologetics. The fact that you've been duped doesn't say anything about the true motivations of the people who duped you, in my mind.

Frank J said: Every self-proclaimed supporter of ID, whether or not he/she agrees that ID is a form of creationism, makes roughly the same long-refuted case against "Darwinism." But they have always refuse to support their own alternative on it's own merits, and increasingly refuse to state their own testable hypotheses or refute anti-evolution positions that they supposedly do not endorse. It's long overdue to change the discussion - away from "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," whether there is a designer, whether ID "is" creationism, etc. And towards making it perfectly clear to the public which side has something to hide. If anything, the Kenyon connection is one of those things that they're not trying hard to hide.

So the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of Richard Dawkins? Or is it a Creationist theory because of Charles Darwin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

Would anyone here have a problem with biology teachers reading that to theur biology classes

Also why do people say ID is anti-evolution when obviously ID accepts that organisms change over time- ie they evolve?

Actually even YECs say that organisms change over time. So what definition of “evolution” are you people using?

And why do you conflate ID with the people who promote it?

Again if we do that across the board then the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

Indeed; the ID/creationists (I’ll keep rubbing their noses in that connection until they can clarify it with a well-defined research program) have historically attempted to leverage respectability by taunting scientists and attempting to make the science community appear to be on the defensive.

— Mike Elzinga

If Behe - with his tenured position in a department in which other members are doing research continuously - cannot leverage grant money for a research program, it should be obvious that even the attempt to conceptualize an ID/creationist research program simply leaves its proponents in a slack-jawed, empty-minded state.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: But ironically Behe can leverage, and has leveraged grant money for a research program. But as he knows, his research if anything further validates evolution. Yet even with that he can still fool the rubes - not just the hopeless ~25% - into thinking that he's "expelled" by the "Darwinist orthodoxy."

JoeG said: So the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of Richard Dawkins? Or is it a Creationist theory because of Charles Darwin: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Would anyone here have a problem with biology teachers reading that to theur biology classes?

It appears JoeG Sir Robin believes he defeated us, and has bravely run away.

JoeG said: DS, I promote ID and I am not religious.

I should clarify - the orignal quote was:

"“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

The 'creator' part was added in the 6th edition, in response to all the pressure he was getting form the religious nuts of the day.

IOW - it was added under duress.

ben said: That there exists a very small number of ID flacks who do not reflexively start babbling about Jesus the moment they think they're among friends doesn't do much to disassociate ID from fundamentalist religious apologetics.

Charles Darwin Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection. It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Several posters here have noted that both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dr. Dembski have denied to one extent or another YEC, yet have expressed sympathies for it.

JoeG said: So the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of Richard Dawkins? Or is it a Creationist theory because of Charles Darwin: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Would anyone here have a problem with biology teachers reading that to theur biology classes?

Also why do people say ID is anti-evolution when obviously ID accepts that organisms change over time- ie they evolve?

Actually even YECs say that organisms change over time. So what definition of "evolution" are you people using? And why do you conflate ID with the people who promote it? Again if we do that across the board then the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

Stuart Weinstein said: I guess you figure we shouldn't be teaching science at all.

Stuart Weinstein said: W. Shockly's (a co-inventor of the transistor)

Wheels said:

Stuart Weinstein said: W. Shockly's (a co-inventor of the transistor)

I've always loved that. Funny how life works sometimes, isn't it? Of course to find that coincidence you have to ignore a long list of other names belonging to people more or less important in the transistor's invention from all over the world over a range of years, but still.

joeG getting it all wrong: DS, We don’t know what makes an organism what it is. Nothing you can say will change that. And what predictions are based on random mutations and natural selection?

JoeG said: In order for populations to change first individuals must change. Natural selection "acts" on individuals. Mutations occur in individuals.

Sure, an individual can change. But first, it must want to change.

I am afraid I don’t understand your argument. Can you please tell me exactly what you mean by “individuals must change”. Do an individual change, how does it change?

Fine, Steve. As a full-body-suit theological argument, you can't beat that one. God, by definition, is present in every particle and every quantum that exists, ever has existed, or ever will exist, and it is impossible to prove that any natural event ever happened without His direct intervention. In fact, it would seem to follow from that premise that no natural event could happen without it. God is not only the Prime Cause, He's all the causes, until we arrived and were allowed to exercise free will. Uh-huh.

The thing is, though, that individual mutation acts as though it were entirely random, and the hand of God is entirely imperceptible. Scientists, being afflicted with a stubborn and unGodly pragmatism, think that this means that their researches and theories can realistically deal with mutation as though it actually were random, and they have a fixed and most unreasonable aversion to taking into account a cause that by definition cannot be detected, let alone measured and tested.

This mindset has taken them an awfully long way towards understanding life, the Universe and everything, and they're still travelling. What say you stick to theology, and let them get on with what they're doing?

Stuart Weinstein said: Because ID is not a scientific theory. It offers no grounds for falsification that have withstood scrutiny.

Steve P. said:

I am afraid I don’t understand your argument. Can you please tell me exactly what you mean by “individuals must change”. Do an individual change, how does it change?

The issue is what causes an organism's genes to mutate. All you guys can say is it is random. That is an appeal to ignorance: "I don't know cuz I can't 'see' anything changing the gene, therefore it happened just by chance. No reason. It just happened". That pretty much sums up the irrational, darwinian 'chance in the gaps' argument for biological change, Rolf.

A word of advice to those who are trying to talk to JoeG: don't.

Joe is a troll who is either unwilling or unable to learn any science or math. He'll disagree with you no matter how many arguments you marshal, how carefully you explain them and how many literature sources you cite. And he will insult and threaten you to boot.

Visit is own blog Intelligent Reasoning (is there any other kind?) and see for yourselves.

Random is not a cause, but a way how a process manifest itself. And this way is very common in natural processes. E.g. radioactive decay: in a time called “half time” the half quantity of a radioactive isotope decay, but if you observe any individual atom you cannot predict if it will decay or not in this time. For the individual the process is “random” (associated to a certain probability that the decay can happen). The cause is the instability of the atomic nucleus related to both its composition and energy status. By the way, this doesn’t prevent the scientists from writing very precise equations that describe the radioactive decay and from applying them successfully in many technological fields.
The same for cancer induced by smoking; smoking is obvious the cause, but not all the persons that are smoking will be affected and we cannot predict who will be affected, but a statistic can be done that allow us a quantification of the risk that is connected to this “activity”.
If you pretend that God is behind all the natural processes and he is choosing any atom that decays or the insurgence of any cancer in a smokers, it is your believe; but you have to accept that it will remain neither proved nor observed. In any case it doesn’t help much to make science and we will prefer to use our equations derived from random processes to construct nuclear devices or make medical prevention.

Steve wrote:

"The issue is what causes an organism’s genes to mutate."

OK. If that is indeed the issue, then we know exactly what causes an organism's genes to mutate. It is caused by replication error and damage due to mutagens and radiation. There are literally thousands of papers on this in the scientific literature. It is a very important issue for human disease as well as evolution and phylogenetics. Exactly what is it that you think is not understood? Exactly what level of understanding do you demand? Exactly what alternative explanations do you offer? Exactly what evidence to you have to the contrary?

"All you guys can say is it is random. That is an appeal to ignorance: “I don’t know cuz I can’t ‘see’ anything changing the gene, therefore it happened just by chance. No reason. It just happened”

Wrong. The issue is whether the mutations are caused by an intelligence with a plan and purpose in mind. the answere is absolutely not. The mutations occur randomly with respect to the needs of the organism and the changing environment. This is well documented in controlled experiments and in natural populations. Again, there are literally thousands of publications about this issue. No evidence of directed mutations has ever been substantiated. The absolute and relative rates of many different types of mutations are well known. It is not a matter of not seeing anything, it is a matter of observation and prediction.

And no, "random" does not mean that all mutations are equally likely or that all regions of the genome are equally likely to mutate. There are thousands of references about that as well. Your ignorance of the evidence is evidence of nothing but your ignorance. You are the only one using an appeal to ignorance here, unfortunately an appeal to your own ignorance is hardly an effective rhethorical tool.

"That pretty much sums up the irrational, darwinian ‘chance in the gaps’ argument for biological change, Rolf."

That pretty much sums up the irrational creationist attitude toward science. Ignore all of the literature and findings of real scientists, complain that they really don't understand anything and that they are apparently trying to fool you anyway for some unspecified reason, (probably because you assume that they are all atheists who are trying to convert you), then happily display your ignorance for all to see while loudly proclaiming the ignorance of others. Well, no one cares about an uninformed opinion. Anyone familiar with the evidence will not be fooled by your ignorance.

Thanks oleget.

I had already come to that conclusion myself. Apparently the troll has run away. Hopefully no one will take the bait if he decides to disgrace us with his presence again.

Everyone can see that trolls are only capable of asking questions and never answer them. What kind of an argument do they think that represents - argumentum adnauseum?

The issue is what causes an organism’s genes to mutate. All you guys can say is it is random.

— Steve P.

SWT:

Actually Steve P. is not only one of the ~30% that answered questions 1 and 2, he is one who agrees with ancient life and common descent. This may surprise most PT regulars, but almost half of those who have answered admitted to the Michael Behe position. Which makes me wonder how many of those who refuse to answer, do so because they don't want lurkers to know how much they concede to evolution.

I'm not sure if he answered question 3, though. If their objection is truly about the science, one would think that adherents of all the mutually-contraditory alternate "theories" would jump at the chance to challenge each other.

Frank wrote:

"I personally dislike that use of the word “random” unless it is explained that it is only random in the sense of not directed to the selective “pressure” that it will face. Many “evolutionists” do make that clarification, but not as often as I would like."

Well said.

Creationists usually assume that scientists don't know the meaning of the words they use. This is usually a simple case of projection. I guess they really don't understand the peer review process and the effect it has on research. Maybe if they tried it sometime they would start to understand. Yea, right.

Frank J said: SWT: Actually Steve P. is not only one of the ~30% that answered questions 1 and 2, he is one who agrees with ancient life and common descent. This may surprise most PT regulars, but almost half of those who have answered admitted to the Michael Behe position. Which makes me wonder how many of those who refuse to answer, do so because they don't want lurkers to know how much they concede to evolution. I'm not sure if he answered question 3, though. If their objection is truly about the science, one would think that adherents of all the mutually-contraditory alternate "theories" would jump at the chance to challenge each other.

DS said: Creationists usually assume that scientists don't know the meaning of the words they use.

Frank J said: SWT: Actually Steve P. is not only one of the ~30% that answered questions 1 and 2, he is one who agrees with ancient life and common descent. This may surprise most PT regulars, but almost half of those who have answered admitted to the Michael Behe position. Which makes me wonder how many of those who refuse to answer, do so because they don't want lurkers to know how much they concede to evolution.

I'm not sure if he answered question 3, though. If their objection is truly about the science, one would think that adherents of all the mutually-contraditory alternate "theories" would jump at the chance to challenge each other.

Creationists usually don’t know or understand the meaning of the words that scientists use (“theory,” for instance).

— Paul Burnett

Stanton said:

Frank J said: SWT: Actually Steve P. is not only one of the ~30% that answered questions 1 and 2, he is one who agrees with ancient life and common descent. This may surprise most PT regulars, but almost half of those who have answered admitted to the Michael Behe position. Which makes me wonder how many of those who refuse to answer, do so because they don't want lurkers to know how much they concede to evolution.

Stevie P.'s statements concerning the age of the Earth, and how he hopes that carbon-dating is wrong so that the age of the Earth is wrong, also makes me think that he's a closet Young Earth Creationist, exactly like William Dembski.

Stevie P.’s statements concerning the age of the Earth, and how he hopes that carbon-dating is wrong so that the age of the Earth is wrong, also makes me think that he’s a closet Young Earth Creationist, exactly like William Dembski.

— Stanton

Frank J said: Is there any evolution-denier that you think is not a closet YEC?

Do you think they are closet geocentrists too?

I don't know what the mystique of YEC is, but I'm beginning to think that it has more of a hold on some fellow "evolutionists" than on creationists. Why is it so hard for you to believe that that anti-evolutionists are sympathetic to (heliocentric) YEC because that happens to be the biggest current market?

steve P. Making Stuff Up: The issue is what causes an organism’s genes to mutate. All you guys can say is it is random. That is an appeal to ignorance:

Steve P. said: The issue is what causes an organism's genes to mutate. All you guys can say is it is random.

It’s all about money, and how Jesus wants His chosen to make and spend it for Him.

— Stanton

The issue is what causes an organism’s genes to mutate.

All you guys can say is it is random. That is an appeal to ignorance: “I don’t know cuz I can’t ‘see’ anything changing the gene, therefore it happened just by chance. No reason. It just happened”.

That pretty much sums up the irrational, darwinian ‘chance in the gaps’ argument for biological change, Rolf.

Mutations are caused by lots of things we know quite well and probably a few more we don’t yet know about.

— Wheels

Is there anyany evolution-denier that you think is not a closet YEC? Do you think they are closet geocentrists too? I don’t know what the mystique of YEC is, but I’m beginning to think that it has more of a hold on some fellow “evolutionists” than on creationists. Why is it so hard for you to believe that that anti-evolutionists are sympathetic to (heliocentric) YEC because that happens to be the biggest current market?

I personally dislike that use of the word “random” unless it is explained that it is only random in the sense of not directed to the selective “pressure” that it will face.

I know that some of you think that “President Ahnmanson and VP Dembski” will kick out the Behes Medveds, etc. if/when they get their theocracy. My guess is no better than yours, but I predict the opposite - a nauseatingly liberal world in which anything but “Darwinism” and only that particular bad behavior (abortion, homosexuality, Naxism, etc.) that it allegedly encourages, is tolerated.

Those persons and ideas who prove themselves to be viable cash cows are worshiped and revered as sacred: those persons and ideas that are potential cash cows are treated with gracious respect, while those that can not rake in the cash are discarded like so much horrid garbage.

You remember how there was that huge schism within Answers In Genesis that resulted from Ken Ham not wanting to share his profits, right?

harold said: However, they are all attracted to the idea of a "literal" Bible, however incoherent such an idea may correctly seem to you, for a brutally simple reason. If the Bible is "symbolic" then harsh passages can be debated, but if you howl that it's "literal" then you can use those passages as a prescription for modern society.

Steve P. said:

I am afraid I don’t understand your argument. Can you please tell me exactly what you mean by “individuals must change”. Do an individual change, how does it change?

The issue is what causes an organism's genes to mutate. All you guys can say is it is random. That is an appeal to ignorance: "I don't know cuz I can't 'see' anything changing the gene, therefore it happened just by chance. No reason. It just happened". That pretty much sums up the irrational, darwinian 'chance in the gaps' argument for biological change, Rolf.

I think you often model their thinking as being that of people who have sincerely adopted some errant scientific or scholarly view, and are peculiarly resistant to being corrected, but only on that isolated point. You model them as being harmless cranks, like Shakespeare deniers or the like. Behe may partially fit that model, although he is worse than most of that ilk. But for the most part, and this goes for the “market”, for the rank and file, as well as for the mouthpieces, what we are dealing with, in the case of ID/creationism, is an authoritarian mindset.

— harold

I had already come to that conclusion myself. Apparently the troll has run away. Hopefully no one will take the bait if he decides to disgrace us with his presence again.

Everyone can see that trolls are only capable of asking questions and never answer them. What kind of an argument do they think that represents - argumentum adnauseum?

raven said: Sure we know what makes an organism what it is. DNA for a start, various developmental genes and pathways, metabolic cycles and so on. We've synthesized 3 life forms from scratch, 2 of which were extinct.

Scott: Really? I hadn’t heard that before. That’s pretty fascinating. Got any references I could look up, or names I could google? “Synthesized from scratch” sounds like a pretty big hurdle to achieve, if “by scratch” you mean “constructed from raw molecules”. But, by “2 of which were extinct”, it sounds like you might mean using DNA samples from an extinct species to modify the egg of a closely related extant species to act as a surrogate. That sounds vaguely familiar. Is that what you were talking about? Thanks.

Paul Burnett -

Thank you so much for mentioning the uproariously funny Conservapedia "Bible translation" project.

As far as I understand, no actual translation is involved - it's just changing the English text of the King James version to make to make it more right wing sounding ;D!!!!!

The level of naked hypocrisy, narcissistic arrogance, and indeed, outright blasphemy, has been noted by many.

Creationists rarely taunt scientists about “let’s see you create life” anymore.

— raven

raven said: I'll assume you were serious. So far we have synthesized three viruses, polio, 1918 H1N1 influenza, and a retrovirus called Phoenix. Phoenix is one of the endogenous retroviruses in the human genome. They are all defective now, the wreckage of some huge battle in the past of our evolution. IIRC, the Phoenix retrovirus has been extinct for something like 15 million years and we have been carrying it down time as a genomic fossil. For sure, science is far more interesting than 2 pages of ancient mythology. We have also synthesized a primordial replicator RNA molecule in the lab, a goal of abiogenesis. Strangely enough, it evolves. There are also numerous synthetic cell projects going on. The furthest along is probably Craig Ventors, within a year or two of working unless they hit a snag. They have actually synthesized and cloned the whole genome in yeast, 1/2 million base pairs.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Phoenix rising: Scientists resuscitate a 5 million-year-old retrovirus VILLEJUIF, France (Tues., Oct. 31, 2006) -- A team of scientists has reconstructed the DNA sequence of a 5-million-year-old retrovirus and shown that it is able to produce infectious particles. The retrovirus--named Phoenix--is the ancestor of a large family of mobile DNA elements, some of which may play a role in cancer. The study, which is the first to generate an infectious retrovirus from a mobile element in the human genome, is considered a breakthrough for the field of retrovirus research. The findings are reported in Genome Research. "Phoenix became frozen in time after it integrated into the human genome about 5 million years ago," explains Dr. Thierry Heidmann, lead investigator on the project. "In our study, we've recovered this ancestral state and shown that it has the potential for infectivity."

scienceagogo: "Now, however, two Scripps Research Institute scientists have taken a significant step toward confirming the viability of the RNA World model. For the first time, they have synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves indefinitely without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. Reporting their work in Science, Scripps' Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce explained how their breakthrough began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The ultimate goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication. This involved synthesizing a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that then underwent a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA. Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that was a very efficient replicator. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln."

Scienceagogo, in vitro evolution, Tracey Lincoln.

Excellent! Thanks!

Hey Nick,

Moderation?

There are a host of PT posters responding to my comments and waiting for replies, which I plan to do if I get the time.

What are you concerned about?

Well folks,

I will have to wait for Nick's reply before I attempt to go any further.

I'm guessing you think I was trying to derail your threat. For what it's worth, I wasn't.

Anyway, on topic. Sure there is an element of YE and OE in ID. So what?

ID is perfectly capable of discussing the evidence without reference to religion.

My take is that molecules are embedded with intelligence due to the interaction of other dimensions. It is a hypothesis that can be investigated, if not now then in future when we develope a method to detect these dimensions, whether mechanically or directly with the mind.

It is true that the Bible is my starting point. But that is a good thing. Whether its the Bible, the Bagvad Gita, the I Ching, or the Talmud, or Mendels experiments, or Darwin's voyages, there is a starting point.

Whose assumptions and conclusions come out on top remains to be seen. However, it is all science in that it is possible to investigate ID.

Frankly, your bias against ID is political and ideological, not scientific. Your concerned about ID getting its hands on research grants, right?

True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science. It will be a fast transition, really. All that will happen is the wording in the conclusions section of currently submitted papers will attest to the likelihood of embedded intelligence.

Same science, same experiments, different conclusions.

Is this what concerns you? Everything the same except for the drawn conclusions?

Steve P. said: Frankly, your bias against ID is political and ideological, not scientific. Your concerned about ID getting its hands on research grants, right?

True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science.

So, Steve. You think that individual genetic mutation, a phenomenon that can be simply and straightforwardly explained by replication error caused by entropy and environmental damage, needs to be explained all over again by "the interaction of other dimensions". These other dimensions can't be detected or comprehended, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they even exist, let alone have the claimed effects, or any effects at all, but that's what you think.

Well, I just can't see any reason at all why you can't get grant money to investigate such a well-conceived proposal. Must be another instance of the Darwinist Conspiracy.

(Uh, Steve, that was what we fancy-pants smartasses call "irony". An example of non-irony would be: You can start from anywhere you like, Steve, but you've wound up in Fruitcake City.)

Dave Luckett said: So, Steve. You think that individual genetic mutation, a phenomenon that can be simply and straightforwardly explained by replication error caused by entropy and environmental damage, needs to be explained all over again by "the interaction of other dimensions". These other dimensions can't be detected or comprehended, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they even exist, let alone have the claimed effects, or any effects at all, but that's what you think. Well, I just can't see any reason at all why you can't get grant money to investigate such a well-conceived proposal. Must be another instance of the Darwinist Conspiracy. (Uh, Steve, that was what we fancy-pants smartasses call "irony". An example of non-irony would be: You can start from anywhere you like, Steve, but you've wound up in Fruitcake City.)

The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes. The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God

Well, "I pulled it completely out of my arse" makes a change from "the Bible tells me so", at least.

Dave Luckett said: Well, "I pulled it completely out of my arse" makes a change from "the Bible tells me so", at least.

ben said:

The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes. The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God

So obviously you have no interest in science and prefer to believe stuff that's been pulled out of thin air. Why are you here?

Out of sight is not out of Mind.

Hey Ben, that one musta flew right over ya.

How are exploring the possibility of different dimensions and their effect on this dimension not science?

Shit, quantum theory and string theory are already movin' in that direction.

So what's the problem? How is hypothesizing that forces are intelligent not science?

If I can figure out a way to map them mathematically or find some other way to demostrate their effects, how is it not science?

Hell, all good science comes from insights once though ridiculous.

But again, I'm just yr run-a-de-mill IDiot. Dun mind me for exploring what makes you uncomfy.

Frankly, your bias against ID is political and ideological, not scientific. Your concerned about ID getting its hands on research grants, right?

— Steve P.

Steve P.:

Have you read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller or "God After Darwin" by John Haught? Despite arriving at their conclusion from radically different approaches, they all agree with you that God is at the center of life. Yet the also thoroughly reject ID and (other forms of) creationism, and definitely not because of any religious, philosophical or political reasons.

Wheels said:

True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science.

More than what?

There are people who reject ID for religious, philosophical or political reasons.

Philosophical: Some people point out that ID is vacuous.

Religious: Some people note the resemblance between ID and certain religious views such as Deism or Gnosticism.

Political: Some people note the US Constitutional bans on teaching religious doctrines in US public schools.

Steve P. said: (emphasis added) Dave, The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes. The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God. He resides at the center of these concentric dimensions. He pervades them all and is neither of them. Sure, its all very 'Star Trekky' to you now because you can't wrap your brain around it. Nothing I can do about that. As well, mutations are caused by a pull back of one the elements of these dimensions that maintain the integrity of genes. Like pulling out a very small part detrimental to the organism. YECs call it the fall. It will be explained in natural terms some time in the future. We are not there yet intellectually to be able to understand the minutae. But God said there is nothing that is hidden that will not be revealed. So yes, science will explain it in natural terms in time. But we don't need to wait till then to understand the concepts involved. You can be a design denier or a God denier to your hearts content. It'll only slow down your understanding of what underpins physical reality. Hey, but have at it. I'm jus' an IDiot. I dun know nutin.

all good science comes from insights once though ridiculous

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

So what experiments have you done in order to test your idea that there is "intelligence embedded in molecules"?

Oh, wait, none: you've done no research to come up with this harebrained conclusion.

Frank J said:

Frankly, your bias against ID is political and ideological, not scientific. Your concerned about ID getting its hands on research grants, right?

— Steve P.

I think I speak for most if not all "Darwinists" in saying that we would be delighted if ID got its hands on research grants. But to do that ID would have to test its own ideas on their own merits, not on cherry picked or outright fabricated "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." But no IDer dares to do that. So they "expel" themselves.

ben said:

all good science comes from insights once though ridiculous

Carl Sagan handled this line of thinking best:

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Hint: You aren't Newton or Galileo.

Stanton said: So what experiments have you done in order to test your idea that there is "intelligence embedded in molecules"? Oh, wait, none: you've done no research to come up with this harebrained conclusion.

Steve wrote:

"As well, mutations are caused by a pull back of one the elements of these dimensions that maintain the integrity of genes. Like pulling out a very small part detrimental to the organism. YECs call it the fall. It will be explained in natural terms some time in the future. We are not there yet intellectually to be able to understand the minutae."

Well Steve, you can spout animistic nopnsense with no evidence all you want and simply claim that nobody is smart enough to understand it yet, but that really won't get you anywhere. However, when you spout nonsens that is directly contradicted by reality then it is time to stop fooling yourself and go home.

This is NOT the way that mutations work. It has been "explained in natural terms" in great and excrutiating detail. DId you miss class that day, or was it that year? There is absolutely nothing about mutatins that requires any supernatural or animistic force, NOTHING. Take your namby pamby made up crap and piss off. Oh well, at least you admitted that you believe the same nonsense as YECs.

Look dude, you can bleieve any fantabulous nonsense you want, no one cares. But when you ignore all of the findings of science and then preach to people about what they must believe without any evidence, then you will rightly be ignored.

Steve P. said: True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science. It will be a fast transition, really.

TomS said: There are people who reject ID for religious, philosophical or political reasons. Philosophical: Some people point out that ID is vacuous. Religious: Some people note the resemblance between ID and certain religious views such as Deism or Gnosticism. Political: Some people note the US Constitutional bans on teaching religious doctrines in US public schools.

SWT said:

Frank J said:

Frankly, your bias against ID is political and ideological, not scientific. Your concerned about ID getting its hands on research grants, right?

— Steve P.

I think I speak for most if not all "Darwinists" in saying that we would be delighted if ID got its hands on research grants. But to do that ID would have to test its own ideas on their own merits, not on cherry picked or outright fabricated "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." But no IDer dares to do that. So they "expel" themselves.

I think this is an important point. I know that NSF is looking for proposals that are "transformational" -- high risk work that, if successful, will have far-ranging implications throughout science and society. A strong theoretical background and some strategic thought as to how to frame the proposal could result in a reasonable amount of support.

the ID community HAS had time, and money, and researchers for 20+ years now, and they have nothing to show for it

I've had it explained to me that Behe style deductive math (complete with bad premises), and some other guy at, I believe, Michigan, who has apparently set up a lab where microorganisms will be watched failing to evolve, are scientific experiments based on the ID hypothesis. What's the ID hypothesis, you ask? It's all a terrible philosophical mish-mash that goes something like this: Probability of TOE being True + ID being True = 1; therefore, anything that decreases the probability of the TOE being true is a positive test for ID. In other words, doing virtually anything that (supposedly) decreases the probability of the TOE being true (this is where the "It's the only game in town." thing gets to play again) becomes, voila, scientific experimentation on the hypothesis of ID. It's possibly one of the most insidiously anti-scientific arguments I've come across, but that's what some ID proponents will tell you, with a straight face, is the hypothesis for ID.

SWT said: (snip) Can you use "design theory" to identify genetically modified organisms more effectively than using current techniques? Any applications in cyber security? Anthropology/archeology? Linguistics? If what design proponents claim is correct, there should be no shortage of stuff to work on before you go after the foundations of modern biology. (snip)

Tony Hoffman said: Probability of TOE being True + ID being True = 1; therefore, anything that decreases the probability of the TOE being true is a positive test for ID.

SWT said:

Steve P. said: (emphasis added) Dave, The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes. The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God. He resides at the center of these concentric dimensions. He pervades them all and is neither of them. Sure, its all very 'Star Trekky' to you now because you can't wrap your brain around it. Nothing I can do about that. As well, mutations are caused by a pull back of one the elements of these dimensions that maintain the integrity of genes. Like pulling out a very small part detrimental to the organism. YECs call it the fall. It will be explained in natural terms some time in the future. We are not there yet intellectually to be able to understand the minutae. But God said there is nothing that is hidden that will not be revealed. So yes, science will explain it in natural terms in time. But we don't need to wait till then to understand the concepts involved. You can be a design denier or a God denier to your hearts content. It'll only slow down your understanding of what underpins physical reality. Hey, but have at it. I'm jus' an IDiot. I dun know nutin.

Am I the only one who sees "God of the gaps" in the text above? I pretty sure Steve P. doesn't mean to say that God will, in time, be explained in natural terms.

Sure, its all very ‘Star Trekky’ to you now because you can’t wrap your brain around it. Nothing I can do about that.

You can be a design denier or a God denier to your hearts content. It’ll only slow down your understanding of what underpins physical reality. Hey, but have at it. I’m jus’ an IDiot. I dun know nutin.

The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes.

Kevin B said:

Wheels said:

True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science.

More than what?

You've just missed a perfect opportunity to quote Lewis Carroll.

Eric said: I just posted on this very subject on Tom Gilson’s page. This is the argument made by creationists in the 1982 McClean case. Its neither new, nor subtle, nor particularly convincing, so I would disagree that it’s the ‘most insidious’ argument against science but don’t disagree with your description of it.

olegt said: A word of advice to those who are trying to talk to JoeG: don't. Joe is a troll who is either unwilling or unable to learn any science or math. He'll disagree with you no matter how many arguments you marshal, how carefully you explain them and how many literature sources you cite. And he will insult and threaten you to boot. Visit is own blog Intelligent Reasoning (is there any other kind?) and see for yourselves.

True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science. It will be a fast transition, really. All that will happen is the wording in the conclusions section of currently submitted papers will attest to the likelihood of embedded intelligence. Same science, same experiments, different conclusions. Is this what concerns you? Everything the same except for the drawn conclusions?

There is another reason that the “same data; different conclusions” shtick will never compete for research money; ID/creationists already highjack the publications of others and tell their rubes what to believe.

Thus all their money goes to propaganda and none has to go into research and the equipment that that would entail. There is no need for any of them to formulate a research proposal or program; no need to define their pseudo-scientific jargon carefully enough to have meaning.

In other words; why waste time, money and energy on actual work when one can be a vicious parasite sucking the blood out of others?

Steve wrote:

"True, once ID is able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more ID science. It will be a fast transition, really. All that will happen is the wording in the conclusions section of currently submitted papers will attest to the likelihood of embedded intelligence.
Same science, same experiments, different conclusions.
Is this what concerns you? Everything the same except for the drawn conclusions?"

Great. So you don't need a lab or money, you don't need to do any actual experiments. All you have to do is completely trust scientists to collect the data reliably and then completely ignore all of their interpretations! Well, what are you waiting for man, get going. What is your interprretation of all of the palentological, genetic and developmental data? Exacly why should your interpretation be favored over that of the people who actually did the work? Why would this concern anyone if you have been doing this for years anyway?

Yiu do realize that if you claim that every scientific paper supports your interpretation, that you will at least have to read and understand every scientific paper, right?

[quote]Same science, same experiments, different conclusions.[/quote]

I'd presume the "Same science, same experiments" would give the same results, so why invent gunpowder anew?

The results are no secret, just go ahead and draw your conclusions.

ID used to be "the future" but is indeed the past, ready for burial.

The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes.

The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God. He resides at the center of these concentric dimensions. He pervades them all and is neither of them.

Sure, its all very ‘Star Trekky’ to you now because you can’t wrap your brain around it. Nothing I can do about that.

As well, mutations are caused by a pull back of one the elements of these dimensions that maintain the integrity of genes.

Like pulling out a very small part detrimental to the organism. YECs call it the fall. It will be explained in natural terms some time in the future. We are not there yet intellectually to be able to understand the minutae.

But God said there is nothing that is hidden that will not be revealed.

You can be a design denier or a God denier to your hearts content. It’ll only slow down your understanding of what underpins physical reality.

Hey, but have at it. I’m jus’ an IDiot. I dun know nutin.

Mike Elzinga said: Thus all their money goes to propaganda and none has to go into research and the equipment that that would entail.

Steve P. said: Dave, The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it, yes. The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God. He resides at the center of these concentric dimensions. He pervades them all and is neither of them. Sure, its all very 'Star Trekky' to you now because you can't wrap your brain around it. Nothing I can do about that. As well, mutations are caused by a pull back of one the elements of these dimensions that maintain the integrity of genes. Like pulling out a very small part detrimental to the organism. YECs call it the fall. It will be explained in natural terms some time in the future. We are not there yet intellectually to be able to understand the minutae. But God said there is nothing that is hidden that will not be revealed. So yes, science will explain it in natural terms in time. But we don't need to wait till then to understand the concepts involved. You can be a design denier or a God denier to your hearts content. It'll only slow down your understanding of what underpins physical reality. Hey, but have at it. I'm jus' an IDiot. I dun know nutin.

Your concerned about ID getting its hands on research grants, right?

mplavcan: college students B-S’ing on a carpet floor in a dorm room, passing a bong and waiting for the mushrooms to kick in,

I needed a good laugh this morning.

— mplavcan

True, once Magical Pixie Dust supporters are able to pry grant money away the current recipients, then you will see more Magical Pixie Dust science. It will be a fast transition, really. All that will happen is the wording in the conclusions section of currently submitted papers will attest to the likelihood of Magical Pixie Dust

Rolf Aalberg said: A lot is know about different causes and modes of genetic change. You have been told already, but allow me to use my own words too: My genes do not change. By and large, I have all the same genes in the cells of my body today as I had when born. 79 years ago. But with respect to the genes I (and my wife) passed on to our two daughters, they are not 100% identical with ours. We both must have passed on so-called point mutations. (Nobody know whether we also may have been the source of more significant mutations.) That happens all the time, in all(?) species. In fact, such mutations are so frequent and accumulate at rather predictable rates to the extent that we use them to determine how long since species separated from a common ancestor. That creationists quite predictably have made claims about unreliability of molecular clocks does not negate the fact that the clocks tick.

My genes do not change. By and large, I have all the same genes in the cells of my body today as I had when born.

raven said:

mplavcan: college students B-S’ing on a carpet floor in a dorm room, passing a bong and waiting for the mushrooms to kick in,

Ouch! That wasn't me or at least I'm claiming plausible deniability. As a paleoanthropologist, what do you think of Ardipithecus ramdi? This thread really needs to be derailed in the direction of reality. Is this really close to the direct line leading to humans?

OK, thanks. I thought the science papers referred to cladistics on some of the partial fossils. But clearly, cladistics must be ongoing with the most complete skeleton.

I found the phylogeny plausible, but as a nonspecialist, who cares?

AFAIK, what makes Ardipithecus most likely so far is that there isn't any competitor fossil species in this time period.

mplavcan said: The level of "deepitude" is just, like, sooooo deep that it, like, woooow man, like, giggle, wowwwwwwww...blows everybody's mind away. But heeeeeey man, it's just too deep and complicated for you dudes to understand.

raven said: OK, thanks. I thought the science papers referred to cladistics on some of the partial fossils. But clearly, cladistics must be ongoing with the most complete skeleton. I found the phylogeny plausible, but as a nonspecialist, who cares? AFAIK, what makes Ardipithecus most likely so far is that there isn't any competitor fossil species in this time period.

Henry J said:

My genes do not change. By and large, I have all the same genes in the cells of my body today as I had when born.

Aside from whatever mutations may have occurred during cell division since birth (or conception). Henry

Rolf -

I know you get this, but to make is super-clear to third parties -

Your body has trillions of non-gonad cells, and whenever they frequently divide by mitosis, mutations - differences in the DNA sequence of the genome between "daughter" and original cell - are inevitable. (Less often, non-dividing cells can accumulate mutations, too.)

The probability of a mutation can be increased by the presence of some types of chemicals or radiation in the environment - e.g. cigarette smoke.

The vast majority of these so-called somatic mutations are harmless. In other cases, the mutated cell, but only that cell, may be non-viable. These mutations are, of course, on an individual basis, limited to the single clone comprised of the particular somatic cell that first contained them, and its descendants.

Hence, your overall genome is, as you noted, constant, and a sample from any normal part of your body will allow your genome to be accurately analyzed. Every given normal cell probably has some somatic mutations, but no given normal cell has very many, and each individual normal cell has a unique complement of them.

These somatic mutations are believed to be strongly related to cancer, but only a very tiny fraction of somatic mutations end up being associated with cancer.

Anyone else noticing the tendency for ID-ists and other creationists of dropping out of the debate after a while? No censorship, no suppression, but off they go.

Rolf Aalberg said: Anyone else noticing the tendency for ID-ists and other creationists of dropping out of the debate after a while? No censorship, no suppression, but off they go.

Rolf Aalberg said: Anyone else noticing the tendency for ID-ists and other creationists of dropping out of the debate after a while? No censorship, no suppression, but off they go.

Thinking Christian: Here’s my observation and interpretation. Once I commented on Panda’s Thumb, using the user id TomG (I later found there’s a regular there who also uses that handle), making a very specific point about a very specific aspect of how the controversy has been played out in public discussion. I really can’t remember what the question was now, but it wasn’t about ID’s scientific, legal, or religious status; it was about something more obvious and more narrowly focused than that. Those of you who have seen PT in action can guess what happened. Of course I got jumped on; that was expected. But I wasn’t jumped on for that point I made. I was held personally responsible for the Wedge document, the Discovery Institute’s political agenda, Michael Behe’s stupid mistaken theories of irreducible complexity, all of ID’s idiotic arguments for incredulity, and every creationism court case since the Scopes trial. (I exaggerate, but only slightly.) It was impossible to get any traction on the one point I made, and it was impossible for me to make it clear that all I was taking responsibility for was that point.

And on their own blogs they offer an odd Stalinist revisionism which gets exactly wrong which side is making open discussion impossible.

Frank J said:

Rolf Aalberg said: Anyone else noticing the tendency for ID-ists and other creationists of dropping out of the debate after a while? No censorship, no suppression, but off they go.

The slicker ones rarely show up here in these types of blogs in the first place. Of the DI gang, to my knowledge only their "token YEC" Paul Nelson stops by on rare occasion. Last year he was here just long enough for me to conclude that he evaded, rather than missed, my question (based on another's suggestion) about whether he was actually an Omphalos creationist. It was his chance to say whether he truly thinks the evidence supports a young Earth, or just "takes it on faith," and he passed on it.

Tony Hoffman said: Notice everything going on there: the accusation that the Panda's thumb crowd doesn't know how to address an argument, the implication that one cannot have a discussion here without being undeservedly attacked (and no one should bother to try), and no reference which allows readers to fact check these claims for themselves. It's a smear that simultaneously claims to to be falsely attacked. They don't make theater screens big enough for that kind of projection.

Alas, most of those who debated him took his bait, and kept clumsily defending “Darwinism” (thus giving him more opportunities to spin “weaknesses” and avoid details of his own “theory”), or criticizing his religion and politics.

— Frank J

Another standard Cordova tactic consists of picking out an articulate-but-not-very-forceful supporter of evolution in a place like PT; and oh-so-unctiously inviting him to have a polite and civil debate in another place of Sal's choosing (normally UD, of course, where the censors are on his side). He'll promise, scout's honor, to politely beg the owners of his chosen venue to relax their well-known censorship policy just for his sake (thus admitting his chosen venue censors differing views). And of course Sal will completely ignore all the rest of us impudent bumpkins who have the temerity to ask why he can't just continue the debate right here. It's a very crude, transparently sycophantic divide-and-rule strategy, and AFAICT, it's never fooled anyone. And it was the only trick in Sal's book, before the Kitzmiller decision caused the veneer of civility to fall off his movement altogether.

In the years since then, Sal's been moving from smug support of YECism, to blaming other YECers for the total failure of their doctrine, while pretending to be undecided on the issue, to flailing about from one diversion to another (the last one I remember being some vague doubts about the Big Bang Theory).

Mike Elzinga said: So much of the stuff that the trolls toss out, as they barge in to stomp on some toes, is simply the old rehash of the crap that they use for taunting. It’s the taunting that gets their adrenalin going and gets them fired up to do more taunting. They are not about to quit as long as they believe they are effectively yanking “evolutionist” chains. Rather than constantly getting sucked into the same game each time, we might do better to simply ask them to spell out in some detail what they have that is better (“spell out” as in “think of it as sending a research proposal to NSF”). That will be met with more taunts because the trolls know there will be at least one person who will take the bait. But if everyone insists that the troll elaborate on his own “theory” in the kind of detail required for a research program, maybe some of the trolls will start experiencing the “slack-jawed, blank-mind syndrome” and perhaps some of them might start looking more closely at just what it is that they don’t have.

I tried this once, and it’s amazing how almost all of the claims that the trolls make can be answered by that reference. But it didn’t work, because others kept responding to him/her.

harold said: GvL Geologist - However, this site does claim to be a forum for discussion of ID/creationism, and the very title of the post that generated this thread is about the relationship between ID and YEC.

There does tend to be a very, very strong correlation between being on the wrong side of a rational or ethical issue, and also being a troll, of course. Most ID/creationists are predisposed to be trolls, presumably for somewhat the same reasons that they are predisposed to be ID/creationists. Hypothetically, someone who is right about something could express themselves in a trollish manner, although that rarely happens in practice.

I think it's an interesting question how to best debate those who engage in hypocrisy and deception and promote ignorance and close-mindedness. I admit that I fear the consequences of remaining silent in the face of these things.

I've only become engaged in these debates since the movie Expelled came out. I've learned a great deal from following and participating in these kinds of discussions, mostly from the well-trained and thoughtful scientists and other academics who take the time to lend their expertise to these public forums.

I came across one astronomer a year or more ago who admitted to me in private correspondence that he enjoyed the discussions in part because, in his words, he "had to look up all kinds of shit he didn't really care about." For me that's the fun side effect of becoming involved in these debates. Yes, I care about the issues and the outcome. But those of us who aren't in academia enjoy having to educate ourselves on a bunch of topics we might never have stumbled upon otherwise.

Specialized knowledge aside, there are also clearly people who are just gifted at these discussions. I read here and other places partly to learn more, partly to fight for things I do care about, but mostly to learn from those who have learned how, or have a knack for, cutting to the heart of questions that would have left me flummoxed.

He usually pops up whenever there’s a thread about him, or less often, something to do with the Discovery Institute.

— Stanton

I suggested that when an old argument is rehashed, just refer the troll to the appropriate link in TO’s Index to Creationist Claims. I tried this once, and it’s amazing how almost all of the claims that the trolls make can be answered by that reference. But it didn’t work, because others kept responding to him/her.

— GVLGeologist, FCD

I certainly learn a lot from the expertise of others here; and I would prefer that these discussions not be interrupted and derailed by trolls.

So sending troll to places like TO, or requiring them to elaborate their “alternative”, so that we can learn just exactly what they know and think, is a better way to extract knowledge about them without wasting our time explaining the same stuff over and over.

There is no reason we can’t discuss the pedagogical aspects of getting science across to the general public as well as analyzing the disruption tactics of the anti-science crowd. There needs to be an open forum for such topics.

Frank J said:

He usually pops up whenever there’s a thread about him, or less often, something to do with the Discovery Institute.

— Stanton

I has thought of him when mentioning Nelson, but I consider Sal “2nd tier” at the DI. And probably more self-deluded than the amateur (if indeed he is) I wrote about. So my neglecting Sal is actually more a compliment than an insult.

Asking how they plan to test their hypotheses, and/or why they refuse to do so is better, but it also give them an opportunity to pretend they are “expelled” by someone other than themselves. So even before we ask that, or ask how the designer conducted those mysterious events that they claim can’t happen “naturalistically,” they need to come clean on what those events are (new origin-of-life events, or in-vivo changes?) and when they occurred. If they try to run away from that – and that’s what nearly all of them do these days – they are essentially admitting that they ought not be taken seriously.

Stanton said:

Frank J said: ...they are essentially admitting that they ought not be taken seriously.

Unless one has self-inflicted brain damage, it is impossible to take a person seriously who actually scolds people for trusting scientists over confessed religious charlatans, or a grown man who drops hints that he thinks the tale of Noah's Ark is scientifically sound.

It is valuable to address all of these elements - 1) “What you said about evolution is wrong for this reason” and 2) “How do you propose that modern life came about?” When “3)” is present, it’s usually a simple matter to demonstrate that they are using scientific terminology inappropriately, or making up nonsense that is designed to sound like science to a lay person.

— harold

Unless one has self-inflicted brain damage, it is impossible to take a person seriously who actually scolds people for trusting scientists over confessed religious charlatans, or a grown man who drops hints that he thinks the tale of Noah’s Ark is scientifically sound.

— Stanton

Certainly all 3 are necessary. But note that the goal is not to change the minds of the anti-evolution activists or their most hopeless fans,

but rather to inform the more reasonable readers who deny, or are unsure about, evolution because of common misinformation, or who accept a common caricature of evolution.

Unfortunately most of those people lack the time and/or interest to follow lengthy technical explanations for 1 and 3.

harold said: Again, I am greatly at a loss as to understand how my comments led you to think that I disagree with this. Although I don't see how we can possibly do the first of these things, if we aren't able to do the second.

Mike Elzinga -

I think, in fact, we completely agree.

In the end, I think all I was trying to say was that, while ID/creationism can't be taken seriously in one sense, in another sense, I take it very seriously as a highly politicized threat to constitutional rights and science education. And although I don't do much more about it than post on the internet these days :), I do want to be active in at least keeping abreast of it, and showing opposition to it where possible.

Well Steve, you can spout animistic nopnsense with no evidence all you want and simply claim that nobody is smart enough to understand it yet, but that really won’t get you anywhere. However, when you spout nonsens that is directly contradicted by reality then it is time to stop fooling yourself and go home. This is NOT the way that mutations work. It has been “explained in natural terms” in great and excrutiating detail. DId you miss class that day, or was it that year? There is absolutely nothing about mutatins that requires any supernatural or animistic force, NOTHING. Take your namby pamby made up crap and piss off. Oh well, at least you admitted that you believe the same nonsense as YECs.

Steve P. said: My idea that the quantum effects we detect are caused by interactions of other dimensions with this physical dimension is not as absurd as you make it out to be; unless, of course, you have an agenda to maintain. Science has never advanced without imagination. Maybe I will be off the mark, maybe I won't. Only time will tell.

In anticipation of a common ND rebuttal, why is chance and necessity an acceptable conclusion? IMO, it means nothing. How do you demonstrate chance? How does an organism recognize it needs anything? What drives it to replicate itself ‘without itself having any notion of its own existence? What drives that? What drove early life to develop mechanisms and systems? How can instructions and their executions ‘evolve’ simultaneously from chance and necessity? It is unintelligible.

Steve,

The quote you were apparently responding to was mine.

"Science has never advanced without imagination. Maybe I will be off the mark, maybe I won’t. Only time will tell."

This is precisely the point. You can imagine anything you want, that doesn't make it true. No one else will be convinced without evidence, you have exactly none. Even if you are right, no one cares. Look, in order for your intuition to have any validity whatsoever, you must first have an intimate knowledge of ecxactly what is already known and the experimental basis for that knowledge. You are apparently completely lacking in this, therefore your intuition is worthless to someone who is famliliar with the evidence. My intent is not to be insulting. I am merely trying to explain why your imagination is not a substitue for knowledge.

"Regarding mutations, how do you know there is not more involved?"

Don't. Never will. Science will never have all of the answers. But how do you know what questions have been answered? Are you familiar with the experimental evidence? Do you know the definition of "random" as applied to mutations and how that hypothesis has been tested? Are you familiar with the major mechanisms of mutation and their molecular basis? Are you familiar with studies of molecular clocks and their limitations? Do you have any evidnece whatsoever for any of your quantum mumbo jumbo and its effects on mutations? Have you published your findings anywhere? Why should anyone take your musings seriously?

"How do you demonstrate chance? How does an organism recognize it needs anything? What drives it to replicate itself ‘without itself having any notion of its own existence? What drives that? What drove early life to develop mechanisms and systems? How can instructions and their executions ‘evolve’ simultaneously from chance and necessity? It is unintelligible."

Yes, it is unitelligible to you because you obviously lack the basic knowledge to even form the questions properly. Evolution is not driven by any outside force, if you think that it is, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this force. You have not. Evolution is just what happened. It could have been otherwise. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

Let me make this simple for you Steve, personal incredulity is not evidence for anything. Imagination is a wonderful thing. But why would your imagination be the proper place to answer questions about the arrangement of the planets in the solar system, especially if you had never studied astronomy and didn't know anything about it? You should start with the basics of what is already known and then use your imagination to pose new questions. Then, of course you must test your new ideas experimentally. Frankly, I don't see any of that coming from you. Until you actually have some evidence, real scientists will choose to ignore your ideas. You really can't blame them for that.

Steve P. said: So why is it so hard for you folks to keep the investigations going? You seem to want to stop looking further afield. [...snip...] How do you explain anything without reference to design and purpose? It is not possible.

steve P playing crackpot: Science has never advanced without imagination. Maybe I will be off the mark, maybe I won’t. Only time will tell.

Steve P. said: So why is it so hard for you folks to keep the investigations going? You seem to want to stop looking further afield.

Science has never advanced without imagination

How do you explain anything without reference to design and purpose? It is not possible

My idea that the quantum effects we detect are caused by interactions of other dimensions with this physical dimension

The interaction of other dimensions is what I believe causes quantum fluctuations and ultimately kicks life in gear, develops it and maintains it....The deeper you go, the closer you get to understanding that these interactions are caused by the living, intelligent force we call God. He resides at the center of these concentric dimensions. He pervades them all and is neither of them

It sounds like Steve P. has never really thought through the details of his vague ideas.

Really, Steve: present some evidence, or even point us to where, when, and how we could test for evidence of other dimensions influencing quantum effects.

Otherwise your postings are just the digital equivalent of wind.

Science Avenger wrote:

"Once again we see laid bare in creationspeak the implicit assumption that researchers do not exist."

Exactly. There are two important points to be made here:

First, this is mere projection. Creationists and ID pepple do not do any research, therefore the assumption is that no one else does either! Classic reasoning that.

Two, if no research exists, then ignorance of said research is acceptable.

Of course this line of reasoning will only work on the willfully ignorant. That't why it isn't playing well here. All of the quantum mumbo jumbo is just a thinly veiled attempt to say GODDIDIT in scientific terms, as if that is going to fool anybody. At best it boils down to a God of the gaps argument, but then again you have to pretend a gap exists to play that game. Personal incredulity is no more a gap than ignorance is evidence.

Our knowledge of mutations is used to fight disease every day. What has the quantum mumbo jumbo hypothesis ever been used to accomplish? Probably about the same as the magic invisible hologram hypothesis I'd guess.

fnxtr said: It sounds like Steve P. has never really thought through the details of his vague ideas.

So we need the control group of material subject to quantum effects, which is somehow isolated from other dimensions, and the experiment where we allow the extra-dimensional influence.

Or is it the other way around?

Then we compare the difference in quantum effects between the two.

How's that, Steve P.? It's your idea, I've just started you off. Where would you go from here? Come on, buddy, do some science.

This post appears to be the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google Ads works. When I clicked over to Dembski's blog post, I did not say *any* advertisement for any conference, much less a yount-earth conference. The only ads I saw were the Google Ads.

You realize, of course, that the author of a blog post has no control over which ads Google places?

And that those ads change over time? As they evidently have since October 29?

So we need the control group of material subject to quantum effects, which is somehow isolated from other dimensions, and the experiment where we allow the extra-dimensional influence. Or is it the other way around?

(shrug) Okay.

The principle still holds. Steve P. seems to think God is acting through these compactified dimensions.

I just want him to either show how he would test that idea, or admit he's just wanking.

When scientists add mutagens to their bacterial cultures are summoning God from the vasty depths of the 11th dimension?

Dammit! Are THEY summoning... I swear I preview and that I've only had 1 glass of wine.

The principle still holds. Steve P. seems to think God is acting through these compactified dimensions.

raven said: Science has plenty of imagination. That is not rate limiting and by itself plus $1.60 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. It also takes hard work by well educated people and lots of money. People with imagination without that are known as science fiction writers, fantasy writers, crackpots, and founders of cults.

Dave Luckett said: *snip* ...L Ron, who was a very mediocre SF writer...

tresmal said: When scientists add mutagens to their bacterial cultures they are summoning God from the vasty depths of the 11th dimension?

Steve P. said: Sorry you feel that way Tony. For what its worth, here's my logic on it. Back a few hundred years ago, who would have thought of the idea that there were organisms so small, we couldn't see them with our own eyes?

Dave Luckett: But I hope you didn’t mean to slur my profession or my colleagues, other than L Ron, who was a very mediocre SF writer, but a con-man par excellence.

Chris Falter said: This post appears to be the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google Ads works. When I clicked over to Dembski's blog post, I did not say *any* advertisement for any conference, much less a yount-earth conference. The only ads I saw were the Google Ads. You realize, of course, that the author of a blog post has no control over which ads Google places? And that those ads change over time? As they evidently have since October 29?

So why is it so hard for you folks to keep the investigations going? You seem to want to stop looking further afield.

— Steve P.

raven said:

Dave Luckett: But I hope you didn’t mean to slur my profession or my colleagues, other than L Ron, who was a very mediocre SF writer, but a con-man par excellence.

Not at all. My favorite entertainment is reading books, mostly science fiction and fantasy. I would guess I read 20 or 30 novels and short story collections per year plus subscribe to a monthly magazine. Steve P. misses a common and important point, the Feynman doctine. It is not enough to be an unsung hero by having imaginative ideas. You also have to prove them. And you have to be right. Otherwise, you are just a crackpot or a deluded religious fanatic.

Getting back to the topic of the original post, The Sensuous Curmudgeon found this article on what may be the same conference, or maybe not, but its one where Dembski spoke recently. Let me sum up what it says about Dembski's ID talk:

-It started after "musical praise and worship"

-He used a bible to illustrate his points

-He spoke on the need for both design and creationism (yes, and we play all types of music here - Country AND Western)

-He ended with a prayer

-His work is described as "grounded in Biblical faith and doctrine"

And this is a good review by what looks like a sympathetic reporter.

Based on this highly technical report I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to learn that anyone would link ID with creationism!

Stuart Weinstein said: Or as Sagan put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is your extraordinary evidence Steve P.

eric said: Getting back to the topic of the original post, The Sensuous Curmudgeon found this article on what may be the same conference, or maybe not, but its one where Dembski spoke recently. Let me sum up what it says about Dembski's ID talk:

Leading Intelligent Design advocate Dr. William Dembski uses the Bible to illustrate a scientific point while speaking in the R.G. Lee Chapel.

Well, let's hope he wasn't counting the legs on an insect...

Henry J said: Well, let's hope he wasn't counting the legs on an insect...

Where is your extraordinary evidence Steve P.?

— Stuart Weinstein

Leading Intelligent Design advocate Dr. William Dembski uses the Bible to illustrate a scientific point while speaking in the R.G. Lee Chapel.

Heck, I can use the Bible to defend evolution. The part about “thou shalt not bear false witness” says it all.

Frank J said: I know it's still a secret among the general public, but with "Expelled" you made it clear that your only objection to evolution is that you think acceptance of it causes bad behavior.

Frank J said:

most people (allegedly) would assume that creationism = young-earth creationism, and linking ID to young-earth creationism was oh-so-wildly unfair.

— Nick Matzke

If anything I have always thought that linking ID to YEC, if done hastily, is too generous to the ID activists. YECs at least make testable statements regarding "what happened when," while IDers increasingly pander to the big tent, whatever they believe. YEC just happens to be the biggest market, so ID language has to be YEC-friendly, even if most ID activists have made it clear in the past that the find no evidence to support YEC or anything close to it (e.g. old-earth-young-life). I'd bet that ID would be much more OEC-friendly had the Bryan-era creationism not been replaced by the Morris-era version.

I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

— Joshua Zelinsky

If they do, it's probably only about all the "weaknesses" of "Darwinism" they agree on, and nothing about their irreconcilable differences. Besides, Behe has admitted that, although he accepts common descent, some IDers (unnamed of course) who reject it are, in his opinion, "more familiar with the relevant science." If he hasn't yet made a similar pathetic disclaimer about YEC, give him time.

But, evolution is foolishness.

To think that evolution mindlessly developed the ability to reason is beyond comprehension.

Who says that the only explanation for the fossils is evolution? OECs hold that the fossil record supports creationism and that it does not support the evolution hypothesis. Why are there such gaps? From the oldest layer to the Cambrian period it jumps from single-celled organisms to highly developed animals appearing suddenly.

Why have scientists not been able to mimic evolution in the lab? Why haven't we bred cats from dogs? We breed all sorts of dogs, but we don't cross the barrier into a new species. And breeding is using intelligence, not mutations and survival of the fittest.

I find it ironic that evolution argues from nature when nature reveals the evidence of a designer and the evidence of a very powerful intellect. It is foolishness to conceive of evolution as the answer to the immense complexity of life and nature. If I were to study a computer chips inner workings, it is not likely that my first hypothesis would be that it was the result of random chance. Evolution is the theory for those who cannot stomach the existence of God.

So you're willing to believe that God is a deceiver, but you refuse to comprehend how life evolves through the accumulation of mutations with each generation?

Jonesy said: Evolution is the theory for those who cannot stomach the existence of God.

Stanton said: So you're willing to believe that God is a deceiver, but you refuse to comprehend how life evolves through the accumulation of mutations with each generation?

Stanton said:

So, in other words, you're saying that the Pope is an atheist?

If evolution is the work of unintelligent forces, then God does not exist. If evolution was guided by the hand of God, then it isn't evolution. Evolution by definition presumes that God is unnecessary, except for kicking life off since evolution can't be used to explain how life began. I think a theist that believes in evolution is conflicted.

What you're saying is nonsense, lies and slander: If you actually bothered to learn about biology, you would have found out that scientists have already studied, and still are studying the transition from unicellular organism to multicellular organisms, that scientists have found out a great deal from Cambrian fossils with the past 20 years alone, and how they don't support the idea that God magically poofed them into existence, and that scientists have observed several new species arise within the last few centuries.

That, and two things, Jonesy:

1) Evolution says that cats and dogs share a common ancestor: only a gibbering idiot would claim that evolution says that one can breed a cat from a dog,

and

2) The vast majority of people who accept the theory and facts of evolution as true happen to be religious, including the majority of today's Christians, including the current and past two Popes.

Jonesy wrote:

"Who says that the only explanation for the fossils is evolution?"

Scientists, you know, the ones who actually discovered those fossils. Why, who do you think should decide?

"From the oldest layer to the Cambrian period it jumps from single-celled organisms to highly developed animals appearing suddenly."

Really? Perhaps you could tell us exactly how "suddenly" that was. Perhaps you could tell us exactly which animals appear. Perhaps you could tell us exactly which animals do not appear at that time and why they do not.

"Why have scientists not been able to mimic evolution in the lab? Why haven’t we bred cats from dogs?"

Who says evolution has not been mimiced in the lab? Who ever claimed that one should be able to breed cats from dogs? You seem to be confused. Do you keep up with the scientific literature? Then how would you know?

"Evolution is the theory for those who cannot stomach the existence of God."

Really? You should tell the Catholics that. They seem to be under the impression that the two things are not incompatible. Are they not believer enough for you? Why are your beliefs any better than theirs?

"If evolution is the work of unintelligent forces, then God does not exist."

Yea right and if lighning is the work of "unintelligent forces" then god does not exist, so I guess we should have never looked for the unintelligent forces, right? It was a complete waste of time.

Jonesy babbled:

Stanton said: So, in other words, you're saying that the Pope is an atheist?

If evolution is the work of unintelligent forces, then God does not exist. If evolution was guided by the hand of God, then it isn't evolution. Evolution by definition presumes that God is unnecessary, except for kicking life off since evolution can't be used to explain how life began. I think a theist that believes in evolution is conflicted.

Jonesy wrote:

"I don’t believe that God deceived by creating trees with age rings. The tree just had an initial condition."

Really? Are all of the transitional fossils just "initial conditions"? Why are all of the "initial conditions" exactly what one would expect to see if evolution were true? Is the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities an "initial condition"? Are the shared SINE insertions in many lineages an example of an "initial condition"? You seem to be seriously confused again. That appears to be a frequent occurrance with you.

Jonesy, you spout the usual crap. This is all creationist fodder long since falsified.

Fossilisation is in fact very rare, so there must necessarily be "gaps". That's where the "gaps" come from. Is that so hard to understand? That said, paleontologists are patiently filling many of them in. Many important ones have been filled, quite recently. Consider tiktaalik.

What you call "sudden appearance" (aka "the Cambrian explosion") happened over some thirty million years. Some explosion. It is mostly an artefact of selective evidence - in the Cambrian, the first large(ish) animals with hard body parts appeared, which makes them more visible in the fossil record, but patient fieldwork has followed some of the groups back into the Precambrian, where their ancestors display, as predicted by evolution, less developed versions of the same characteristics, and there are other groups with other characteristics that did not survive. The Cambrian animals we see in the fossils are those that did.

Scientists have mimicked evolution in the lab, by varying the environment, not by designing any change to the organisms. This has been done with bacteria and with yeasts. Speciation has also been observed in historical time, in the field.

To ask "why haven't we bred dogs from cats" is simply to show gross ignorance. Neither is an ancestor or a descendant of the other, and neither could give rise to the other. Rather, dogs and cats are both descended from ancestors that were neither.

And finally, we have Paley's watchmaker argument applied to computer chips. This is merely to say that anything that is complex and appears to be designed must be designed - a falsehood. The idea that complex things cannot arise from natural processes is simply wrong. The species were not designed, but that does not mean they arose by random chance. Their characteristics were selected for a purpose - survival - by an unintelligent process - natural selection, working on genetic variation.

Anybody could have found this out by doing only a little reading and showing only a little openness of mind, for the evidence is overwhelming. Ignorance in the face of copious information can only be the product of intransigent refusal to look at it.

Jonesy wrote: “Who says that the only explanation for the fossils is evolution?”

Stanton said: 1) Evolution says that cats and dogs share a common ancestor: only a gibbering idiot would claim that evolution says that one can breed a cat from a dog, and 2) The vast majority of people who accept the theory and facts of evolution as true happen to be religious, including the majority of today's Christians, including the current and past two Popes.

Jonesy wrote:

"Are you an atheist because you believe evolution is true or because you believe God does not exist?"

Who cares? And who said anything about being an atheist?

Do you believe in god because you can't believe in evolution, or do you refuse to believe in evolution because you need to believe in god? And when are you going to stop beating your wife?

Since you appear to be emotionally and intellectually incapable of discussing the actual science, we are done here. No one cares about your religious beliefs. Come back when you are ready to answer the questions you have ignored.

DS said: Jonesy wrote: "Evolution is the theory for those who cannot stomach the existence of God." Really? You should tell the Catholics that. They seem to be under the impression that the two things are not incompatible. Are they not believer enough for you? Why are your beliefs any better than theirs? "If evolution is the work of unintelligent forces, then God does not exist." Yea right and if lighning is the work of "unintelligent forces" then god does not exist, so I guess we should have never looked for the unintelligent forces, right? It was a complete waste of time.

DS said: Jonesy wrote: "I don’t believe that God deceived by creating trees with age rings. The tree just had an initial condition." Really? Are all of the transitional fossils just "initial conditions"? Why are all of the "initial conditions" exactly what one would expect to see if evolution were true? Is the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities an "initial condition"? Are the shared SINE insertions in many lineages an example of an "initial condition"? You seem to be seriously confused again. That appears to be a frequent occurrance with you.

DS said: Jonesy wrote: "Are you an atheist because you believe evolution is true or because you believe God does not exist?" Who cares? And who said anything about being an atheist? Do you believe in god because you can't believe in evolution, or do you refuse to believe in evolution because you need to believe in god? And when are you going to stop beating your wife? Since you appear to be emotionally and intellectually incapable of discussing the actual science, we are done here. No one cares about your religious beliefs. Come back when you are ready to answer the questions you have ignored.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a historically verifiable miracle. This is evidence for the existence of God.

tresmal said:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a historically verifiable miracle. This is evidence for the existence of God.

No.

Jonesy said:

tresmal said:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a historically verifiable miracle. This is evidence for the existence of God.

No.

Yes, See William Lane Craig, "The Resurrection of Jesus". Excerpts: FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

tresmal said: The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a historically verifiable miracle. This is evidence for the existence of God.

But hey - I’m putting words in your mouth, tresemal.

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is, by jonesy's own account, a transcendent miracle. That is, it can't be explained by any natural means. If that were possible, it wouldn't be a miracle.

Which leaves criticism of the historical sources rather beside the point. There is no way that any historical source could ever substantiate such an event. One either accepts that it happened on faith, or not, remembering that faith is what the Christian Church demands.

That said, the sources themselves are very open to criticism. None of them originate anywhere near the event in time or place. According to them, there were no actual eyewitnesses to it. All of the accounts vary considerably - in fact, the only details they agree on is that the women went to the tomb before it was light on the Sunday, and found that the body was missing. That's just about it.

As for the appearances of Jesus after death, Mark's original account has none. (They were added later by a different hand or hands.) Matthew mentions only one brief appearance on a mountain in Galilee; Luke tells us that Jesus appeared to a couple of travellers on the road to Emmaus, and in Jerusalem, where he walked with the disciples as far as Bethany, a village some miles away. John says Mary Magdalen saw him in the garden, then the disciples later the same day, then a week later, then by the Sea of Tiberias. It's very odd that not one of these accounts directly corroborates any of the others on any specific detail.

So I'm afraid that I don't accept these accounts. They simply aren't reliable because they're not internally consistent. But that's an intellectual decision I came to after I realised that I don't have faith. I wouldn't have criticised them had I not realised that. And that, I think, is where jonesy is now.

Jonesy said: Are you an atheist because you believe evolution is true or because you believe God does not exist?

Jonesy wrote:

"I believe in God, therefore I cannot believe in evolution, and I think it is intelligent to do so, based on the theory of intelligent design. Intelligence begets intelligence!"

And there you have it folks. Jonesy has made up his mind. No amount of evidence will persuade him. Why bother arguing with such a closed minded charlatan?

Jonesy, you are free to hold any religious beliefs you choose. However, when those beliefs do not allow you to accept reality, you have a choice to make. You made the wrong choice bro. Good luck with that. Bye bye.

Stanton said:

Jonesy said: Are you an atheist because you believe evolution is true or because you believe God does not exist?

None of my crises of faith have ever stemmed from understanding evolution: they've all stemmed from having to deal with small-minded, colossally arrogant bigots, exactly like you, who try to bully me into thinking exactly like they (and you) do, that God is a cruel, petty, and shockingly incompetent puppeteer who will throw me into eternal hellfire for having trusted the false evidence He's given me about the world.

Dave Luckett said: The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is, by jonesy's own account, a transcendent miracle. That is, it can't be explained by any natural means. If that were possible, it wouldn't be a miracle.

Jonesy replies: I don't understand this logic. All miracles transcend nature. But, evidence does exist that the miracle occurred. When God miraculously heals someone from cancer, the evidence is in the MRI.

Jonesy, you claim that we (humans) do not define God, yet, that is exactly what you are doing: you define God as according to your own miserable ignorance of biology.

Evolutionary Biology has absolutely nothing to do with sin, original or otherwise. It occurs every day, and has been observed for thousands of years, what with people domesticating plants and animals since before recorded history.

You have absolutely no interest in discussing anything: your only interest is to proselytize at us, shaming us for not being as petty and close-minded as you have made yourself to be. Please take your arrogant, and blasphemous ignorance and leave.

Dave Luckett said: So I'm afraid that I don't accept these accounts. They simply aren't reliable because they're not internally consistent. But that's an intellectual decision I came to after I realised that I don't have faith. I wouldn't have criticised them had I not realised that. And that, I think, is where jonesy is now.

Jonesy said: What caused you not to have faith, Dave? Did you lose your faith?

Stanton said: Jonesy, you claim that we (humans) do not define God, yet, that is exactly what you are doing: you define God as according to your own miserable ignorance of biology. Evolutionary Biology has absolutely nothing to do with sin, original or otherwise. It occurs every day, and has been observed for thousands of years, what with people domesticating plants and animals since before recorded history. You have absolutely no interest in discussing anything: your only interest is to proselytize at us, shaming us for not being as petty and close-minded as you have made yourself to be. Please take your arrogant, and blasphemous ignorance and leave.

Jonesy said: I am more interested in your soul than in evolutionary theory.

Here's my weakgrotesquely incorrect analysis

Jonesy said: I am more interested in your soul than in evolutionary theory.

I didn't know prying into personal spiritual matters was a mortal sin. Shoot, and I thought I was going to heaven! While I am concerned with your soul, I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith. So, I am interested to know if it caused people like you to lose your faith. And I am an apologist for Christianity and want to defend the faith, especially if people on this site were formerly Christians. Dawkins is a proseltyzing for atheism. He is trying to destroy faith in God, and he is the most well-known advocate of evolution.

Dave Luckett said: The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is, by jonesy's own account, a transcendent miracle. That is, it can't be explained by any natural means. If that were possible, it wouldn't be a miracle.

I don't understand this logic. All miracles transcend nature. But, evidence does exist that the miracle occurred. When God miraculously heals someone from cancer, the evidence is in the MRI.

Jonesy said: I didn't know prying into personal spiritual matters was a mortal sin. Shoot, and I thought I was going to heaven!

While I am concerned with your soul, I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith. So, I am interested to know if it caused people like you to lose your faith.

And I am an apologist for Christianity and want to defend the faith, especially if people on this site were formerly Christians.

Dawkins is a proseltyzing for atheism. He is trying to destroy faith in God, and he is the most well-known advocate of evolution.

Naturalism is the philosophy that nothing supernatural exists.

Jonsey,

We have covered this already. Move on. If you simply cannot understand, then just leave. No one will be convinced no matter how many times you repeat your nonsensical crap.

Jonesy said: ...I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith.

Jonesy said: I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith.

eric said:

Jonesy said: I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith.

Don't worry Jonesy, the TOE only causes people to lose wrong faiths. Empricism is nice that way - when a prophet (or book) claims to have some God-given truth, test it. If the "truth" turns out to be demonstrably not true, you've been handed a pretty good indication that said prophet (or book) is not a true prophet. :)

Dave Luckett said:

eric said:

Jonesy said: I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith.

Don't worry Jonesy, the TOE only causes people to lose wrong faiths. Empricism is nice that way - when a prophet (or book) claims to have some God-given truth, test it. If the "truth" turns out to be demonstrably not true, you've been handed a pretty good indication that said prophet (or book) is not a true prophet. :)

Jonesy said:

eric said:

Jonesy said: I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith.

Don't worry Jonesy, the TOE only causes people to lose wrong faiths. Empricism is nice that way - when a prophet (or book) claims to have some God-given truth, test it. If the "truth" turns out to be demonstrably not true, you've been handed a pretty good indication that said prophet (or book) is not a true prophet. :)

Are you serious? What empirical test proves that man evolved from an ape? Have we seen this in the lab?

It isn't close-minded when someone asks for verification of your wacky and nonsensical claims, Jonesy.

Furthermore, you don't get to redefine words, then demand that we bow to your new definitions. As was stated to you repeatedly, "naturalism" in science means that one must proceed without taking supernatural forces and or entities because there is no way to detect or test for supernatural forces or entities because supernatural forces and entities exist outside the realm of nature. If we had to take into account the whims of God, like you unreasonably demand, no science would be done, period.

And now that you've outed yourself as a religiously inspired anti-intellectual idiot for the umpteenth time, Jonesy, please get lost. You continue to make a moronic fool out of yourself, and an appalling mockery of your faith with each further post you make.

Jonsey wrote:

"Are you serious? What empirical test proves that man evolved from an ape? "

Glad you asked. All of the results from palentology, comparative anatomy, genetics and developmental biology confirm that indeed humans are descended from apes and that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. Here is a partial list of different types of evidence. The important thing to realize is that all of the independent data sets give exactly the same answer.

1) Chromosome banding patterns

2) Centromeric sequences at chromosome fusion points

3) Mitochondrial DNA conparisons

4) Globin gene comparisons

5) Whole genome sequence comparisons

6) SINE insertions

7) Developmental studies involving regulatory genes

8) All of the palentological evidence

Of course I can provide references from the scientific literature for each of these types of data. But what are the odds Jonsey will read them?

Jonsey wrote:

"I am entitled to call it miracle if science can’t explain it."

You sure are. Of course, in the entire history of the world, that approach has never proven to be productive or informative. Every time miracles are claimed, science inevitably has explained them. So yu can stick to your superstitious nonsense until siene reduces your small little God to a small cornor of the world where he can do absolutely nothing, or you can embrace the scientific method and discover the true wonders of the natural world.

Assuming that natural explanations can in any way dimiinish the role of God, now that is closed minded. No wonder Galileo had so much trouble.

Dave Luckett said: Jonesy, an MRI is not evidence of a miracle, but of a natural event, namely spontaneous remission. As has been pointed out to you, people once had no explanation for lightning or rainbows or eclipses, and so they made up explanations that required divine origin and intervention. That was an error. Same here. You are not entitled to assume a miracle just because you have no other explanation.

I am entitled to call it miracle if science can't explain it. You are assuming that science will one day be able to explain it. You presuppose naturalism which excludes the possibility of miracles and leaves God as a watchmaker who watches the world He made to see what will happen, but does not intervene. Therefore you are safe and inoculated from the possibility of a personal God who wants relationship with His subjects since no event will convince you that a miracle occurred. That, my friend, is close-minded.

Jonsey wrote: I am entitled to call it miracle if science can’t explain it.

Stanton said: It isn't close-minded when someone asks for verification of your wacky and nonsensical claims, Jonesy. Furthermore, you don't get to redefine words, then demand that we bow to your new definitions. As was stated to you repeatedly, "naturalism" in science means that one must proceed without taking supernatural forces and or entities because there is no way to detect or test for supernatural forces or entities because supernatural forces and entities exist outside the realm of nature. If we had to take into account the whims of God, like you unreasonably demand, no science would be done, period. And now that you've outed yourself as a religiously inspired anti-intellectual idiot for the umpteenth time, Jonesy, please get lost. You continue to make a moronic fool out of yourself, and an appalling mockery of your faith with each further post you make.

Jonesy said: How do you reply so quickly? Do you get an email?

Jonesy said: How do you reply so quickly? Do you get an email?

Jonesy said: How do you reply so quickly? Do you get an email?

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Oops! Did I reveal too much?

DS said: Glad you asked. All of the results from palentology, comparative anatomy, genetics and developmental biology confirm that indeed humans are descended from apes and that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. Here is a partial list of different types of evidence. The important thing to realize is that all of the independent data sets give exactly the same answer. 1) Chromosome banding patterns 2) Centromeric sequences at chromosome fusion points 3) Mitochondrial DNA conparisons 4) Globin gene comparisons 5) Whole genome sequence comparisons 6) SINE insertions 7) Developmental studies involving regulatory genes 8) All of the palentological evidence Of course I can provide references from the scientific literature for each of these types of data. But what are the odds Jonsey will read them?

The comment that SINE insertions were written up in "gobbly-gook that I couldn't understand written by some PhD" rather gives the game away, jonesy.

The PhD who wrote that paper was almost certainly not trying to be obscure. (I wish that this could be said of certain literary theorists.) He or she was almost certainly merely addressing his or her peers in terms that they all understood. Regrettably, there are many fields of learning and research that require years of study just to understand the terms.

So it wasn't gobbly-gook. It was specialised technical language. Calling it gobbly-gook implies that you thought it was nonsense, and meant to deceive you. That's what "gobbly-gook" means. Almost certainly it wasn't, and that implication betrays an uncharitable attitude on your part.

Why on earth would you require Eve to be separately created, if you concede that human beings evolved? If they did, evolution has no specific objection to the idea that at some point God endowed humans with an immaterial soul. Perhaps it occurred, say, when they gained the extensive ability to use abstract reasoning (apes also display this at a rudimentary level, as many studies have shown) or language with formal grammar (apes can learn words and use them, but this use is apparently without a formal grammar). Or pick any point you like.

Whatever point you pick is irrelevant to evolutionary biology. Like all sciences, it studies only the material, and by definition, a soul is immaterial.

Dave Luckett said: The comment that SINE insertions were written up in "gobbly-gook that I couldn't understand written by some PhD" rather gives the game away, jonesy. The PhD who wrote that paper was almost certainly not trying to be obscure. (I wish that this could be said of certain literary theorists.) He or she was almost certainly merely addressing his or her peers in terms that they all understood. Regrettably, there are many fields of learning and research that require years of study just to understand the terms. So it wasn't gobbly-gook. It was specialised technical language. Calling it gobbly-gook implies that you thought it was nonsense, and meant to deceive you. That's what "gobbly-gook" means. Almost certainly it wasn't, and that implication betrays an uncharitable attitude on your part. Why on earth would you require Eve to be separately created, if you concede that human beings evolved? If they did, evolution has no specific objection to the idea that at some point God endowed humans with an immaterial soul. Perhaps it occurred, say, when they gained the extensive ability to use abstract reasoning (apes also display this at a rudimentary level, as many studies have shown) or language with formal grammar (apes can learn words and use them, but this use is apparently without a formal grammar). Or pick any point you like. Whatever point you pick is irrelevant to evolutionary biology. Like all sciences, it studies only the material, and by definition, a soul is immaterial.

Jonesy, as a Christian who accepts evolution, the resolution is quite straightforward. Genesis is not a lie, it is, however, not a historical narrative. It is allegory, analogy, metaphor, and spiritual message.

Jonesey, of course allegory is acceptable. There is no reason to presume that Paul was not dealing with an analogy. And what Paul understood and what actually happened are not necessarily the same thing. Paul was a fallible reporter, like all men.

Of course, that doesn’t prove we descended from the same ancestor. Maybe it means chimps are like our distant cousins who happen to be retarded.

Jonesy, it's neither a lie nor a literal truth, nor, if you insist, an allegory either. (I prefer the last, since I do not attribute infallibility to the Apostle Paul, and understand that neither would the Christian Church generally, but hey.) Rather, the story of Eve is an attempt by a writer sometime around, probably, the sixth century BC to transmit an earlier story that was extant then. I propose, therefore, that it falls into another category: fiction.

Fiction is not lies. I should know, I write it for a living, and would resent the statement that I am a professional liar. Rather, it is truth presented in non-literal terms.

You are perfectly familiar with the concept of stories told to make a point. They are not lies. Are the parables of Jesus lies, just because they are fictional? No, of course not. They contain mighty and beautiful truths.

Now, in the story of Eve being made from Adam's rib, there is a truth being told: that Woman is part of Man. That she is flesh of his flesh, as Jesus said. She is therefore not to be separated, not to be alienated, not to be excluded, not to suffer separate treatment. That she often has been is wrong. It would be, in your terms, a sin against God. In mine, it is a social injustice. That's why, in writing of the unnamed PhD in my post above, I was careful to specify "he or she", "his or her". I hope that in my other conduct I live up to my own ideals. If not, my wife, a staunch feminist, will, I trust, correct me.

Paul went further, and said that, being created second, she was subordinate. That doesn't follow, and Paul was dead flat wrong. (I told you I didn't regard him as infallible, didn't I?)

But if we can regard the story of Eve as a parable - and parables are perfectly respectable, found, as they are, in the words of Jesus himself - then there is no difficulty. Only if you inconsistently insist that this story must be taken as literal truth, while allowing that other stories in the Bible need not be, do you make a problem for yourself. But in that case, it is a problem that you have made for yourself, jonesy.

Leading Intelligent Design advocate Dr. William Dembski uses the Bible to illustrate a scientific point while speaking in the R.G. Lee Chapel.

Every time I tried to read any of the epistles I find myself annoyed by how much Paul fucked up the works and words of Jesus. He just grabbed the ball and ran with it, making shit up as he went. And what a mess.

It's easy to reconcile faith and knowledge, Jonesy. Just Let Go Of The Orange (i.e., literalism)*

*Oddly enough, the first link to this phrase on Google is a spiritual website that compares the orange to worldly goods. I guess the orange is whatever you want it to be. :-)

Jonesy said: Were Adam and Eve real? The Bible, both Old and New, assume that they were. In fact, the lineage of Jesus is listed all the way to the first human, Adam. Another problem is that Genesis reports that Eve was created from the rib of Adam. This is a special creation, not an evolutionary creation. If evolution is true, I either throw away that section of the Bible as a lie (and all other portions that refer to it) or I try to come up with an alternate theory. Maybe this: Adam was descended from apes, but Eve was a special creation by God. Descent from apes diminishes the idea that humans are a special creation, separate from the animals. God gave Adam the task of naming all of the animals, which indicates his superior status. He is even told to rule over the animals. So, I think atheistic evolution has problems, but theistic evolution has even more problems. I would love to hear from a Christian evolutionist who has solved these dilemnas.

fnxtr said: Every time I tried to read any of the epistles I find myself annoyed by how much Paul fucked up the works and words of Jesus. He just grabbed the ball and ran with it, making shit up as he went. And what a mess. It's easy to reconcile faith and knowledge, Jonesy. Just Let Go Of The Orange (i.e., literalism)* *Oddly enough, the first link to this phrase on Google is a spiritual website that compares the orange to worldly goods. I guess the orange is whatever you want it to be. :-)

Jonsey wrote:

"Descent from apes diminishes the idea that humans are a special creation, separate from the animals."

Says you. I feel very special being a unique product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

I would not feel so special if I actually believed that I was descended from some guy who was fooled by a talking snake and gave up immortality for a bite of an apple. What a moron!

In some ways we are even more miraculous if we are an accident. To me, this is more a cause for awe, wonder, and humility than believing we were poofed into existence because That Was The Plan.

Kattarina98 said:

Chris Falter said: This post appears to be the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google Ads works. When I clicked over to Dembski's blog post, I did not say *any* advertisement for any conference, much less a yount-earth conference. The only ads I saw were the Google Ads. You realize, of course, that the author of a blog post has no control over which ads Google places? And that those ads change over time? As they evidently have since October 29?

Chris, please read the opening post. There is a link which leads you to an opening post - not a Google ad - on Uncommon Descen.

JoeG | October 31, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Edit

SWT,

Evolutionists use the term “Darwinism”.

In order for populations to change first individuals must change.

Natural selection “acts” on individuals. Mutations occur in individuals.

And as I said if we use Nick Matzke’s “logic” the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Richard Dawkibs sez so.

Reply: Mutations occur in individuals,natural selection acts on populations. If you don't understand that key concept of evolution then we can't help you.

As others have said: Scientific theories are neither "atheistic" nor "theistic" simply because science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. All scientists can do is explain the universe using natural laws.

Science does not have anything to do with belief. We don't "believe" in gravity, we know about it because we can see its' effects on the world around us. Science cannot deal with beliefs because it is too hard to change those beliefs when new evidence is found. Instead, science focuses on ideas, hypothesis, theories, and eventually laws. All of these things (even laws) can be accepted as an explanation, but never a belief.

Scientists understand that the universe is vast: we may never have all the answers,and the ones we do have could be wrong. They know that nothing in science is ever proven--only supported. In fact the only thing that can be proven is math. You cannot use the opinion of a scientist to prove your point. What Richard Dawkins says as his opinion is just that--his opinion. His research is a whole different matter. We cannot use his opinion to support anything scientific--we can use his research to find new scientific insights.

Chris: Yes, I did misread the post, and I thank you for correcting me. Let's play a little logic game to understand this post:

Obama ran a campaign for president. Bill Ayers, a convicted felon, endorsed Obama. Therefore I should have voted against Obama.

McCain ran a campaign for president. One of my neighbors, who is a racist, endorsed McCain. Therefore I should have voted against McCain.

The Vatican (which has already endorsed an old-earth, theistic evolution view which readers may or may not agree with) is giving some scientists an opportunity to present data that may refute the standard model of fossilization. Dembski encouraged us to consider the evidence, and Kenyon gave a ringing endorsement. Therefore I must reject the scientists' presentations and conclude that Dembski believes the YEC hypothesis.

How are these 3 scenarios any different from each other?

For that matter, what's wrong with listening to these scientists present their findings? Maybe they have something valuable to say. OTOH, maybe a careful consideration of their data and models will lead us to conclude that they're full of it. Until the scientific community analyzes their data and models, though, we won't know, will we?

For that matter, I do not see that Kenyon is necessarily endorsing the YEC theory. He says that the standard evolutionary theory rests on 2 geology pillars:
1. an old earth
2. a fossilization mechanism that allows us to accurately date fossils

If a scientist can refute #2, you might reject the evolution theory without also rejecting #1 (an old earth). Admittedly, Kenyon did not express himself with such clarity, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I have completely rejected the YEC theory. But the lack of scientific inquiry, the almost complete groupthink, that I see in this thread does not impress me one bit. Many folks in this thread are *taking offense* that some scientists are presenting data that might challenge their presuppositions. Instead of evaluating the data, they reject it without even listening. That's not the way science should work.

Reply:It's not that the "scientists" of ID are presenting data that challenge modern evolutionary biology. The problem is that all IDers seem to do is try to poke holes in evolution. They cannot seem to come up with a coherent hypothesis. They cannot answer the questions: Who, what, when, where, why, or how. ID is not a theory. It has no practical use, it has no predictive ability, and it is unfalsifiable.

A recent "debate" i had with an ID proponent went something like this:
ME: What scientific evidence do you have to support ID?
IDer: The evidence is that there is a universe, when I look at the world I can see that it must have been created.

Needless to say, the exchange gave me a headache and made me feel sad that this person did not understand what "scientific evidence" is.

In 20+ years of "research" and "study", IDers have come up with no coherent hypothesis or testable predictions for ID. Scientists have a problem with it because if you can call ID science then so is astrology. It is disrespectful to call these IDers scientists while real scientists go out and do all of the real work and research.

Amyc, please please please click on the "reply" tag of a quote that you are responding to, or make sure the quote or blockquote tags are in there. I'm not trying to be mean, but it is much easier to read when I see the quote that you are responding to in a different color and block when you do so. It gives me plenty of visual cues that tell me what I am reading.