This Week in Intelligent Design - 22/03/11

Posted 22 March 2011 by Jack Scanlan

Intelligent design news from the 16th of March to the 22nd of March, 2011.

So, another week of intelligent design! The Discovery Institute was fairly quiet this week, with only five posts published on Evolution News & Views, a below average result, but quite a bit of it was pure gold. Well, for me, anyway. The fact that I do this every week means that I must be getting some entertainment out of it, right? I hope so - I don't see myself as the masochistic type...

But anyway, this week's three posts are on ID research (and rhetoric), revisiting the concept of biological "mistakes" as evidence against ID, and ID proponents in academia and the "Dissent from Darwin" list. Let's get into it!

72 Comments

J-Dog · 22 March 2011

Jack - Thanks for doing this - so I don't have to. I would much rather read your summary, than have to go straight through the Hard Tard as you do, and I find that as I get older, I just can't put up with unfiltered O'Leary and Luskin. So once again, we have proof of a bad design - anything written by O'Leary & Luskin - or evidence for an evolutionary safety valve.

Amadan · 22 March 2011

Ah, the Dissent from Darwin list. A nice piece of work, that is. For those who are unfamiliar, it’s a list of scientists who have signed on to agree with this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

A point I have made previously: All leading biologists, creo-bashers and prominent tormentors of ID should loudly and publicly demand that the DI let them sign this declaration, which, after all, only asks that scientific claims be examined thoroughly, particularly those that have been modified or even abandoned after 150 years of research and new data. They should then equally loudly trumpet the fallacies of ID, preferably while displaying their 'Discovery Institute Approved' regalia. Of course the DI will never allow them to sign on. Which gives us a nice 'Expelled' scenario to play with. Such fun...

OgreMkV · 22 March 2011

So, ID does publish (for some value of the word 'publish') in kind-of peer-reviewed journals, that by some stretch of the imagination might have something to do with biology (in the round about way that the author was a living thing).

Of course, the articles don't come out and say "Therefore ID", so it's mostly a hollow victory that someone, who might or might not be pro-ID wrote an article that might or moght not be pro-ID, had the courage to stand up for something that might or might not be ID.

Got it, thanks.

SWT · 22 March 2011

I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

Amadan · 22 March 2011

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

QED

Henry J · 22 March 2011

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

So was Einstein. ;)

Amadan · 22 March 2011

Henry J said:
SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.
So was Einstein. ;)

So was Newton, for that matter

John Kwok · 22 March 2011

Henry J said:
SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.
So was Einstein. ;)

And so was Planck too!

Mike Elzinga · 22 March 2011

Heisenberg was uncertain.

Wheels · 22 March 2011

I still the think 'bad design' argument is useful. "Well, that was a mistake, just like Venter's watermark!" This argument can be invoked to explain anything in a genome, therefore it doesn't really explain anything, which just shows how empty ID is. Pointing out "mistakes" also assumes once again that some feature of the Designer can be identified and characterized, which IDists say isn't really the case ("Who knows how that Designer works? Stop assuming they'd do any one thing any one way!").

More generally, the "sloppy design" argument (several features of the human body that are so badly arranged they speak of slow evolution instead of intentional layout) is still perfectly valid. ID is a worse explanation than gradual accumulation of changes. Evolution is simply a superior, useful explanation for "bad" or "sloppy" design, highlighting the utter failure of ID to deal with these cases is fair game.

Henry J · 22 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Heisenberg was uncertain.

Relatively, anyway.

eric · 22 March 2011

Agree with Wheels. Dembski et al. basically claim that ID infers design based on the 'goodness of fit' of the internal properties of some structure alone. That claim is undermined when one says that a designed structure may, like nondesigned ones, have faults. All of a sudden, the one criteria you used to infer design is no good any more, because now designed structures may not fit together so well.

So, the 'error' argument is a legitimate complaint against standard ID.

Its not a legitimate complaint against mainstream scientific practices which infer design (say, of a stone age tool) based on multiple independent lines of evidence. But design proponents reject the idea that independent evidence of design is needed, because they don't have any. Unlike stone age toolmakers, God did not leave his lab equipment lying around for us to find.

Jim Harrison · 22 March 2011

The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

John Kwok · 22 March 2011

Jim Harrison said: The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

No he won't. He'll need the James T. Kirk maneuver and help from Klingons. Qap'la!!!!

John Kwok · 22 March 2011

Jack,

Thanks for sharing Klinghoffer's latest breathtaking inanity. It's hard to believe that this delusional fellow alumnus of my undergraduate alma mater thinks he's an instant expert on peer review, but what more can you expect from someone who seeks Divine guidance from a fanatical rebbe who espouses a most unique variant of Conservative Judaism.

Kevin B · 22 March 2011

Jim Harrison said: The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

You just need to sequence his mother's DNA to invalidate the patents on the grounds of prior art :)

Mike Elzinga · 22 March 2011

Kevin B said:
Jim Harrison said: The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.
You just need to sequence his mother's DNA to invalidate the patents on the grounds of prior art :)

Can one patent unforeseen contingency?

W. H. Heydt · 22 March 2011

Amadan said:
SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.
QED

Shouldn't that be "QCD" in this case? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

John Vanko · 22 March 2011

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

Intelligent Falling! I just knew it had to be true.

Flint · 22 March 2011

But Laurie Lebo didn't say there were no peer-reviewed articles making ID-friendly assertions. She said there was no peer-reviewed ID research. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the ID camp has ever even suggested a testable hypothesis that might distinguish between designed and non-designed, or show that any organism must have been designed. With no hypotheses and no researchers (and no research budget), just exactly what do these "peer-reviewed papers" actually contain?

Marilyn · 22 March 2011

If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently.

Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life.

God said, “be still and know I am God”

We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

mrg · 22 March 2011

Marylyn, no problems with this -- just as long as you don't start talking about "information".

mrg · 22 March 2011

Marylyn, no problems with this -- just as long as you don't start talking about "information".

Paul Burnett · 22 March 2011

Marilyn said: The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours.

Can you prove / how can you prove which god it is that you have evidence of? (Remember, "god" is not a name but a job title.) Can your "evidence" distinguish between Yahweh/Allah, Zeus Pater/Jupiter, Wotan/Odin, Brahma or Mumbo-Jumbo God of the Congo (apologies to Vachel Lindsay)?

Mike Elzinga · 22 March 2011

Marilyn said: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

Both of these sentences are assertions that have no basis in what is actually know from the science.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

What does “your view” have to do with science?

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet.

How many hairy reptiles are there? What about clams? How about potatoes?

It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently.

So severe birth defects are intelligently and obediently designed?

DS · 22 March 2011

Marilyn wrote:

"I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing."

Really? I view DNA as undergoing random mutation and organisms as undergoing natural selection. I have experimental evidence to support my view. Do you have any evidence for your view?

How exactly do genes "mature"? What exactly is a "mature" gene? Do genes actually change in order to "enable" things? Does this require intelligence? Whose intelligence is in charge? What is the purpose of this intelligent intervention?

Thanks in advance for your clarification of these points.

MememicBottleneck · 22 March 2011

Marilyn said: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

Can you point out any research that says "evolution is DNA's business". I've never seen it and I've not seen it mentioned here. DNA's business, as far as I've ever been taught, is to carry out a cell's business. Which on occasion, also means to replicate as accurately as possible. Unless you have evidence otherwise, your statement is just made up bullshit. Evolution occurs when DNA do not replicate accurately, or gene transfer occurs, that generates a survival/reproductive advantage in an organism. Sometimes it is an improvement in the current environment, sometimes the environment changes and the less fit are culled.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

More made up bullshit. What kind of process are we talking about. DNA are large molecules. How do they mature? Are you saying they get fatter?, longer? Please define how a "mature" molecule differs from any other.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently. Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life.

Show me the bunny. If DNA has been consistent forever, show me the rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian. Your whole post is based on made up nonsense, the denial of existing facts and magic sky fairy mumbo jumbo.

Flint · 22 March 2011

Your whole post is based on made up nonsense, the denial of existing facts and magic sky fairy mumbo jumbo.

But if she can get it published in a "peer reviewed journal", it becomes SCIENCE!

Karen S. · 22 March 2011

We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

Evidently we weren't given the intelligence to spell.

Karen S. · 22 March 2011

How many hairy reptiles are there? What about clams? How about potatoes?

Doesn't Mr. Potato Head have a mustache?

Glen Davidson · 22 March 2011

This is perhaps one of the best examples of why ID cannot be attacked using a “bad design”-style argument. It simply does not logically follow that design necessarily must be perfect, especially when the ID “hypothesis” is framed in such a way that none of the properties of the Designer need be known: if the Designer could have any characteristics whatsoever, who’s to say that a perfect design record is one of them?

There are cases where people just say that there are bad designs in life, therefore no design. Any competent person, however, points out that the "bad design" in life that we see is the kind of bad design that we'd expect from evolution, and not the sort of bad design that we see in autos or what-not. Vestigial organs, in particular, but also pseudogenes and the like, are "bad designs" that one would expect in evolution (along with the coupling of developmental "programs"), while a real designer could presumably just dispense with them altogether--especially one as competent as the "Designer" would have to be. Furthermore, why would we tolerate their claims that none of the properties of the Designer need be known? At least some absolutely must be known, or there's nothing but emptiness in their claims--usually the case. They don't actually stick with the notion that none of the properties of the Designer must be known, anyhow (just when it's convenient to do so), instead it's supposed to be a super-intelligence that obviously can foresee what neither evolution nor humans could foresee. It's absolutely ludicrous to suppose that something that can foresee the interactions of complex organisms in complex environments couldn't, say, give mammals the testes of birds, which can effect spermatogenesis at high temperature, or, indeed, give to mammals (and the supposed focus of creation, humans) the superior lungs of birds. Teh Designer is an idiot savant? Sorry, not even that would count as an explanation. The only legitimate point of "bad design" is that evolution accounts for the "bad designs" that we see, while design simply does not. The stupidity of not giving us superior bird lungs is not explainable by design criteria or principles at all, while evolution simply has no way of choosing bird lungs for mammals, since there's negligible gene exchanges between the two lines. I think that the "bad design" of an Archaeopteryx, along with other "transitionals," is especially meaningful. Naturally, transitionals are "fully formed" and must be according to evolution, but they're generally far from the level of competence that their later relatives have achieved. Archaeopteryx isn't up to modern bird standards, mainly because it's a theropod dinosaur only partly adapted to flight. Its failing relative to modern birds have nothing to do with design processes at all, merely with the constraints that evolution imposes. Oh yes, "poor design" remains an excellent argument, but only insofar as people point out that the specific forms of "bad design" that we see are wholly explicable via evolution--and so is the "good design" that we see. No "good design" actually rests on a design-preferred starting point, either, which is why the swallow's superb wings are still modified dinosaur "hands," no matter how exquisitely adapted these wings now are. Glen Davidson

mrg · 22 March 2011

Glen Davidson said: Oh yes, "poor design" remains an excellent argument, but only insofar as people point out that the specific forms of "bad design" that we see are wholly explicable via evolution--and so is the "good design" that we see.

Yeah, and there's also the issue that creationists are fond of pointing out the "perfect Design" of the eye and the like as proof of their claims. When it is pointed out that not all the "Designs" are perfect, suddenly this claim is immediately forgotten and the "dimwit Designer" is substituted instead. Or the answer is: "Well, we don't know if that really is bad Design since we don't know what the Designer's intent really is." Oh, but that wasn't an issue when you were proclaiming good Design, was it? I would have to say that Calvinball is the normal creationist mode of operation and the fact that they play it in this case is a wash, because they play it in every other case as well.

Mike Elzinga · 22 March 2011

And these are just the small issues.

It seems even the YEC home schoolers can’t agree among themselves. :-)

mrg · 22 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: It seems even the YEC home schoolers can’t agree among themselves. :-)

I glanced through it. It seemed that the two groups that "disinvited" Ham were YECs and not ideologically in disagreement with him on that score, but he "pulled a Biggie" on them and suggested they had fallen off the path of the True Faith for whatever reasons. "And now you complain about being banned?" Life is tough. Wear a hat.

John Kwok · 22 March 2011

Marilyn the utterly clueless British Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same. I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing. Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently. Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life. God said, “be still and know I am God” We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

More gibberish Marilyn, and yet another reason why you've earned the "Candle in the Wind" award for breathtaking inanity from me (I wonder what Reg Dwight might say. Hope you're not a Watford fan.). But let's see in your first paragraph you've offered a unique definition of Punctuated Equilibrium (Hint: Morphological Stasis persists over periods lasting millions of years, and there is ecophenotypic variation that goes on in which the species population in question is merely "tracking the environment", so there is morphological variability, BUT NO NET STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT morphological change.). As for your comment on DNA, don't tell me you've been watching too much "Doctor Who". It's the type of breathtaking inanity I'd expect from The Master himself. But seriously, DNA isn't a "fixed process". Why? If it was, then all of your children or your siblings or your other relatives would have the same DNA and resemble each other. It's as if they'd be living examples of Dalek clones. And no, DNA doesn't have a purpose, though your third paragraph has a quasi-Lamarckian ring to it. Yes, it's too bad, species do become extinct, though not for the reason(s) which I think you espouse. As for humanity's appearance resembling that of GOD, then who are you, a mere mortal, to presume to know what GOD really looks like. For all we know, GOD could be a Klingon, a Borg, or, heaven forbid, Katy Perry.

Henry J · 22 March 2011

As for humanity’s appearance resembling that of GOD, then who are you, a mere mortal, to presume to know what GOD really looks like. For all we know, GOD could be a Klingon, a Borg, or, heaven forbid, Katy Perry.

Or a beetle.

Leszek · 23 March 2011

My #3 bet for what GOD looks like is bacterium.

My #2 is a plate of Spaghetti

My #1 is that there are separate GODS of various descriptions designing separate creatures a-la Multiple Designer Theory. (Which I Still think is superior to vanilla ID!)

<Fine Print>In reality I am an Atheist<Blatant Winking Smiley></Fine Print>

Wheels · 23 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: And these are just the small issues. It seems even the YEC home schoolers can’t agree among themselves. :-)

I read the first half and skimmed the rest. So AiG is upset that a fundamentalist YEC homeschooling organization disinvited them because Ken Ham said a non-literalist speaker who would be attending is a dangerous, dangerous man to your children('s spiritual health). I noticed a lot of veiled sniping and innuendo in the post too (along the lines of "we're not going to dwell on the fact that other speakers criticized us, except to devote a paragraph to it. Also, censorship!'). Pretty sneaky undermining, there.

Rolf Aalberg · 23 March 2011

Flint said: With no hypotheses and no researchers (and no research budget), just exactly what do these "peer-reviewed papers" actually contain?

Nit picking.

Rolf Aalberg · 23 March 2011

I consider the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe as well as a lot of other corresponding examples are well accounted for within evolutionary theory but to which all branches of creationism have no consistent reply but hand-waving. If it is not evidence for evolution then it is evidence of sloppy design that even mere mortals wouldn't have done.

Or maybe it is nature disobeying God; just doing its own thing.

Karen S. · 23 March 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: I consider the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe as well as a lot of other corresponding examples are well accounted for within evolutionary theory but to which all branches of creationism have no consistent reply but hand-waving. If it is not evidence for evolution then it is evidence of sloppy design that even mere mortals wouldn't have done.

It's because of the fall! (not that ID is about religion or anything)

TomS · 23 March 2011

The problem with "bad design" arguments is that the advocates of ID do not describe what they mean by "design", so any argument against design can be met with the rejoinder that "that isn't what we mean by design".

mrg · 23 March 2011

TomS said: The problem with "bad design" arguments is ...

The same as with all other pro-evolution arguments? That creationists are evasive and move the goalposts? Who knew?!

OgreMkV · 23 March 2011

Henry J said:
As for humanity’s appearance resembling that of GOD, then who are you, a mere mortal, to presume to know what GOD really looks like. For all we know, GOD could be a Klingon, a Borg, or, heaven forbid, Katy Perry.
Or a beetle.

At least one ID Proponent says that termites are intelligent designers. But you guys are right, ID has variable definitions specificallly so they can avoid being pinned down to something testable. For example, if termites are intelligent agents, then either the IDguy is not using 'intelligent' correctly -or- there is no reason that evolution cannot be considered the designer.

mrg · 23 March 2011

OgreMkV said: But you guys are right, ID has variable definitions specificallly so they can avoid being pinned down to something testable.

Yeah, but that leaves them stuck with arguments that can only confuse. Admittedly they do a very good job at that, but in any situation where they actually have to make a persuasive case for their views, they might as well be dousing themselves with lighter fluid and setting themselves on fire. So they avoid peer review and things like that. The same game as the ID game could be played to prove the Moon is made of green cheese, or more realistically support ge0centrici$m -- we had one of them here a while back, he was really into the "Gish gallop".

Doc Bill · 23 March 2011

Marilyn asserts:

If evolution were DNA’s business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances.

Based on what? How does a "transition" differ from a "morph" or are they the same thing? What train of thought, and I use the term loosely, and evidence lead you to this conclusion?

John Kwok · 23 March 2011

Courtesy of Zack Kopplin:

My state is addicted to creationism!

Louisiana doesn't remember the lesson it was taught back in 1987 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Edwards vs. Aguillard, invalidated a Louisiana law requiring creationism be taught alongside evolution and ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science classes.

In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed a new creationism law, making us second-time offenders. We are the only state with a creationism law on the books.

Named the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the law pretends to promote critical thinking. In reality, though, it is stealth legislation designed to sneak the unconstitutional and unscientific teaching of creationism or its offshoot, intelligent design, into public school science classes.

Because the Edwards decision established that creationists cannot legally foist their religious views on public school students directly, the creationist zealots are now trying misdirection. Their new legislation employs code language like "critical thinking" and "teaching the alternatives" in order to pretend to be promoting something noble. But creative language doesn't change the fact that they are simply pushing their religious agenda into the science classroom.

And LSEA doesn't change educational and scientific realities.
•Teachers are already supposed to teach critical thinking.

•There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.

The sole purpose for the Louisiana Science Education Act is to insert creationism into a public school science classroom.

Even as the bill's proponents toss around their education-friendly phrases like "critical thinking," they have on numerous occasions openly identified the true aim of the law: to teach creationism as science.

Senator Ben Nevers, the sponsor of the Senate version of the LSEA said,

The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill ... They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory.

Jan Benton, the Livingston Parish School Board Director of Curriculum, also openly admitted to her board that the law's purpose was to allow "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes.

If these so-called "leaders" were serious about academic freedom, they would not have scrapped the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education's original rules about implementing the LSEA which expressly prohibited the teaching of creationism because it lacks scientific merit.

The true intent of this law, rather than the rhetoric associated with it, is clear; sneaking unconstitutional and unscientific creationism into public school science classrooms.

This hurts Louisiana kids. We want jobs, but if we are taught creationism, we will not get them. There are no creationist jobs. Check any major job finding sites like Monster or CareerBuilder, and they will tell you, sorry, there are zero creationist jobs. On the other hand, if you search those sites for biology, you will find over a thousand jobs. Louisiana students need to be taught evolution, not creationism, to get jobs.

This law is also hurting Louisiana tourism, which is one of Louisiana's most important industries. Louisiana's anti-science reputation is scaring away major science conventions which bring thousands of people and millions of dollars to our state. One organization, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology actually pulled a convention that was scheduled for 2011 as a protest. Others are simply looking elsewhere when they're considering locations.

Louisiana wants to develop a 21st century biomedical industry through the New Orleans Bio District and the Shreveport Biomedical Research Foundation. But Louisiana's reputation has created a negative business environment that is chasing away scientists and entrepreneurs. Louisiana won't be able take a place at the forefront of the biomedical industry if we don't repeal this law.

Louisiana's creationism law must go. It is killing Louisiana jobs and hurting Louisiana kids.

I'm a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High and I'm leading an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. I encourage everyone who cares about education to help out by joining the repeal's Facebook page and by going to www.repealcreationism.com to get involved. Invite your friends to join us.

If enough of us care, we can help Louisiana kick its addiction and join the modern world.

You can read of the rest of it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/how-you-can-join-the-figh_b_837896.html

mplavcan · 23 March 2011

John Kwok said: Courtesy of Zack Kopplin: This hurts Louisiana kids. We want jobs, but if we are taught creationism, we will not get them. There are no creationist jobs. Check any major job finding sites like Monster or CareerBuilder, and they will tell you, sorry, there are zero creationist jobs. On the other hand, if you search those sites for biology, you will find over a thousand jobs. Louisiana students need to be taught evolution, not creationism, to get jobs. This law is also hurting Louisiana tourism, which is one of Louisiana's most important industries. Louisiana's anti-science reputation is scaring away major science conventions which bring thousands of people and millions of dollars to our state. One organization, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology actually pulled a convention that was scheduled for 2011 as a protest. Others are simply looking elsewhere when they're considering locations. Louisiana wants to develop a 21st century biomedical industry through the New Orleans Bio District and the Shreveport Biomedical Research Foundation. But Louisiana's reputation has created a negative business environment that is chasing away scientists and entrepreneurs. Louisiana won't be able take a place at the forefront of the biomedical industry if we don't repeal this law. Louisiana's creationism law must go. It is killing Louisiana jobs and hurting Louisiana kids. I'm a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High and I'm leading an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. I encourage everyone who cares about education to help out by joining the repeal's Facebook page and by going to www.repealcreationism.com to get involved. Invite your friends to join us. If enough of us care, we can help Louisiana kick its addiction and join the modern world. You can read of the rest of it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/how-you-can-join-the-figh_b_837896.html

C'mon...creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money. They can open a creation museum, or build a Noah's Ark theme park. Tons of money to be made there! And let's not forget the millions of dollars in donations dumped into preachers' war chests (all tax free!). Don't forget the home-schooling conferences that will flock to Louisiana. And when ignorance is thoroughly entrenched (ah, the race with Texas), think of the multiple millions of dollars in unemployment benefits brought into the Louisiana economy (it's one thing to denounce the feds for "socialist" policies -- it's another to turn down money). And of course with wages and benefits down, and an ignorant population willing suffer anything to eat, the work force will finally be competitive with other impoverished third world nations, thereby creating lots and lots of opportunity to attract sweat shops from the garment industry, and manufacturers of cheap trinkets and low-profit electronic gadgets. It's all about jobs man!

Stanton · 23 March 2011

mplavcan said: C'mon...creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money. They can open a creation museum, or build a Noah's Ark theme park. Tons of money to be made there! And let's not forget the millions of dollars in donations dumped into preachers' war chests (all tax free!). Don't forget the home-schooling conferences that will flock to Louisiana. And when ignorance is thoroughly entrenched (ah, the race with Texas), think of the multiple millions of dollars in unemployment benefits brought into the Louisiana economy (it's one thing to denounce the feds for "socialist" policies -- it's another to turn down money). And of course with wages and benefits down, and an ignorant population willing suffer anything to eat, the work force will finally be competitive with other impoverished third world nations, thereby creating lots and lots of opportunity to attract sweat shops from the garment industry, and manufacturers of cheap trinkets and low-profit electronic gadgets. It's all about jobs man!

All available only to aesthetically appropriate Christians willing or desperate to sign away their souls and dignity in statements of faith, of course.

Karen S. · 23 March 2011

C’mon…creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money.

It brings in lots of money for the creo leadership.

Stanton · 23 March 2011

Karen S. said:
C’mon…creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money.
It brings in lots of money for the creo leadership.

That's because it's very important for the faithful to stay pious, while the leaders and shepherds have to stay rich and powerful.

Intelligent Designer · 23 March 2011

Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?

Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.

John Kwok · 23 March 2011

Intelligent Designer the moronic Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:
Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?
Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.

Au contraire, Monsieur. Glen has been a steadfast critic of ID for years. As for you, you could be a student in Bill Dembski's course opting to get some "extra credit" by posting your risible comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.

John Kwok · 23 March 2011

Since Intelligent Designer has opted to return after his long, twenty-four hour nap, I have these questions for him to answer which he hasn't yet:

1) Why do we need to think of GOD in science? Tell me why GOD is important in trying to understand Planet Earth’s biodiversity when GOD is not needed to understand Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, the Periodic Table of the Elements, or Plate Tectonics? If GOD is not needed to understand these, then it is clearly illogical to suppose that we need to invoke GOD in trying to understand the history and current composition of Earth’s biodiversity.

2) The question regarding how life originated on Planet Earth is not the same as trying to understand the history and current composition of our planet’s biodiversity. Theories pertaining to biological evolution deal only with the later, not with the origin of life on Planet Earth which is a question best left to chemistry, especially organic chemistry, NOT biology.

3) As I have said on numerous occasions, random mutation is not strictly “random”. These random mutations are contingent on the prior phylogenetic history of the population being affected (as I have pointed out to you MORE THAN ONCE) and on the complex interaction of physical and biological factors acting on that population. While mutations are the raw ingredients, then Natural Selection acts as a process to determine whether such mutations are passed on to succeeding generations and become dominant in the population and thus allow for the eventual creation of a new species (singular or plural) from this ancestral population.

4) Read again “Why Evolution is True” since it obviously didn’t sink in with you. I also highly recommend Richard Dawkins’s “The Greatest Show on Earth”.

5) Your statement about entropy would be true if living things were not open systems who receive more energy via the “fuel” they acquire via the acquisition of food, whether it is photosynthesis in plants and blue green algae, or predation in protists and Metazoans. Moreover your observation is a typical creationist canard that I have heard ever since I saw the late Henry Morris make such an absurd declaration during his April, 1981 debate against then assistant professor of biology Kenneth R. Miller at Brown University’s hockey rink (In the interest of full disclosure I was the sole “evolutionist” on the ad hoc committee that organized this debate; the rest were actively involved in the Brown University chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ.).

And yes, I concur with Malchus’s statement that DNA does not contain information.

harold · 23 March 2011

Marilyn -

If evolution were DNA’s business

Life is characterized by reproduction. Every time a living cell reproduces, DNA replicates. Every time DNA replicates, there are differences between the template strands and the copy strands. Some of those difference affect the phenotype of the offspring. Some phenotypes have relatively greater reproductive success, for one reason or another, either natural selection (a non-random advantage in a particular specific environment) or for stochastic reasons.

then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances.

This is actually a somewhat thoughtful point. In fact, this is not the case, though. There is no conflict between genetics and the rate of morphologic change in modern populations or the fossil record.

Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

Why talk about millenia, when some species seem to have been quite stable for hundreds of millions of years, possibly even billions in the case of some prokaryotes? However, this is not a problem for the theory of evolution. 1) When an environment is relatively stable, and/or when a phenotype is highly adaptable, the expectation would be that most extreme variants would be selected against. 2) And, of course, just because one lineage is the ancestor of another lineage, does not mean that the former lineage goes extinct. A majority of my ancestors came from Europe, but there are still plenty of people in Europe.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

I think I understand you, and that isn't what happens. Mutations are not directed by a magical plan. They are random variables relative to human observers, yes, people, they are; we sometimes know the frequency at which they can occur, which is different for different exact mutations, but never know exactly when they will occur; that is precisely the definition of a random variable. They are independent of the "future needs" of the organism's offspring. However, they do often result in changes which are adaptive.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet.

Only animals have these characteristics, and even many animals don't have all of them.

It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently.

This is a philosophical statement which, although I don't personally agree with it, could be true. This is not an argument against biological evolution.

Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life.

Obviously true.

God said, “be still and know I am God”

Another philosophical statement, one which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and is accepted by some of the pro-science people who post here.

We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew.

Okay.

The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

These philosophical statements are not related to the theory of evolution. Life on earth is diverse yet related, and the theory of evolution explains, without needing to invoke magic, why this is the case. Whether or not God set the stage for, gives meaning to, emerges from, etc, biological evolution is actually NOT something that the theory of evolution deals with.

Henry J · 23 March 2011

then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances.

Caucasians (from Mediterranean types to Scandinavian types). Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc.). Africans (short, tall, medium sized, etc.) Aborigines. Amerinds (lots of tribes). Methinks there are indeed lots of morphs, and that's just for one species, one that apparently had a bottleneck between 100 and 200 thousand years ago. (As I understand it, species that have gone longer without a population crash can sometimes have much more variety within the species.)

TomS · 24 March 2011

John Kwok said: 5) Your statement about entropy would be true if living things were not open systems who receive more energy via the “fuel” they acquire via the acquisition of food,

I don't know what statement you are referring to, but I've seen a lot of statements from creationists about entropy, and I suspect that there is more than that wrong with the statement. Such as: Designers are not exempted from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

mrg · 24 March 2011

TomS said: Such as: Designers are not exempted from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

With the other side of that coin being that if evolutionary constructions are a violation of the SLOT, then so are Designed constructions.

Matt G · 24 March 2011

I wouldn't say that biological "mistakes" are evidence against ID. This suggests that there CAN be evidence for ID. ID is ultimately a belief, and so has no relationship to evidence, reality, etc. I would say rather that "mistakes" provide strong reasons not to accept ID.

eric · 24 March 2011

mrg said: With the other side of that coin being that if evolutionary constructions are a violation of the SLOT, then so are Designed constructions.

IOW, anything we can do nature can (physically) do, too. This assumes the designer obeys physical laws. But ID's designer is quantum mechanical, not Newtonian. That is: if you observe him in court, he has the property of obeying physical laws, but if you observe him in churches, he has the property of being able to break them. :)

OgreMkV · 24 March 2011

John Kwok said:
Intelligent Designer the moronic Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:
Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?
Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.
Au contraire, Monsieur. Glen has been a steadfast critic of ID for years. As for you, you could be a student in Bill Dembski's course opting to get some "extra credit" by posting your risible comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.

Oh yeah, I guess it is that time of year again. So "Intelligent Designer"... What arrogance taking a screen name the same as God... I mean, the Designer, which could easily be evolution, since there is nothing in ID (other than the name) that actually says the designer must be an intelligent agent. As JoeG has said, "Termites are intelligent agents, as ID defines the term." Anyway, you should discuss, at some length and explain, why the designer must be an intelligent agent and what evidence you have to support that (keeping in mind those darned termites that build highly complex structures that take advantage of solar and wind to maintain homeostasis (no not HOMOs... homeostasis... look it up)). Then you can get into the 'massive' amounts of evidence that even show such a designer exists. Then you should explore the evidence that design actually occurs. Of course, to do that, you should be able to determine a designed thing from a non-designed thing of the same class and size. A challenge that your professor (Dr. Dembski) has run away from for years. Indeed, no ID proponent can even describe, in theory, how to determine a designed thing from a non-designed thing. Can you? Didn't think so. So, you've got a lot of work ahead of you, but feel free to explore this area. Once you develop a few testable hypotheses, then we can actually apply science and determine this once and for all. (Which, curiously, has never been done. Especially considering all the 'scientists' on ID's side. Why do you think that is?)

harold · 24 March 2011

Randy "Intelligent Designer" Stimpson -

Glad to see you back. Let's pick up where we left off.
To summarize -

1) You can’t explain the theory of evolution. Feel free to prove me wrong by giving an adequate explanation of the theory of evolution.

2) No possible evidence can convince you of biological evolution with mutation and natural selection as major factors. Feel free to prove me wrong by explaining what reasonable evidence would convince you.

3) Your descriptions of “specified” and “indexical” information are vague and informal. These are just arbitrary terms you invented. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting rigorous, usable definitions of these terms.

4) Your examples of “design”, such as software or recipes, are examples of human activity. These examples merely lead to a sequence total non sequitur. A extremely fair paraphrase would be “humans write recipes, some characteristic of living cells reminds me of recipes, therefore a non-human magically created living cells, and therefore living cells don’t evolve via a mechanism that involves mutation and natural selection”. I hope this is not “misrepresentation”, it is an attempted fair paraphrase of your line of reasoning. If it sounds stupid when tersely summarized, perhaps that means something.

5) You can’t say who the designer is. Feel free to prove me wrong by saying who the designer is.

6) You tried to play the disgraceful trick of saying “the designer is God, I don’t know who or what God is, but I didn’t say that I don’t know who or what the designer is”. I repeat, you can’t say who the designer is.

7) You can’t say what the designer did. Feel free to prove me wrong.

8) You can’t say when the designer did it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

9) You can’t say how the designer did it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

10) You offer no explanation as to why you, individually, are so special that, with no study or even significant informal knowledge of a major scientific subject, you can overturn a major scientific theory in that subject. Feel free to prove me wrong by explaining what it is about you that makes you able to achieve this remarkable accomplishment.

John Kwok · 24 March 2011

OgreMkV said:
John Kwok said:
Intelligent Designer the moronic Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:
Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?
Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.
Au contraire, Monsieur. Glen has been a steadfast critic of ID for years. As for you, you could be a student in Bill Dembski's course opting to get some "extra credit" by posting your risible comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.
Oh yeah, I guess it is that time of year again.

I've concluded that ID is either a student of Dembski's or IBIG when he's on his psych meds. That's the only reasonable answers I can think of to account for ID's behavior here.

Marilyn · 24 March 2011

John Kwok,

You institutionalize yourself not me.

I was not brought up on beer and crisps.

I would remove the word obediently if it implied anything to do with the Daleks.

DS · 24 March 2011

DS said: Marilyn wrote: "I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing." Really? I view DNA as undergoing random mutation and organisms as undergoing natural selection. I have experimental evidence to support my view. Do you have any evidence for your view? How exactly do genes "mature"? What exactly is a "mature" gene? Do genes actually change in order to "enable" things? Does this require intelligence? Whose intelligence is in charge? What is the purpose of this intelligent intervention? Thanks in advance for your clarification of these points.

Henry J · 24 March 2011

“I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.”

I don't think those words mean what that poster thinks they mean. DNA isn't a process. Genes don't mature; they get copied when a cell reproduces. In the meantime, a gene might be active or inactive. I don't know what "exact improvement" is supposed to mean. Mutation, genetic drift, recombination, and horizontal transfers increase variety. Selection is what it's called when one or more of those varieties reproduces more successfully than the others. (A more technically accurate label for that effect would be "differential reproductive success", since the word "selection" can be taken to mean that something is doing the selecting.)

John Kwok · 24 March 2011

Marilyn the delusional British Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone whined and moaned: John Kwok You institutionalize yourself not me. I was not brought up on beer and crisps. I would remove the word obediently if it implied anything to do with the Daleks.

Sorry Marilyn, but I can't take you seriously. Nor can any of us here at Panda's Thumb who are still puzzling over your weird - and quite inane - understanding as to what is valid science, especially with regards to biology. Henry J is absolutely right. DNA is not a process, but instead, can be seen as a pattern, and one, contrary to Intelligent Designer, is devoid of information content. Your observation that species obtain "exact improvement" via DNA is nonsensical as Henry J has explained (see his latest post). Moreover, whether you admit it or not, the way you phrase this (see below) sounds like a Lamarckian view of evolution, not some statement meant to support creation via Divine fiat: "I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.” As for Daleks, I was using them as an analogy to explain why you were wrong with regards to your poor understanding of heredity, not to suggest that you should be obediantly.

stevaroni · 24 March 2011

Awwww it's always so cute when the creobots eat their own.

Marilyn · 31 March 2011

Marilyn said: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same. I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing. Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently. Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life. God said, “be still and know I am God” We have pictures of Leonardo Da Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speak so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

Thank you all for your comments. I would like to add to ...consistently and dedicated... with... precisely and lovingly. Also rather than ...obediently... more of in the way of ...in command...

mrg · 31 March 2011

Marilyn said: Thank you all for your comments. I would like to add to ...consistently and dedicated... with... precisely and lovingly. Also rather than ...obediently... more of in the way of ...in command...

Y'know ... you're really full of crap.

DS · 31 March 2011

Marilyn,

So that would be a no. You don't have any evidence whatsoever for your ideas. You just sort of made up stuff that, for whatever reason, sounded good to you. Sorry, that isn't the way that science works. If you really want to learn something, that is not the way to go about it.

By the way, thanking others for their comments and then refusing to answer their questions is a little disingenuous don't you think?

bagstradeonline.combagstradeonline.com · 19 April 2011

wholesale handbags

cheap coach purses

cheap coach wallets

cheap coach handbags

wholesale cheap coach

handbags

wholesale wallets

cheap wallets