The Unpublished Challenge

Yeah, no wonder that never made it past Morton's Demon.

'one that doesn't rely on negative argumentation.'?

And what prey, will ID have to fall back on if they cannot, mock,cast aspursions upon,ridicule,disseminate,mis-quote,quote-mine, or generally mangle when 75% of their case (?), 'negative argumentation' is removed? Their science?

robert van bakel said: 'one that doesn't rely on negative argumentation.'? And what prey, will ID have to fall back on if they cannot, mock,cast aspursions upon,ridicule,disseminate,mis-quote,quote-mine, or generally mangle when 75% of their case (?), 'negative argumentation' is removed? Their science?

Did Luskin really claim that his legal training gave him expertise in statistics? That seems...odd.

Funny. Law school statistics. Heh. (Ad homenim snark filter was off)

I think the ID folks are so far away from being able to develop anything resembling a model (let alone a properly constructed hypothesis... wait... theory... wait... ability to argue from logic and not rhetoric... wait, darn snark filter!), that while your comment is intelligent, compelling, and completely reasonable, it would just be ignored if it was even fully understood.

Off to get my snark filter fixed...

Thanks for the thoughtful laugh this AM!

Well, I guess it's on par with his legal expertise in genetics, evolution, and thermodynamics.

To state the obvious...

Scientific hypotheses can be stated in a testable way, because the objective is to test hypotheses and see which one fits the data. Although individuals may emotionally favor and advocate for one hypothesis, that's not really the objective, and that tends to randomize out anyway - for every scientist whose too stubbornly committed to one hypothesis, there are many who aren't, and a few who are too stubbornly committed to a rival hypothesis.

An overt test of ID/creationism would be intolerable to its creators and followers. It would fail; we all know that, because it has already failed - there is no coherent hypothesis of ID/creationism, beyond the claim that magic is required for certain things that can be explained without magic.

There are very obvious tests of ID/creationism that can be carried out any time. Take a sterile environment and pray that the designer will make a novel macroscopic multicellular life form poof into it by magic within a certain amount of time. Pray that no more transitional fossils will be found. They could have been praying that Lenski's E. coli never evolved a novel trait.

But no tests will ever be proposed or carried out.

Fake "predictions" will be common, but no actual workable test that clearly rules ID/creationism in or out will be suggested, and in fact, efforts will always be made to keep it to vague and obfuscatory to be tested.

Apologies for the whose/who's typo

harold said: To state the obvious... Scientific hypotheses can be stated in a testable way, because the objective is to test hypotheses and see which one fits the data. Although individuals may emotionally favor and advocate for one hypothesis, that's not really the objective, and that tends to randomize out anyway - for every scientist whose too stubbornly committed to one hypothesis, there are many who aren't, and a few who are too stubbornly committed to a rival hypothesis. An overt test of ID/creationism would be intolerable to its creators and followers. It would fail; we all know that, because it has already failed - there is no coherent hypothesis of ID/creationism, beyond the claim that magic is required for certain things that can be explained without magic. There are very obvious tests of ID/creationism that can be carried out any time. Take a sterile environment and pray that the designer will make a novel macroscopic multicellular life form poof into it by magic within a certain amount of time. Pray that no more transitional fossils will be found. They could have been praying that Lenski's E. coli never evolved a novel trait. But no tests will ever be proposed or carried out. Fake "predictions" will be common, but no actual workable test that clearly rules ID/creationism in or out will be suggested, and in fact, efforts will always be made to keep it to vague and obfuscatory to be tested.

An historical note: Thomas Bayes, whose statistical method is now so useful, died 250 years ago last week. Without computers, it had little application. Thanks to a friend, a Mr. Price, who found the manuscript of the paper in Bayes' effects after his death, it was read before the Royal Society and then published. Pretty amazing. And lucky for us Mr. Price was looking out for his friend's legacy.

RBH -

To the best of my knowledge, Luskin's training in geology never gave him a fundamental understanding of statistics, period, whether it is classical parametric statistics (based upon well-understood assumptions with regards to the Normal Distribution) or one based on Bayesian methodology.

The only Dishonesty Institute "savant" who has tried to offer any kind of test regarding "design" as it has been conceived by an "Intelligent Designer" is Stephen Meyer, especially in his chapter on using the fossil record to test for "deviations" from a "true" Design in his "Signature in the Cell", but what he proposes is utterly simplistic and ignores constraints imposed by phylogenetic history. If Meyer can't accomplish anything remotely akin to what you demanded from Luskin, I am reasonably confident that no one at the Dishonesty Institute - especially Luskin - will ever demonstrate a scientifically rigorous test for some aspect of Intelligent Design.

Chris Lawson said: Well, I guess it's on par with his legal expertise in genetics, evolution, and thermodynamics.

John Kwok said: RBH - To the best of my knowledge, Luskin's training in geology never gave him a fundamental understanding of statistics, period, whether it is classical parametric statistics (based upon well-understood assumptions with regards to the Normal Distribution) or one based on Bayesian methodology. The only Dishonesty Institute "savant" who has tried to offer any kind of test regarding "design" as it has been conceived by an "Intelligent Designer" is Stephen Meyer, especially in his chapter on using the fossil record to test for "deviations" from a "true" Design in his "Signature in the Cell", but what he proposes is utterly simplistic and ignores constraints imposed by phylogenetic history. If Meyer can't accomplish anything remotely akin to what you demanded from Luskin, I am reasonably confident that no one at the Dishonesty Institute - especially Luskin - will ever demonstrate a scientifically rigorous test for some aspect of Intelligent Design.

Questions for ID/creationism advocates -

I know you're out there. Here are some questions.

1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

5) When did the designer do it?

6) How did the designer do it?

harold said: 6) How did the designer do it?

mrg said: I was more puzzled at Johnson objecting to materialism in science, also wanting to ask him if he objected to materialism in a court of law -- or equivalently if he thought advancing supernatural arguments in front of a judge would be a good idea.

386sx said:

harold said: 6) How did the designer do it?

That actually should be a very interesting theological question. How do miracles work? But it isn't an interesting theological question. But it should be. But nobody gives a crap. That says a lot. (Not exactly sure what it says, but it says a lot. ) Lol.

SWT said: IIRC, in Reason in the Balance, Johnson argued for both what he called "theistic science" and what he called "theistic law".

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Doc Bill said: harold, harold, harold! Stifle yourself! Have you forgotten the immortal words of the great Dr. Dr. Dembski, right up there with his Logos proclamation?

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

I crack up every time I see that quote (and I've seen it a fair number of times). Classic on some many levels. Dembski clearly states that ID's pathetic level of detail didn't come from no ape!

harold said:

Doc Bill said: harold, harold, harold! Stifle yourself! Have you forgotten the immortal words of the great Dr. Dr. Dembski, right up there with his Logos proclamation?

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

I crack up every time I see that quote (and I've seen it a fair number of times). Classic on some many levels. Dembski clearly states that ID's pathetic level of detail didn't come from no ape!

I keep wondering, "if it's not mechanistic, what is it?"

The only answer I can think of is "magic".

(Compare to JoeG's "Design is a mechanism".)

GIGO.

They could have been praying that Lenski’s E. coli never evolved a novel trait.

I keep wondering, “if it’s not mechanistic, what is it?”

Stanton said: What about trumpeting "GODDIDIT"? I mean "DESIGNERDIDIT"

386sx said:

harold said: 6) How did the designer do it?

That actually should be a very interesting theological question. How do miracles work? But it isn't an interesting theological question. But it should be. But nobody gives a crap. That says a lot. (Not exactly sure what it says, but it says a lot. ) Lol.

How does one control for the designer? Is he still around and active? Inquiring minds would like to know!

fnxtr said: I keep wondering, "if it's not mechanistic, what is it?" The only answer I can think of is "magic". (Compare to JoeG's "Design is a mechanism".) GIGO.

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

5) When did the designer do it?

6) How did the designer do it?

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

I'm not an ID/Creationist advocate, as my occasional postings here prove, but I've run across enough of them to answer for them and to prove that it's ultimately fruitless to argue against them. There's no proof that those of us who are scientists with either a secular or religious orientation can say that will convince them they are wrong until it dawns on them that they are being lied to. No testing of any model, and no amount of positive evidence for evolution will be sufficient.

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

The sainted Steve Gould filled countless columns in "Natural History" with examples of improvised and improbable anatomy dictated by the limitations of past evolution and body plans. The name f this blog refers to one of them. A design proponent will argue that these "designs" are good enough to work, and therefore not a disproof of design.

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

Of course the "designer" is God, and once the design proponents can get design put back into schools, they'll start arguing that "fact".

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

Since the designer is by definition supernatural, the process of creation and design is beyond our understanding. Therefore they don't have to answer this question.

5) When did the designer do it?

Design proponents will temporarily accept their "old Earth Creationists" as useful (but idiotic) allies, but the real answer will eventually be that design has to be consistent with Scripture, and they will argue for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

6) How did the designer do it?

See answer to question 4 above - it's beyond our understanding. The Designer did do it with all of the geologic evidence of great age, and apparent fossil record, an apparent match between cladistics and divergence in DNA and all of the other evidence for evolution in place so that we too can show our "faith" by disbelieving in the plain evidence. In other words, believing in the Designer's God, a liar. Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist's straighjacket. Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

Mike Clinch -

Your answers are 100% correct :). You gave a scientific answer to question 2), so I'll discuss the unutterable ID/creationist answer below.

I should fill you in on some background. I've been arguing against politicized creationism since I first became aware of it in 1999, due to the original Kansas School Board incident. (I was aware of Jack Chick tracts, creationist beliefs of fundie sects, and so on before that, but had been blissfully unaware of political efforts to get it into public schools.)

I'd love to see an ID/creationist attempt to answer my questions, but at the same time, the point is kind of that they can't and won't. The only reason they can't is the legalistic and political nature of ID. Let's go through it. Recall that the whole point of "ID" is to "court proof" creationism.

1) Of course, there is no evidence that could turn them around; that's courtroom poison so they can't say so. (I'll note here that if ID wasn't an attempted courtroom con, they could openly admit that nothing would turn them away from their faith. I won't repeat this point, but you'll see below how, if it wasn't for legal considerations, they could, in general, answer the questions.)

2) You gave an obvious answer from biology, but what's a fundamentalist going to say? Jehovah designed everything in its present form 6000 years ago, and if earthquakes or lightening changed features within the time he can admit has passed, well, those were Jehovah's will, too. Another more subtle problem for them here is that an answer would lead to "why is this designed and that not?" challenges, but the basic issue here is - "can't say it was all designed by Jehovah, can't say it wasn't, either".

3) Of course it's Jehovah; can't say that in court.

4) This is a huge dilemma for them. The emotional appeal of creationism is that human beings were magically created. They hate abiogenesis, but only because it's one more argument against humans being magically created, not because they give a damn about how bacteria were created.

Nobody really gives a crap about the distinction between "God willed the big bang 13 or 14 billion years ago and simple unicellular life emerged on earth, which eventually gave rise to the modern biosphere" versus "God willed the big bang, and then about 10 billion years later he willed the creation of a crude unicellular ancestor to modern life (and may have helped out with flagella along the way)". If you're already reducing Jehovah to rare or trivial acts, possibly millions or billions of years apart, why not just say that he "wills" or "gives meaning" to everything, be done with it, and stop arguing with the scientific explanation?

Back when ID was all the rage, I had a canned speech in which I would explain its claims. My original plan was to then explain the flaws, but I never had to go beyond "bacterial flagellum could not have evolved". People rejected it as soon as they heard those words.

Incidentally, they tried "bacterial flagellum" in court, and the jury laughed. On the other hand "God breathed life into the dust and it became Adam" is a loser if you're trying to argue that it isn't a religious explanation. Big dilemma.

5) "When" is a big stumbling block. Can't say "4004 BC" in court. "Don't know when"? Some of them try that, but it's a HUGE sticking point. Funding drops every time someone at the DI says anything that implies "old". "Old Earth Creationists" are isolated crackpots, YEC gets all the money. One big reason why is that everybody sees that if there's enough time, evolution is the obvious explanation. That was always the sole argument of highly intelligent 19th century Anglican Church leaders against erosion, evolution, etc. "Sounds reasonable, but there wasn't enough time, therefore magic creation".

6) Magic, miracle, whatever. Note that here they use a different strategy. Try to say words like "design" or "discontinuity", which are, in the context, synonyms for "magic". Again though, can't say "miracle", "divine will", etc, in court.

John Kwok said: I concur with your observations, but let me note that Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer has asserted in his book "Signature in the Cell" that one could test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design by looking at the fossil record. Of course he ignores completely the phylogenetic constraints imposed on each and every metazoan (and metaphytan, protistan, etc.) lineage that is represented within the fossil record.

harold said: Mike Clinch - Your answers are 100% correct :). You gave a scientific answer to question 2), so I'll discuss the unutterable ID/creationist answer below. I should fill you in on some background. I've been arguing against politicized creationism since I first became aware of it in 1999, due to the original Kansas School Board incident. (I was aware of Jack Chick tracts, creationist beliefs of fundie sects, and so on before that, but had been blissfully unaware of political efforts to get it into public schools.) I'd love to see an ID/creationist attempt to answer my questions, but at the same time, the point is kind of that they can't and won't. The only reason they can't is the legalistic and political nature of ID. Let's go through it. Recall that the whole point of "ID" is to "court proof" creationism. 1) Of course, there is no evidence that could turn them around; that's courtroom poison so they can't say so. (I'll note here that if ID wasn't an attempted courtroom con, they could openly admit that nothing would turn them away from their faith. I won't repeat this point, but you'll see below how, if it wasn't for legal considerations, they could, in general, answer the questions.) 2) You gave an obvious answer from biology, but what's a fundamentalist going to say? Jehovah designed everything in its present form 6000 years ago, and if earthquakes or lightening changed features within the time he can admit has passed, well, those were Jehovah's will, too. Another more subtle problem for them here is that an answer would lead to "why is this designed and that not?" challenges, but the basic issue here is - "can't say it was all designed by Jehovah, can't say it wasn't, either". 3) Of course it's Jehovah; can't say that in court. 4) This is a huge dilemma for them. The emotional appeal of creationism is that human beings were magically created. They hate abiogenesis, but only because it's one more argument against humans being magically created, not because they give a damn about how bacteria were created. Nobody really gives a crap about the distinction between "God willed the big bang 13 or 14 billion years ago and simple unicellular life emerged on earth, which eventually gave rise to the modern biosphere" versus "God willed the big bang, and then about 10 billion years later he willed the creation of a crude unicellular ancestor to modern life (and may have helped out with flagella along the way)". If you're already reducing Jehovah to rare or trivial acts, possibly millions or billions of years apart, why not just say that he "wills" or "gives meaning" to everything, be done with it, and stop arguing with the scientific explanation? Back when ID was all the rage, I had a canned speech in which I would explain its claims. My original plan was to then explain the flaws, but I never had to go beyond "bacterial flagellum could not have evolved". People rejected it as soon as they heard those words. Incidentally, they tried "bacterial flagellum" in court, and the jury laughed. On the other hand "God breathed life into the dust and it became Adam" is a loser if you're trying to argue that it isn't a religious explanation. Big dilemma. 5) "When" is a big stumbling block. Can't say "4004 BC" in court. "Don't know when"? Some of them try that, but it's a HUGE sticking point. Funding drops every time someone at the DI says anything that implies "old". "Old Earth Creationists" are isolated crackpots, YEC gets all the money. One big reason why is that everybody sees that if there's enough time, evolution is the obvious explanation. That was always the sole argument of highly intelligent 19th century Anglican Church leaders against erosion, evolution, etc. "Sounds reasonable, but there wasn't enough time, therefore magic creation". 6) Magic, miracle, whatever. Note that here they use a different strategy. Try to say words like "design" or "discontinuity", which are, in the context, synonyms for "magic". Again though, can't say "miracle", "divine will", etc, in court.

Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist’s straighjacket.

Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

Mike Clinch said:

John Kwok said: I concur with your observations, but let me note that Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer has asserted in his book "Signature in the Cell" that one could test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design by looking at the fossil record. Of course he ignores completely the phylogenetic constraints imposed on each and every metazoan (and metaphytan, protistan, etc.) lineage that is represented within the fossil record.

I was fascinated when I first read Gould's essays that he cited the "imperfections" in the design of plants and animals as proof of evolution. He argued that perfection in design is better proof of a designer, while the fudges and kludges of actual organisms is proof of a history of evolution. So let Mr. Meyer find the deviations. It just helps us.

harold said: 2) You gave an obvious answer from biology, but what's a fundamentalist going to say? Jehovah designed everything in its present form 6000 years ago, and if earthquakes or lightening changed features within the time he can admit has passed, well, those were Jehovah's will, too. Another more subtle problem for them here is that an answer would lead to "why is this designed and that not?" challenges, but the basic issue here is - "can't say it was all designed by Jehovah, can't say it wasn't, either".

Karen S. said:

Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist’s straighjacket.

Same here, Mike. It's a real blessing.

Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

And a Happpy Easter to you, too.

Although I don't practice religion personally, Happy Easter to everyone who does, and everyone who is looking for an excuse to eat chocolate eggs. (I personally use the terms "Easter" and "Christmas" frequently, as they have strong positive cultural connotations for me, although I may interchangeably use terms like "Happy Holidays", especially to emphasize the ecumenical and universal nature of traditional solstice festivities).

May the Multicultural Spring Festival Fertility Symbol Rabbit be generous to all with his Fertility Symbol Confectionery.

The first English translators of the Bible didn’t know that custom, and combined the consonants for one name with the vowels of another to concoct the meaningless word “Jehovah”.

I use the term "Jehovah" as a clear way of signifying the deity of modern Christian fundamentalism; no offense is intended and it is a commonly used traditional form.

Terms like "God", "god", "divine being", and so on are more ambiguous.

Obviously, "Jehovah" isn't necessarily universally accepted by, nor specific to, creationists, either, but nothing is perfect.

As I have noted many times, I strongly support everyone's right to live and believe as they see fit. My arguments with creationists, for that matter, are SOLELY that they attempt to violate rights by teaching sectarian dogma in public schools, and promote the use of sectarian dogma and science denial in deciding public policy.

harold said: (snip) although I may interchangeably use terms like "Happy Holidays", especially to emphasize the ecumenical and universal nature of traditional solstice festivities).(snip)

fnxtr said:

harold said: (snip) although I may interchangeably use terms like "Happy Holidays", especially to emphasize the ecumenical and universal nature of traditional solstice festivities).(snip)

Just as long as it's not "Season's Greetings". Ugh. The marketing world's most offensive attempt at not being offensive, ever. Why not just hang a big banner in the store that reads "Whatever!"

harold said: Although I don't practice religion personally, Happy Easter to everyone who does, and everyone who is looking for an excuse to eat chocolate eggs.

harold said: Terms like "God", "god", "divine being", and so on are more ambiguous.

Mike Clinch said: Of course "Jehovah" is just as much evidence of textual evolution as "Cdesign proponentsISTS" is. Hebrew used to be written with only consonants, and the name of God given to Moses in Exodus was "YHWH", often spoken as "Yahweh" or "I am who I am". Pious Jews would not say that name, and would often substitute "Elohim" or "The Lord" in its place. Centuries later, Jews added accents (known as vowel points)above the consonants in written Hebrew to indicate the vowels. The vowel pointss for "Elohim" got written above YHWH, and Jews who knew the customs and traditions would be reminded by the vowels to substitute Elohim for Yahweh when reading aloud. The first English translators of the Bible didn't know that custom, and combined the consonants for one name with the vowels of another to concoct the meaningless word "Jehovah".

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: Terms like "God", "god", "divine being", and so on are more ambiguous.

The word "God" is not a name but just a job title, like "plumber" or "carpenter."

harold said:

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: Terms like "God", "god", "divine being", and so on are more ambiguous.

The word "God" is not a name but just a job title, like "plumber" or "carpenter."

Indeed, that was kind of my point. The barely hidden goal of ID is to specifically promote favoritism of post-modern Fundamentalist Protestant Creationist in public schools by attempting to "court proof" it with a thin disguise (albeit while violating major ethical tenets of both the Old and New Testament in the process).

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

I'm not an ID/Creationist advocate, as my occasional postings here prove, but I've run across enough of them to answer for them and to prove that it's ultimately fruitless to argue against them. There's no proof that those of us who are scientists with either a secular or religious orientation can say that will convince them they are wrong until it dawns on them that they are being lied to. No testing of any model, and no amount of positive evidence for evolution will be sufficient.

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

The sainted Steve Gould filled countless columns in "Natural History" with examples of improvised and improbable anatomy dictated by the limitations of past evolution and body plans. The name f this blog refers to one of them. A design proponent will argue that these "designs" are good enough to work, and therefore not a disproof of design.

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

Of course the "designer" is God, and once the design proponents can get design put back into schools, they'll start arguing that "fact".

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

Since the designer is by definition supernatural, the process of creation and design is beyond our understanding. Therefore they don't have to answer this question.

5) When did the designer do it?

Design proponents will temporarily accept their "old Earth Creationists" as useful (but idiotic) allies, but the real answer will eventually be that design has to be consistent with Scripture, and they will argue for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

6) How did the designer do it?

See answer to question 4 above - it's beyond our understanding. The Designer did do it with all of the geologic evidence of great age, and apparent fossil record, an apparent match between cladistics and divergence in DNA and all of the other evidence for evolution in place so that we too can show our "faith" by disbelieving in the plain evidence. In other words, believing in the Designer's God, a liar. Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist's straighjacket. Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

John Kwok said: ...let me just remind anyone who is ignorant of the Dishonesty Institute Center for Science and (the Renewal of) Culture's raison d'etre to read Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross's superb "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".

henry said: He is risen.

henry said: He is risen.

As they used to say way back when: Christ has returned, and she's black.

henry said: He is risen.

Science Avenger said:

henry said: He is risen.

I've never understood why so much religious writing is so grammatically mangled. He "is" risen? He HAS risen! Who among us could sing "Joy to the world, the Lord is come" as teens without chucking? Serves them right.

It's called archaism. From the point of view of 16th/17th-century English, it's our writing that is grammatically mangled.

Re: Liturgical grammar ...

"The Lord is come" was at one point a perfectly standard English construction, but that form fell out of used in the last century or so. When I was learning to read German, my professor used this as an example of how to form (IIRC) the present perfect for strong verbs (Er ist gekommen vs. Er hat gekommen) -- the formulation used in the hymn is a tidbit left from the evolution of English from an earlier Germanic form. I think it's retained as a tradition.

"The Lord is risen" is an affirmation that Christ not only arose, but is still risen -- that He didn't die sometime after the resurrection.

henry said: He is risen.

Science Avenger said:

henry said: He is risen.

I've never understood why so much religious writing is so grammatically mangled. He "is" risen? He HAS risen! Who among us could sing "Joy to the world, the Lord is come" as teens without chucking? Serves them right.

mrg said: As they used to say way back when: Christ has returned, and she's black.

Henry J said: For some reason, that reminds me of Blazing Saddles; one scene in particular.

You're referring: "He says the sheriff is near!" Yeah, let's not go there.

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: 2) You gave an obvious answer from biology, but what's a fundamentalist going to say? Jehovah designed everything in its present form 6000 years ago, and if earthquakes or lightening changed features within the time he can admit has passed, well, those were Jehovah's will, too. Another more subtle problem for them here is that an answer would lead to "why is this designed and that not?" challenges, but the basic issue here is - "can't say it was all designed by Jehovah, can't say it wasn't, either".

Of course "Jehovah" is just as much evidence of textual evolution as "Cdesign proponentsISTS" is. Hebrew used to be written with only consonants, and the name of God given to Moses in Exodus was "YHWH", often spoken as "Yahweh" or "I am who I am". Pious Jews would not say that name, and would often substitute "Elohim" or "The Lord" in its place. Centuries later, Jews added accents (known as vowel points)above the consonants in written Hebrew to indicate the vowels. The vowel pointss for "Elohim" got written above YHWH, and Jews who knew the customs and traditions would be reminded by the vowels to substitute Elohim for Yahweh when reading aloud. The first English translators of the Bible didn't know that custom, and combined the consonants for one name with the vowels of another to concoct the meaningless word "Jehovah".

Karen S. said:

I keep wondering, “if it’s not mechanistic, what is it?”

Isn't it obvious? It's Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo. That's the magic of Disney. Similar to the magic of evolution. Both require great imagination, which are both on display in Disney's EPCOT in Florida.

NoNick said:

henry said: He is risen.

But he wasn't the first, was he ? Matthew 27:51-54 (Happy Easter anyway henry)

henry said:Regarding Matthew 27:51-54, my guess is the resurrection of these saints was temporary, like Lazarus.

Better check with your fundie mentors, henry. You're not allowed to "guess" about such articles of faith. You must have FAITH and KNOW.

And you'd better know the right thing, or you're going to Hell.

If Christ were born in Bethlehem a thousand times and not in thee thyself; then art thou lost eternally.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said: It's called archaism.

Hi mrg, from a previous reply, I’ve been thinking about because it bothers me too. The illnesses you mentioned, you know there is relief and there are treatments for some illnesses that are not available to be given to people only because they live at the wrong side of town. There could possibly be cures for illnesses, cures that we don’t know about that for some reason are not distributed to people not only in the third world but in numerous places. The governing bodies in charge of such matters must have their reasons. Money could be one. Illnesses that are related to lifestyle could be another. Or just “don’t want to”. Alternative medicines and preventions can go along way to helping sufferers I don’t mean illegal or untried or unknown remedies.

Matt Young said: I thought that Jehovah used the vowels for Adonai (a euphemism for YHVH), not Elohim, but that is not important. I have, however, seen an argument that the correct pronunciation of YHVH (or YHWH) is Yahooah or Yehooah. Very close to Jehovah when you recognize that the vav was pronounced w. Made sense to me at the time, but I haven't got a reference handy.

God says, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh," which is sorta hard to translate into English because ancient Hebrew had a very different conception of time (which I simply can't internalize). It means something like "I am who I am," but the implication is continuing action -- "I will always be who I always am" perhaps? Anyway, the root YHVH looks like it might have the same root as the verb for "to be," but as far as I know that is not certain, and YHVH is not a homonym.

Shebardigan said:

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said: It's called archaism.

Archaic I am, I suppose, being now arrived at the magnificent age of sixty-four. I state firmly that I was taught in a US public school that verbs of motion in English properly take the auxiliary "to be", recent innovations notwithstanding. This is not uncommon in various Indo-European language families.

Regarding the question of "is risen" vs "has risen": are we sure "risen" is a verb? I thought it was an adverb (or maybe an adjective - I get confused when "to be" is involved) describing the condition of being "risen".

Consider the sentence "he is given to uncontrollable rages". Clearly, changing "is given" to "has given" would produce nonsense (unless "uncontrollable rages" were the name of some charity ...).

Regardless of one's opinion of the Bible or the KJV, the translators were highly-regarded scholars at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster, well-versed in English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. It's pretty unlikely they would have made a simple, bone-headed grammatical error.

"Risen" is here a gerund, a verb particle being used as an abstract noun, being the name of a condition which is the result of an act. "She is married" is another example.

I do not know why we are discussing this phrase, but I would have called "risen" or "married" participles functioning as predicate adjectives. Whatever you call it, there is no question that "he is risen" is correct, if archaic English.

Matt Young said: I do not know why we are discussing this phrase...

John_S said: Regarding the question of "is risen" vs "has risen": are we sure "risen" is a verb? I thought it was an adverb (or maybe an adjective - I get confused when "to be" is involved) describing the condition of being "risen".

Dave Luckett said: "Risen" is here a gerund, a verb particle being used as an abstract noun, being the name of a condition which is the result of an act. "She is married" is another example.

I wonder whether Casey Luskin should consult with this "genius", one Dennis Jones, a paralegal from California (that's the extent of his education BTW), who has a Facebook page devoted to the "future" of Intelligent Design (It's called "Intelligent Design: the future".). Before he booted me off of his group, he whine and moaned:

John, I called you a liar already, and I'm going to call you a liar again now.

"Intelligent Design can't do this."

Strawman. ID doesn't study fossils. ID is about biochemistry and bioinformatics, http://www.designinference.com/ and http://...www.evoinfo.org/.

"All it does is to say that some Intelligent Designer was responsible for the 'Cambrian Explosion.'"

BULLSHIT, you fucking liar. ID has NOTHING to do with a designer. ID does observe the obvious fact that there was a higher degree of radiation present during the Cambrian and there are conjectures as to how information increased at that time.

ID is not a contemplation of the supernatural. You are imposing a false strawman caricature upon ID. ID is a study of information in the genome of a population, how DNA originates and how the information increases towards greater complexity. However information might be sequenced, and compartmentalized into genes or other quantifiable purpose for measurement, we do know that the information we are seeking results in the formation of an original biochemical structure.

1. MECHANISM: ID as a mechanism in and of itself – Intelligent Design is the action and result of artificial intervention interrupting undirected natural processes, such as natural selection. Examples include genetic engineering and selective breeding.

2. HYPOTHESIS: ID as a scientific hypothesis in biology – Intelligent Design is the proposition that evolution requires an artificial intervention in addition to natural selection and mutations.

3. SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Intelligent Design Theory in Biology is the scientific theory that artificial intervention is a universally necessary condition of the first initiation of life, development of the first cell, and increasing information in the genome of a population leading to greater complexity evidenced by the generation of original biochemical structures.

If you peruse the proposition statements you will see there is no reference to a designer whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate it if you never reference a condescending "Designer" references again in a message thread I originate again. I have never expressed ID Theory in terms of the supernatural, nor have any of the fellows of the Discovery Institute. If you ever push that absurdity in a thread of mine again, you better have some documentation to back up your unfounded rhetoric, or I'll delete your bullshit in a heartbeat.

I already told you several times now that ID is not about the supernatural, and you are not listening or paying attention.

The news article I posted to open this thread is currently in the news right now, and the original press release straight from the researchers at UC Davis. Regards.

John Kwok said:

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

I'm not an ID/Creationist advocate, as my occasional postings here prove, but I've run across enough of them to answer for them and to prove that it's ultimately fruitless to argue against them. There's no proof that those of us who are scientists with either a secular or religious orientation can say that will convince them they are wrong until it dawns on them that they are being lied to. No testing of any model, and no amount of positive evidence for evolution will be sufficient.

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

The sainted Steve Gould filled countless columns in "Natural History" with examples of improvised and improbable anatomy dictated by the limitations of past evolution and body plans. The name f this blog refers to one of them. A design proponent will argue that these "designs" are good enough to work, and therefore not a disproof of design.

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

Of course the "designer" is God, and once the design proponents can get design put back into schools, they'll start arguing that "fact".

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

Since the designer is by definition supernatural, the process of creation and design is beyond our understanding. Therefore they don't have to answer this question.

5) When did the designer do it?

Design proponents will temporarily accept their "old Earth Creationists" as useful (but idiotic) allies, but the real answer will eventually be that design has to be consistent with Scripture, and they will argue for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

6) How did the designer do it?

See answer to question 4 above - it's beyond our understanding. The Designer did do it with all of the geologic evidence of great age, and apparent fossil record, an apparent match between cladistics and divergence in DNA and all of the other evidence for evolution in place so that we too can show our "faith" by disbelieving in the plain evidence. In other words, believing in the Designer's God, a liar. Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist's straighjacket. Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

Mike, I am not a Christian (a Deist), but I share your sentiment with respect to wishing Happy Easter to those who are Christians (including yourself). I concur with your observations, but let me note that Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer has asserted in his book "Signature in the Cell" that one could test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design by looking at the fossil record. Of course he ignores completely the phylogenetic constraints imposed on each and every metazoan (and metaphytan, protistan, etc.) lineage that is represented within the fossil record.

Yawn.

henry said: It looks like "phylogenetic constraints... within the fossil record." contradicts your claim that evolution is a fact.

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

I'm not an ID/Creationist advocate, as my occasional postings here prove, but I've run across enough of them to answer for them and to prove that it's ultimately fruitless to argue against them. There's no proof that those of us who are scientists with either a secular or religious orientation can say that will convince them they are wrong until it dawns on them that they are being lied to. No testing of any model, and no amount of positive evidence for evolution will be sufficient.

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

The sainted Steve Gould filled countless columns in "Natural History" with examples of improvised and improbable anatomy dictated by the limitations of past evolution and body plans. The name f this blog refers to one of them. A design proponent will argue that these "designs" are good enough to work, and therefore not a disproof of design.

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

Of course the "designer" is God, and once the design proponents can get design put back into schools, they'll start arguing that "fact".

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

Since the designer is by definition supernatural, the process of creation and design is beyond our understanding. Therefore they don't have to answer this question.

5) When did the designer do it?

Design proponents will temporarily accept their "old Earth Creationists" as useful (but idiotic) allies, but the real answer will eventually be that design has to be consistent with Scripture, and they will argue for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

6) How did the designer do it?

See answer to question 4 above - it's beyond our understanding. The Designer did do it with all of the geologic evidence of great age, and apparent fossil record, an apparent match between cladistics and divergence in DNA and all of the other evidence for evolution in place so that we too can show our "faith" by disbelieving in the plain evidence. In other words, believing in the Designer's God, a liar. Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist's straighjacket. Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

Mike, I am not a Christian (a Deist), but I share your sentiment with respect to wishing Happy Easter to those who are Christians (including yourself). I concur with your observations, but let me note that Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer has asserted in his book "Signature in the Cell" that one could test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design by looking at the fossil record. Of course he ignores completely the phylogenetic constraints imposed on each and every metazoan (and metaphytan, protistan, etc.) lineage that is represented within the fossil record.

It looks like "phylogenetic constraints... within the fossil record." contradicts your claim that evolution is a fact.

John Kwok said:

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

I'm not an ID/Creationist advocate, as my occasional postings here prove, but I've run across enough of them to answer for them and to prove that it's ultimately fruitless to argue against them. There's no proof that those of us who are scientists with either a secular or religious orientation can say that will convince them they are wrong until it dawns on them that they are being lied to. No testing of any model, and no amount of positive evidence for evolution will be sufficient.

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

The sainted Steve Gould filled countless columns in "Natural History" with examples of improvised and improbable anatomy dictated by the limitations of past evolution and body plans. The name f this blog refers to one of them. A design proponent will argue that these "designs" are good enough to work, and therefore not a disproof of design.

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

Of course the "designer" is God, and once the design proponents can get design put back into schools, they'll start arguing that "fact".

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

Since the designer is by definition supernatural, the process of creation and design is beyond our understanding. Therefore they don't have to answer this question.

5) When did the designer do it?

Design proponents will temporarily accept their "old Earth Creationists" as useful (but idiotic) allies, but the real answer will eventually be that design has to be consistent with Scripture, and they will argue for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

6) How did the designer do it?

See answer to question 4 above - it's beyond our understanding. The Designer did do it with all of the geologic evidence of great age, and apparent fossil record, an apparent match between cladistics and divergence in DNA and all of the other evidence for evolution in place so that we too can show our "faith" by disbelieving in the plain evidence. In other words, believing in the Designer's God, a liar. Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist's straighjacket. Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

Mike, I am not a Christian (a Deist), but I share your sentiment with respect to wishing Happy Easter to those who are Christians (including yourself). I concur with your observations, but let me note that Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer has asserted in his book "Signature in the Cell" that one could test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design by looking at the fossil record. Of course he ignores completely the phylogenetic constraints imposed on each and every metazoan (and metaphytan, protistan, etc.) lineage that is represented within the fossil record.

It looks like "phylogenetic constraints... within the fossil record." contradicts your claim that evolution is a fact.

Sorry henry, you've missed it as much as the equally delusional Dennis Jones with whom I have tangled with over at Facebook. When I speak of "phylogenetic constraints", I am refering to "genealogy". Human genealogies are constrained by the ethnic and religious background of ancestors; thus for example, one would not expect to find in an indigenous East Asian population of, for example, Chinese or Japanese, anyone who resembled a Black African simply because until quite recently - thanks to frequent supersonic jet travel - there was no chance of potential breeding between African and East Asian populations. In a similar vein, one would not expect to have cat species within a phylogenetic lineage ("geneaological family tree") of dogs, coyotes, wolves and their ancestors. This is an important distinction lost on you and your fellow creationists - whether they are Dennis Jones, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski, or Stephen Meyer - since they ignore the existence of a prior history - of a prior "geneaology" - that exists for any given fossil lineage.

henry, since you appear to be ignorant of canid evolution - and why not? - "the beginning", as you put it, is about 60 million years back, when the ancestors of the mammalian carnivores began to diverge. Canidae were among the first to emerge as a distinct line. The earliest members of the group were small and apparently partly aboreal. Though skeletal and dental evidence makes it clear that they were already evolving towards the modern canid, they looked more like martens, but less adapted to climbing. That is, if you go far back enough, we do find forms that are something other than "dogs, wolves, etc". It hasn't been that way from the beginning, and it will not necessarily always be that way.

Sorry, henry, but your ignorance is not an argument. It is only evidence of itself.

henry said:

John Kwok said:

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Clinch said:

harold said: Questions for ID/creationism advocates - I know you're out there. Here are some questions. 1) If an ID/creationism advocate did design a test of prediction that legitimately tested ID versus the theory of evolution, and if ID failed, what would you do? Would you accept the theory of evolution? Could any evidence or test convince you? Can YOU give me an example of what such a test would be?

I'm not an ID/Creationist advocate, as my occasional postings here prove, but I've run across enough of them to answer for them and to prove that it's ultimately fruitless to argue against them. There's no proof that those of us who are scientists with either a secular or religious orientation can say that will convince them they are wrong until it dawns on them that they are being lied to. No testing of any model, and no amount of positive evidence for evolution will be sufficient.

2) What is an example of something that is not intelligently designed?

The sainted Steve Gould filled countless columns in "Natural History" with examples of improvised and improbable anatomy dictated by the limitations of past evolution and body plans. The name f this blog refers to one of them. A design proponent will argue that these "designs" are good enough to work, and therefore not a disproof of design.

3) Who is the designer? Do you secretly believe that the designer is Jehovah, but refuse to state that in order to to support the claim that "ID isn't religious"? If so, is this behavior compatible with Christianity?

Of course the "designer" is God, and once the design proponents can get design put back into schools, they'll start arguing that "fact".

4) Exactly what did the designer do, in detail?

Since the designer is by definition supernatural, the process of creation and design is beyond our understanding. Therefore they don't have to answer this question.

5) When did the designer do it?

Design proponents will temporarily accept their "old Earth Creationists" as useful (but idiotic) allies, but the real answer will eventually be that design has to be consistent with Scripture, and they will argue for a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

6) How did the designer do it?

See answer to question 4 above - it's beyond our understanding. The Designer did do it with all of the geologic evidence of great age, and apparent fossil record, an apparent match between cladistics and divergence in DNA and all of the other evidence for evolution in place so that we too can show our "faith" by disbelieving in the plain evidence. In other words, believing in the Designer's God, a liar. Fortunately, my own church, and the religious faith that I believe allows me to believe in a Creator who would allow the ordinary processes of geology and biology to produce the wonderful world we can live in and study, without having to put on the creationist's straighjacket. Happy Easter to those of you who are also Christians.

Mike, I am not a Christian (a Deist), but I share your sentiment with respect to wishing Happy Easter to those who are Christians (including yourself). I concur with your observations, but let me note that Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer has asserted in his book "Signature in the Cell" that one could test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design by looking at the fossil record. Of course he ignores completely the phylogenetic constraints imposed on each and every metazoan (and metaphytan, protistan, etc.) lineage that is represented within the fossil record.

It looks like "phylogenetic constraints... within the fossil record." contradicts your claim that evolution is a fact.

Sorry henry, you've missed it as much as the equally delusional Dennis Jones with whom I have tangled with over at Facebook. When I speak of "phylogenetic constraints", I am refering to "genealogy". Human genealogies are constrained by the ethnic and religious background of ancestors; thus for example, one would not expect to find in an indigenous East Asian population of, for example, Chinese or Japanese, anyone who resembled a Black African simply because until quite recently - thanks to frequent supersonic jet travel - there was no chance of potential breeding between African and East Asian populations. In a similar vein, one would not expect to have cat species within a phylogenetic lineage ("geneaological family tree") of dogs, coyotes, wolves and their ancestors. This is an important distinction lost on you and your fellow creationists - whether they are Dennis Jones, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski, or Stephen Meyer - since they ignore the existence of a prior history - of a prior "geneaology" - that exists for any given fossil lineage.

I think your analogy fails because Asians can intermarry with Africans or anybody else and have offspring. Cats and dogs cannot. Not only aren't cats found in dogs lineage as you've stated, but only dogs are in it's lineage. We don't find anything nor expect to find anything but dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. It's been that way from the beginning and will always be that way.