Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt?

Is it just me, or is this missing the point? The basic goal of creationists is to get their religious agenda implemented in schools, legislatures, school boards, courts, and any aspect of public authority. They have no interest in science whatsoever; ID is really no more than vaguely scientistical whitewash. It exists in the hopes of lending a fig leaf of plausible deniability to the intended creationist public officials and institutions. It is a pure PR effort. The underlying ideas are both irreconcilably unscientific, and intentionally anti-scientific.

Judge Jones was entirely correct in observing that ID cannot be decoupled from its religious nature.

I agree that ID is complete utter BS. Since it canot be any different it canot and deffinitely will not change to some kind of science. ID's underlying ideas just completely prevent this. Thus, I don't actually see the point of your post. ID has been, is and will be a dead horse. Still, you may keep beating it.

Well, there are three types of ID proponents:

1) The con-men. These are the ring leaders. They know ID is crap and doesn't (never did) have a prayer (pun intended) of becoming what they claimed. It's a tool to attempt to gain power, notoriety, and money by fleecing the flock.

2) The Troo Believer. This person is religious to the core and sees ID as a viable way to get religion into the classroom and that evil Darwin out. It's all about the religion. They directly feed the con-men. Most of the PT regulars are of this variety.

3) The true believer. This person actually thinks that ID is science and has a chance (pun intended) of being the greatest revolution in scientific thinking in the last 160 odd years. This person sounds like this version of the true believer. As are a few other AtBC regulars.

All of them have the same problem as listed in the above article. ID is functionally useless. It is internally inconsistent and (as Behe put it at Kitzmiller) it depends on how much of a Christian one is.

To even talk about intelligent design, the pro-ID people must do the one thing that they have run away from so far... that is actually be able to tell the difference between intelligent design and any other kind of design. IF they can ever do that, consistently and correctly, then and only then will they ever make headway in science.

To answer the titular questions, yes and no, respectively.

What clearly emerges from that “Manifesto” is its author’s complete lack of understanding of scientific processes and scientific concepts.

The author wants to make a pseudo-science into a science; but he doesn’t know this. He doesn’t know why ID is a pseudo-science, and he doesn’t know what science is either.

He doesn’t know the history; and, as Flint reminds us, it all started as a tattered and moldy sheepskin thrown over sectarian religion in order to sneak it into the public schools to crowd out evolution.

Then ID simply put a tattered and moldy lab coat over the sheepskin.

There never was any science in ID/creationism to begin with; it was never intended to be, and history has left the rubes dangling with an empty poke, feeling embarassed, and wishing they could make it appear that they had something in the bag.

Flint said: Judge Jones was entirely correct in observing that ID cannot be decoupled from its religious nature.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnojY-DQnx9pcDrIBhnMGlqkUreczsKrmk said: To answer the titular questions, yes and no, respectively.

Creationism and ID famously are powerful and doing very well in shaping millions of peoples basic impressions or origin issues. I understand republican contenders for Prez ae always asked about Creationism and attacked for it. i think Dawkins did this recently.
Id and YEC are very important and popular and gaining ground.
Am I wrong?

We take on conclusions from some fields of study dealing with origins.
We do very well and many ID folks are famous writers. More to come surely.

Once again some critic says the "scientific community" opposes creationism(s).
If the operative word is "scientific' to give credibility to the criticisms then it could only be that percentage that understand/study/get paid about these specific fields of study.
Its not the whole tribe or relevant about the mass of them any more then anyone else.
Just the few that deal with origin subjects have credibility to criticize.
Very few get paid for these things. Its a small world relative to the "science" world.

Creationism is convinced in reasonable analysis and observation that events and processes never witnessed but where their are results are professionally well investigated by us and better then our opponents.
For many reasons.

ID is simply more sensitive to throwing a killer punch. YEC is content with slow progress.
In short the thread here is plain wrong and wishful thinking to see any hope of ID/YEC in any way slowing down from its great rise in Anglo-American thought on origins.
Pandas Thumb exists because of this movement and its threat to the old ideas.

:"Creationism and ID famously are powerful and doing very well in shaping millions of peoples basic impressions or origin issues."

ID doesn’t really need a research program

Nice...adjacent attacks by Byers and FL early in the morning - wonder if there's a connection?

This really is strange. Believing that ID's problem is that it just got off to a bad start, and then trying to rehabilitate ID by repairing a few minor flaws -- wow! That approach might work if the launch of a new laundry detergent didn't go well, but in the case of a new scientific paradigm, things just don't work that way. Re-launching ID is about as hopeless as trying to do the same for Time Cube theory. There's nothing to rehabilitate.

Even if one were to ignore the unfortunate circumstances of ID's birth -- it's a primitive search-and-replace attempt to cloak creationism so it can sneak past the First Amendment -- there's nothing to it but a bunch of slogans. Stripped of Genesis, what's left? The essence of ID consists of claims that it's really great science because: (1) evolution is impossible; (2) evolution is atheistic; (3) evolution leads to evil; and (4) I don't believe evolution anyway.

Paul Burnett said: Nice...adjacent attacks by Byers and FL early in the morning - wonder if there's a connection?

Ironically I have to agree with both both FL and Byers, in that the ID movement has been successful in keeping the "masses" mislead. Their strategy is to spread anti-"Darwinism" sound bites that trickle down to millions that never heard of the DI and its Fellows (other than Medved). I'm not worried about people like FL and Byers - they'll always have old-style pseudoscience peddlers (e.g. AiG) to feed their fantasies. What I worry about is the larger group (~1/2 if the population, compared to the ~1/4 that are committed Biblical literalists) that say things like "I hear the jury's still out about evolution," or if they don't personally buy creationism/ID say things like "what's the harm, let them learn it in public schools."

While the movement probably could benefit from a new strategy, I think we need to be the ones to give it to them. By constantly demanding them to state what they think the designer did, when and how. When they try to evade the questions remind them that YECs and OECs have no problem answering the whats and whens (if not the hows). Then, when they claim that ID is not creationism, instead of the usual "is too!," just ask if they ever challenged YEC and OEC with the same passion that they "challenge" "Darwinism." Of course this will only work if there's an audience present to watch them evade, backpedal and whine that it's not their job to "connect dots." And even then it will likely take years to make measurable progress. Doing what we have been doing for 20 years guarantees no progress at best.

Intelligent Design cretinism IS mendacious intellectual pornography; nothing more and nothing less. It's time for it to REST IN PEACE. The Dishonesty Institute should listen to the likes of Republican Presidential Candidates Newt Gingrich (who said back in 2006 that Intelligent Design should never be taught in science classes), Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney who recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory.

@Frank J: except that both FL and Byers measure ID's success mainly in terms of politics and PR, not in terms of scientific progress. Pretty telling, isn't it?

FL said: Meanwhile, the well-known atheist professor and debater, Antony Flew, sent Richter-9.0 shock waves all over the place, when he publicly credited Intelligent Design for his decision to abandon atheism in favor of deism.

Jack Scanlan said: I wrote the post to challenge the ID community: don't think that I actually think ID could ever become a part of the scientific community. But they've got to put their money where their many mouths are and start doing something, if they want to try to be taken seriously.

They should thus develop a good reputation and respect within the scientific community.

apokryltaros said: I really don't see how Governor Perry's approval of Intelligent Design is worth boasting about, given as how the Texas Educational System is one of the worst performing educational systems in the nation.

Deen said: @Frank J: except that both FL and Byers measure ID's success mainly in terms of politics and PR, not in terms of scientific progress. Pretty telling, isn't it?

". . .wonder if there’s a connection?"

It's called "sock puppetry".

Deen said:

They should thus develop a good reputation and respect within the scientific community.

Does anyone else consider this rather weaselly? "First, win their trust, and then hit them with your ID"? Besides, what happened about just following the evidence where it leads? I'm also missing another important piece of advise: admit it when you are wrong. Stop using arguments after they have been discredited.

Of course, that could mean that they'd have to stop doing ID altogether...

John said:

apokryltaros said: I really don't see how Governor Perry's approval of Intelligent Design is worth boasting about, given as how the Texas Educational System is one of the worst performing educational systems in the nation.

Am in full agreement with all of your comments here, but I am citing only these to note that Perry needs to wise up and follow in the lead of Gingrich, Romney, and especially, Huntsman, who said recently that the Republican Party should not been seen as the "anti-science" political party if it wishes to win the 2012 Presidential Election here in the United States.

The NEW ID Should:
#9. Be carefully flushed down the drain, and treated just like the OLD ID.

So ID proponents know that what they have been doing isn't science and isn't being taken seriously by scientists, regardless of whatever success they may have had in fooling J. Q. Public. They also know exactly what they must do to transform ID into some kind of real science and be taken seriously by the scientific community. So why haven't they done so already? Why have they failed so miserably? WHy have they not even tried? Why do they insist on continuing to run a con game, insisting that what they are doing is science and not religion?

Perhaps this is all they have. Perhaps this is all they ever will have. Perhaps they know, deep down inside, that if they ever actually do any real science, it will prove that they were completely wrong all along. After all that quote mining, something from all those papers must have sunk in. They must realize that others have had the courage to honestly seek the truth and have already found it. If you haven't even got the guts to look for a real answer, you aren't even emotionally capable of doing any real science. Nothing has ever stopped them from doing real science, except themselves.

ID, as it currently exists, is a great source of entertainment and amusement.

Yes, there could be ID as science, though it is unlikely that such a scientific study would satisfy the current ID advocates. How to do this is often pointed out. But the ID folk are not interested. They may deny their program is religious and political, but they don't even try to conceal it. They are probably blind as to how obvious this is.

In the meantime, they are doing a great job of documenting the religious nature of the movement, which could be useful if there are future court cases.

Robert Byers said: ... Once again some critic says the "scientific community" opposes creationism(s). If the operative word is "scientific' to give credibility to the criticisms then it could only be that percentage that understand/study/get paid about these specific fields of study. Its not the whole tribe or relevant about the mass of them any more then anyone else. Just the few that deal with origin subjects have credibility to criticize. Very few get paid for these things. Its a small world relative to the "science" world. Creationism is convinced in reasonable analysis and observation that events and processes never witnessed but where their are results are professionally well investigated by us and better then our opponents. For many reasons. ...

Here's the only way forward for ID: massively fund research in abiogenesis. The only testable hypothesis is natural origins, and the only way to falsify it is to try every possible natural route to abiogenesis and show that none of them work. A creationist billionaire or two could massively stimulate the field since 99% of biology research is on how life works now, not on origins. No ID youngsters need learn biology, there are lots of trained biologists who would hit the ground running if given funding. Of course it would take a long time and lots of money to exhaust the possibilities, but with faith all things are possible. Of course there is the nightmare possibility that a viable model for abiogensis might be found, but no True Believer would give that a moment's credence. Put your money where your mouth is creationists: fund the enemy and watch them fail!

Provocative post, Jack – but plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Have you read this 2002 essay by Bill Dembski?

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm

Here's another perspective to consider. 20 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwinian theory began to enter what historian Peter Bowler calls its "eclipse," such that at the 50-year anniversary of the book (1909), the theory was widely pronounced to be moribund. Yet...you know the rest.

The worst thing that could happen to ID would be for someone like you to stop thinking about it. Don't visit Uncommon Descent or other ID sites, don't read books such as Signature in the Cell, don't write blog posts like this one -- just become indifferent.

Could that happen? Sure. Will it? Only you know.

If ID was true, it wouldn't have any of the problems it now has. It has all of these problems because it is blatantly false. That should be their first clue.

Here is MY list of things for the ID movement to move forward:

1) Actually learn the science you're trying to debate. Get to know evolution intimately before attacking it. Above all else, know what the fuck you're talking about.

I actually had a bunch of other points typed out, but I figured if they can manage point one, then they'll realize why ID is invalid before they can continue on to any point two.

apokryltaros said:

John said:

apokryltaros said: I really don't see how Governor Perry's approval of Intelligent Design is worth boasting about, given as how the Texas Educational System is one of the worst performing educational systems in the nation.

Am in full agreement with all of your comments here, but I am citing only these to note that Perry needs to wise up and follow in the lead of Gingrich, Romney, and especially, Huntsman, who said recently that the Republican Party should not been seen as the "anti-science" political party if it wishes to win the 2012 Presidential Election here in the United States.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that other Republicans haven't tried to crucify Huntsman as a slimy traitor to the nation for his harsh words against Governor Perry. You know, like how other Republicans crucified Senator McCain when he went against President Bush for the presidential nomination.

Can ID researchers pivot and achieve the same level of credibility Bigfoot, Loch Nest Monster and UFO hunters have? Don't hold your breath!

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Paul Nelson said: Provocative post, Jack – but plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Have you read this 2002 essay by Bill Dembski? http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm Here's another perspective to consider. 20 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwinian theory began to enter what historian Peter Bowler calls its "eclipse," such that at the 50-year anniversary of the book (1909), the theory was widely pronounced to be moribund. Yet...you know the rest. The worst thing that could happen to ID would be for someone like you to stop thinking about it. Don't visit Uncommon Descent or other ID sites, don't read books such as Signature in the Cell, don't write blog posts like this one -- just become indifferent. Could that happen? Sure. Will it? Only you know.

Paul Nelson said: Here's another perspective to consider. 20 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwinian theory began to enter what historian Peter Bowler calls its "eclipse," such that at the 50-year anniversary of the book (1909), the theory was widely pronounced to be moribund. Yet...you know the rest.

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

Ultimately, the problem with ID (and creationism, and with any conceivable replacement) is a simple one:

It is not science.

So long as it makes any pretense to either be, or be an internally consistent and adequate substitute for, the scientific method and everything that comes from the scientific method, it will fail. (Frankly, I think that's a good thing, but then I spent more than a few years dealing with overt theocracies on a professional basis.)

Ironically, ID's potentially strongest basis is one that scares the bejesus (pun intended) out of theocrats: Asserting that merely knowing the mechanism of natural processes is an insufficient basis for explaining or determining the propriety of individual human actions and choices. This scares theocrats because it also contains its own corollary -- that merely knowing the self-defined mechanism of x processes is an insufficient basis for explaining or determining the propriety of individual human actions and choices, except where x processes is the entirety of everything known and unknown. And theocrats don't want anyone to think that either there's ever an alternative... or that the theocracy in question is not all-encompassing.

It's one thing to say "we see flaws in scientific theory y, and offer other theory z as a replacement," only to misunderstand "scientific", "theory," and "replacement." It's another thing entirely to say "scientific theory y is a threat to the power base of nonscientific theory not-y, and one must therefore engage in open warfare against scientific theory y by all means." Individual members of the movement, especially low-level ones, often commit that first error; the leaders, however...

Paul Nelson the "notable" Dishonesty Institute savant decreed: Provocative post, Jack – but plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Have you read this 2002 essay by Bill Dembski? http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm Here's another perspective to consider. 20 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwinian theory began to enter what historian Peter Bowler calls its "eclipse," such that at the 50-year anniversary of the book (1909), the theory was widely pronounced to be moribund. Yet...you know the rest. The worst thing that could happen to ID would be for someone like you to stop thinking about it. Don't visit Uncommon Descent or other ID sites, don't read books such as Signature in the Cell, don't write blog posts like this one -- just become indifferent. Could that happen? Sure. Will it? Only you know.

nonsensemachine said: If ID was true, it wouldn't have any of the problems it now has. It has all of these problems because it is blatantly false. That should be their first clue.

It may not have any positive content, but it makes a positive claim: that there is an intelligence that designed all the life on the planet. It doesn't matter that they make no attempt to demonstrate that fact. If it were true, there would certainly be evidence of it. There isn't any evidence of it, not because of a lack of trying, but because it is blatantly false. Their attempts to discredit evolution is to save their feeble minds the trouble of actually realizing their position is false.

What EvoGuide seems to be stating is that they need to switch gears -- that is, to prove their idea rather than attack evolution. That's what we've been saying all along, and they are thus playing into our hands. However, what I am saying is that they needn't do this to see that their position is blatantly false. They simply have to learn about the subjects they have been attacking. If they can get past their own obfuscations, they'd realize that evolution simply works, and works incredibly well.

TomS said:

nonsensemachine said: If ID was true, it wouldn't have any of the problems it now has. It has all of these problems because it is blatantly false. That should be their first clue.

Rather, a major problem with ID is that it has no positive content. That appears to be a deliberate decision by the advocates of ID. This has the advantage of not being "blatantly false" (as well as legal problems in the USA) as with "scientific creationism". Try to get an advocate of ID specify what happened and when, or what sort of thing is not compatible with ID, or how ID explains something.

FL said: ID has already been publicly endorsed at the national level, by a sitting President (President Bush). And even now, one of the 2012 presidential candidates (Gov. Perry) has publicly endorsed it again.

John said: I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

John said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

At this time back in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. We all know what happened to President Hillary Clinton, right? IMHO it's premature to rule Huntsman out. I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

If ID was true, it wouldn’t have any of the problems it now has. It has all of these problems because it is blatantly false.

SLC said:

John said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

At this time back in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. We all know what happened to President Hillary Clinton, right? IMHO it's premature to rule Huntsman out. I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

I am afraid that Mr. Kwok is seriously over-optimistic about Mr. Huntsmans' chances. In fact, IMHO, the former governor and ambassador is not serious himself about 2012. He's really looking to 2016, assuming that the Rethuglicans will nominate a whackjob like Perry who will go down to ignominious defeat in 2012 (I don't think that Romney has much of a chance either; see the post linked to below on Ed Braytons' blog about Bill Keller and his Jeremiad against Mormonism). Mr. Huntsman is setting himself up as the least insane candidate in 2012 and will argue in 2016 that nominating a whackjob leads to defeat. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/26/televangelist-attacks-barton-hagee-tbn/

Paul Burnett said:

John said: I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

"credible science literate Republicans" - are there any? Name two or three.

FL said:

If ID was true, it wouldn’t have any of the problems it now has. It has all of these problems because it is blatantly false.

Would you be willing to apply this very same reasoning to evolution? Here's a list of problems for you: spam site redacted FL

nonsensemachine said: It may not have any positive content, but it makes a positive claim: that there is an intelligence that designed all the life on the planet. It doesn't matter that they make no attempt to demonstrate that fact. If it were true, there would certainly be evidence of it. There isn't any evidence of it, not because of a lack of trying, but because it is blatantly false. Their attempts to discredit evolution is to save their feeble minds the trouble of actually realizing their position is false. What EvoGuide seems to be stating is that they need to switch gears -- that is, to prove their idea rather than attack evolution. That's what we've been saying all along, and they are thus playing into our hands. However, what I am saying is that they needn't do this to see that their position is blatantly false. They simply have to learn about the subjects they have been attacking. If they can get past their own obfuscations, they'd realize that evolution simply works, and works incredibly well.

Once you start hypothesising a specific type of Designer (which is exactly what the ID movement needs to start doing in order to be anywhere remotely close to having a scientific hypothesis), the predictions and tests are valid only for that particular hypothesis.

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

At this time back in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. We all know what happened to President Hillary Clinton, right? IMHO it's premature to rule Huntsman out. I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

I am afraid that Mr. Kwok is seriously over-optimistic about Mr. Huntsmans' chances. In fact, IMHO, the former governor and ambassador is not serious himself about 2012. He's really looking to 2016, assuming that the Rethuglicans will nominate a whackjob like Perry who will go down to ignominious defeat in 2012 (I don't think that Romney has much of a chance either; see the post linked to below on Ed Braytons' blog about Bill Keller and his Jeremiad against Mormonism). Mr. Huntsman is setting himself up as the least insane candidate in 2012 and will argue in 2016 that nominating a whackjob leads to defeat. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/26/televangelist-attacks-barton-hagee-tbn/

Unfortunately for you SLC, Huntsman was interviewed last night on the PBS News Hour and he did sound like a most credible, quite serious, Republican Presidential candidate. Someone - who is quite liberal - pointed out to me elsewhere online that at this time, back in 2007, Hillary Clinton did not see the political threat posed by a smooth-talking freshman senator from the State of Illinois, whose standing in public opinion polling was then virtually nonexistent. Maybe if she had, then maybe she, not Obama, would be our President now.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

At this time back in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. We all know what happened to President Hillary Clinton, right? IMHO it's premature to rule Huntsman out. I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

I am afraid that Mr. Kwok is seriously over-optimistic about Mr. Huntsmans' chances. In fact, IMHO, the former governor and ambassador is not serious himself about 2012. He's really looking to 2016, assuming that the Rethuglicans will nominate a whackjob like Perry who will go down to ignominious defeat in 2012 (I don't think that Romney has much of a chance either; see the post linked to below on Ed Braytons' blog about Bill Keller and his Jeremiad against Mormonism). Mr. Huntsman is setting himself up as the least insane candidate in 2012 and will argue in 2016 that nominating a whackjob leads to defeat. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/26/televangelist-attacks-barton-hagee-tbn/

Unfortunately for you SLC, Huntsman was interviewed last night on the PBS News Hour and he did sound like a most credible, quite serious, Republican Presidential candidate. Someone - who is quite liberal - pointed out to me elsewhere online that at this time, back in 2007, Hillary Clinton did not see the political threat posed by a smooth-talking freshman senator from the State of Illinois, whose standing in public opinion polling was then virtually nonexistent. Maybe if she had, then maybe she, not Obama, would be our President now.

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party will not go for Mr. Huntsman in 2012. The analogy to the Obama/Clinton contest in 2008 is far from exact. The fact is that then Senator Obama was far better known then is Mr. Huntsman and had the advantage of being heavily covered by the lamestream media as the first serious African descended American candidate for president. In addition, Mr. Huntsman has the same Mormon problem that former Governor Romney has, although he has stated that he is not particularly religious.

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

At this time back in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. We all know what happened to President Hillary Clinton, right? IMHO it's premature to rule Huntsman out. I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

I am afraid that Mr. Kwok is seriously over-optimistic about Mr. Huntsmans' chances. In fact, IMHO, the former governor and ambassador is not serious himself about 2012. He's really looking to 2016, assuming that the Rethuglicans will nominate a whackjob like Perry who will go down to ignominious defeat in 2012 (I don't think that Romney has much of a chance either; see the post linked to below on Ed Braytons' blog about Bill Keller and his Jeremiad against Mormonism). Mr. Huntsman is setting himself up as the least insane candidate in 2012 and will argue in 2016 that nominating a whackjob leads to defeat. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/26/televangelist-attacks-barton-hagee-tbn/

Unfortunately for you SLC, Huntsman was interviewed last night on the PBS News Hour and he did sound like a most credible, quite serious, Republican Presidential candidate. Someone - who is quite liberal - pointed out to me elsewhere online that at this time, back in 2007, Hillary Clinton did not see the political threat posed by a smooth-talking freshman senator from the State of Illinois, whose standing in public opinion polling was then virtually nonexistent. Maybe if she had, then maybe she, not Obama, would be our President now.

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party will not go for Mr. Huntsman in 2012. The analogy to the Obama/Clinton contest in 2008 is far from exact. The fact is that then Senator Obama was far better known then is Mr. Huntsman and had the advantage of being heavily covered by the lamestream media as the first serious African descended American candidate for president. In addition, Mr. Huntsman has the same Mormon problem that former Governor Romney has, although he has stated that he is not particularly religious.

And you insist on clinging onto your delusional commentary, SLC. I'm sorry, but I have more pressing issues like preparing for the arrival of Hurricane Irene than to engage in more of your nonsensical, breathtakingly inane, "discourse".

Paul Nelson said: Provocative post, Jack – but plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Have you read this 2002 essay by Bill Dembski? http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm

Ironically I have to agree with both both FL and Byers, in that the ID movement has been successful in keeping the “masses” mislead.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

weldonelwood#ca23d said:

John said: IMHO Huntsman is the most impressive Republican candidate since George H. W. Bush. I think it's too early to rule Huntsman out, so I am hopeful that he may yet prevail over Perry.

Have you seen the polling? Huntsman's support is statistically insignificant. To become the GOP nominee, you have to live in the Faux News alternate universe.

At this time back in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. We all know what happened to President Hillary Clinton, right? IMHO it's premature to rule Huntsman out. I call upon all credible science literate Republicans to support him.

I am afraid that Mr. Kwok is seriously over-optimistic about Mr. Huntsmans' chances. In fact, IMHO, the former governor and ambassador is not serious himself about 2012. He's really looking to 2016, assuming that the Rethuglicans will nominate a whackjob like Perry who will go down to ignominious defeat in 2012 (I don't think that Romney has much of a chance either; see the post linked to below on Ed Braytons' blog about Bill Keller and his Jeremiad against Mormonism). Mr. Huntsman is setting himself up as the least insane candidate in 2012 and will argue in 2016 that nominating a whackjob leads to defeat. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/26/televangelist-attacks-barton-hagee-tbn/

Unfortunately for you SLC, Huntsman was interviewed last night on the PBS News Hour and he did sound like a most credible, quite serious, Republican Presidential candidate. Someone - who is quite liberal - pointed out to me elsewhere online that at this time, back in 2007, Hillary Clinton did not see the political threat posed by a smooth-talking freshman senator from the State of Illinois, whose standing in public opinion polling was then virtually nonexistent. Maybe if she had, then maybe she, not Obama, would be our President now.

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party will not go for Mr. Huntsman in 2012. The analogy to the Obama/Clinton contest in 2008 is far from exact. The fact is that then Senator Obama was far better known then is Mr. Huntsman and had the advantage of being heavily covered by the lamestream media as the first serious African descended American candidate for president. In addition, Mr. Huntsman has the same Mormon problem that former Governor Romney has, although he has stated that he is not particularly religious.

And you insist on clinging onto your delusional commentary, SLC. I'm sorry, but I have more pressing issues like preparing for the arrival of Hurricane Irene than to engage in more of your nonsensical, breathtakingly inane, "discourse".

According to the latest Intrade posting, Mr. Huntsmans' current chances of winning the Rethuglican nomination are at 3%. Unlike Mr. Kwok and myself, this figure is based on folks who put their money where their mouth is. http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=748416

According to the latest Intrade posting, Mr. Huntsmans’ current chances of winning the Rethuglican nomination are at 3%.

harold said: The point of ID was to deny evolution. It hasn't succeeded. Only the 25% who endorse YEC and were already known to be hard core authoritarian theocrats prior to 1995 outright deny evolution.

I wonder how many people who "support" id would really be theistic evolutionists if questioned in more detail.

apokryltaros said:

harold said: The point of ID was to deny evolution. It hasn't succeeded. Only the 25% who endorse YEC and were already known to be hard core authoritarian theocrats prior to 1995 outright deny evolution.

According to the Wedge Document, the point of Intelligent Design was to Jesus-ify the American scientific community by first denying evolution, then making it "God versus (evil) atheism," as a part of a long term plan to turn America into a right-wing, Jesus-approved theocracy.

harold said:

apokryltaros said:

harold said: The point of ID was to deny evolution. It hasn't succeeded. Only the 25% who endorse YEC and were already known to be hard core authoritarian theocrats prior to 1995 outright deny evolution.

According to the Wedge Document, the point of Intelligent Design was to Jesus-ify the American scientific community by first denying evolution, then making it "God versus (evil) atheism," as a part of a long term plan to turn America into a right-wing, Jesus-approved theocracy.

I do not think that we disagree here.

Paul Nelson said: Provocative post, Jack – but plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Have you read this 2002 essay by Bill Dembski? http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm Here's another perspective to consider. 20 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwinian theory began to enter what historian Peter Bowler calls its "eclipse," such that at the 50-year anniversary of the book (1909), the theory was widely pronounced to be moribund. Yet...you know the rest. The worst thing that could happen to ID would be for someone like you to stop thinking about it. Don't visit Uncommon Descent or other ID sites, don't read books such as Signature in the Cell, don't write blog posts like this one -- just become indifferent. Could that happen? Sure. Will it? Only you know.

John said: ..... My best wishes to you and to anyone else who, like me, has to contend with Hurricane Irene.

Would the hurricane name selectors have looked up the etymology of the proposed name?

As natural selection went into eclipse and was moribund in 1909, it could have had little influence on the thinking of the German generals in World War I, or the rise of certain social/political movements like eugenics. I hope that those who recognize this would make a point of correcting those who make the historical mistake.

John said:

harold said:

apokryltaros said:

harold said: The point of ID was to deny evolution. It hasn't succeeded. Only the 25% who endorse YEC and were already known to be hard core authoritarian theocrats prior to 1995 outright deny evolution.

According to the Wedge Document, the point of Intelligent Design was to Jesus-ify the American scientific community by first denying evolution, then making it "God versus (evil) atheism," as a part of a long term plan to turn America into a right-wing, Jesus-approved theocracy.

I do not think that we disagree here.

Am in agreement with both. My best wishes to you and to anyone else who, like me, has to contend with Hurricane Irene.

Kevin B said: Does anyone think there might be evidence of Intelligent Design, or at least a warped sense of humour, in the naming of a hurricane after the ancient Greek personification of Peace?

And for shame, Floyd, for bringing up Anthony Flew, who in his senile dotage became a deist - not a theist

- and was scammed by his associate Varghese into seeming to support intelligent design creationism…possibly proving that in addition to creationists, some persons of a certain age, when their mental faculties begin to fail, become delusional and begin to think that intelligent design creationism makes sense.

"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."

nmgirl said: I wonder how many people who "support" id would really be theistic evolutionists if questioned in more detail.

mrg said:

nmgirl said: I wonder how many people who "support" id would really be theistic evolutionists if questioned in more detail.

I would suspect that would be the large group that gets pitched the question about Intelligent Design and doesn't know enough about the ID apparatus to realize that it makes teleological arguments on one hand and creationist arguments on the other -- but has set up an Iron Curtain to make sure nobody tries to connect the first to the second. BTW, I think Jack S is simply saying with his posting that if we take ID at face value and try to assess it on its own terms, where do we end up? Personally, I think nowhere. ID has always been afflicted by two problems: first, in trying to find a scientific basis for anti-evolutionism all it can do is recycle old arguments, rephrased for obscurity; second, it doesn't have a real constituency except fundy creationists, and so it ends up being just a minor cosmetic rearrangement of creation science at best -- and over the long term indistinguiable from it as the disguise wears ever thinner.

Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt?

FL said: Would you be willing to apply this very same reasoning to evolution? Here's a list of problems for you: www.darwinspredictions.com

Paul Burnett said: Any particular reason why the creationists behind www.darwinspredictions.com won't let us see who is behind the website?

By the way, if you actually read the site, it has almost nothing to do with Darwin or with any predictions he made.

Plus, the "eclipse" of the early 1900s referred only to the importance of natural selection -- common ancestry was accepted throughout, and Darwin's convincing case for it was acknowledged throughout.

Nick Matzke said: Plus, the "eclipse" of the early 1900s referred only to the importance of natural selection -- common ancestry was accepted throughout, and Darwin's convincing case for it was acknowledged throughout.

While I applaud eric's encouragement for ID folks to go out an do real science according to accepted scientific methodology, just on the off-chance that they might discover something unrelated but useful, I still have to recognize that creationists of any stripe, including ID, have no interest in science. Their goal is entirely social and political. The ID branch of creationism exists to SAY that science has found the creationist god, and get scientifically illiterate people to believe it. Real science would at best be irrelevant, and at worst actually undermine this aspect of the overall PR effort.

They recognize that science has a lot of public respect, and their goal is to steal as much of that respect as they can by making false statements about science, knowing most people won't know better and the majority of US citizens believe in some god and WANT their beliefs objectively validated. Con artists only succeed because their marks are greedy. Making false statements your political base wants to hear works fine. Setting out with the risk of SHOWING those statements are false is strategically stupid.

So I think we should listen carefully to what FL and Byers are telling us. They simply do not care that ID can't have any scientific basis, or that claiming otherwise is dishonest. The only care about how many people are fooled. If it's a lot, then it's a successful strategy. Their goal certainly isn't science, it's to get their particular religious doctrine embedded as deeply as possible into public policy. They'll push ID so long as people fall for it, then push something else. And they are relentless.

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: Would you be willing to apply this very same reasoning to evolution? Here's a list of problems for you: www.darwinspredictions.com

For the billionth time, Floyd - stop conflating Darwin and evolution. Darwin made many predictions that made sense for his time - a century and a half ago. Since then, in the past century and a half, evolution has continued to fluorish, while Darwin, who remains dead, has made no predictions for over a century.

Any particular reason why the creationists behind www.darwinspredictions.com won't let us see who is behind the website?

John Harshman said: By the way, if you actually read the site, it has almost nothing to do with Darwin or with any predictions he made.

FL said:

And for shame, Floyd, for bringing up Anthony Flew, who in his senile dotage became a deist - not a theist

Ahh, yes, for the shame. But, ummm, I already said Flew had become a deist. Did you miss it? ***

- and was scammed by his associate Varghese into seeming to support intelligent design creationism…possibly proving that in addition to creationists, some persons of a certain age, when their mental faculties begin to fail, become delusional and begin to think that intelligent design creationism makes sense.

The best-known refutation of this particular claim comes from the late Prof. Flew himself:

"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."

FL

harold said:

John Harshman said: By the way, if you actually read the site, it has almost nothing to do with Darwin or with any predictions he made.

Nor many real predictions anyone ever made, for the most part, as far as I can tell, nor evolution, for the most part, either. It seems to be mainly setting up straw man versions of abiogenesis and then shooting them down. Although the site is badly flawed, the technical level is still beyond what FL could have understood (because although he could learn something about the subject he is obsessed with he never does). He simply saw that it was "against Darwin" and uncritically accepted it, just as he would reject any argument, no matter how logical, that was "not against Darwin".

apokryltaros said:

Deen said: @Frank J: except that both FL and Byers measure ID's success mainly in terms of politics and PR, not in terms of scientific progress. Pretty telling, isn't it?

Yes, it is telling. Neither of them care that Intelligent Design was never intended to be science, or even a replacement explanation (Philip Johnson realized this, even). FL even denies the fact that Intelligent Design has failed every time it gets pulled into the courts. In fact, in Dover, the Discovery Institute was hoping that they'd win on the grounds of croneyism and party loyalty, and not justice or scientific merit or even competence.

I think the ID movement needs to refocus. At present, it is too Neo-Paleyan in nature. It should instead give more attention to the unsolved and vexing problems of biology other than irreducible complexity and specified information. I am thinking of ontogeny, morphogenesis, sleep, consciousness, behaviour etc..that the materialistic approach has no real explanation of. I think it should incorporate ideas about holism and vitalism that were once widespread in scientific thinking but have since been banished by reductionist and mechanist extremists.

So claims the troll who envies the attention on a terrorist spammer.

At present, past and future, nothing scientific can be done with Intelligent Design because its sole function is to attack and deny science in order to Jesus-ify it.

That, and all Intelligent Design proponents do not desire to do any science with Intelligent Design in the first place. That is, if they even have the desire to do any science in the first place.

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party...

jingjingandgabriel said:

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party...

Confirmation bias. Science literate people who accept evolution and vote Republican from time to time rarely comment here, because they are made to feel unwelcome when they do by the sort of stereotypes and epithets you displayed here.

apokryltaros said: So claims the troll who envies the attention on a terrorist spammer. At present, past and future, nothing scientific can be done with Intelligent Design because its sole function is to attack and deny science in order to Jesus-ify it. That, and all Intelligent Design proponents do not desire to do any science with Intelligent Design in the first place. That is, if they even have the desire to do any science in the first place.

Frank J said: I'll go even further than that. For all their efforts in ramming the promotion of unreasonable doubt of evolution in public schools, that's not their main goal.

Atheistoclast said:

Frank J said: I'll go even further than that. For all their efforts in ramming the promotion of unreasonable doubt of evolution in public schools, that's not their main goal.

No. We are not trying to promote the reasonable doubt of evolutionism,we are seeking to allow a discussion of the problems of modern biology in the classroom and education in general. You lot on the other hand want to force-feed American kids on a strict diet of Darwinism as if they were geese and the like.

Atheistoclast said:

apokryltaros said: So claims the troll who envies the attention on a terrorist spammer. At present, past and future, nothing scientific can be done with Intelligent Design because its sole function is to attack and deny science in order to Jesus-ify it. That, and all Intelligent Design proponents do not desire to do any science with Intelligent Design in the first place. That is, if they even have the desire to do any science in the first place.

ID is a valid scientific inference and interpretation. If life displays all the features of a designing intelligence, as it does, then this should become part of our knowledge domain. Unfortunately, it is Darwinism/Naturalism which is in denial of the manifest evidence for design preferring to believe that it is merely the natural outcome of chance and necessity.

I think, for those so inclined, there simply IS no difference between exhibiting the features of design, and exhibiting the implication of a "designing intelligence". So long as ID requires an unnecessary external intelligent agency, it's dead before it starts. We're back with Behe on the witness stand, arguing that intelligent design is a property of an organism, immediately visible to anyone of his religion. To these folks design and an intelligent agency behind it are the same thing.

Frank J said: I'll go even further than that. For all their efforts in ramming the promotion of unreasonable doubt of evolution in public schools, that's not their main goal. They don't even like public education to begin with. So it bothers them little that they have been losing that battle for decades. Their main goal to "flood" public discourse with their memes. I can't run a control experiment, but I have no doubt that if we started 30-40 years ago to refuse them the luxury of controlling the terms of the "debate" the poll numbers would show a much lower % of evolution-doubters and "pseudoskeptics." Not necessarily of evangelicals, but they would be sounding more like Francis Collins than Albert Mohler. To give just one example of how we are letting them control the terms of the "debate," whenever the subject of "censorship" comes up, as far as I'm concerned our side mostly "rolls over and plays dead." It invariably starts with the scammers accusing us of censorship, and we show that that's not true. But rarely do we ever take the next step and show how it is the anti-evolution activists who effectively censor information by recycling long-refuted arguments and pretending that the refutations don't exist.

jingjingandgabriel said:

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party...

Confirmation bias. Science literate people who accept evolution and vote Republican from time to time rarely comment here, because they are made to feel unwelcome when they do by the sort of stereotypes and epithets you displayed here.

The republican party seems to have speciated into two branches. There’s the fiscal right, which promotes lower taxes supporting a smaller government. And there’s the religious right, which desires to embed their religious principles into public institutions whatever the cost. I think it’s probably the case that the religious right has gained ascendency within the republican party, and are widely outvoting “science literate people who accept evolution and vote republican from time to time”. This being a science site, discussions of fiscal policy are inappropriate.

SWT said: No, you promoting a discussion of problems in 19th and early 20th century biology, the equivalent of "teaching both sides" of caloric theory in a physics class. There is nothing "reasonable" or honest in the doubt ID is trying to sow.

phantomreader42 said: No, it isn't. ID has never been anything more than denial of evolution. It's creationism without even the tiny speck of honesty necessary to admit to being creationism. It's delusions and lies all the way down. Nothing more, never has been, never will be. ID is creationism in a stolen, soiled labcoat, fooling no one but the terminally stupid.

Atheistoclast said "If life displays all the features of a designing intelligence, as it does," The problem is Life shows no such thing. It shows contigency. Exactly what one would expect if a species has to adapt to a changing environment using only the tools it already has. Some solutions are going to be functional but not necessarily optimal. What designer would make the recurrent laryngeal nerve an extra 14 feet in a giraffe or an extra 2 in a human. If "Design" is the hypothesis then "Intelligent", by the evidence, cannot be one of it's attributes. Try reading "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Oh I forgot you don't bother with anything that contradicts your little fuzzy view of the world.

Atheistoclast said: It helps to understand ID as its proponents do - not as you think they do.

I honestly can’t think of a prominent active Republican who supports lower taxes, but repudiates science denial, other than Jon Huntsman. Is there one I am not aware of?

Those of us who have been following ID/creationism since the 1970s know far more about ID/creationism than do the ID/creationists themselves. We know the real science, and we also know the ID/creationist misconceptions about science.

Flew’s accepting it (ID) was a case of “selling out” even if he was of sound mind.

Mary H said: Atheistoclast said "If life displays all the features of a designing intelligence, as it does," The problem is Life shows no such thing. It shows contingency. Exactly what one would expect if a species has to adapt to a changing environment using only the tools it already has.

Some solutions are going to be functional but not necessarily optimal. What designer would make the recurrent laryngeal nerve an extra 14 feet in a giraffe or an extra 2 in a human. If "Design" is the hypothesis then "Intelligent", by the evidence, cannot be one of it's attributes. Try reading "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Oh I forgot you don't bother with anything that contradicts your little fuzzy view of the world.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: It helps to understand ID as its proponents do - not as you think they do.

That is a hilariously naive remark. Henry Morris and Duane Gish started the Institute for Creation Research back in the early 1970s. They saddled the “scientific” creationists with all the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science they carry with them to this very day. Intelligent design was a tactical political morph that attempted to get around the 1987 US Supreme Court decision on Edwards v. Aguillard. What ID never did was to change all the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science that it inherited from Henry Morris and his cronies at the ICR. Those misconceptions and misrepresentations are central to ID dogma; and they are central to your own ignorance of science. You have no clue about real science; you only think you know. Those of us who have been following ID/creationism since the 1970s know far more about ID/creationism than do the ID/creationists themselves. We know the real science, and we also know the ID/creationist misconceptions about science.

Atheistoclast said: Er....ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s. Mike Behe is not a creationist in that he accepts UCD. Many others are OK with a common ancestry just not random mutation and natural selection.

Atheistoclast said: Er....ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s.

Mike Elzinga -

To emphasize a point we have both made already,

If overt young earth creationists had not lost Edwards v. Aguillard and similar cases there would be no "ID".

There is no independent rational basis for "intelligent design". It was a legal strategy to try to hide the religious motivations of creationism.

Now, of course, that does not make it easy to know who is consciously aware of the scam. Nor does that matter. I would suggest that those who try hardest to play the "Id isn't religious" game are quite aware.

I always ask (CAVEAT - I did not invent this approach; I don't who did), but anyway, that's why I always ask who the designer was, what was designed, when, and how, and what an example of something that doesn't show evidence of design would be.

Atheistoclast said: No, I am not in favor of teaching ID - just a critical evaluation of evolutionism.

ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s.

ID is a valid scientific inference and interpretation.

dalehusband said:

FL said:

And for shame, Floyd, for bringing up Anthony Flew, who in his senile dotage became a deist - not a theist

Ahh, yes, for the shame. But, ummm, I already said Flew had become a deist. Did you miss it? ***

- and was scammed by his associate Varghese into seeming to support intelligent design creationism…possibly proving that in addition to creationists, some persons of a certain age, when their mental faculties begin to fail, become delusional and begin to think that intelligent design creationism makes sense.

The best-known refutation of this particular claim comes from the late Prof. Flew himself:

"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."

FL

A contradiction is not the same as a refutation, you idiot. We cannot know for sure what Flew's state of mind was when he converted the deism from atheism, but we do not that Intelligent Design is an empty concept. Flew's accepting it was a case of "selling out" even if he was of sound mind.

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said:

Frank J said: I'll go even further than that. For all their efforts in ramming the promotion of unreasonable doubt of evolution in public schools, that's not their main goal.

No. We are not trying to promote the reasonable doubt of evolutionism,we are seeking to allow a discussion of the problems of modern biology in the classroom and education in general. You lot on the other hand want to force-feed American kids on a strict diet of Darwinism as if they were geese and the like.

No, you promoting a discussion of problems in 19th and early 20th century biology, the equivalent of "teaching both sides" of caloric theory in a physics class. There is nothing "reasonable" or honest in the doubt ID is trying to sow.

dalehusband said:

FL said:

And for shame, Floyd, for bringing up Anthony Flew, who in his senile dotage became a deist - not a theist

Ahh, yes, for the shame. But, ummm, I already said Flew had become a deist. Did you miss it? ***

- and was scammed by his associate Varghese into seeming to support intelligent design creationism…possibly proving that in addition to creationists, some persons of a certain age, when their mental faculties begin to fail, become delusional and begin to think that intelligent design creationism makes sense.

The best-known refutation of this particular claim comes from the late Prof. Flew himself:

"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."

FL

A contradiction is not the same as a refutation, you idiot. We cannot know for sure what Flew's state of mind was when he converted the deism from atheism, but we do not that Intelligent Design is an empty concept. Flew's accepting it was a case of "selling out" even if he was of sound mind.

If overt young earth creationists had not lost Edwards v. Aguillard and similar cases there would be no “ID”.

— harold

Flint said:

Those of us who have been following ID/creationism since the 1970s know far more about ID/creationism than do the ID/creationists themselves. We know the real science, and we also know the ID/creationist misconceptions about science.

I think the definitive treatment is still this one: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf

eric said: Evolutionism? What is that? Is it so hard to actually use normal mainstream words? Or are you trying to signal something with that extra -ism?

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said: Er....ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course. I'm sure we all remember the day we first saw ID articulated in a sufficiently rigorous form that it could be used to make testable predictions. The excitement only grew with the appearance of each of the landmark peer-reviewed papers that presented an objective method to identify design, applied that method to a number of artifacts of known status (designed or not), demonstrated how the method even detects design in artifacts that were designed using evolutionary algorithms, and finally applied it to living organisms. Yup, ID sure has come a long way since it was a "broad church" focused on "defeating Darwinism" and started making its own positive arguments that had greater explanatory and predictive power than what some of us still quaintly call modern evolutionary theory ... so retro ...

Atheistoclast said: ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said: Er....ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course. I'm sure we all remember the day we first saw ID articulated in a sufficiently rigorous form that it could be used to make testable predictions. The excitement only grew with the appearance of each of the landmark peer-reviewed papers that presented an objective method to identify design, applied that method to a number of artifacts of known status (designed or not), demonstrated how the method even detects design in artifacts that were designed using evolutionary algorithms, and finally applied it to living organisms. Yup, ID sure has come a long way since it was a "broad church" focused on "defeating Darwinism" and started making its own positive arguments that had greater explanatory and predictive power than what some of us still quaintly call modern evolutionary theory ... so retro ...

ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Atheistoclast said: ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Atheistoclast said: ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said:

FL said:

And for shame, Floyd, for bringing up Anthony Flew, who in his senile dotage became a deist - not a theist

Ahh, yes, for the shame. But, ummm, I already said Flew had become a deist. Did you miss it? ***

- and was scammed by his associate Varghese into seeming to support intelligent design creationism…possibly proving that in addition to creationists, some persons of a certain age, when their mental faculties begin to fail, become delusional and begin to think that intelligent design creationism makes sense.

The best-known refutation of this particular claim comes from the late Prof. Flew himself:

"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."

FL

A contradiction is not the same as a refutation, you idiot. We cannot know for sure what Flew's state of mind was when he converted the deism from atheism, but we do not that Intelligent Design is an empty concept. Flew's accepting it was a case of "selling out" even if he was of sound mind.

Proof positive Darwinists are lying when they say their minds are open for evidence of ID.

SWT said: Uh huh, Remind me again ... how many peer-reviewed papers have been published that make a positive case for ID? (Please include citations.) Oh, and be sure to highlight the ones that provides a possible way to test a design inference.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said: Er....ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course. I'm sure we all remember the day we first saw ID articulated in a sufficiently rigorous form that it could be used to make testable predictions. The excitement only grew with the appearance of each of the landmark peer-reviewed papers that presented an objective method to identify design, applied that method to a number of artifacts of known status (designed or not), demonstrated how the method even detects design in artifacts that were designed using evolutionary algorithms, and finally applied it to living organisms. Yup, ID sure has come a long way since it was a "broad church" focused on "defeating Darwinism" and started making its own positive arguments that had greater explanatory and predictive power than what some of us still quaintly call modern evolutionary theory ... so retro ...

ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said: Er....ID has come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course. I'm sure we all remember the day we first saw ID articulated in a sufficiently rigorous form that it could be used to make testable predictions. The excitement only grew with the appearance of each of the landmark peer-reviewed papers that presented an objective method to identify design, applied that method to a number of artifacts of known status (designed or not), demonstrated how the method even detects design in artifacts that were designed using evolutionary algorithms, and finally applied it to living organisms. Yup, ID sure has come a long way since it was a "broad church" focused on "defeating Darwinism" and started making its own positive arguments that had greater explanatory and predictive power than what some of us still quaintly call modern evolutionary theory ... so retro ...

ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Atheistoclast said:

phantomreader42 said: No, it isn't. ID has never been anything more than denial of evolution. It's creationism without even the tiny speck of honesty necessary to admit to being creationism. It's delusions and lies all the way down. Nothing more, never has been, never will be. ID is creationism in a stolen, soiled labcoat, fooling no one but the terminally stupid.

ID is a broad church. There are those within it who reject Darwinian evolutionism entirely and others who just say that Darwinism doesn't explain everything. Most IDers accept an old Earth and are OK with the idea of UCD. But they reject natural selection as mechanism for the proliferation of novelty and complexity in life. It helps to understand ID as its proponents do - not as you think they do.

Atheistoclast said:

eric said: Evolutionism? What is that? Is it so hard to actually use normal mainstream words? Or are you trying to signal something with that extra -ism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.

Atheistoclast said: ID is on an inexorable advance. It is inevitable that Darwinian evolutionism will collapse within the next 20-30 years, possibly even sooner. Scientists aren't going to bother extracting blood out of a stone. If something doesn't work, throw it away! Once the old farts who appear as guest contributors on this forum have retired or passed away, the next generation of scientists will focus on a new paradigm and approach. The future is bright.

Creationism 4.0 - I'm all giddy with anticipation!

As far as subsidizing students is concerned, what happens when you pay for their education and that education causes them to see what a boatload of crap ID TNG is?

Unfortunately, both FL and Byers are correct - ID has been very successful at molding public opinion. People find it appealing because they find evolution too mechanistic and traditional creationism anti-scientific. They fall into the Fallacy of the Middle Ground. Evolution says that 2+2=4 and creationism says that 2+2=5 - they are willing to compromise and settle for 2+2=4.5.

Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

There is more to come, folks.

Atheistoclast said: Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract There is more to come, folks.

Ray Martinez said:

Atheistoclast said: Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract There is more to come, folks.

But Atheistoclast accepts natural selection, evolution, and common descent, all the main claims of Darwinian evolution. We could not ask for better evidence supporting delusion and confusion than Atheistoclast, that is, a person who says evolution is false, but accepts the main claims, while having no awareness of the egregious contradiction. So proceed and read his "landmark review paper." LOL! RM Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist

Atheistoclast said: Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract There is more to come, folks.

apokryltaros said:

Atheistoclast said: Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract There is more to come, folks.

So, are you going to get a Nobel Prize for your useless, inane paper, or are you going to threaten to blow up Helsinki?

Ray Martinez said:

Atheistoclast said: Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract There is more to come, folks.

But Atheistoclast accepts natural selection, evolution, and common descent, all the main claims of Darwinian evolution. We could not ask for better evidence supporting delusion and confusion than Atheistoclast, that is, a person who says evolution is false, but accepts the main claims, while having no awareness of the egregious contradiction. So proceed and read his "landmark review paper." LOL! RM Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said:

Atheistoclast said: Evolutionism has been on the ropes since my landmark review paper was published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract There is more to come, folks.

So, are you going to get a Nobel Prize for your useless, inane paper, or are you going to threaten to blow up Helsinki?

Pssst; don’t tell him, because he’s gonna be really pissed if he finds out. I heard that he hasn’t even been nominated. In fact, nobody has even heard of him. He doesn’t even know that he has to send in for the Nobel Prize Application Kit along with $50 and a box top from Fruit Loops.

SWT said: ... plus his signed Official I♥Darwin Loyalty Oath ...

You talkin's about this "Ray" and "Byers" again? Who?

And this guy ATOC is beginning to sound like a myth, too. Oh you people!

Jack Scanlan said: Erm, I think I might have something to say about that, being an undergraduate student and all.

Matt G said: Unfortunately, both FL and Byers are correct - ID has been very successful at molding public opinion. People find it appealing because they find evolution too mechanistic and traditional creationism anti-scientific. They fall into the Fallacy of the Middle Ground. Evolution says that 2+2=4 and creationism says that 2+2=5 - they are willing to compromise and settle for 2+2=4.5.

SWT said: Uh huh, Remind me again ... how many peer-reviewed papers have been published that make a positive case for ID? (Please include citations.)

Ray Martinez said: But Atheistoclast accepts natural selection, evolution, and common descent, all the main claims of Darwinian evolution.

We could not ask for better evidence supporting delusion and confusion than Atheistoclast, that is, a person who says evolution is false, but accepts the main claims, while having no awareness of the egregious contradiction.

TomS said:

SWT said: Uh huh, Remind me again ... how many peer-reviewed papers have been published that make a positive case for ID? (Please include citations.)

How about any references (peer reviewed or otherwise) that give a positive description of ID? That is, a description which goes beyond "something must be wrong with evolutionary biology". Something other than "there's got to be something better than evolution", or "chance alone couldn't do it", or "natural causes don't explain everything", or ...

But Atheistoclast accepts natural selection, evolution, and common descent, all the main claims of Darwinian evolution.

— Ray Martinez

jingjingandgabriel said:

Unfortunately for Mr. Kwok, the tea party nutcases and the religious right whackos who currently run the Rethuglican party...

Confirmation bias. Science literate people who accept evolution and vote Republican from time to time rarely comment here, because they are made to feel unwelcome when they do by the sort of stereotypes and epithets you displayed here.

Atheistoclast said: ...some (creationists) even accept that certain species have a common ancestor - dogs, coyotes and wolves all deriving from the same canid kind.

harold,

There are three Republican presidential candidates who acknowledge the scientific reality of biological evolution and anthropogenic global warming, of which the one with the best polling data now is Mitt Romney (though he has backtracked from prior suggestions that we need to have Federal Government involvement in reducing global warming.). As far back as 2005, Newt Gingrich not only expressed his support of biological evolution but also condemned Intelligent Design as a subject not worthy of coverage in a science classroom since it isn't scientific (My thanks to Zack Kopplin of Save Science in Louisiana, who had posted Gingrich's quote over on his FB group page.).

John said: harold, There are three Republican presidential candidates who acknowledge the scientific reality of biological evolution and anthropogenic global warming, of which the one with the best polling data now is Mitt Romney (though he has backtracked from prior suggestions that we need to have Federal Government involvement in reducing global warming.). As far back as 2005, Newt Gingrich not only expressed his support of biological evolution but also condemned Intelligent Design as a subject not worthy of coverage in a science classroom since it isn't scientific (My thanks to Zack Kopplin of Save Science in Louisiana, who had posted Gingrich's quote over on his FB group page.).

I won’t deny that there is a strong predisposition amongst many Republicans and Conservatives to deny the reality of biological evolution.

— John

Frank J said:

I won’t deny that there is a strong predisposition amongst many Republicans and Conservatives to deny the reality of biological evolution.

— John

Nor will this (non stereotypical) conservative Republican. The reason does not seem much related to ideology, though. If anything, given the parallel (more than just an analogy?) between the "invisible hand" of natural selection and that of free market economics, one would expect conservatives to find evolution at least as convincing as liberals. Conversely, the latter might be expected to find the design arguement preferable. And that occasionally happens.

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: ...some (creationists) even accept that certain species have a common ancestor - dogs, coyotes and wolves all deriving from the same canid kind.

Go ahead - feel free to use your technical term, baramin. We understand that in your worldview, there were no dogs and coyotes and wolves on Noah's Ark, just a "canid kind".

John said: BTW Frank J, in his book "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design", Michael Shermer makes virtually the same argument and reminds readers that Darwin was inspired by Adam Smith's thinking when Darwin conceived of an "economy of nature" with regards to Natural Selection and biological evolution.

Matt G said: Unfortunately, both FL and Byers are correct - ID has been very successful at molding public opinion. People find it appealing because they find evolution too mechanistic and traditional creationism anti-scientific. They fall into the Fallacy of the Middle Ground. Evolution says that 2+2=4 and creationism says that 2+2=5 - they are willing to compromise and settle for 2+2=4.5.

Atheistoclast said:

John said: BTW Frank J, in his book "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design", Michael Shermer makes virtually the same argument and reminds readers that Darwin was inspired by Adam Smith's thinking when Darwin conceived of an "economy of nature" with regards to Natural Selection and biological evolution.

And that is exactly why lefties like yourselves should abandon Darwinian capitalism. I strongly advise you to read my paper on the subject: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q767h613177m34r1/ Thanks.

Atheistoclast said:

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: ...some (creationists) even accept that certain species have a common ancestor - dogs, coyotes and wolves all deriving from the same canid kind.

Go ahead - feel free to use your technical term, baramin. We understand that in your worldview, there were no dogs and coyotes and wolves on Noah's Ark, just a "canid kind".

Yes. And a cat kind and a mouse kind and a sheep kind, pig kind etc......and they all went into the Ark for to get out of the rain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_I-ZDv9IMA So relatively few animals actually embarked on the great voyage.

Atheistoclast says "Cellular life is certainly not a contingent or makeshift contraption. It is the most advanced and intricate piece of machinery at the smallest possible scale that we know of - take a look at molecular intracellular structures like the nuclear pore complex or the proteasome. These are evidently the work of design and not happenstance or jerry-rigging. There is no naturalistic explanation whatsoever."

Have you ever heard of the enzyme ribulose biphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco) considered to be the most common protein on earth? It's job is to attach CO2 to the 5 carbon ribulose to start the process of glucose assembly in photosynthesis. Funny thing though is it can't differentiate between CO2 and oxygen and during hot, sunny weather it grabs oxygen instead of CO2 and causes the sugars to breakdown, thus reversing photosynthesis. This causes hugh loses in farm production every year. One would have thought an intelligent designer especially one who is suppossed to be omniscient could have tweaked the design of this enzyme just a bit to not allow this mistake so that farmers could produce more food and fewer people would starve. An intelligent designer who failed to do that is either unintelliegent or malevolent. While contingent evolution produces an enzyme that is functional but not necessarily optimal just like I said!

So don't feed me this perfect machine B.S. about the cell. The only reason you think of the cell as a perfect machine is you believe Behe without question and don't know enough about the subject yourself to know that he is wrong.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: I must therefore ask, are you seriously asserting a belief in the literal truth of the Noachian flood story? By that I mean a worldwide flood and a population bottleneck of eight people that occurred approximately 4000 years ago?

If not, could you please clarify your position?

Has there been an increase in either outright evolution denial, or of acceptance of Biblical literalism, in the US, since the late 1990’s? I see no evidence for that.

— harold

Incidentally, a particularly obvious fact is that there has most certainly not been an increase in evolution denial among non-Fundamentalists. Although ID has the hidden agenda of supporting Christian fundamentalist Biblical “literalism”, superficially, huge efforts were made to attract David Berlinski/Ben Stein “not Christian fundamentalist” types. To the extent that ID was supposed to trick non-fundamentalists into outright evolution denial, it has utterly failed. I’m not even sure that Stein isn’t a closet Jewish YEC...

— harold

One more point. Two groups of plants that live in hot dry environments have EVOLVED an "end run" around the problem. In fact they've come up with two different solutions called the C4 and CAM pathways. In both of these the problem was solved by handling the CO2 differently rather than changing the Rubisco. Sadly neither of those are available to any of our primary grain plants. Can you explain why if solutions are available in nature the designer didn't find one for our major food plants?

Anybody want to put money on whether or not neuronoclast will even try to answer this?

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

Atheistoclast said:

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: ...some (creationists) even accept that certain species have a common ancestor - dogs, coyotes and wolves all deriving from the same canid kind.

Go ahead - feel free to use your technical term, baramin. We understand that in your worldview, there were no dogs and coyotes and wolves on Noah's Ark, just a "canid kind".

Yes. And a cat kind and a mouse kind and a sheep kind, pig kind etc......and they all went into the Ark for to get out of the rain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_I-ZDv9IMA So relatively few animals actually embarked on the great voyage.

I'm relatively new to this forum so I'm not familiar with the backgrounds and views of some of the regulars here. I must therefore ask, are you seriously asserting a belief in the literal truth of the Noachian flood story? By that I mean a worldwide flood and a population bottleneck of eight people that occurred approximately 4000 years ago? If not, could you please clarify your position? Thank you.

You forgot to add he doesn't believe in the Holocaust.

harold said:

Atheistoclast said:

John said: BTW Frank J, in his book "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design", Michael Shermer makes virtually the same argument and reminds readers that Darwin was inspired by Adam Smith's thinking when Darwin conceived of an "economy of nature" with regards to Natural Selection and biological evolution.

And that is exactly why lefties like yourselves should abandon Darwinian capitalism. I strongly advise you to read my paper on the subject: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q767h613177m34r1/ Thanks.

The theory of evolution tells us how terrestrial life evolves (and also applies to viruses and potentially to other entities which are not definitive cellular life but evolve via similar mechanisms), it does not and is in no way intended to compel us to behave in a certain way. Your rather tragic obsessive denialism and subsequent waste of your apparent abilities notwithstanding, the theory of evolution is a strongly supported theory, and denying it on the grounds of "not wanting it to be true", for any reason, is absurd. I happen to strongly agree that there is a parallel between human competition for scarce resources, and the overall competition for scarce resources within the biosphere. That obvious parallel has been noted many times. Humans are part of the biosphere. In no way whatsoever does this oblige me to support inhumane or short-sighted economic policy.

Mary H said: One more point. Two groups of plants that live in hot dry environments have EVOLVED an "end run" around the problem. In fact they've come up with two different solutions called the C4 and CAM pathways. In both of these the problem was solved by handling the CO2 differently rather than changing the Rubisco. Sadly neither of those are available to any of our primary grain plants. Can you explain why if solutions are available in nature the designer didn't find one for our major food plants? Anybody want to put money on whether or not neuronoclast will even try to answer this?

DS said: A rational or intelligent designer with foresight seems to be precluded.

TomS said:

DS said: A rational or intelligent designer with foresight seems to be precluded.

If a purposeful designer is responsible for humans, chimps, and the other apes to be most similar to one another of all living things, that is to say that we share a common purpose with the chimps and other apes. If we want to follow our designer's purposes, then we ought to behave in an ape-like way.

However, if the similarities are due to a natural process like common descent, then there are no consequences for how we ought to behave.

Atheistoclast said: I reject Darwinian evolutionism, not evolution per se. I reject the assertion that natural selection can necessarily and sufficiently explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth. Any rational and sane person would agree with me. Unfortunately, there are few rational folks on this forum.

TomS said:

DS said: A rational or intelligent designer with foresight seems to be precluded.

If a purposeful designer is responsible for humans, chimps, and the other apes to be most similar to one another of all living things, that is to say that we share a common purpose with the chimps and other apes. If we want to follow our designer's purposes, then we ought to behave in an ape-like way. However, if the similarities are due to a natural process like common descent, then there are no consequences for how we ought to behave.

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said:

DS said: A rational or intelligent designer with foresight seems to be precluded.

If a purposeful designer is responsible for humans, chimps, and the other apes to be most similar to one another of all living things, that is to say that we share a common purpose with the chimps and other apes. If we want to follow our designer's purposes, then we ought to behave in an ape-like way. However, if the similarities are due to a natural process like common descent, then there are no consequences for how we ought to behave.

So there are no consequences for sticking one’s hand in a fire? There are no consequences for wiping out other tribes of apes, or humans – or any other non-family members of animals or plants for that matter - and thereby destroying any expanded gene pool for one’s own species? There are no consequences for destroying one’s habitat and food supply? There are no consequences for not learning from observing what happens around you?

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said:

DS said: A rational or intelligent designer with foresight seems to be precluded.

If a purposeful designer is responsible for humans, chimps, and the other apes to be most similar to one another of all living things, that is to say that we share a common purpose with the chimps and other apes. If we want to follow our designer's purposes, then we ought to behave in an ape-like way. However, if the similarities are due to a natural process like common descent, then there are no consequences for how we ought to behave.

So there are no consequences for sticking one’s hand in a fire? There are no consequences for wiping out other tribes of apes, or humans – or any other non-family members of animals or plants for that matter - and thereby destroying any expanded gene pool for one’s own species? There are no consequences for destroying one’s habitat and food supply? There are no consequences for not learning from observing what happens around you?

I think you are arguing a different point here, Mike. You are noting that the consequences of behavior can be predicted. I agree with that, and I find the current trend of denying obviously predictable consequences of behavior to be reprehensible. However, what TomS said is true. The theory of evolution does not tell us whether we "should" drive ourselves extinct or burn our hands in fires. Those are, ultimately, subjective judgments. Science tells us what WILL happen if we stick our hands into fires. It's up to us to decide whether we "should". Of course, if we deny science and claim that fire won't burn, then we can't even make an informed decision.

DS said: So he only accepts the things that he does and rejects the things that he doesn't want to accept, regardless of the evidence. That's about what I thought. And of course he isn't sufficiently familiar with the evidence to have a valid opinion in the first place.

Is there anyone anywhere who thinks that natural selection is sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth? Didn't think so. Silly rabbit, you need random mutations as well, among other things. Of course all of these things are completely naturalistic, no intelligence, foresight or planning involved.

Mary H said: One more point. Two groups of plants that live in hot dry environments have EVOLVED an "end run" around the problem. In fact they've come up with two different solutions called the C4 and CAM pathways. In both of these the problem was solved by handling the CO2 differently rather than changing the Rubisco. Sadly neither of those are available to any of our primary grain plants. Can you explain why if solutions are available in nature the designer didn't find one for our major food plants? Anybody want to put money on whether or not neuronoclast will even try to answer this?

Mike Elzinga -

Another valuable point is that animals are multicellular, flexibly motile, and heterotrophes.

I tend to suspect that plants don't have what we call "consciousness". I can only infer that, of course. But one argument I would make is that where we seem to see what we perceive as consciousness, it is related to mobility and a rapidly-signalling nervous system. Plants are slowly motile and have plenty of hormones, but there was no evolutionary tendency for them to evolve neurons, synapses, and a nervous system (including support cells). With apologies for using teleologic language to make the point succinctly, they don't "need" it.

This does raise the question, even if something we would call life arises at some frequency across the universe, how frequently does what we call "consciousness", let alone "intelligence" arise?

Free will is an interesting paradox. (Consciousness may or may not be sufficient for the sensation of "free will", but it is necessary for it.) I have the sensation of free will, in the sense that I am constantly making decisions (whether I want to or not). Furthermore, it's to a decent degree known what part of my evolved anatomy helps me to override reflexes and instincts and try to make more future-oriented decisions. That biology was clearly selected for.

To me the question of whether I have free will is not all that relevant - I have to behave as if I do. Even making some sort of affected display of fatalism and refusing to plan would itself be a decision; in fact it would be a decision that would require a lot of effort to adhere to.

If we grant that humans can "freely" (within constraints) choose behaviors, and that the choices can enhance survival, then, allowing that, it's most axiomatic that the biological substrates that allow us to do so would have been selected for.

But the problem is that pretty good theoretical arguments can be made that it is impossible that we could actually have free will. But then why were the brain structures that seem to provide more or less only that selected for?

Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorgmehr -

If natural selection operated in the absence of a constant, ongoing mechanism to generate new and diverse variation, and if life existed in some single narrow niche where only some highly specific characteristic was selected for, your comments would actually make sense. However, neither of those is the case.

You appear to me to be a fairly extreme example of someone who could understand, if it weren't for emotional biases.

I reject Darwinian evolutionism, not evolution per se. I reject the assertion that natural selection can necessarily and sufficiently explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth. Any rational and sane person would agree with me. Unfortunately, there are few rational folks on this forum.

harold said: Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorgmehr - If natural selection operated in the absence of a constant, ongoing mechanism to generate new and diverse variation, and if life existed in some single narrow niche where only some highly specific characteristic was selected for, your comments would actually make sense. However, neither of those is the case. You appear to me to be a fairly extreme example of someone who could understand, if it weren't for emotional biases.

Rolf said:

I reject Darwinian evolutionism, not evolution per se. I reject the assertion that natural selection can necessarily and sufficiently explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth. Any rational and sane person would agree with me. Unfortunately, there are few rational folks on this forum.

Instead of rejecting the scientific theory of evolution, still alive and kicking after 150 years, what about ejecting evidence for an alternative a little more convincing than the wedge document, Behe's debunked myth of Irreducible Complexity, and Dembski's pathetic attempt at trumping hard science with misapplied mathematics? ID is and has always been the future; it's future a Fata Morgana.

Bozo Joe wrote:

"The actual evidence for Darwinian evolutionism is limited to specific instances of adaptation - such as disease resistance (often by way of functional depreciation). There is little evidence, if anything, that natural variation and selection can result in anything related to the complexity of life as we know it."

Wrong. Ignoring evidence won't make it go away.

"But you are confusing evolution with origination. In order for a system to “evolve” and adapt to environmental pressures it has to exist to begin with! Evolution cannot select anything which is non-functional - this is something that was identified as a principal flaw in Darwin’s argument from the very outset."

Wrong. If something does not confer a selective disadvantage it can be maintained indefinitely. It can change at any point any take on a new function though random mutation. If it becomes selectively advantageous it will most likely increase in frequency.

"I notice how you avoided my comments on the nuclear pore complex and the proteasome. How do you explain the origination of these incredibly complex intracellular structures?"

I notice how you had no explanation for the inefficient, poorly designed examples that were presented in refutation of you so called hypothesis. Consider it refuted.

Frank J said: It's also important to note that "they" covers a lot of different ground. FL, Byers and Ray are in that ~25% who would believe what they believe with or without ID or classic "scientific" creationism. They can be written off as "beyond hope." But there's another ~25% that has bought into various degrees of doubt of evolution and/or uncritical acceptance of one of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis - which most of their own religions no longer take literally anyway. Plus another ~25% that accepts evolution (usually in caricature form) but thinks it's fair to teach "both sides," unaware that the anti-evolution "side" consists of nothing but strategies to misrepresent evolution and promote unreasonable doubt. I think the latter 2 groups are salvageable. But it won't be quick or easy, because they mostly do not understand how science works, or how ID/creationism does the exact opposite of what any science does, i.e. it plays favorites with evidence, quote mines, "support" its own claims on "weaknesses" in mainstream explanations instead of on its own merits, is becoming increasingly vague about its own "what happened when" conclusions, etc. And also because of their own inclination to wishful thinking, and as you say, a sense of fairness and compromise. But I think that most of them are capable of understanding that true fairness means earning the right to be taught as science, and that evolution has earned that and creationism/ID/strengths and "weaknesses"/academic "freedom" has not.

Matt G said: I think what's really insidious about ID is that it allows people to think that their instinctual creationist leanings (or unease about evolution) is scientifically defensible. In other words, it allows them to have it both ways. "See? I can have my creationism AND be scientific!"

Atheistoclast said:

harold said: Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorgmehr - If natural selection operated in the absence of a constant, ongoing mechanism to generate new and diverse variation, and if life existed in some single narrow niche where only some highly specific characteristic was selected for, your comments would actually make sense. However, neither of those is the case. You appear to me to be a fairly extreme example of someone who could understand, if it weren't for emotional biases.

Natural selection can achieve very little simply because random variation is so limited. Moreover, natural selection is blind and dumb: it has no foresight and so cannot plan ahead - an essential aspect of any engineering. The simple fact is that NS is a conserving force in life (weeding out suboptimal changes and preventing their fixation) but Darwin tried to make it into a force for innovation and the proliferation of diversity. It is no such thing. Even when a random mutation offers a reproductive advantage to the organism, it almost always entails a loss in biochemical functionality and information. I recommend you read my papers and educate yourself.

Thanks DS. You beat me to it. Neuronoclast is like some of my freshman students. They don't answer the question asked they answer the question they think they have the answer to and then try to pretend that I should accept it because, after all it's an answer isn't it? He seems to have missed the point that it isn't perfection of design that is the evidence it's the imperfection that an intelligent designer would never allow.

Matt G said:

Frank J said: It's also important to note that "they" covers a lot of different ground. FL, Byers and Ray are in that ~25% who would believe what they believe with or without ID or classic "scientific" creationism. They can be written off as "beyond hope." But there's another ~25% that has bought into various degrees of doubt of evolution and/or uncritical acceptance of one of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis - which most of their own religions no longer take literally anyway. Plus another ~25% that accepts evolution (usually in caricature form) but thinks it's fair to teach "both sides," unaware that the anti-evolution "side" consists of nothing but strategies to misrepresent evolution and promote unreasonable doubt. I think the latter 2 groups are salvageable. But it won't be quick or easy, because they mostly do not understand how science works, or how ID/creationism does the exact opposite of what any science does, i.e. it plays favorites with evidence, quote mines, "support" its own claims on "weaknesses" in mainstream explanations instead of on its own merits, is becoming increasingly vague about its own "what happened when" conclusions, etc. And also because of their own inclination to wishful thinking, and as you say, a sense of fairness and compromise. But I think that most of them are capable of understanding that true fairness means earning the right to be taught as science, and that evolution has earned that and creationism/ID/strengths and "weaknesses"/academic "freedom" has not.

I think what's really insidious about ID is that it allows people to think that their instinctual creationist leanings (or unease about evolution) is scientifically defensible. In other words, it allows them to have it both ways. "See? I can have my creationism AND be scientific!"

harold said: But the problem is that pretty good theoretical arguments can be made that it is impossible that we could actually have free will. But then why were the brain structures that seem to provide more or less only that selected for?

Atheistoclast said: I notice how you avoided my comments on the nuclear pore complex and the proteasome. How do you explain the origination of these incredibly complex intracellular structures?

apokryltaros said: Given as how we are already apes to begin with, we already do behave in an "ape-like way." Unless, of course, do you mean a stereotypical, cartoon-caricature "ape-like way," ala feces-throwing, baby-eating, and screeching and hooting loudly while jumping up and down?

mrg said: ...even the ICR / AIG will play games to an extent with the "this has nothing to do with religion" ploy.

Mary H said: Thanks DS. You beat me to it. Neuronoclast is like some of my freshman students. They don't answer the question asked they answer the question they think they have the answer to and then try to pretend that I should accept it because, after all it's an answer isn't it? He seems to have missed the point that it isn't perfection of design that is the evidence it's the imperfection that an intelligent designer would never allow.

DS said:

Atheistoclast said: I notice how you avoided my comments on the nuclear pore complex and the proteasome. How do you explain the origination of these incredibly complex intracellular structures?

Actually, we know a lot about the evolution of proteasomes. See for example: Valas and Bourne (2008) Rethinking Proteasome Evolution: Two Novel Bacterial Proteasomes. Journal Of Molecular Evolution 66(5):494-504. The authors show that the proteasome is not irreducibly complex. The paper includes comments about gene duplication and a phylogenetic analysis, all of things that Joe loves so much. So now Joe, how about explaining to everyone why the not so intelligent designer needlessly handicapped nearly all economically important crops with devastating problems with photorespiration. Or how about explaining why the designer showed such a lock of foresight in designing such inefficient photosynthetic pigments. By the way, I can't wait to read you new paper. I really can't. So I won't.

Atheistoclast said: Moreover, natural selection is blind and dumb: it has no foresight and so cannot plan ahead - an essential aspect of any engineering.

Natural selection can achieve very little simply because random variation is so limited.

Adaptation is indeed a messy process. Natural selection is opportunistic and it will find a quick-fix solution to most problems. By way of an analogy, you can expect it to disable your water mains if you have a leaky pipe. It is dumb and blind.

stevaroni said:

Atheistoclast said: Moreover, natural selection is blind and dumb: it has no foresight and so cannot plan ahead - an essential aspect of any engineering.

Absolutely true. Natural selection has no ability to plan ahead. On the other hand, it does have the extremely powerful tool of trial and error on it's side.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said:

Atheistoclast said: I notice how you avoided my comments on the nuclear pore complex and the proteasome. How do you explain the origination of these incredibly complex intracellular structures?

Actually, we know a lot about the evolution of proteasomes. See for example: Valas and Bourne (2008) Rethinking Proteasome Evolution: Two Novel Bacterial Proteasomes. Journal Of Molecular Evolution 66(5):494-504. The authors show that the proteasome is not irreducibly complex. The paper includes comments about gene duplication and a phylogenetic analysis, all of things that Joe loves so much. So now Joe, how about explaining to everyone why the not so intelligent designer needlessly handicapped nearly all economically important crops with devastating problems with photorespiration. Or how about explaining why the designer showed such a lock of foresight in designing such inefficient photosynthetic pigments. By the way, I can't wait to read you new paper. I really can't. So I won't.

Once again, you are unable to read a scientific paper. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x9h34q477912p783/ What the authors actually state is that the proteasome is composed of homologous subunits. That does not mean it is not irreducibly complex. Any complex machine is composed of parts and components, each of which can have a separate function of its own - such as a spring in a watch or a gudgeon pin in a car engine. What makes a structure irreducibly complex is how all these parts come together to form one holistic system that is greater than the sum of them. All the authors attempt to do in this article is to derive the "ancestral" proteasome and speculate that actinbacteria are the most plausible candidate. There is absolutely nothing regarding how the proteasome - which is found in the most basic free living cell - was constructed through a process of random mutation and natural selection. BIG FAIL.

Atheistoclast said:

Mary H said: Thanks DS. You beat me to it. Neuronoclast is like some of my freshman students. They don't answer the question asked they answer the question they think they have the answer to and then try to pretend that I should accept it because, after all it's an answer isn't it? He seems to have missed the point that it isn't perfection of design that is the evidence it's the imperfection that an intelligent designer would never allow.

No, you didn't answer my question pertaining to the origins and complexity of intracellular structures. You just came up with this dumb question about enzymes not performing well in high temperatures ( as anyone with even the most basic chemistry knowledge is aware of) and tried to pass this off as due to a bad design.

Paul Burnett said:

mrg said: ...even the ICR / AIG will play games to an extent with the "this has nothing to do with religion" ploy.

Don't forget the intelligent design creationist martyrs (Coppedge, Gonzalez, Sternberg, among others) who , when they were fired / demoted / not promoted because of their support of intelligent design creationism (which is Real Science and not religion and has nothing to do with religion, no siree Bob), claimed they were victims of religious persecution.

I predict that Joe will stick his fingers in his ears, cry lalala at the top of his lungs, ignore any and all evidence, provide no alternative explanation and assume that incredulity is a valid argument. And he has no explanation for the obvious fact that organisms are constrained by historical contingency and show no signs of intelligent design whatsoever.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Why is he so afraid that people will have an honest discussion? Why can't he just keep his uninformed opinions to himself? Why exactly does he think that anyone will be convinced by his ignorance? Who cares?

Trust me, you not design anything through a process of trial and error. All you have to do is make minor changes to an existing system. There is a way of finding the root of a graph through an iterative process of hit and miss - getting closer to the root each time. Yes, natural selection can achieve this, but that is not equivalent to design or engineering. That's the point. What we observe in living organisms are the product of such a messy process, not the products of intelligence, foresight or planning. Deal with it.

Natural selection can achieve very little simply because random variation is so limited.

Moreover, natural selection is blind and dumb: it has no foresight and so cannot plan ahead - an essential aspect of any engineering.

The simple fact is that NS is a conserving force in life (weeding out suboptimal changes and preventing their fixation) but Darwin tried to make it into a force for innovation and the proliferation of diversity.

It is no such thing. Even when a random mutation offers a reproductive advantage to the organism, it almost always entails a loss in biochemical functionality and information.

I recommend you read my papers and educate yourself.

DS said: Trust me, you not design anything through a process of trial and error. All you have to do is make minor changes to an existing system. There is a way of finding the root of a graph through an iterative process of hit and miss - getting closer to the root each time. Yes, natural selection can achieve this, but that is not equivalent to design or engineering. That's the point. What we observe in living organisms are the product of such a messy process, not the products of intelligence, foresight or planning. Deal with it.

DS said:

What we observe in living organisms are the product of such a messy process, not the products of intelligence, foresight or planning. Deal with it.

That is breathtaking ignorance. I have pointed out just two incredibly complex intracellular structures, both with a clear teleological function, and all this fool can do is claim they represent shoddy work that requires no design at all. This is simply pure denial and ignorance.

Atheistoclast said: DS said: What we observe in living organisms are the product of such a messy process, not the products of intelligence, foresight or planning. Deal with it. That is breathtaking ignorance. I have pointed out just two incredibly complex intracellular structures, both with a clear teleological function, and all this fool can do is claim they represent shoddy work that requires no design at all. This is simply pure denial and ignorance.

this dumb question about enzymes not performing well in high temperatures ( as anyone with even the most basic chemistry knowledge is aware of) and tried to pass this off as due to a bad design.

Neuronoclast if you knew as much about anything as you pretend to you would know how far off your statement is. The problem does NOT stem from the temperature of the enzymes, it stems from the combination of bright light, rapid photosynthesis, and low humidity which causes the stomata to close and the ratio of oxygen to CO2 to become unbalanced. The cells do not have access to sufficient CO2 and Rubisco reacts with oxygen instead causing photorespiration. If your designer was omniscient it must have known this would be a problem in food production for its agriculture dependent creatures. Since solutions have been evolved, obviously solutions must exist, so why didn't your "intelligent" designer provide a solution for the major grain plants? Just a little tweaking of the enzyme might have been enough but it didn't do it. This is an obvious case of poor "design" but is a contingent solution as would be predicted by evolution. And by the way I teach college biology but I have TAUGHT high school chemistry so I do know what I'm talking about. You....not so much.

Thank you.

But the other half of this is: if we are "Intelligently Designed" with a purpose, then we are "Intelligently Designed" to be ape-like, and therefore, we have a purpose in being ape-like. It is up to the advocates of "Intelligent Design" to tell us how we should fulfill this purpose in behaving like apes.

Mary H said: Neuronoclast if you knew as much about anything as you pretend to you would know how far off your statement is. The problem does NOT stem from the temperature of the enzymes, it stems from the combination of bright light, rapid photosynthesis, and low humidity which causes the stomata to close and the ratio of oxygen to CO2 to become unbalanced.

The cells do not have access to sufficient CO2 and Rubisco reacts with oxygen instead causing photorespiration. If your designer was omniscient it must have known this would be a problem in food production for its agriculture dependent creatures.

Since solutions have been evolved, obviously solutions must exist, so why didn't your "intelligent" designer provide a solution for the major grain plants? Just a little tweaking of the enzyme might have been enough but it didn't do it. This is an obvious case of poor "design" but is a contingent solution as would be predicted by evolution.

And by the way I teach college biology but I have TAUGHT high school chemistry so I do know what I'm talking about. You....not so much.

DS said: That is breathtaking ignorance. I have pointed out just such a complex intracellular structure without any teleological function

Atheistoclast said: Trust me, you cannot design anything through a process of trial and error. What you can do is optimize an existing system. Are you aware of the Newton-Rhapson method in pure mathematics? This is a way of finding the root of a graph through an iterative process of hit and miss - getting closer to the root each time. Yes, natural selection can achieve this, but that is not equivalent to design or engineering.

From Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science by William Broad and Nicholas Wade. The authors argue that the conventional wisdom that science is a strictly logical process, with objectivity the essence of scientist's attitudes, errors being speedily corrected by rigorous peer scrutiny and experiment replication, is a MYTHICAL IDEAL."Our conclusion, in brief is that science bears little resemblance to its convenient portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it."

TomS said: Thank you. But the other half of this is: if we are "Intelligently Designed" with a purpose, then we are "Intelligently Designed" to be ape-like, and therefore, we have a purpose in being ape-like. It is up to the advocates of "Intelligent Design" to tell us how we should fulfill this purpose in behaving like apes.

Mike Elzinga said: The Newton-Raphson method for finding roots is not a random method by any stretch.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: That is breathtaking ignorance. I have pointed out just such a complex intracellular structure without any teleological function

NO YOU DID NOT. You are completely and utterly clueless.

Atheistoclast said: You may behave like an ape....but I don't. If you want to return to your roots, I suggest you move back to the jungles of Africa and find a suitable mate for yourself there amongst the bonobos.

Paul Burnett said:

apokryltaros said: Given as how we are already apes to begin with, we already do behave in an "ape-like way." Unless, of course, do you mean a stereotypical, cartoon-caricature "ape-like way," ala feces-throwing, baby-eating, and screeching and hooting loudly while jumping up and down?

Which reminds me: The Rethuglican National Convention is a year away in Tampa Bay, Florida. It should be a hoot to watch.

Atheistofool barfed:

Mike Elzinga said: The Newton-Raphson method for finding roots is not a random method by any stretch.

Neither is selection. The point is that it is iterative and involves making guesses.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: The Newton-Raphson method for finding roots is not a random method by any stretch.

Neither is selection. The point is that it is iterative and involves making guesses.

TomS said:

Atheistofool the delusional Xian moron whined: You may behave like an ape....but I don't. If you want to return to your roots, I suggest you move back to the jungles of Africa and find a suitable mate for yourself there amongst the bonobos.

If you don't behave like an ape, then you are not following the purposes of your "Intelligent Designer(s)".

Of course we know a lot about the evolution of nuclear pore complexes as well. I would provide references, but Joe would just reinterpret them to mean the exact opposite of what the authors concluded.

Bottom line, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There is no biological structure that could not have evolved. Screaming that it ain't so, or I don't want to believe it, isn't going to change that. Demanding more and more details while ignoring the available evidence isn't going to change that. Refusing to provide any viable alternative isn't going to change that. Bringing up your abysmal publication record in creationist propaganda magazines isn't going to change that.

And as far as behaving like an ape ... don't get me started.

DS said: Bottom line, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There is no biological structure that could not have evolved. Screaming that it ain't so, or I don't want to believe it, isn't going to change that. Demanding more and more details while ignoring the available evidence isn't going to change that.

DS said: Of course we know a lot about the evolution of nuclear pore complexes as well. I would provide references, but Joe would just reinterpret them to mean the exact opposite of what the authors concluded.

Bottom line, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There is no biological structure that could not have evolved. Screaming that it ain't so, or I don't want to believe it, isn't going to change that. Demanding more and more details while ignoring the available evidence isn't going to change that. Refusing to provide any viable alternative isn't going to change that. Bringing up your abysmal publication record in creationist propaganda magazines isn't going to change that.

Atheistofool the delusional creotard "scientist" barfed: You can continue to deny IC and ID all you like, but you haven't shown how a single intracellular structure could have evolved through a process of random mutation. Science is about demonstration and not speculation, nitwit. Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

John said:

Atheistofool the delusional creotard "scientist" barfed: You can continue to deny IC and ID all you like, but you haven't shown how a single intracellular structure could have evolved through a process of random mutation. Science is about demonstration and not speculation, nitwit. Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

Maybe you might wish to enlighten Columbia University physicist Brian Greene about your notion of science; as a leading string theorist, he might find your definition to be one replete in its breathtaking inanity (And sure, you can tell him that I told you to contact him.). Who cares where you were published, Joey Atheistofool. Just because you demonstrated enough competence in your chosen "scientific" field (I put "scientific" in quotes since you make no reference to your publication history aside from which prestigious publishers purportedly published your work) doesn't mean that you know anything about evolutionary biology. Your risible nonsensical responses which you insist on posting here at PT merely demonstrate your profound ignorance of biological evolution and of current evolutionary theory.

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure. Within a generation, my papers will be referred to in the lecture notes of university professors and academics. The truth will out. You cannot prevent the demise of Darwinism any more than you could have prevented the collapse of Marxism.

mrg said:

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

The frightening thing is that you're serious.

apokryltaros said: I've seen Chinese crested rat-dogs more frightening than Atheistoclast.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Of course we know a lot about the evolution of nuclear pore complexes as well. I would provide references, but Joe would just reinterpret them to mean the exact opposite of what the authors concluded.

Doing a google search under "evolution, nuclear pore" is not good enough, Dip Shit. The complex is is an absolutely essential part of the cell allowing for the export and import of specific material into and out of the nucleus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pore It is an information recognition device that only allows molecules with the right signals to proceed. You couldn't find better evidence for a manifestly designed system anywhere else.

Bottom line, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There is no biological structure that could not have evolved. Screaming that it ain't so, or I don't want to believe it, isn't going to change that. Demanding more and more details while ignoring the available evidence isn't going to change that. Refusing to provide any viable alternative isn't going to change that. Bringing up your abysmal publication record in creationist propaganda magazines isn't going to change that.

You can continue to deny IC and ID all you like, but you haven't shown how a single intracellular structure could have evolved through a process of random mutation. Science is about demonstration and not speculation, nitwit. Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

mrg said:

apokryltaros said: I've seen Chinese crested rat-dogs more frightening than Atheistoclast.

Think. This person probably drives a car. Most people who drive cars know better than to drive the wrong way down a freeway. With this one, it's not at all certain he wouldn't do it and insist that everyone else is going the wrong way.

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

The point is that it is iterative and involves making guesses.

Atheistoclast said:

stevaroni said:

Atheistoclast said: Moreover, natural selection is blind and dumb: it has no foresight and so cannot plan ahead - an essential aspect of any engineering.

Absolutely true. Natural selection has no ability to plan ahead. On the other hand, it does have the extremely powerful tool of trial and error on it's side.

Trust me, you cannot design anything through a process of trial and error. What you can do is optimize an existing system. Are you aware of the Newton-Rhapson method in pure mathematics? This is a way of finding the root of a graph through an iterative process of hit and miss - getting closer to the root each time. Yes, natural selection can achieve this, but that is not equivalent to design or engineering.

bigdakine said: How will the creationists and ID *theorists* respond? ...

DS said: Bottom line, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There is no biological structure that could not have evolved.

xn+1 = xn - f(xn)/f’(xn) Can you explained how this involves guessing?

The Jumbuck said:

xn+1 = xn - f(xn)/f’(xn) Can you explained how this involves guessing?

Mike, What if you choose the point where the derivative equals zero?

Atheistoclast said:

TomS said: Thank you. But the other half of this is: if we are "Intelligently Designed" with a purpose, then we are "Intelligently Designed" to be ape-like, and therefore, we have a purpose in being ape-like. It is up to the advocates of "Intelligent Design" to tell us how we should fulfill this purpose in behaving like apes.

You may behave like an ape....but I don't. If you want to return to your roots, I suggest you move back to the jungles of Africa and find a suitable mate for yourself there amongst the bonobos.

Mike Elzinga said:

The Jumbuck said:

xn+1 = xn - f(xn)/f’(xn) Can you explained how this involves guessing?

Mike, What if you choose the point where the derivative equals zero?

You haven’t read or understood anything that has been said here, have you. As far as Newton-Raphson is concerned, go back and read page 7. Then go learn how to use it.

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

The Jumbuck lied when he said: Tom has probably already done this. Most evolutionists who can afford it take vacations to do exactly this sort of thing. Darwiniacs who don't have a lot of money generally resort to sheep. I have lived among evolutionists. I know this.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

As the guy who overthrew Newton-Raphson with his unassailable proof that it involves guessing? Do you remember saying this?

The point is that it is iterative and involves making guesses.

x_n+1 = x_n - f(x_n)/f’(x_n) Can you explained how this involves guessing?

dalehusband said:

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

Natural selection does not have infinite powers. It is limited by the past history of organisms and the environment they live in. But within those limitations it can still produce impressive results over time. Most branches of science use algebra, geometry, and calculus. Doing arithmetic is no big deal, @$$hole.

Atheistofool the clueless delusional narcissistic creotard "scientist" with delusions of grandeur barked:

dalehusband said:

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

Natural selection does not have infinite powers. It is limited by the past history of organisms and the environment they live in. But within those limitations it can still produce impressive results over time. Most branches of science use algebra, geometry, and calculus. Doing arithmetic is no big deal, @$$hole.

You lot have indeed ascribed god-like creative powers to natural selection. You have this fundamental belief that chance mutations can explain everything. However, you cannot demonstrate this at all. Hence, this is ideology and not science. Of course, natural selection doesn't help explain how life and the genome was originated. So, there is no reason to take you seriously.

dalehusband said:

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

Natural selection does not have infinite powers. It is limited by the past history of organisms and the environment they live in. But within those limitations it can still produce impressive results over time. Most branches of science use algebra, geometry, and calculus. Doing arithmetic is no big deal, @$$hole.

Jack,

Clean up on aisle 8. Dump these retards to the bathroom wall. We will all thank you for it.

John said:

Atheistofool the clueless delusional narcissistic creotard "scientist" with delusions of grandeur barked:

dalehusband said:

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

Natural selection does not have infinite powers. It is limited by the past history of organisms and the environment they live in. But within those limitations it can still produce impressive results over time. Most branches of science use algebra, geometry, and calculus. Doing arithmetic is no big deal, @$$hole.

You lot have indeed ascribed god-like creative powers to natural selection. You have this fundamental belief that chance mutations can explain everything. However, you cannot demonstrate this at all. Hence, this is ideology and not science. Of course, natural selection doesn't help explain how life and the genome was originated. So, there is no reason to take you seriously.

There's nothing GOD-like about Natural Selection. It's just an aptly named process that deals fundamentally with the reproductive success of certain traits within the populations of organisms, that, given sufficient time - as measured by the generational histories of these popualtions - may produce new species emerging from these populations. Nor is it Natural Selection's "responsibility" in explaining "how life and the genome was originated"; these are the results of different natural processes that are quite distinct from Natural Selection. However, just like every other delusional creationist moron whose "scholarship" I've encountered (e. g. DI mendacious intellectual pornographer Stevie Meyer's absurd "Signature in the Cell"), you insist that that should be Natural Selection's "responsibility".

DS said: Jack, Clean up on aisle 8. Dump these retards to the bathroom wall. We will all thank you for it.

Atheistoclast said: Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

When Joe loses the argument, he always starts hurling insults in a vain attempt to detract attention away from the fact that he has lost the argument. At that point, the bathroom wall always awaits. Now why am I not surprised that he tries to blame someone else for that? I guess anyone who is proud to have published obviously fallacious crap in a creationist front magazine will say just about anything.

Why should we let this asshole trash up every thread? Why should we tolerate his abusive bullshit and complete unwillingness to learn? Why not ban him permanently and completely? It has been done before.

Of course, natural selection doesn’t help explain how life and the genome was originated. So, there is no reason to take you seriously.

Atheistoclast said: You lot have indeed ascribed god-like creative powers to natural selection. You have this fundamental belief that chance mutations can explain everything. However, you cannot demonstrate this at all. Hence, this is ideology and not science.

DS said: When Joe loses the argument, he always starts hurling insults in a vain attempt to detract attention away from the fact that he has lost the argument. At that point, the bathroom wall always awaits. Now why am I not surprised that he tries to blame someone else for that? I guess anyone who is proud to have published obviously fallacious crap in a creationist front magazine will say just about anything. Why should we let this asshole trash up every thread? Why should we tolerate his abusive bullshit and complete unwillingness to learn? Why not ban him permanently and completely? It has been done before.

DS said: When Joe loses the argument, he always starts hurling insults in a vain attempt to detract attention away from the fact that he has lost the argument. At that point, the bathroom wall always awaits. Now why am I not surprised that he tries to blame someone else for that? I guess anyone who is proud to have published obviously fallacious crap in a creationist front magazine will say just about anything. Why should we let this asshole trash up every thread? Why should we tolerate his abusive bullshit and complete unwillingness to learn? Why not ban him permanently and completely? It has been done before.

John said:

dalehusband said:

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

Natural selection does not have infinite powers. It is limited by the past history of organisms and the environment they live in. But within those limitations it can still produce impressive results over time. Most branches of science use algebra, geometry, and calculus. Doing arithmetic is no big deal, @$$hole.

Needless to say, Dale, I am in complete agreement with your observation. Both Dumfuck and Atheistofool are absolutely clueless.

apokryltaros said:

mrg said:

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

The frightening thing is that you're serious.

I've seen Chinese crested rat-dogs more frightening than Atheistoclast. Seriously, he's a pathetic Creationist troll who found out that Wiley et al will publish garbage if fooled sufficiently. If he really is arrogantly stupid enough to believe his own grandiose hype, why isn't he bickering with Wikipedia mods over posting his own autobiography there?

Note, please, folks, that Jumbuck is a noted Christian and a true follower of Jesus. He'll tell you so himself. You were saying, sheepie?

The Jumbuck said:

DS said: When Joe loses the argument, he always starts hurling insults in a vain attempt to detract attention away from the fact that he has lost the argument. At that point, the bathroom wall always awaits. Now why am I not surprised that he tries to blame someone else for that? I guess anyone who is proud to have published obviously fallacious crap in a creationist front magazine will say just about anything. Why should we let this asshole trash up every thread? Why should we tolerate his abusive bullshit and complete unwillingness to learn? Why not ban him permanently and completely? It has been done before.

Joe has not lost any arguments. Joe wants to engage Darwinists. All Darwinists want to do is spew Christophobia. I don't know about Joe's commitment to the Gospel, but he has discredited the religion of evolutionism once again on this thread!

Matt G said:

Atheistoclast said: Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

I have read a few of your abstracts and they are replete with logical fallacies, mostly of the Argument from Ignorance/Personal Incredulity type. You also set up straw men and cherry-pick data. The fact that you get your stuff published (in ANY journal, much less a "reputable" one) says more about the peer-review process than anything (assuming there is review at these journals at all). If your abstracts are logically flawed, what is contained in the body is not worth reading.

The Dumfuck croaked: John, It seems like your only function is here is to stick your tongue in the bumholes of other evolutionists. I am sure that when you were a kid you always did the school bully's homework and all of his household chores in exchange for protection, right? I bet your current employment position involves "service" to other evolutionists.

John said:

Matt G said:

Atheistoclast said: Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

I have read a few of your abstracts and they are replete with logical fallacies, mostly of the Argument from Ignorance/Personal Incredulity type. You also set up straw men and cherry-pick data. The fact that you get your stuff published (in ANY journal, much less a "reputable" one) says more about the peer-review process than anything (assuming there is review at these journals at all). If your abstracts are logically flawed, what is contained in the body is not worth reading.

Can you post some links, Matt G, so we can read his crap? I don't have time to GOGGLE him. Thanks.

The Jumbuck said: I don't know about Joe's commitment to the Gospel...

Intelligent Design's goals were to:

1. Overthrow the US government, set up a Theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. Destroying science was collateral damage.

The DI is a xian Dominionist front, paid for by Dominionist money, Mostly from Howard Ahmanson.

It's right there in their founding Wedge document. They aren't hiding anything.

What they have managed to do is help destroy US xianity. Between 1-2 million people leave the US religion every year. NYT/CNN/CBS polls show that fundie xians are one of the most despised groups in the USA now. (Right down there with Moslems, atheists, and the Tea Party.)

They may yet manage to destroy the USA. We are in collapse mode anyway. It's a race between the fundies destroying US xianity first or the USA.

raven said: Destroying science was collateral damage.

"That’s great, sweetie. I guess I better enroll at your college and attend your lectures."
You paternalistic, sexist product of the south end of a northbound horse. The purpose of taking a class is to learn something. Judging by the fact that in all the time I have seen your posts on this site you seem to have failed to learn anything, I doubt you could even pass my non-majors course much less my majors. And "honey child" if I have to use your writing on this site as evidence of your writing capabilities on your "papers" they probably aren't worth looking up much less reading.
Every counter argument you gave showed you still didn't understand the problem or if you did you ignored it. There are so many examples of what can only be described as poor design I could tie up this thread for a while siting each one. If you were a full male you might know that mammals develop their sperm outside of the body due to temperature constraints thereby making males susceptible to crotch kicks. Have you ever wondered why birds don't have that problem. Evolution seems to have solved the problem one way for mammals and another for birds but I bet every male biologist has wondered at one time or another why. Do you think the designer has a perverted sense of humor?

Aside to the moderator--neuronoclast is just stupid, jumbuck on the other hand should be banned. His comments are unnecessarily crude and do not contribute in any way to the discussion.

The Jumbuck said:

DS said: When Joe loses the argument, he always starts hurling insults in a vain attempt to detract attention away from the fact that he has lost the argument. At that point, the bathroom wall always awaits. Now why am I not surprised that he tries to blame someone else for that? I guess anyone who is proud to have published obviously fallacious crap in a creationist front magazine will say just about anything. Why should we let this asshole trash up every thread? Why should we tolerate his abusive bullshit and complete unwillingness to learn? Why not ban him permanently and completely? It has been done before.

Joe has not lost any arguments. Joe wants to engage Darwinists. All Darwinists want to do is spew Christophobia. I don't know about Joe's commitment to the Gospel, but he has discredited the religion of evolutionism once again on this thread!

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

As the guy who overthrew Newton-Raphson with his unassailable proof that it involves guessing? Do you remember saying this?

The point is that it is iterative and involves making guesses.

x_n+1 = x_n - f(x_n)/f’(x_n) Can you explained how this involves guessing?

You start the process with a guess at where the root may be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method

apokryltaros said:

raven said: Destroying science was collateral damage.

Destroying science is one of their goals, not collateral damage. Making science deliberately subservient to cultist dogma, i.e., "making it Jesus-friendly," or "making it obey party dogma," destroys science irrevocably. Look at the damage done to the Russian scientific and agricultural communities by Lysenko.

John said:

apokryltaros said:

raven said: Destroying science was collateral damage.

Destroying science is one of their goals, not collateral damage. Making science deliberately subservient to cultist dogma, i.e., "making it Jesus-friendly," or "making it obey party dogma," destroys science irrevocably. Look at the damage done to the Russian scientific and agricultural communities by Lysenko.

Agreed. What is so dangerous about ID cretinism - unlike other "scientific" creationists - is that its adherents seek to overthrow "material naturalism" - in plain English, the scientific method - and this has been one of its key themes ever since Philip Johnson wrote "Darwin on Trial". Ken Miller notes this very danger from ID in his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul".

dalehusband said:

The Jumbuck said:

DS said: When Joe loses the argument, he always starts hurling insults in a vain attempt to detract attention away from the fact that he has lost the argument. At that point, the bathroom wall always awaits. Now why am I not surprised that he tries to blame someone else for that? I guess anyone who is proud to have published obviously fallacious crap in a creationist front magazine will say just about anything. Why should we let this asshole trash up every thread? Why should we tolerate his abusive bullshit and complete unwillingness to learn? Why not ban him permanently and completely? It has been done before.

Joe has not lost any arguments. Joe wants to engage Darwinists. All Darwinists want to do is spew Christophobia. I don't know about Joe's commitment to the Gospel, but he has discredited the religion of evolutionism once again on this thread!

Shut the hell up about "Darwinists", @$$hole! And stop lying, period.

Dave Luckett said: Note, please, folks, that Jumbuck is a noted Christian and a true follower of Jesus. He'll tell you so himself. You were saying, sheepie?

Matt G said:

Atheistoclast said: Btw, my papers were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals by the top publishers in Springer, Elsevier and Wiley. Your publication record is non-existent.

I have read a few of your abstracts and they are replete with logical fallacies, mostly of the Argument from Ignorance/Personal Incredulity type. You also set up straw men and cherry-pick data. The fact that you get your stuff published (in ANY journal, much less a "reputable" one) says more about the peer-review process than anything (assuming there is review at these journals at all). If your abstracts are logically flawed, what is contained in the body is not worth reading.

Atheistoclast said:

dalehusband said:

The Dumfuck said: I can do arithmetic. Evolutionists either can't or deliberately misuse it. The methodology they use to prove that Darwinism has infinite powers is exactly how I described it. They take the equations Dembski derived to show the limits of Darwinism and conclude it has no limits based on the flawed methodology discussed above.

Natural selection does not have infinite powers. It is limited by the past history of organisms and the environment they live in. But within those limitations it can still produce impressive results over time. Most branches of science use algebra, geometry, and calculus. Doing arithmetic is no big deal, @$$hole.

You lot have indeed ascribed god-like creative powers to natural selection. You have this fundamental belief that chance mutations can explain everything. However, you cannot demonstrate this at all. Hence, this is ideology and not science.

Of course, natural selection doesn't help explain how life and the genome was originated. So, there is no reason to take you seriously.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: My place in history is secure.

As the guy who overthrew Newton-Raphson with his unassailable proof that it involves guessing? Do you remember saying this?

The point is that it is iterative and involves making guesses.

x_n+1 = x_n - f(x_n)/f’(x_n) Can you explained how this involves guessing?

You start the process with a guess at where the root may be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method

If you really knew anything about the Newton’s Method - instead of attempting to fake it here in front of everybody – you would know that the method is never used that way. The purpose of the method is, and has always been, to improve the precision of the root of a function. One always knows enough about the function, both globally and in the vicinity of the desired root, to start the iteration with an estimate known to be close enough and on a sloping part of the curve that will make the iterative process converge. Anyone who understands the properties of functions and who uses this method to find roots of functions doesn’t just throw wild guesses at it. So you not only revealed that you didn’t know how the method works, you also revealed that you have never used it and don’t know how to use it properly. And this gets to the heart of your more egregious fakery here. Just because you have managed to dupe some editors at some commercial publishing houses to publish your screeds doesn’t change the fact that those screeds mean nothing. They are just as fake as your understanding of the Newton-Raphson method. In your case, one needs only to scratch the surface to know what lies beneath. Unfortunately for you, your entire façade has been ripped away.

bigdakine said: It also doesn't explain Dark Matter either. You have no explanation for it, other than magic. Nice move of the goal posts. NS was never intended to explain Abiogenesis.

Mary H said: "That’s great, sweetie. I guess I better enroll at your college and attend your lectures." You paternalistic, sexist product of the south end of a northbound horse. The purpose of taking a class is to learn something. Judging by the fact that in all the time I have seen your posts on this site you seem to have failed to learn anything, I doubt you could even pass my non-majors course much less my majors. And "honey child" if I have to use your writing on this site as evidence of your writing capabilities on your "papers" they probably aren't worth looking up much less reading. Every counter argument you gave showed you still didn't understand the problem or if you did you ignored it. There are so many examples of what can only be described as poor design I could tie up this thread for a while siting each one. If you were a full male you might know that mammals develop their sperm outside of the body due to temperature constraints thereby making males susceptible to crotch kicks. Have you ever wondered why birds don't have that problem. Evolution seems to have solved the problem one way for mammals and another for birds but I bet every male biologist has wondered at one time or another why. Do you think the designer has a perverted sense of humor?

Atheistoclast said: Blah, blah, blah. Newton's method requires an initial guess followed by a way of honing on the root through trial and error, hit and miss. This is analogous to how selection and random mutation can possibly improve or optimize a gene sequence.

phantomreader42 said: ... he'd explode and die and leave a horrible mess.

Atheistoclast said:

bigdakine said: It also doesn't explain Dark Matter either. You have no explanation for it, other than magic. Nice move of the goal posts. NS was never intended to explain Abiogenesis.

Dark matter is a perfect example of science admitting the necessary existence of something without actually directly observing it. So, for those of you who cry magic! whenever I invoke the power of a supernatural agency, perhaps you would consider the fact that an invisible force can also have a visible effect - in the case of dark matter/energy it is the motion of the stars and expansion of the universe. Like it or not, materialistic science is going to have to admit to the existence of that which it cannot explain. It is inevitable.

Atheistoclast said:

bigdakine said: It also doesn't explain Dark Matter either. You have no explanation for it, other than magic. Nice move of the goal posts. NS was never intended to explain Abiogenesis.

Dark matter is a perfect example of science admitting the necessary existence of something without actually directly observing it. So, for those of you who cry magic! whenever I invoke the power of a supernatural agency, perhaps you would consider the fact that an invisible force can also have a visible effect - in the case of dark matter/energy it is the motion of the stars and expansion of the universe. Like it or not, materialistic science is going to have to admit to the existence of that which it cannot explain. It is inevitable.

bigdakine said: ID is nothing more than "gee... this is to complicated for me, I give up"

Matt G. -

I've only seen abstracts of two Bozorgmehr papers, but my impression was that they simply didn't deal directly with any of his creationist bugbears. The one I'm most familiar with is his gene duplication paper. His essential claim is that there exists one gene that duplicated, one of the copies had a loss of function mutation in some lineage, and then the functionless copy evolved back to having a similar function to its original function, and this was selected for, i.e. some sort of dosage effect or redundancy seemed to be selected for. As it is typical for creationists to try to ue the silly trick of denying that their claims may be succinctly paraphrased, here is a link, and if my paraphrase seems unfair to a reasonable person, I'll modify or retract it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=joseph%20bozorgmehr.

We all realize that the subject matter reflects his obsessive desire to deny the role of gene duplication in evolution. However, the abstract doesn't include language that would give that away to an editor who was not familiar with him.

I don't know whether the paper is factually accurate, but the scenario it describes is scientifically plausible.

He's crazy, not stupid. My impression is that he publishes papers (a fair bit of work) in order to present the appearance of being credentialed, and that he carefully keeps his actual beliefs either out of them, or expressed in very coded ways.

He knows perfectly well that "evolution is false because the Elohim created everything 6000 years ago" (my best guess as to his actual position, if he has one that is coherent enough to be summarized, and again, I am ready to retract or modify as necessary) won't be published, so he doesn't send that in.

harold said: He knows perfectly well that "evolution is false because the Elohim created everything 6000 years ago" (my best guess as to his actual position, if he has one that is coherent enough to be summarized, and again, I am ready to retract or modify as necessary) won't be published, so he doesn't send that in.

harold said: Matt G. - I've only seen abstracts of two Bozorgmehr papers, but my impression was that they simply didn't deal directly with any of his creationist bugbears. The one I'm most familiar with is his gene duplication paper. His essential claim is that there exists one gene that duplicated, one of the copies had a loss of function mutation in some lineage, and then the functionless copy evolved back to having a similar function to its original function, and this was selected for, i.e. some sort of dosage effect or redundancy seemed to be selected for. As it is typical for creationists to try to ue the silly trick of denying that their claims may be succinctly paraphrased, here is a link, and if my paraphrase seems unfair to a reasonable person, I'll modify or retract it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=joseph%20bozorgmehr. We all realize that the subject matter reflects his obsessive desire to deny the role of gene duplication in evolution. However, the abstract doesn't include language that would give that away to an editor who was not familiar with him. I don't know whether the paper is factually accurate, but the scenario it describes is scientifically plausible. He's crazy, not stupid. My impression is that he publishes papers (a fair bit of work) in order to present the appearance of being credentialed, and that he carefully keeps his actual beliefs either out of them, or expressed in very coded ways. He knows perfectly well that "evolution is false because the Elohim created everything 6000 years ago" (my best guess as to his actual position, if he has one that is coherent enough to be summarized, and again, I am ready to retract or modify as necessary) won't be published, so he doesn't send that in.

And on a note related to the Atheistoclast diversion:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830092356.htm

Matt G said: Harold, this looks like one of the papers he posted in a thread a few weeks ago - certainly some of the wording looks copy-and-pasted from what I think is actually a different paper (I wonder if he's published essentially the same paper in two different journals (which is unethical)).

But notice the tone of the article, paying attention to how often he uses words like "can," "may," "perhaps," and "would indicate" (by which I think he means "suggests"). He's soft pedaling so much that he's not really saying much of anything. I could spend a lot of time critiquing this abstract, but let me make two points.

One is a straw man: evolution does NOT say that ALL paralogs go on to acquire novel functions. If fact, I'm sure the vast majority do not, but so what? The important point is that the ones that do may provide a selective advantage and become fixed.

The other point is that he looks at a single example (KPNA importins), and goes on to speculate how often this kind of near reversion is the case. You'd better look at as many cases as you can dig up before talking about how often something is the case. You can't just cite the examples that fit your agenda, and n=1 doesn't cut it.

A few years ago a paper described a gene that had arisen from non-coding DNA. If this can happen, paralogs acquiring novel functions is a walk in the park by comparison.

One is a straw man: evolution does NOT say that ALL paralogs go on to acquire novel functions. If fact, I’m sure the vast majority do not, but so what? The important point is that the ones that do may provide a selective advantage and become fixed.

The other point is that he looks at a single example (KPNA importins), and goes on to speculate how often this kind of near reversion is the case. You’d better look at as many cases as you can dig up before talking about how often something is the case. You can’t just cite the examples that fit your agenda, and n=1 doesn’t cut it.

A few years ago a paper described a gene that had arisen from non-coding DNA. If this can happen, paralogs acquiring novel functions is a walk in the park by comparison.

Matt G said: And on a note related to the Atheistoclast diversion: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830092356.htm

harold said:

A few years ago a paper described a gene that had arisen from non-coding DNA. If this can happen, paralogs acquiring novel functions is a walk in the park by comparison.

A novel gene that arose this way in maize strain was discussed extensively here a few years ago - ironically, the main effect on the phenotype was to make the strain susceptible to a fungal infection. The discussion was somewhat technical, if I recall, and therefore did not attract much attention from creationists. Note that this was noticed because it happened in a commercial crop and had a noticeable agricultural impact. If that's not the case you're talking about, I'd be fascinated to hear about other cases.

harold said: Matt G. - I agree with your points, of course, I just wanted to note that he isn't overtly publishing the same kind of wackiness that he informally posts here and at other venues on the internet. I suppose to some degree I'm mildly defending the reviewers here. I'm not at all suggesting that the paper is particularly strong; merely that the reviewer(s) would not necessarily have known that a creationist agenda was behind the work. There is quite a difference between publishing a weak paper, versus publishing science-denying nonsense.

One is a straw man: evolution does NOT say that ALL paralogs go on to acquire novel functions. If fact, I’m sure the vast majority do not, but so what? The important point is that the ones that do may provide a selective advantage and become fixed.

In fact I have made that point to AC here in this venue. But to someone not knowing that he holds this opinion, his implied over-generalization might not be obvious.

The other point is that he looks at a single example (KPNA importins), and goes on to speculate how often this kind of near reversion is the case. You’d better look at as many cases as you can dig up before talking about how often something is the case. You can’t just cite the examples that fit your agenda, and n=1 doesn’t cut it.

Of course, but remember, you and I know that he's trying to suggest that this implies that no gene duplication ever leads to novel gene function. But that's not overtly stated in the abstract. To a naive reviewer, he simply describes something that could have happened. In this venue, he argues that overtly argues paralogs can't acquire novel function, but the paper is just one example of a paralog that he claims didn't acquire (very) novel function. Not knowing his agenda, it's not terribly suspicious. What's happened is that he's told the reviewers "Here is one case of something mildly unusual happening". Then he comes here and says "I published a case of something mildly unusual happening, therefore another well-established thing can never happen". But he didn't put the part in italics in the paper, not directly and overtly at any rate, because if he had, it would have been rejected. (Or he did and the reviewers made him take it out.) Blame the writer for being evasive more than the reviewer for not seeing what was up. At least that's my take. If there's something in the paper which makes his generalizations more obvious, let me know, and I'll blame the reviewer more.

A few years ago a paper described a gene that had arisen from non-coding DNA. If this can happen, paralogs acquiring novel functions is a walk in the park by comparison.

A novel gene that arose this way in maize strain was discussed extensively here a few years ago - ironically, the main effect on the phenotype was to make the strain susceptible to a fungal infection. The discussion was somewhat technical, if I recall, and therefore did not attract much attention from creationists. Note that this was noticed because it happened in a commercial crop and had a noticeable agricultural impact. If that's not the case you're talking about, I'd be fascinated to hear about other cases.

Joe wrote (and published apparently):

“Although many duplicates can subsequently become disabled by nullifying mutations, a few may also go on to diverge along a novel evolutionary trajectory."

Good. I'll remind him of that the next time he claims it cannot happen.

This guy seems to have a real problem with logic. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between ":rarely" and "never". He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of generalization. Remember, this is the same guy who claimed that phylogenetics was worthless and had no real world applications. When I gave him an example of phylogenetics being used to study diseases, he claimed that I had inappropriately generalized. Of course, I had done no such thing. I never claimed that because phylogenetics was useful in one case that it was therefore useful in every case. I had merely proven that he was wrong about it being worthless in every case. The distinction was apparently lost on him. Phylogenetics is indeed useful in many ways and I did provide more examples. So he was wrong and he was wrong about me being wrong. Of course, he would never admit it.

I guess the only question is, if he is really this deficient in reasoning skills, or if the whole thing is an elaborate act to try to fool people. Of course, the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. It is rather amusing that an editor would let such a jumbled mess of an abstract be published. But then again, this probably wasn't the original version. We can only guess what that might have been like.

I also question the value of continuing to let him disrupt threads here. He is always off topic, always intransigent, always arguing from incredulity and never learns anything. The bathroom wall seems to be made just for him, (along with IBIGOT and FL), why not dump him there automatically?

Joe also seems to have a problem comprehending the difference between "sometimes" and "always". He once provided an example of a transposable element that had taken on a new regulatory function. From this single observation, he concluded that there is no such thing as junk DNA and that all DNA was designed with a purpose. Now we don't have to go into all of the other fallacies in this argument to realize that there are still millions of transposons in the human genome that have no function. We don't even have to mention the fact that the distribution of these transposons forms a nested hierarchy which is exactly congruent with the phylogeny of the primates obtained from other data sets. (See, another example of the importance of phylogenetics). But it should be pointed out that the person who made this argument is the exact same person who claimed that DNA cannot take on a new function!

And that folks is why you have to ask the question, is this guy an evil but ignorant genius, or does he even believe the crap he spews out? Either way, I don't see any reason to allow him to post his mindless musings on any topic on any thread he cares to infest.

I think his is a reference to T-urf13. It is comprised of parts from other genes.

Harold,

Agreed. The funny thing is that he pulls the exact same nonsense on every paper he reads as well. He has never read a paper in which he actually agrees with the stated conclusions, therefore the authors must have actually meant to agree with him. He even claimed that the authors had not shown neofunctionalization, when the word actually appeared in the title of the paper he was supposedly reading. And of course, he fails to notice that if he disagrees with the authors, he automatically disagrees with the reviewers and editors as well. But then again, he always knows better than the authors how to interpret their own work. It's almost as if he assumes that every scientist who writes a paper has some hidden agenda. Now where would he get that idea I wonder?

As for the editors of the paper you cite, perhaps they can be forgiven for being taken in by a pseudo science wannabe with a hidden agenda. But then again, if that paper was from the "journal" Complexity, it seems far more like that they were actually complicit in his shenanagians.

DS -

Our agreement about JB is total (I would add that when his errors are pointed out in a way that is hard for him to brush off, he becomes defensively hostile).

The paper I was discussing was published in "Biosystems". I don't know much about it.

harold said: DS - Our agreement about JB is total (I would add that when his errors are pointed out in a way that is hard for him to brush off, he becomes defensively hostile). The paper I was discussing was published in "Biosystems". I don't know much about it.

Harold and DS-

And what did JB/AC say about "watered down" abstracts? I have both written and read abstracts, and have not seen anything of the kind EVER. The abstract should ACCURATELY describe the paper, not be a soft-pedaling of it. I don't know if there is more deception or incompetence involved in his publications.

John said:

harold said: DS - Our agreement about JB is total (I would add that when his errors are pointed out in a way that is hard for him to brush off, he becomes defensively hostile). The paper I was discussing was published in "Biosystems". I don't know much about it.

That is a credible journal, harold, though I haven't read "Biosystems" in years. JB is probably capable of some kind of bipolar cognitive ability; that is sounding rational in his published scientific work, while coming across as unhinged whenever he posts here or at some skeptics/atheist-oriented website.

John said: That is a credible journal, harold, though I haven't read "Biosystems" in years. JB is probably capable of some kind of bipolar cognitive ability; that is sounding rational in his published scientific work, while coming across as unhinged whenever he posts here or at some skeptics/atheist-oriented website.

DS said: Maybe somebody should write a rebuttal.

Matt G said:

John said:

harold said: DS - Our agreement about JB is total (I would add that when his errors are pointed out in a way that is hard for him to brush off, he becomes defensively hostile). The paper I was discussing was published in "Biosystems". I don't know much about it.

That is a credible journal, harold, though I haven't read "Biosystems" in years. JB is probably capable of some kind of bipolar cognitive ability; that is sounding rational in his published scientific work, while coming across as unhinged whenever he posts here or at some skeptics/atheist-oriented website.

But John, read JB/AC's abstracts carefully and see what a confused, illogical mess they are. It's all there in black and white, and the fact that he gets that stuff published is an indictment of the peer-review process of those journals.

SWT said:

DS said: Maybe somebody should write a rebuttal.

I've considered doing just that. Unfortunately, I have a backlog of well over a dozen manuscripts from my own students; it's not clear that putting the effort into a rebuttal is worth the time. Although a peer-reviewed publication is a peer-reviewed publication ...

Atheistoclast said: The KPNA family is very ancient and can be used as a model case. What the paper describes is a process of initial degeneration due to relaxed constraint followed by extensive compensation by positive selection. But the net result of this evolution is no significant functional change.

Mike Elzinga said:

SWT said:

DS said: Maybe somebody should write a rebuttal.

I've considered doing just that. Unfortunately, I have a backlog of well over a dozen manuscripts from my own students; it's not clear that putting the effort into a rebuttal is worth the time. Although a peer-reviewed publication is a peer-reviewed publication ...

The worst thing that could happen to Bozo Joe’s paper is that it is never, ever referenced or given any attention whatsoever. Any response would have to reference it, and then BJ could claim he is changing the entire face of science. Best to just let it die. I like one of Pauli’s quips; “So young and already so unknown.”

John said:

Matt G said:

John said: That is a credible journal, harold, though I haven't read "Biosystems" in years. JB is probably capable of some kind of bipolar cognitive ability; that is sounding rational in his published scientific work, while coming across as unhinged whenever he posts here or at some skeptics/atheist-oriented website.

But John, read JB/AC's abstracts carefully and see what a confused, illogical mess they are. It's all there in black and white, and the fact that he gets that stuff published is an indictment of the peer-review process of those journals.

I don't deny that you are right, Matt G, but in fairness to JB, then one has to read the entire paper (And no, I don't harbor any latent sympathy for him.). Even someone as noteworthy as Eugene Koonin doesn't have his facts right with regards to the history behind the creation of the Modern Synthesis (I have, courtesy of Amazon, a review copy of his forthcoming book on the role of chance in biological evolution, and have noted already, how much he tends to ignore the importance of R. A. Fisher and S. Wright as two of the key architects of the Modern Synthesis (By that I mean that he doesn't regard either as being among those who contributed to it, but rather, instead, paved the way for it.).

Matt G said:

John said:

Matt G said:

John said: That is a credible journal, harold, though I haven't read "Biosystems" in years. JB is probably capable of some kind of bipolar cognitive ability; that is sounding rational in his published scientific work, while coming across as unhinged whenever he posts here or at some skeptics/atheist-oriented website.

But John, read JB/AC's abstracts carefully and see what a confused, illogical mess they are. It's all there in black and white, and the fact that he gets that stuff published is an indictment of the peer-review process of those journals.

I don't deny that you are right, Matt G, but in fairness to JB, then one has to read the entire paper (And no, I don't harbor any latent sympathy for him.). Even someone as noteworthy as Eugene Koonin doesn't have his facts right with regards to the history behind the creation of the Modern Synthesis (I have, courtesy of Amazon, a review copy of his forthcoming book on the role of chance in biological evolution, and have noted already, how much he tends to ignore the importance of R. A. Fisher and S. Wright as two of the key architects of the Modern Synthesis (By that I mean that he doesn't regard either as being among those who contributed to it, but rather, instead, paved the way for it.).

You are quite right that the entire article should be read before critiquing it, but part of the point of an abstract is to have something to go when deciding IF one should read the paper. With an abstract like this, I have no hope that anything more cogent follows. He also seems to be confused about what an abstract *should* contain (I’m referring to his “watered-down” comment).

I suspect this thread is about done but I had to point something out to neuronoclast. If I ask a student a question 3 times in different ways and s/he fails to answer it I can assume the student does not understand the concept. In your case I asked 3 times why if life was designed by an "intelligent" designer it shows so much contingency and poor design? You failed to answer it 3 times, not because you failed to understand the concept but because you have no answer. Examples of poor design are found throughout life. I'm glad you cover your essentials with underwear but that doesn't answer why they are "out there". The mammalian "design" leads to cryptorchidism, hernias and the favorite of AFV the crotch hit. (never have understood why that was funny.) Waving your papers in my face is NOT an answer. You could have written a million of them but that doesn't mean they were worth the electrons it took to send them. And by the way you are sexist. I didn't notice you using "pet names" for anyone else on this thread or any other you have been on, but when you see a feminine name you feel free to do that. In case you aren't aware women resent strange men, and you certainly qualify for that many times over, using overly familiar diminutives as put downs. So yes add sexism to your already extensive list of personality problems exibited on PT. I will not answer you again on this thread you have already proven yourself unable or unwilling to answer any real questions.

Jack Scanlan,

Unfortunately, you are suffering from the same misconception Elsberry, Shallit, Felsenstein, el all suffer from. That is, you mislabel ID as subordinate to creationism.

In fact, as has been pointed out previously, ID is an ancient concept and has been incorporated into scientific thinking for centuries. But for the past century or so, ID has given way to secular incursions which 'over time' transitioned into homesteading rights.

Creationism, seeing the cultural and political implications of this unwelcome secular/atheist resident, sought redress by countering its growing influence in mainstream education (especially in the area of evolution, the preferred soil on which to nurture converts).

ID, seeing a strategic opening, has engages the public and scientific community in an attempt to redirect the spotlight away from cultural and political considerations to the conceptual advantage theistic ideas have in the scientific marketplace.

To be sure, ID is all about showing theistic conceptualizations as being positive and productive in contrast to secular approaches that start out hamstrung by keeping certain ideas off the table, presumably for philosophical reasons; certainly not for scientific reasons IMO.

Case in point is Dembski's work approaching the concept of information from a theistic framework of information as having a separate identity, real and quantifiable, yet immaterial.

PT contributors' unprofessional ridicule aside, Dembski/Marks' work blazes a different conceptual trail in contrast to what is currently offered by their 'theistically challenged' detractors (in the guise of information as 'merely' being an emergent property of matter).

Whether Dembski/Marks' efforts succeed or fail is uncertain. However, it is the fact that they are making the attempt that is commendable and should be encouraged from a scientific POV.

When I first heard of ID, I have to admit that I wanted to believe that it was right. However, rather than taking ID to be a "convenient truth," I read some Johnson, and some Behe, and some Dembski. And, true to the "both sides" meme, I read some Miller, and some Dawkins, and some Pennock. I read published criticisms of ID, and the responses.

My conclusion: ID is not science. There is no scientific framework to do ID science because ID has yet to present hypotheses clearly enough defined to be tested. Rather, it is like all other creationist strategies: it hopes to overthow evolution and thereby win the scientific argument by default. (Philip Johnson's strategy is, in true lawyerly fashion, to create "reasonable doubt" about "Darwinism" and rally public sympathy about "viewpoint discrimination".)

If there's really any scientific value in ID, the ID movement should start by actually engaging the scientific community. The way to do that is not by rallying the public, it's by actually doing some science. Modern design advocates have had decades to get some results; I suspect that I, like many posters here, have more peer-reviewed publications than the modern design movement has! If ID is really about the science, it's premature to engage the public; most scientists wait until they have actual results before they make breathless announcements to the public that they've forced rethinking of a major, well-established theory.

So my challenge to ID is: detect some design already! Show me that you have an objective process that can distinguish between designed and undesigned artifacts, and between artifacts that evolved as part of an intentional design and artifacts that evolved with no design intent.

Steve P. said: Jack Scanlan, Unfortunately, you are suffering from the same misconception Elsberry, Shallit, Felsenstein, el all suffer from. That is, you mislabel ID as subordinate to creationism.

Steve P. said: ...ID is an ancient concept...

Steve P. said: PT contributors' unprofessional ridicule aside, Dembski/Marks' work blazes a different conceptual trail in contrast to what is currently offered by their 'theistically challenged' detractors (in the guise of information as 'merely' being an emergent property of matter).

Steve P. the delusional evolution denialist from Taiwan barfed: Jack Scanlan, Unfortunately, you are suffering from the same misconception Elsberry, Shallit, Felsenstein, el all suffer from. That is, you mislabel ID as subordinate to creationism. In fact, as has been pointed out previously, ID is an ancient concept and has been incorporated into scientific thinking for centuries. But for the past century or so, ID has given way to secular incursions which 'over time' transitioned into homesteading rights. Creationism, seeing the cultural and political implications of this unwelcome secular/atheist resident, sought redress by countering its growing influence in mainstream education (especially in the area of evolution, the preferred soil on which to nurture converts). ID, seeing a strategic opening, has engages the public and scientific community in an attempt to redirect the spotlight away from cultural and political considerations to the conceptual advantage theistic ideas have in the scientific marketplace. To be sure, ID is all about showing theistic conceptualizations as being positive and productive in contrast to secular approaches that start out hamstrung by keeping certain ideas off the table, presumably for philosophical reasons; certainly not for scientific reasons IMO. Case in point is Dembski's work approaching the concept of information from a theistic framework of information as having a separate identity, real and quantifiable, yet immaterial. PT contributors' unprofessional ridicule aside, Dembski/Marks' work blazes a different conceptual trail in contrast to what is currently offered by their 'theistically challenged' detractors (in the guise of information as 'merely' being an emergent property of matter). Whether Dembski/Marks' efforts succeed or fail is uncertain. However, it is the fact that they are making the attempt that is commendable and should be encouraged from a scientific POV.

Steve P. the scientific illiterate declared: Case in point is Dembski's work approaching the concept of information from a theistic framework of information as having a separate identity, real and quantifiable, yet immaterial. PT contributors' unprofessional ridicule aside, Dembski/Marks' work blazes a different conceptual trail in contrast to what is currently offered by their 'theistically challenged' detractors (in the guise of information as 'merely' being an emergent property of matter). Whether Dembski/Marks' efforts succeed or fail is uncertain. However, it is the fact that they are making the attempt that is commendable and should be encouraged from a scientific POV.

Steve P, what scientific work has Dembski done with Intelligent Design?

As far as I've heard and read, Dembski has done nothing with Intelligent Design. He's also freely confessed that one is not supposed to do anything with Intelligent Design, either, other than as an excuse to bash good science for Jesus.

Stanton, you know perfectly well SP is never at a loss for a dumb answer to any question -- and not one of them has ever failed to live up to the level of credibility established by all the others.

mrg has reading comprehension skill so prefers playing PT's resident jester.

But this just in, Apo(or is it Stanton) has been spotted at PT' HR desk, and was overheard seeking a position as jester. Seems the coveted postion of PT jester competition is heating up.

To help mrg enhance his game, I offer inspiration from Return to Forever's 'The duel of the Jester and the Tyrant"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sT5Ucyw_0.

that should read ' reading comprehension issues.

yes, an edit button would be nice, obviously.

Steve P. the clueless scientific illiterate babbled: that should read ' reading comprehension issues. yes, an edit button would be nice, obviously.

Sometimes the idea pops into my mind that there are cases where an edit button would only have a deleterious effect.

Steve P. said: mrg has reading comprehension skill so prefers playing PT's resident jester. But this just in, Apo(or is it Stanton) has been spotted at PT' HR desk, and was overheard seeking a position as jester. Seems the coveted postion of PT jester competition is heating up. To help mrg enhance his game, I offer inspiration from Return to Forever's 'The duel of the Jester and the Tyrant" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sT5Ucyw_0.

BTW, it's blatantly hypocritical of you to implore us that you just want to discuss stuff like adults in one thread, and then mock us for being idiots in this one.

I mean, are you saying that I'm an idiot because I'm asking you a question that you have no ability on top of no desire to answer? Or, is it because I'm not mindlessly bobbing my head up and down in response to your inane Intelligent Design cheerleading?

apokryltaros,
I think the answer to that is "yes".

Henry J said: apokryltaros, I think the answer to that is "yes".

apokryltaros said: It serves me right for assuming a smarmy bobblehead like Steve P would be capable of conversing like a sane adult in the first place.

mrg said:

apokryltaros said: It serves me right for assuming a smarmy bobblehead like Steve P would be capable of conversing like a sane adult in the first place.

Aw c'mon Stanton, you just like to argue -- you knew all along that he'd just go right on baring his arse at you.

apokryltaros said: Then why does he also whine about wanting to converse like adults when he can't actually converse like an adult?