Wiley's Non Sequiturcartoon for today, June 18, 2012, "very nicely captures the problem of the creation laws," as my colleague Kim Johnson very nicely put it
119 Comments
John_S · 18 June 2012
This reminds me of the old adage: be careful what you wish for.
As the cartoon illustrates, recent Bible-Belt states' attempts to protect creationist teachers can easily backfire when someone decides to teach some off-the-wall personal "theory". Remember what happened in Albemarle County, VA when Falwell and his gang forced the schools to allow a Baptist Bible Camp flyer to be added to the children's take-home backpacks. A Unitarian-Universalist church soon demanded the same right and sent home flyers about its multicultural "winter solstice" celebration. The parents hit the roof ... they only wanted their religion to have that privilege. I understand the school has now discontinued the backpack flyers entirely.
Majority rule when it's my church; separation of church and state when it's yours.
Frank J · 19 June 2012
The "Non Sequitur" cartoon of a few years ago, about the "Preconceptual theory," remains my all-time favorite. This one, however, screams for a perfect comeback: "You can teach any 'alternative' explanation you want, as long as you include all its 'what happened when' conclusions and mainstrem science's critical analysis."
Before anyone objects that that too would violate the Establishment Clause, my point is that the scam artists would never dare advocate that, even though it would be infinitely more fair than the censored, double-standard propaganda that they do demand.
For a perfect comeback, how about just saying that an explanation has to, uh, actually explain something!
(i.e., the conclusion has to be logically infer-able from the premise.)
Ron Okimoto · 20 June 2012
No one should forget that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted that space aliens is their most scientific alternative for an intelligent designer. If you aren't going to teach the most scientific, why teach the second, third or bottom of the barrel YEC alternative?
fittest meme · 20 June 2012
Are we laughing at Richard Dawkins? He seemed to be the one who suggested this theory after admitting that he had no idea where the coded information for the first "self-replicators" came from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxkQNP2NkCk
I think you are missing the point of the cartoon. Faced with the task of explaining life without the benefit of God, (as is required in our secularized public schools) and recognizing the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just "poofed" into being in the primordial sea, space aliens are all that's left.
Sir Isaac Newton arrived at a different conclusion after his years of fruitful scientific study and thought:
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of you here seem unwilling to accept this logical foundational paradigm which arguably girded humanity's periods of greatest scientific discovery.
apokryltaros · 20 June 2012
So, fittest meme, how does saying GODDIDIT enhance science?
DS · 20 June 2012
Fattest meme wrote:
"...the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just “poofed” into being ..."
You can look high and you can look low, but a more apt description of creationism cannot be found.
terenzioiltroll · 20 June 2012
DS said:
Fattest meme wrote:
"...the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just “poofed” into being ..."
You can look high and you can look low, but a more apt description of creationism cannot be found.
You are actually eating the bait and all the line too, DS.
"Coded information"?!? Really?
Might as well have asked where the "coded information" to build a quartz or garnet crystal came from...
j. biggs · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Are we laughing at Richard Dawkins? He seemed to be the one who suggested this theory after admitting that he had no idea where the coded information for the first "self-replicators" came from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxkQNP2NkCk
Where the first self-replicators came from is an interesting question, but other than providing the template through which evolution works, what does it have to do with evolution? Wouldn't it be similar to saying we can't really understand the heliocentric model of the solar system unless we first know where the sun and all the planets came from?
As far as Dawkin's views on where the first replicators came from he is just being honest when he says he doesn't know. I suspect that he believes that self-replicators can arise from natural causes as the base elements tend to have emergent properties that come about all on their own as they interact with eachother under a variety of conditions (or they appear to at the very least). There is no reason to believe that self-replicating molecules couldn't arise on their own through perfectly natural means given the right initial conditions, conditions I dare say we are rather certain existed on earth around 4 bya.
I think you are missing the point of the cartoon. Faced with the task of explaining life without the benefit of God, (as is required in our secularized public schools) and recognizing the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just "poofed" into being in the primordial sea, space aliens are all that's left.
I think you are missing the point. We don't have to know where the first life-form came from in order to demonstrate that life has evolved and continues to do so. Like I said, how the first self-replicator came about is an interesting question that many scientists are currently researching but at this point very speculative and probably inappropriate for the high-school level. Let's leave it where it currently is and let students draw their own conclusions without trying to inject some sort of teleology into the subject as you are trying to do. What you are suggesting simply isn't warranted.
Sir Isaac Newton arrived at a different conclusion after his years of fruitful scientific study and thought:
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of you here seem unwilling to accept this logical foundational paradigm which arguably girded humanity's periods of greatest scientific discovery.
I respect Isaac Newton a great deal, but this particular opinion of his is not based on the rigorous methodology he helped established in science. There are a great deal of things Newton believed with respect to religion that even you would probably consider cooky. For example Newton rejected the holy trinity, believed worshipping Christ as God was idolotry and believed the Bible contained code that could be used to accurately predict future events. Newton also put a fair amout of credence to the idea that base metals could be converted to gold. Newton isn't remembered for these things nearly as much is he is remembered for developing empirical scientific methodology, classical mechanics and calculus (independantly of Leibniz).
phhht · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
...where the coded information for the first "self-replicators" came from...
"Coded information" is NOT inherent in self-replicators, or in any other physical system. "Coded information" is a property of the human DESCRIPTION of such a system, not of the system itself.
You might as well ask where the blue in blue paint comes from. Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to "blue" paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green.
eric · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
I think you are missing the point of the cartoon. Faced with the task of explaining life without the benefit of God, (as is required in our secularized public schools) and recognizing the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just "poofed" into being in the primordial sea, space aliens are all that's left.
Given that Wiley Miller has written many many pro-science and anti-creationist cartoons over several decades of cartooning, I'm going to say: nope. If anyone's missing the point of the cartoon here, its you.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of you here seem unwilling to accept this logical foundational paradigm which arguably girded humanity's periods of greatest scientific discovery.
You should really review some of his other cartoons before opining that he supports ID. Right now, you're making yourself a prime example of Augustine's idiotic christian.
j. biggs · 20 June 2012
phhht said:
fittest meme said:
...where the coded information for the first "self-replicators" came from...
"Coded information" is NOT inherent in self-replicators, or in any other physical system. "Coded information" is a property of the human DESCRIPTION of such a system, not of the system itself.
You might as well ask where the blue in blue paint comes from. Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to "blue" paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green.
About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as "code" and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy "information". It seems daft to me that some people can't separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe.
fittest meme · 20 June 2012
j. biggs said:
There is no reason to believe that self-replicating molecules couldn't arise on their own through perfectly natural means given the right initial conditions,
No reason except that other than this one supposed time, such an event has never happened for us to actually observe. In fact, didn't Pastuer discredit the previously held idea of spontaneous generation of life. It is a scientific fundamental that life comes from life. To suggest otherwise is speculation that is contradictory to one of the basics of biology.
conditions I dare say we are rather certain existed on earth around 4 bya.
Oh . . . and how are you so certain of the conditions of the earth 4 bya? This can't be from empirical observation or first hand witness. Your theory is nothing but speculation . . . built upon assumptions . . . resting, I would suggest, upon a deep seated desire to deny God.
Let's leave it where it currently is and let students draw their own conclusions without trying to inject some sort of teleology into the subject as you are trying to do.
Fine, lets let a variety of theories be presented and let the students determine which best fits the evidence. That would be the scientific way of doing it wouldn't it?
I respect Isaac Newton a great deal, but this particular opinion of his is not based on the rigorous methodology he helped established in science.
I think you are wrong. The quote appears to be a conclusion that comes from his practice of rigorous methodology in an area that he is famous for, (laws of motion which govern the physical universe).
Apokryltaros asked: "how does saying GODDITIT enhance science?"
Well, Newton recognized that there is a great deal to be discovered about a designed and ordered system. The drive to understand more about the physical order of this system, while reconciling those understandings with bigger questions about life and purpose can be a great motivator for continued discovery and study.
Let's turn your question around . . . how does it enhance science to say that God didn't do it? If someone who had never seen or used a computer where to come across one at some point wouldn't they still be able to experiment and test the device scientifically to understand the true nature of it's components and function regardless of whether they understood it to be designed or not?
Newton's thinking was apparently not hindered by holding the position that God created a beautifully ordered system. In fact it appears that his belief in God was fortified by his scientific work. Why are you so threatened by the possibility that "GODDIDIT" that you are dead set on limiting academic freedom in the classroom? Seems to me you and your kind are the ones protecting a belief.
DS · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
j. biggs said:
There is no reason to believe that self-replicating molecules couldn't arise on their own through perfectly natural means given the right initial conditions,
No reason except that other than this one supposed time, such an event has never happened for us to actually observe. In fact, didn't Pastuer discredit the previously held idea of spontaneous generation of life. It is a scientific fundamental that life comes from life. To suggest otherwise is speculation that is contradictory to one of the basics of biology.
conditions I dare say we are rather certain existed on earth around 4 bya.
Oh . . . and how are you so certain of the conditions of the earth 4 bya? This can't be from empirical observation or first hand witness. Your theory is nothing but speculation . . . built upon assumptions . . . resting, I would suggest, upon a deep seated desire to deny God.
Let's leave it where it currently is and let students draw their own conclusions without trying to inject some sort of teleology into the subject as you are trying to do.
Fine, lets let a variety of theories be presented and let the students determine which best fits the evidence. That would be the scientific way of doing it wouldn't it?
I respect Isaac Newton a great deal, but this particular opinion of his is not based on the rigorous methodology he helped established in science.
I think you are wrong. The quote appears to be a conclusion that comes from his practice of rigorous methodology in an area that he is famous for, (laws of motion which govern the physical universe).
Apokryltaros asked: "how does saying GODDITIT enhance science?"
Well, Newton recognized that there is a great deal to be discovered about a designed and ordered system. The drive to understand more about the physical order of this system, while reconciling those understandings with bigger questions about life and purpose can be a great motivator for continued discovery and study.
Let's turn your question around . . . how does it enhance science to say that God didn't do it? If someone who had never seen or used a computer where to come across one at some point wouldn't they still be able to experiment and test the device scientifically to understand the true nature of it's components and function regardless of whether they understood it to be designed or not?
Newton's thinking was apparently not hindered by holding the position that God created a beautifully ordered system. In fact it appears that his belief in God was fortified by his scientific work. Why are you so threatened by the possibility that "GODDIDIT" that you are dead set on limiting academic freedom in the classroom? Seems to me you and your kind are the ones protecting a belief.
Were you there?
Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Fine, lets let a variety of theories be presented and let the students determine which best fits the evidence. That would be the scientific way of doing it wouldn't it?
Well, ever since Henry Morris formalized his attack on science by founding the Institute for Creation “Research” back in 1970, sectarians arguing against evolution have denied the findings of science, misrepresented the processes of science, misrepresented even the concepts of basic physics, and concocted a contorted pseudoscience that fits sectarian dogma.
It is unethical to use fake science as a teaching methodology. Young students do not have the background and experience to vet pseudoscience; they have to learn real science first. However, you would have them totally confused with sectarian dogma dressed up in a phony lab coat. That is why Morris and Gish at the ICR along with those in the spin-offs at AiG and the Discovery Institution want children to be indoctrinated; children are helpless against pseudoscience pushers.
As a case in point, you yourself have never learned any science; and it shows.
Well, Newton recognized that there is a great deal to be discovered about a designed and ordered system. The drive to understand more about the physical order of this system, while reconciling those understandings with bigger questions about life and purpose can be a great motivator for continued discovery and study.
It is clear that you haven’t learned any history either. Western Civilization came out of a history of domination by various forms of the Christian Religion brutally enforced. Nearly everybody carried effects of those beliefs. These beliefs had various effects on various thinkers; you simply cannot cherry pick what you think makes your case.
Let’s turn your question around … how does it enhance science to say that God didn’t do it? If someone who had never seen or used a computer where to come across one at some point wouldn’t they still be able to experiment and test the device scientifically to understand the true nature of it’s components and function regardless of whether they understood it to be designed or not?
You make unwarranted assumptions of what such a person would come to understand about a computer. What would an ancient Greek or Roman learn? How would they even know to plug it into a power source? How would they even know what a plug is? What influence would the Greek and Roman gods have on their thinking? What would someone from the Middle Ages do with it?
These days - especially as a result of the rise of fundamentalist sectarianism such as yours – using beliefs in deities to understand science is a sure route to getting it wrong; as your education clearly demonstrates.
You are not allowed to throw your sectarian stumbling blocks into the learning paths of other peoples’ children. They should be allowed to explore the findings of science and aspire toward careers in science without the hindrance of endless word games over the meanings of the meanings of meanings.
The US Constitution does not permit the use of the powers of government to indoctrinate its citizens with sectarian dogma. The fact that you and your cohorts see secular science as a religion is another example of the mud wrestling that results from your avoidance of a proper education while immersing yourself in hermeneutics, exegesis, etymology, and generalized word gaming. You don’t get to saddle others with your self-induced handicaps.
Nearly all of us in science do our research without references to deities. It is a far more efficient process that doesn’t lead to being burned at the stake for heresy. We have only the crucible of peer review to endure; something no ID/creationist can withstand without whining and complaining about being persecuted.
You need to study the history of the ID/creationist movement. You don’t appear to have any idea where your bogus ideas are coming from. You just parrot them because they sound good to you.
Tenncrain · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Sir Isaac Newton arrived at a different conclusion after his years of fruitful scientific study and thought:
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
As brilliant as Newton was, in reality he was less than fruitful in finding a scientific explanation as to why objects in the solar system remained in stable orbits. So, Newton invoked a theological answer (as reflected in the quote you gave) and he left it at that for the rest of his life.
Long after Newton's death, science found an answer to Newton's dilemma; this is explained here (you can skip ahead to about the four minute mark). Many science minded theists can argue that this example of Newton using an ultimate answer for a proximate (scientific) question not only results in pseudoscience, it's poor theology as well.
fittest meme said:
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of you here seem unwilling to accept this logical foundational paradigm which arguably girded humanity’s periods of greatest scientific discovery.
fittest meme said:
Faced with the task of explaining life without the benefit of God, (as is required in our secularized public schools)
The theist posters here at PT that accept evolution do not conflate proximate (or scientific) causes with ultimate causes.
Even many Christian schools teach only evolution (in other words, only science) in their science classes and generally leave theology for classes outside the science classroom.
More to the point, science uses methodological naturalism which simply states that anything that might be supernatural is merely outside the realm of science. Methodological naturalism is used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists. Methodological naturalism does not say supernaturalism is inherently wrong, just untestable.
Methodological naturalism is unlike philosophical naturalism, which is the unscientific belief that there are no supernatural forces.
phhht · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
It is a scientific fundamental that life comes from life. To suggest otherwise is speculation that is contradictory to one of the basics of biology.
There is no such "scientific fundamental," in biology or anywhere else.
Oh . . . and how are you so certain of the conditions at the putative Resurrection 2000 ya? This can't be from empirical observation or first hand witness. Your theory is nothing but delusion . . . built upon mythology . . . resting, I would suggest, upon a deep seated incapacity to grasp reality.
Fine, lets let a variety of theories be presented and let the students determine which best fits the evidence. That would be the scientific way of doing it wouldn't it?
No, it would not.
How does it enhance science to say that God didn't do it?
Science is simplified when unnecessary hypotheses are discarded. The hypothesis that gods exist, in addition to being baseless, is unnecessary.
harold · 20 June 2012
fittest meme -
Fine, lets let a variety of theories be presented and let the students determine which best fits the evidence. That would be the scientific way of doing it wouldn’t it?
Sounds fair to me. What is your theory?
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present?
phhht · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Sir Isaac Newton arrived at a different conclusion after his years of fruitful scientific study and thought:
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
We now know that in this regard, Newton was wrong. The operation of the solar system does not require "the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." No supernatural maintenance is needed.
And it's a good thing too, since there is no such effect. There isn't the slightest whisper of evidence for the influence of Newton's supposed "powerful Being" on the operation of the solar system, much less evidence for its necessity.
apokryltaros · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Apokryltaros asked: "how does saying GODDITIT enhance science?"
Well, Newton recognized that there is a great deal to be discovered about a designed and ordered system. The drive to understand more about the physical order of this system, while reconciling those understandings with bigger questions about life and purpose can be a great motivator for continued discovery and study.
Then how come so many scientists today, both theist and atheist, do not need to say "GODDIDIT" to explain science?
Let's turn your question around . . . how does it enhance science to say that God didn't do it? If someone who had never seen or used a computer where to come across one at some point wouldn't they still be able to experiment and test the device scientifically to understand the true nature of it's components and function regardless of whether they understood it to be designed or not?
How come you have failed to explain how saying GODDIDIT will help a computer-ignorant person understand how to use a computer? Your analogy has failed miserably.
Newton's thinking was apparently not hindered by holding the position that God created a beautifully ordered system. In fact it appears that his belief in God was fortified by his scientific work. Why are you so threatened by the possibility that "GODDIDIT" that you are dead set on limiting academic freedom in the classroom?
Then how come you refuse to demonstrate to us how saying GODDIDIT can be used to do or enhance science?
Seems to me you and your kind are the ones protecting a belief.
What belief? That science education should be free of politically motivated anti-science propaganda, or that you're propagating the bigoted stereotype that all modern scientists are evil, stupid atheists who somehow hate and fear God?
phhht · 20 June 2012
fittest_meme's gods strike me as being the opposite of Neils Bohr's apocryphal horseshoe: whether you believe in them or not, they still don't work.
As far as I can tell, fittest_meme's gods have no effect whatsoever on the real world. They don't answer prayers. They don't send rain. They don't cure disease. They don't change bread and wine into flesh and blood. They don't maintain the planets in their orbits. They don't do anything.
No matter how clearly he himself may see them, fittest_meme can never show his gods to anyone else. He can't take a picture with his iPhone. He may hear the voices of the gods inside his own head, but no one else will ever hear them, because the gods no longer speak from burning bushes, or from anywhere else in public. He can't say what his gods smell like or taste like or feel like because you can't smell them or taste them or feel them. It's just as if they don't really exist at all.
And increasingly, it's only fittest_meme and his fellow sectarians who even want the notion of gods. We used to need them to explain things, but we don't any more, because we have science. We used to call on them to smite our enemies, but now we have drones for that. There's never been godly relief of pain like that from modern analgesics.
The only lingering real-world effect of gods is that they're still all we have when we want to blaspheme. We still say Goddamnit! and Go to hell!, but those are living linguistic fossils, because nobody really cares. It's a much reduced and humbled circumstance for those beings who used to part seas and raise the dead.
fittest meme · 20 June 2012
j. biggs said:
phhht said:
"Coded information" is NOT inherent in self-replicators, or in any other physical system. "Coded information" is a property of the human DESCRIPTION of such a system, not of the system itself.
You might as well ask where the blue in blue paint comes from. Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to "blue" paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green.
About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as "code" and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy "information". It seems daft to me that some people can't separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe.
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell. Cells have a variety of parts that are produced through a guided process that assembles amino acids into a specified order (at specified times) to produce proteins. These proteins (complex molecules) don't come to be through replication themselves, they are assembled according to instructions coded into the DNA within the cell. Protein synthesis is a well orchestrated process that requires a variety of existing proteins that were produced using the same process they now contribute to, (that material observation phhht is itself logical proof that life must come from life). I don't know how else to describe the physical observation of DNA but that it is coded information for how to make and direct the life of a cell, (neither does Wikipedia or any other description of DNA I could find).
By the way, blue is blue because of inherent physical characteristics of the molecules that make up the pigment. While some people may have a developmental retinal defect that inhibits their ability to discern blue from green, they still can identify the objective difference between the two through means that would make up for this defect. In other words, blue is blue, green is green . . . and information is information . . . even if one has a handicap that prevents them from being able to see it.
phhht · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell...
...blue is blue because of inherent physical characteristics of the molecules that make up the pigment.
You're awfully self-assured for a guy who makes a post with at least two glaring factual errors.
Aren't viruses entities which self-replicate? Aren't prions?
What color is a blue-painted surface when it's illuminated with pure red light?
Hint: it ain't blue.
Just Bob · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell.
Are you SURE about that? (Hint: don't be, because you're WRONG)
Just google "self-replicating molecules". Took me 15 seconds.
Now, how many other "scientific facts" that you've picked up from AIG or ICR are just simply, demonstrably, dead wrong?
Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2012
Just Bob said:
Are you SURE about that? (Hint: don't be, because you're WRONG)
Just google "self-replicating molecules". Took me 15 seconds.
Now, how many other "scientific facts" that you've picked up from AIG or ICR are just simply, demonstrably, dead wrong?
Whenever I see this kind of nonsense, I estimate that their science education stopped somewhere about the 8th grade. ID/creationists, even the leaders, all seem to have their major hang-ups starting at about that level.
They then proceed to reify the misconceptions acquired in those formative years; and if they get through any later science classes, it is by keeping their heads down and regurgitating what they think the instructor wants. But they never actually learn the material; they warp it to fit their sectarian preconceptions. One can even find study guides that tell them how to do this; and the staff at AiG, for example, give advice on how to slip through the educational process without being accountable.
I am quite sure that Ken Ham is aware of this; and it is the reason he got into the business of producing “educational” materials for the fundamentalist market. The market for this crap is better in the United States than it was in Australia.
DS · 20 June 2012
fittest meme said:
j. biggs said:
phhht said:
"Coded information" is NOT inherent in self-replicators, or in any other physical system. "Coded information" is a property of the human DESCRIPTION of such a system, not of the system itself.
You might as well ask where the blue in blue paint comes from. Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to "blue" paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green.
About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as "code" and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy "information". It seems daft to me that some people can't separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe.
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell. Cells have a variety of parts that are produced through a guided process that assembles amino acids into a specified order (at specified times) to produce proteins. These proteins (complex molecules) don't come to be through replication themselves, they are assembled according to instructions coded into the DNA within the cell. Protein synthesis is a well orchestrated process that requires a variety of existing proteins that were produced using the same process they now contribute to, (that material observation phhht is itself logical proof that life must come from life). I don't know how else to describe the physical observation of DNA but that it is coded information for how to make and direct the life of a cell, (neither does Wikipedia or any other description of DNA I could find).
By the way, blue is blue because of inherent physical characteristics of the molecules that make up the pigment. While some people may have a developmental retinal defect that inhibits their ability to discern blue from green, they still can identify the objective difference between the two through means that would make up for this defect. In other words, blue is blue, green is green . . . and information is information . . . even if one has a handicap that prevents them from being able to see it.
Actually we have not only observed RNA molecules, we have actually selected them to have increased fidelity in replication. What we haven't seen ever is any god of any kind.
Henry J · 20 June 2012
What we haven’t seen ever is any god of any kind.
What, you never watched the Hercules or Xena TV shows? :p
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
j. biggs said:
phhht said:
"Coded information" is NOT inherent in self-replicators, or in any other physical system. "Coded information" is a property of the human DESCRIPTION of such a system, not of the system itself.
You might as well ask where the blue in blue paint comes from. Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to "blue" paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green.
About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as "code" and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy "information". It seems daft to me that some people can't separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe.
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell. Cells have a variety of parts that are produced through a guided process that assembles amino acids into a specified order (at specified times) to produce proteins. These proteins (complex molecules) don't come to be through replication themselves, they are assembled according to instructions coded into the DNA within the cell. Protein synthesis is a well orchestrated process that requires a variety of existing proteins that were produced using the same process they now contribute to, (that material observation phhht is itself logical proof that life must come from life). I don't know how else to describe the physical observation of DNA but that it is coded information for how to make and direct the life of a cell, (neither does Wikipedia or any other description of DNA I could find).
By the way, blue is blue because of inherent physical characteristics of the molecules that make up the pigment. While some people may have a developmental retinal defect that inhibits their ability to discern blue from green, they still can identify the objective difference between the two through means that would make up for this defect. In other words, blue is blue, green is green . . . and information is information . . . even if one has a handicap that prevents them from being able to see it.
So you argue against abiogenesis from personal incredulity. Who cares? That's worthless and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Do you actually have positive evidence for an alternative to the theory of evolution?
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present?
KlausH · 21 June 2012
Non Sequitur sometimes has some very stupid anti evolution strips, such as http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/1992/09/06 .
harold · 21 June 2012
KlausH said:
Non Sequitur sometimes has some very stupid anti evolution strips, such as
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/1992/09/06 .
Humor can be subtle, that is a joke, not an anti-evolution strip.
Keep in mind you guys that these “self-replicating molecules” we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya,...
— fittest meme
Do you agree with 99+% of mainstream science and many (most?) of those who deny evolution (and usually confuse it with abiogenesis, even after being repeatedly corrected) that whatever did occur did indeed occur 4 bya. Or are you one of those new-agey types who thinks that because we "weren't there" it could be only 1000s of years ago, or last Thursday?
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
phhht said:
fittest meme said:
The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell...
...blue is blue because of inherent physical characteristics of the molecules that make up the pigment.
You're awfully self-assured for a guy who makes a post with at least two glaring factual errors.
Aren't viruses entities which self-replicate? Aren't prions?
What color is a blue-painted surface when it's illuminated with pure red light?
Hint: it ain't blue.
OK. But it's my understanding that viruses and prions both require other living cells and the mechanisms within them to replicate their genetic information. They could not therefor have been the precursors to life. Without living cells viruses and prions do not self-replicate.
Blue would APPEAR green under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
Just Bob said:
fittest meme said:
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell.
Are you SURE about that? (Hint: don't be, because you're WRONG)
Just google "self-replicating molecules". Took me 15 seconds.
Now, how many other "scientific facts" that you've picked up from AIG or ICR are just simply, demonstrably, dead wrong?
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
DS · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Just Bob said:
fittest meme said:
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell.
Are you SURE about that? (Hint: don't be, because you're WRONG)
Just google "self-replicating molecules". Took me 15 seconds.
Now, how many other "scientific facts" that you've picked up from AIG or ICR are just simply, demonstrably, dead wrong?
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
Wrong again fattest meme. RNA evolution has been observed in vitro. Here is a link with scientific references:
http://suite101.com/article/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecules-in-vitro-a170434
harold · 21 June 2012
Fittest Meme -
In this comment, I will write what I think are your true answers to the questions I posed. They are very disappointing. I welcome you to salvage a shred of dignity by clarifying. Otherwise, you'll just have to slink away, exposed as the weasel you are.
Sounds fair to me. What is your theory?
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? You want to say it's the Christian God, and that there is no scientific way to test this, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You want to say "6000 years ago", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present? Absolutely not, not even Jesus himself appearing and carefully explaining all the evidence to you, because you have adopted a rigid social/political dogma and will be scornfully rejected by your fellow travelers if you deviate from the dogma.
Am I incorrect in anything here? Please feel free to clarify. Obviously EVERYONE will interpret a failure to clarify as proof that I am exactly correct.
harold · 21 June 2012
DS said:
fittest meme said:
Just Bob said:
fittest meme said:
Keep in mind you guys that these "self-replicating molecules" we are talking about are theoretical entities that, like the primordial sea of 4 bya, have not actually been observed by humankind. The simplest self-replicating entity we have observed of course is the cell.
Are you SURE about that? (Hint: don't be, because you're WRONG)
Just google "self-replicating molecules". Took me 15 seconds.
Now, how many other "scientific facts" that you've picked up from AIG or ICR are just simply, demonstrably, dead wrong?
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
Wrong again fattest meme. RNA evolution has been observed in vitro. Here is a link with scientific references:
http://suite101.com/article/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecules-in-vitro-a170434
Fittest Meme is making innumerable factual and logical errors, of course. Everything from misrepresenting an irrelevant quote by Newton about Newton's seventeenth century conception of the origin of the universe (not terrestrial life), through using Pasteur's demonstration of biogenesis, which directly refutes the central concept of creationism, as a defense of creationism, through the logical error of assuming that if we don't easily observe early replicating systems today they must not have ever existed (by extension, arguing that anything that can't be seen today must never have existed), through total ignorance and denial of what we do observe.
The reason I'm letting others focus on all of that is that in parallel, I'm trying to accomplish the very difficult task of getting him to state what he does think happened, and how his claim can be tested.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
DS said:
fittest meme said:
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
Wrong again fattest meme. RNA evolution has been observed in vitro. Here is a link with scientific references:
http://suite101.com/article/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecules-in-vitro-a170434
From the article:
"One study in particular demonstrates self-sustained replication of unique artificial RNA enzymes . . ."
The RNA molecules in this study depend for their very existence on the designing intelligence of the scientists who purposefully set up the conditions to create the result they desired.
You were wrong to call my above statement wrong. The RNA molecules identified as "self-replicators" were not natural.
harold · 21 June 2012
Fittest Meme -
In this comment, I will write what I think are your true answers to the questions I posed. They are very disappointing. I welcome you to salvage a shred of dignity by clarifying. Otherwise, you’ll just have to slink away, exposed as the weasel you are.
Sounds fair to me. What is your theory?
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? You want to say it’s the Christian God, and that there is no scientific way to test this, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You want to say “6000 years ago”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present? Absolutely not, not even Jesus himself appearing and carefully explaining all the evidence to you, because you have adopted a rigid social/political dogma and will be scornfully rejected by your fellow travelers if you deviate from the dogma.
Am I incorrect in anything here? Please feel free to clarify. Obviously EVERYONE will interpret a failure to clarify as proof that I am exactly correct.
co · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Blue would APPEAR green under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed.
Almost absolutely _not_. It might appear green due to humans' particularly wickedly nonlinear neurological systems; it would certainly not be green to a digital or film camera. A "pure" blue object under red light would be utterly black, given no specularity, as blue and red are far enough from each other in frequency that there is no "component" of blue made of red light.
You might as well have chosen "pink" or "yellow" or "plaid" as colors for the object to appear, fittest meme, but you pulled green out of your ass. Why?
DS · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
DS said:
fittest meme said:
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
Wrong again fattest meme. RNA evolution has been observed in vitro. Here is a link with scientific references:
http://suite101.com/article/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecules-in-vitro-a170434
From the article:
"One study in particular demonstrates self-sustained replication of unique artificial RNA enzymes . . ."
The RNA molecules in this study depend for their very existence on the designing intelligence of the scientists who purposefully set up the conditions to create the result they desired.
You were wrong to call my above statement wrong. The RNA molecules identified as "self-replicators" were not natural.
Just keep moving the goal posts asshole. FIrst you claimed that no one had ever seen such molecules, they had. Next you claimed they needed cells to replicate, they didn't. Now you claim they were made by humans, they were not, they evolved. Of course the original molecules were made by humans, that's irrelevant. It is well known that such molecules can be spontaneously produced under the condition of the primitive earth. The only thing you have left is trying to claim that no one was there to see it, so it couldn't happen. Well you weren't there either, so by by your own logic you can't know.
Besides, as Harold has pointed out, you have no viable scientific alternative, so STFU already.
Any further responses to your off topic bullshit by me will be on the bathroom wall. I suggest others do the same.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
co said:
fittest meme said:
Blue would APPEAR green under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed.
Almost absolutely _not_. It might appear green due to humans' particularly wickedly nonlinear neurological systems; it would certainly not be green to a digital or film camera. A "pure" blue object under red light would be utterly black, given no specularity, as blue and red are far enough from each other in frequency that there is no "component" of blue made of red light.
You might as well have chosen "pink" or "yellow" or "plaid" as colors for the object to appear, fittest meme, but you pulled green out of your ass. Why?
OK call it black. I pulled green from a quick wiki answers search. So my statement should have been: "Blue would APPEAR black under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed."
I think that by pointing out my mistake you are actually making my point for me. There is something inherent about the pigment and it's interaction with light that is objectively knowable and thus not just dependent upon subjective interpretation as phhht appeared to be arguing.
phhht said:
"Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to “blue” paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green."
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
co said:
fittest meme said:
Blue would APPEAR green under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed.
Almost absolutely _not_. It might appear green due to humans' particularly wickedly nonlinear neurological systems; it would certainly not be green to a digital or film camera. A "pure" blue object under red light would be utterly black, given no specularity, as blue and red are far enough from each other in frequency that there is no "component" of blue made of red light.
You might as well have chosen "pink" or "yellow" or "plaid" as colors for the object to appear, fittest meme, but you pulled green out of your ass. Why?
OK call it black. I pulled green from a quick wiki answers search. So my statement should have been: "Blue would APPEAR black under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed."
I think that by pointing out my mistake you are actually making my point for me. There is something inherent about the pigment and it's interaction with light that is objectively knowable and thus not just dependent upon subjective interpretation as phhht appeared to be arguing.
phhht said:
"Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to “blue” paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green."
What stupid word games. Electromagnetic radiation objectively exists, but human labels like "blue" and "microwave" are somewhat arbitrary. "Blue" is the English word for a wavelength spectrum of visible light that the human brain can typically differentiate. However, at the borders of the wavelength spectrum, or when wavelengths are admixed, the English words become somewhat arbitrary; "blue" versus "turquoise" can be a matter of personal preference. Why are you going on about this nonsense?
Did you feel bad about the cartoon because it mocked and ridiculed hypocrites like you?
You deserve it.
You're pathetic, arguing literally to convince yourself. That's right, to convince yourself. Do you think anyone else is convinced by evasiveness, subject changing, word games, goal post moving?
You're like a con man squirming on a witness stand. But who are you trying to con? Only yourself.
I'll try again.
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? You want to say it’s the Christian God, and that there is no scientific way to test this, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You want to say “6000 years ago”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present? Absolutely not, not even Jesus himself appearing and carefully explaining all the evidence to you, because you have adopted a rigid social/political dogma and will be scornfully rejected by your fellow travelers if you deviate from the dogma.
Am I incorrect in anything here? Please feel free to clarify. Obviously EVERYONE will interpret a failure to clarify as proof that I am exactly correct.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
DS said:
It is well known that such molecules can be spontaneously produced under the condition of the primitive earth.
No it is not known. It is believed by you and others who believe in evolution (or abiogenisis if you wish) theory. It is to the detriment of the integrity of the scientific community that you incorrectly pass off your belief as fact as you have done here.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
Oops sorry. Block quote editing mistake on the post above. DS just said the inside block.
bigdakine · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
co said:
fittest meme said:
Blue would APPEAR green under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed.
Almost absolutely _not_. It might appear green due to humans' particularly wickedly nonlinear neurological systems; it would certainly not be green to a digital or film camera. A "pure" blue object under red light would be utterly black, given no specularity, as blue and red are far enough from each other in frequency that there is no "component" of blue made of red light.
You might as well have chosen "pink" or "yellow" or "plaid" as colors for the object to appear, fittest meme, but you pulled green out of your ass. Why?
OK call it black. I pulled green from a quick wiki answers search. So my statement should have been: "Blue would APPEAR black under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed."
I think that by pointing out my mistake you are actually making my point for me. There is something inherent about the pigment and it's interaction with light that is objectively knowable and thus not just dependent upon subjective interpretation as phhht appeared to be arguing.
No, rather with each of your posts you make our point on how better sceince education is needed and not the flim flamm clowns like you want taught in public schools. Yes there is something about the interaction with pigment and light that is objective. Its called *wavelength*. Red pigment appears *red* cuz it reflects light that has a wavelength which our brains (most of them anyway) tags as the color we call red. The pigment absorbs other wavelengths.
*wavelength* can be objectively measured. What labels we give that wavelength are completely arbitrary.
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
Oops sorry. Block quote editing mistake on the post above. DS just said the inside block.
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present?
DS · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
DS said:
It is well known that such molecules can be spontaneously produced under the condition of the primitive earth.
No it is not known. It is believed by you and others who believe in evolution (or abiogenisis if you wish) theory. It is to the detriment of the integrity of the scientific community that you incorrectly pass off your belief as fact as you have done here.
You can read my answer to this latest bullshit on the bathroom wall if you dare.
apokryltaros · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
DS said:
fittest meme said:
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
Wrong again fattest meme. RNA evolution has been observed in vitro. Here is a link with scientific references:
http://suite101.com/article/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecules-in-vitro-a170434
From the article:
"One study in particular demonstrates self-sustained replication of unique artificial RNA enzymes . . ."
The RNA molecules in this study depend for their very existence on the designing intelligence of the scientists who purposefully set up the conditions to create the result they desired.
You were wrong to call my above statement wrong. The RNA molecules identified as "self-replicators" were not natural.
Why are humans not natural?
Mike Elzinga · 21 June 2012
It appears that this troll is just mooning everyone; when they lose, they moon. Apparently this is how such “Christians” invite people to join their church.
It certainly demonstrates how one nasty, stupid “Christian” can single-handedly discredit thousands of nice, intelligent Christians. I wonder if that is deliberate.
co · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
co said:
fittest meme said:
Blue would APPEAR green under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed.
Almost absolutely _not_. It might appear green due to humans' particularly wickedly nonlinear neurological systems; it would certainly not be green to a digital or film camera. A "pure" blue object under red light would be utterly black, given no specularity, as blue and red are far enough from each other in frequency that there is no "component" of blue made of red light.
You might as well have chosen "pink" or "yellow" or "plaid" as colors for the object to appear, fittest meme, but you pulled green out of your ass. Why?
OK call it black. I pulled green from a quick wiki answers search. So my statement should have been: "Blue would APPEAR black under red light. The inherent qualities that make it blue under normal conditions however would not have changed."
I think that by pointing out my mistake you are actually making my point for me. There is something inherent about the pigment and it's interaction with light that is objectively knowable and thus not just dependent upon subjective interpretation as phhht appeared to be arguing.
phhht said:
"Blueness is a subjective property imputed by some human beings to “blue” paint, and not an inherent physical property of the paint. Remember, some people see blue as green."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOv-uFDnb8
co · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
There is something inherent about the pigment and it's interaction with light that is objectively knowable and thus not just dependent upon subjective interpretation [...]
Yep.
fittest meme said:
I think that by pointing out my mistake you are actually making my point for me.
Wow.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
co said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOv-uFDnb8
Interesting. The video seems to indicate that the reason they are confused by blue/green is that their language only has limited words for colors. It seems much more likely that their limited words for colors have to do with a population wide case of blue/yellow color blindness.
http://www.colblindor.com/2006/05/08/tritanopia-blue-yellow-color-blindness/
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
co said:
fittest meme said:
There is something inherent about the pigment and it's interaction with light that is objectively knowable and thus not just dependent upon subjective interpretation [...]
Yep.
fittest meme said:
I think that by pointing out my mistake you are actually making my point for me.
Wow.
IOW, Fittest Meme we think you might be getting it when you make your first statement until you make the second statement which aptly demonstrates you are a daft git who can't differentiate the words used to describe phenomena from objective physical propeties they describe.
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
DS said:
fittest meme said:
I should have been more clear to specify "naturally occurring" self-replicators (in order to be the per-cursors to life they would have to be such). The RNA that has been produced in labs, and under very controlled situations been found to "self-replicate," are like the viruses and prions mentioned above . . . they are dependent on per-existing life (in this case the intelligence and synthesis mechanisms of the intelligently designing scientists) for their existence.
Wrong again fattest meme. RNA evolution has been observed in vitro. Here is a link with scientific references:
http://suite101.com/article/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecules-in-vitro-a170434
From the article:
"One study in particular demonstrates self-sustained replication of unique artificial RNA enzymes . . ."
The RNA molecules in this study depend for their very existence on the designing intelligence of the scientists who purposefully set up the conditions to create the result they desired.
You were wrong to call my above statement wrong. The RNA molecules identified as "self-replicators" were not natural.
Again FM misses the point. The lab and the scientists and technicians involved in this research are not supernatural entities. What the scientists determined is given a set of conditions very simple self-replicating RNA molecules can evolve new functions. What this demonstrates is that a natural process can produce what you claimed doesn't occur naturally. This demonstrates that the "code" (molecular structure) for self-replicators can spontaneously form and "information" can increase (adaptation in molecular structure as a response to environmental change) without intelligent agency. The scientists that did this research didn't write "the code" of the self-replicators they ended up with but the conditions in which the variants formed spontaneously is what we would expect to see based on our knowledge of how natural selection operates on populations with genetic variation (due to imperfect replication). The results desired were achieved through the application of a theory you dispute.
Why don't you design a similar experiment using ID "theory" and tell us what you come up with? You can set up your experimental design here and tell us what results you expect to achieve using ID as the premise of your research. Please don't make us wait too long.
harold · 21 June 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
It appears that this troll is just mooning everyone; when they lose, they moon. Apparently this is how such “Christians” invite people to join their church.
It certainly demonstrates how one nasty, stupid “Christian” can single-handedly discredit thousands of nice, intelligent Christians. I wonder if that is deliberate.
In the end that might be why their movement dies out.
John_S · 21 June 2012
phhht said:
As far as I can tell, fittest_meme's gods have no effect whatsoever on the real world. They don't answer prayers. They don't send rain. They don't cure disease. They don't change bread and wine into flesh and blood. They don't maintain the planets in their orbits. They don't do anything.
If they did, we wouldn't have thousands of different and incompatible religions. We wouldn't have one person telling us that God doesn't want us to operate a light switch on Friday nights, another telling us which hand God wants us to wipe our butts with and a third feeding us wafers that they chanted over. If someone went to a bunch of doctors and one said they had a brain tumor, another said they had AIDS and a third said they needed Dr. Foot's Magnetic Ointment, why would anyone think any of them knew what they were talking about?
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
j. biggs said:
There is no reason to believe that self-replicating molecules couldn't arise on their own through perfectly natural means given the right initial conditions,
No reason except that other than this one supposed time, such an event has never happened for us to actually observe. In fact, didn't Pastuer discredit the previously held idea of spontaneous generation of life. It is a scientific fundamental that life comes from life. To suggest otherwise is speculation that is contradictory to one of the basics of biology.
We know that such an event (spontaneous formation of a self-replicator) only had to occur once for evolution to operate and yes no-one was there to observe it because humans and our scientific methodolgy didn't exist (Where you there, really?). Once self-replicators and then simple cells did exist it was and still is very unlikely that a new self-replicating molecule could compete very well against populations that have had multitude of generations to adapt to the environment. The only way self-replicators have any chance of survival today is in a lab created sterile environment with no competition from extant organisms.
Pasteur only demonstrated things like flies don't spontaneously form in meat when kept in a sealed container or that mold or bacterial colonies don't form in a sealed sterile environment. The self-replicators I am talking about are much simpler than flies, bacteria or mold. And didn't I say that this was speculative stuff in my original post? It's rather dishonest of you to omit that part and then bring it up again as though it hadn't already been conceded. (Although the abiogenesis of self-replicating molecules isn't nearly as speculative as you would like it to be).
harold · 21 June 2012
Pasteur only demonstrated things like flies don’t spontaneously form in meat when kept in a sealed container or that mold or bacterial colonies don’t form in a sealed sterile environment.
An extremely important demonstration.
All forms of ID/creationism claim or imply instantaneous appearance of cellular life. Why doesn't the designer make intact flies appear in meat, since the designer supposedly created intact flies at least once?
Meanwhile, modern hypotheses of abiogenesis do NOT postulate instant appearance of modern cellular life.
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
j. biggs said:
And didn't I say that this was speculative stuff in my original post? It's rather dishonest of you to omit that part and then bring it up again as though it hadn't already been conceded.
Yes you did say so in your original post. But then in a later post your wording seemed to indicate a more assumptive position:
"About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as “code” and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy “information”. It seems daft to me that some people can’t separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe."
I responded by reminding those participating in the conversation that the self-replicators we were talking about (the ones that were supposed ancestors to all existing life) were theoretical and not factual.
Most of my posts since that one have been addressing those who continue to hold the position that these "self-replicators" are a factual reality defensible through evidence. I have simply been pointing out that the evidence does not provide this level of certainty.
I meant no dishonesty, sorry if it appeared otherwise.
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
conditions I dare say we are rather certain existed on earth around 4 bya.
Oh . . . and how are you so certain of the conditions of the earth 4 bya? This can't be from empirical observation or first hand witness. Your theory is nothing but speculation . . . built upon assumptions . . . resting, I would suggest, upon a deep seated desire to deny God.
I am rather certain of the conditions of the earth 4bya because those conditions left geologic stratigraphic layers all over the earth. These layers constitute empirical evidence of primordial environmental conditions which have been analyzed by geologists, chemists, biologists, etc... Also, scientists know what type of environments drive the reactions that occur in organic chemistry, i.e. reactions that would have been neccesary for self-replicating molecules to form. Through the combination of this and other data we have a limited set of primordial environments to consider. Is it possible that God may have created the first self-replicator, sure. If God created the first self-replicator would it falsify evolution? Not in the least. And again you dishonestly imply that I don't know that pre-biotic chemistry is a speculative field. Also I have no deep seated desire to deny God, but if it can be demonstrated that self-replicators can spontaneously form given the right conditions, and that those conditions likely existed 4bya, there is no need to invoke God. (Where you there, again? Do you really think that canard will work here?)
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
j. biggs said:
And didn't I say that this was speculative stuff in my original post? It's rather dishonest of you to omit that part and then bring it up again as though it hadn't already been conceded.
Yes you did say so in your original post. But then in a later post your wording seemed to indicate a more assumptive position:
"About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as “code” and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy “information”. It seems daft to me that some people can’t separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe."
I responded by reminding those participating in the conversation that the self-replicators we were talking about (the ones that were supposed ancestors to all existing life) were theoretical and not factual.
Most of my posts since that one have been addressing those who continue to hold the position that these "self-replicators" are a factual reality defensible through evidence. I have simply been pointing out that the evidence does not provide this level of certainty.
I meant no dishonesty, sorry if it appeared otherwise.
The self-replicators that preceded cells in deep time are indeed theoretical, but simple self-replicators themselves are not theoretical and exist in reality. Research has even been shown to you that demonstrates that self-replicating RNA is capable of evolution. What happens when it is demonstrated that various RNA, and protein self replicators spontaneously form simple cells in the presence of phospho-lipids? Will you say that the experiment was intellegently designed again while ignoring the fact that the results of the experiment are predicted based on endosymbiosis and evolution?
Can we be 100% certain that no Gods were neccesary for life to form? No, however, it is becoming more obvious that spontaneous formation of self-replicators is a likely candidate for the theory on how life on earth began. In fact this possibility is far more likely than some of the ridiculous probability figures I have seen bandied about by creationists indicates. If you want to believe in God then good for you, but there is no need to insist that God couldn't have operated in a way that is consistent with our observations. Perhaps evolution and abiogenesis are the methods God used to create life on earth. That would certainly be consistent with what we observe and who are you or I to question God's methods. If you can find some reason why things currently happening in laboratories all over the world couldn't have happened in a vast ocean 4bya ago and that the evolution of self-replicators over long periods of times into the diversity we see today couldn't have been God's plan then show us why?
phhht · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
...the self-replicators... (the ones that were supposed ancestors to all existing life) were theoretical and not factual.
I understand you to mean "hypothetical," not "theoretical."
Most of my posts since that one have been addressing those who continue to hold the position that these "self-replicators" are a factual reality defensible through evidence.
I haven't seen anyone here take the position that any primeval self-replicator is factual rather than hypothetical.
What is factual is that biologists, computer scientists, and others have demonstrated an immense amount of evidence which indicates - not proves, but indicates - that the spontaneous emergence of such a replicator is possible. They cannot prove
that any such specific event happened in a specific way, but there is good reason to think that it could have happened, in a number of specific ways.
Is my distinction clear to you, fittest? Nobody knows - nobody can prove - how it did happen, but everybody knows ways it might have happened.
And guess what? None of those ways have any dependence whatsoever on gods.
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
j. biggs said:
And didn't I say that this was speculative stuff in my original post? It's rather dishonest of you to omit that part and then bring it up again as though it hadn't already been conceded.
Yes you did say so in your original post. But then in a later post your wording seemed to indicate a more assumptive position:
"About the least anthropomorphic thing we can say about self-replicating molecules is that they have a unique molecular structure that we represent through analogy as “code” and that these self-replicators are able to create imperfect copies of this unique molecular structure which has been also been called through analogy “information”. It seems daft to me that some people can’t separate analogies used to describe phenomena from the physical observations they describe."
I responded by reminding those participating in the conversation that the self-replicators we were talking about (the ones that were supposed ancestors to all existing life) were theoretical and not factual.
Most of my posts since that one have been addressing those who continue to hold the position that these "self-replicators" are a factual reality defensible through evidence. I have simply been pointing out that the evidence does not provide this level of certainty.
I meant no dishonesty, sorry if it appeared otherwise.
As others have pointed out, we can only model the origin of life, but the existence of self-replicating models is a fact.
There is more to the origin of cellular life than self-replicating RNA, there is origin of membrane bound cells, the origin of the genetic code, the early origin of photosynthesis, etc.
There is no reason to think any of this required magic, and many highly religious scientists don't think it did, nor does anyone have any particular emotional interest in denying the abstract concept of "God", broadly defined. People may want to deny the specific God of your sect. Most such people are equally fanatical members of other sects.
Literally all you have offered is strained contradiction, based on your claimed personal incredulity, actually based on grasping at straws to deny the obvious implications of abiogenesis research.
However, the cartoon you were complaining about ridiculed deniers of evolution, not deniers that abiogenesis is possible.
And you said, early on in the comments, that you want "alternate theories" taught.
You have been extremely dishonest-appearing in your constant evasion of my simple request that you explain what it is that you DO want taught.
I am going to make one more attempt. I'd particularly like an answer to number "7)".
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present?
apokryltaros · 21 June 2012
fittest meme said:
I meant no dishonesty, sorry if it appeared otherwise.
Spoken like the lying hypocrite you are, fittest meme. If you don't mean any dishonesty, then why are you trotting out all these refuted creationist falsehoods about how abiogenesis is magically impossible because you don't want to understand science, or that GODDIDIT is magically better than science, or how you're foisting the blood libel of how all modern scientists are really stupid, evil atheistic cultists who hate and fear God?
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 22 June 2012
Harold
I think that we can go a bit further than just reducing creationists/ID proponents to silence when asking what it is that they want taught.
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
Maybe I'm erecting a caricature strawman here, but it's trivially easy to prove that you can't explain or demonstrate something when you've embraced the power of positive giving-up.
harold · 22 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said:
Harold
I think that we can go a bit further than just reducing creationists/ID proponents to silence when asking what it is that they want taught.
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
Maybe I'm erecting a caricature strawman here, but it's trivially easy to prove that you can't explain or demonstrate something when you've embraced the power of positive giving-up.
I agree; I could add a question or two about applications of ID research, in particular, to things like antibiotic resistance and cancer research.
My goal is not to reduce them to silence. That is a useful outcome, but hypothetically, I'd welcome answers. However, due to their adoption of a "plausible deniability" approach, they are forced to ignore my questions.
Taking them on one misrepresentation at a time is useful, too, but after quite a few years of dealing with them, I personally feel that exclusively doing only that allows them to "frame the issue".
In this relatively short thread with one creationist, there are almost too many misrepresentations to count. Right off the bat, the cartoon was about evolution denial, but the creationist pulled the standard ruse of attacking less well-established abiogenesis hypotheses. He misrepresented Pasteur's demonstration of biogenesis, a major blow to creationism, as supporting special creationism. He pulled in irrelevant Newtonian philosophical ideas, even though Newton was active in the seventeenth century, Newton's deism isn't contradictory of science, but on the other hand Newton was an alchemist etc. And he dissembled and moved goal posts in a very persistent way with regard to self-replicating RNA.
It's easy to use "Gish gallop" techniques - make dishonest statements about dozens or hundreds of scientific issues. Eventually the bullshit is corrected, but allowing them to "frame the issue" that way makes it seem as if their ideas are some sort of default that doesn't need to be defended.
Even before I started asking them to specifically state their own alternate ideas, I used a somewhat similar technique of asking them to explain the theory of evolution, with special reference to molecular genetic mechanisms. That had a similar effect, as it fairly soon established that they didn't have a clue about the subject they were "arguing against".
However, I have found that simply asking them to state their own ideas is even more effective.
eric · 22 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said:
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
They have none; this is a religious/political movement intent on putting God back in public school classrooms and removing anything they see as counter-god from the classrooms. They try to make their religion look like secular science in order to get it past the courts - but they have no intent of doing any actual science here.
I'm pretty sure that if, tomorrow, SCOTUS ruled that the unadulterated biblical creation story could be legally taught in science classes, ID would disappear overnight, as it is merely a means to that end.
Ron Okimoto · 22 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said:
Harold
I think that we can go a bit further than just reducing creationists/ID proponents to silence when asking what it is that they want taught.
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
Maybe I'm erecting a caricature strawman here, but it's trivially easy to prove that you can't explain or demonstrate something when you've embraced the power of positive giving-up.
The "giving up" extends to their own position. They ran the teach ID scam for years (If you go to their web page they are still claiming to be able to teach the scientific theory of ID) and then they started running the bait and switch on their own creationist support base around 2002 with the Ohio Rubes (ten years of running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes). They still lie about having the science, but every time some rube ,too incompetent or ignorant to know what a scam ID is, claims to want to teach the junk (like Michele Bachmann) the ID perps run the bait and switch and all the rube gets is a stupid obfuscation ploy that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed.
If that isn't giving up I don't know what is.
The fact is that they have no positive research program, nor are they interested in addressing that issue. You don't see them trying to figure out how to fix what is obviously broken. All they do is lie and then run the bait and switch when they can't back up the lies. Not a single school board or legislator that ever claimed to want to teach the science of ID ever got any ID science to teach. If anyone thinks that they did, put it forward. Why doesn't the Teach the Controversy scam mention ID as one of the scientific controversies worth teaching? Why is the switch scam run by the same guys who are running the teach ID scam. Why are there still IDiots when the only IDiots left have to be ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest?
Any IDiot can confirm this by going to the Discovery Institute's web page, then try to get their school board to allow the voluntary teaching of the science of intelligent design, and then sit back and watch the bait and switch go down. Try to find the ID in the switch scam and find out who gives you the switch scam. It doesn't take a genius to understand what is happening, so why are there still IDiots? It obviously isn't due to the great ID science. The ID perps at places like the Discovery Institute gave up on that "ID science" over a decade ago. Years before ID was found to be bogus in court.
harold · 22 June 2012
eric said:
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said:
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
They have none; this is a religious/political movement intent on putting God back in public school classrooms and removing anything they see as counter-god from the classrooms. They try to make their religion look like secular science in order to get it past the courts - but they have no intent of doing any actual science here.
I'm pretty sure that if, tomorrow, SCOTUS ruled that the unadulterated biblical creation story could be legally taught in science classes, ID would disappear overnight, as it is merely a means to that end.
Yes, that's essentially certain to be the case, as ID was in fact almost instantaneously created in response to the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people#Origins_and_publication
I've added a couple of questions to my standard list -
8) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would
you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?
9) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?
harold · 22 June 2012
Those questions are for creationists, of course. Eric realizes that, but I don't want to confuse anyone else.
Just Bob · 22 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said:
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
As I've been saying, ID, even if it were true, would be a completely useless addition to science. It doesn't add anything useful, and may do great harm, since the answer to the 'why' of anything would be 'the designer did it that way for reasons beyond our ken'.
Paul Burnett · 22 June 2012
eric said: I'm pretty sure that if, tomorrow, SCOTUS ruled that the unadulterated biblical creation story could be legally taught in science classes, ID would disappear overnight, as it is merely a means to that end.
If the Rethuglicans win the presidency, it's WHEN, not IF.
tomh · 23 June 2012
Paul Burnett said:
If the Rethuglicans win the presidency, it's WHEN, not IF.
I think the result is inevitable, quite possibly no matter who wins. The anti-evolution crowd figured out the same thing the anti-abortion crowd did. Just as the anti-abortionists don't have to reverse Roe v Wade in order for states to obliterate abortion rights, the anti-evolutionists don't have to reverse Edwards to severely weaken teaching of evolution in public schools. When the SC upholds Louisiana's "academic freedom" law, and Tennessee's benign-sounding "critical thinking" law, that allows teachers to "analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories," specifically evolution and climate change, many other states will pass similar laws, and the doors will be open to all sorts of junk science. Science education will degrade in rapid fashion.
Mike Elzinga · 23 June 2012
tomh said:
Paul Burnett said:
If the Rethuglicans win the presidency, it's WHEN, not IF.
I think the result is inevitable, quite possibly no matter who wins. The anti-evolution crowd figured out the same thing the anti-abortion crowd did. Just as the anti-abortionists don't have to reverse Roe v Wade in order for states to obliterate abortion rights, the anti-evolutionists don't have to reverse Edwards to severely weaken teaching of evolution in public schools. When the SC upholds Louisiana's "academic freedom" law, and Tennessee's benign-sounding "critical thinking" law, that allows teachers to "analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories," specifically evolution and climate change, many other states will pass similar laws, and the doors will be open to all sorts of junk science. Science education will degrade in rapid fashion.
Unfortunately for them, they will have to deal with bastards like me who know exactly how to make them wish they hadn’t tried to inject their pseudoscience into the schools.
People like me have access to teachers and can prep them for how to make ID/creationism look as stupid as it really is. Knowing the real science in addition to knowing the history and the mental processes of how ID/creationists bend and break science to fit with sectarian dogma makes for some devastating critiques which ID/creationists can’t stand to have exposed.
If that is the game they want to really play, they lose. We can grind their faces in their crap and make them scream to stop; but we won’t stop. They will have to sue, but we still won't stop. It's not illegal to expose fraud.
harold · 23 June 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
tomh said:
Paul Burnett said:
If the Rethuglicans win the presidency, it's WHEN, not IF.
I think the result is inevitable, quite possibly no matter who wins. The anti-evolution crowd figured out the same thing the anti-abortion crowd did. Just as the anti-abortionists don't have to reverse Roe v Wade in order for states to obliterate abortion rights, the anti-evolutionists don't have to reverse Edwards to severely weaken teaching of evolution in public schools. When the SC upholds Louisiana's "academic freedom" law, and Tennessee's benign-sounding "critical thinking" law, that allows teachers to "analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories," specifically evolution and climate change, many other states will pass similar laws, and the doors will be open to all sorts of junk science. Science education will degrade in rapid fashion.
Unfortunately for them, they will have to deal with bastards like me who know exactly how to make them wish they hadn’t tried to inject their pseudoscience into the schools.
People like me have access to teachers and can prep them for how to make ID/creationism look as stupid as it really is. Knowing the real science in addition to knowing the history and the mental processes of how ID/creationists bend and break science to fit with sectarian dogma makes for some devastating critiques which ID/creationists can’t stand to have exposed.
If that is the game they want to really play, they lose. We can grind their faces in their crap and make them scream to stop; but we won’t stop. They will have to sue, but we still won't stop. It's not illegal to expose fraud.
Yes, there are many battles to be fought.
Even if the corrupt government of some economically backward state does succeed in further ruining the future of its citizens by literally finding a way to promote science denial in public schools - and in my view that will require a continued right wing majority on SCOTUS; even now, Kennedy might not go for it - we can work to isolate it. The fact that this nonsense is happening mainly in states that are already at or near the rock bottom in terms of educational achievement, crime, substance abuse, median income, unemployment, ability to attract investment, etc, is not a coincidence, and is a huge PR negative in terms of being able to get other states to make similar mistakes.
So even in the unlikely event that some place like Louisiana can damage the future of its own citizens and not get stopped by SCOTUS, it can still be contained. This statement is not at all intended to be derogatory to Louisiana overall. It is intended to be derogatory to certain Louisiana politicians, of course.
However, I personally give more credit to the residents of EVERY state than that. Whenever ID/creationism has actually officially been made part of a curriculum, it has lost both in court, and in elections. Individual teachers may get away with trying crap on their own, but that's true of every other subject. Of course there will always be holocaust deniers who become history teachers, creationists who become biology teachers, flat earth advocates who become geography teachers, and so on. That's why there are school administrators. I suspect that eventually, even in Louisiana and other Southern states, eventually, the latest anti-science laws will go away.
And of course, even if a totally corrupt SCOTUS were to allow sectarian science denial as "science instruction" in public schools, that still wouldn't mean that the battle was over. That would just be a minimum victory for creationists. Right now it's illegal to teach narrow sectarian science denial as "science" at all.
The obvious desire of creationists would be to completely reverse that, and make it illegal to teach anything but. However, while the First Amendment is something we should all defend, it's worth remembering that even if some totally corrupt SCOTUS found some dissembling way of permitting the teaching of "creation science" (as sitting SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia attempted), that wouldn't force any jurisdiction to teach it.
Lastly, creationists can only impact on human behavior - they can't stop life from evolving. They can't change scientific reality any more than ancient tribes could do so with sacrifice ceremonies. Even if they "win" a victory or two, they'll still always lose in the end.
Mike Elzinga · 23 June 2012
harold said:
Lastly, creationists can only impact on human behavior - they can't stop life from evolving. They can't change scientific reality any more than ancient tribes could do so with sacrifice ceremonies. Even if they "win" a victory or two, they'll still always lose in the end.
One of the things that ID/creationists would have to do is get laws passed that allow creationists to teach without having to provide a syllabus that includes labs, teaching materials, references, and a list of learning objectives. That will raise all sorts of red flags.
The reason that they would start going that route is because the second they, like all teachers, have to put their curriculum out there where it can be seen and vetted, the game is up for them. The only place they can go for curriculum materials is to AiG, the DI or the ICR and places like that. Once that happens, they become fish in a barrel. There is no way they can get around it.
Even if a corrupt SCOTUS allows it, there is nothing a corrupt SCOTUS can do to prevent exposing fraud. Any such attempt by a corrupt court will simply expose themselves; you can’t fool Mother Nature. There is no ID/creationism that works in the real world; it falls flat on its ass every time.
Rolf · 24 June 2012
Whenever I see this kind of nonsense, I estimate that their science education stopped somewhere about the 8th grade. ID/creationists, even the leaders, all seem to have their major hang-ups starting at about that level.
I call it the Santa Claus syndrome.
Rolf · 24 June 2012
While the subject of the origins of the first self replicating life may deserve a place in the carnival; but as long as some bright minds are already at work on the subject, why not wait and see what the outcome will be, if you are not satisfied with what we've got so far?
May I suggest that in the meantime it may be more productive to study what we already have with respect to evolution of self replication from the time when self replicating, living cells evidently were present on this planet? The study of how, from such a modest beginning, we have come such a long way? Just look at your own human body. Seriously, what are the signs of intelligent design?
apokryltaros · 24 June 2012
Rolf said:
May I suggest that in the meantime it may be more productive to study what we already have with respect to evolution of self replication from the time when self replicating, living cells evidently were present on this planet? The study of how, from such a modest beginning, we have come such a long way? Just look at your own human body. Seriously, what are the signs of intelligent design?
All of the alleged signs of "intelligent design" in the human body can all be found in the (King James translation of the) Holy Bible, and not the body, itself.
John_S · 24 June 2012
apokryltaros said:
All of the alleged signs of "intelligent design" in the human body can all be found in the (King James translation of the) Holy Bible, and not the body, itself.
The signs of "intelligent design" can be found in almost every creation myth on the planet. Why believe the KJV as opposed to thousands of other opinions? If you had a stomach ache and doctors gave you thousands of completely different opinions on what was wrong, why would you think any of them knew what they were talking about?
Since you guys are always insisting on teaching people "critical thinking", here's an exercise:
Compare Genesis to the Dakotan legend of creation (chosen at random - see http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html for a summary). Explain how Genesis is the better explanation of "intelligent design". Then for extra credit, try the same thing with the far more difficult-to-refute Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://rpcmp.ru/canon/GOSPEL.pdf) (warning - big pdf file - about 10MB).
TomS · 25 June 2012
apokryltaros said:
All of the alleged signs of "intelligent design" in the human body can all be found in the (King James translation of the) Holy Bible, and not the body, itself.
I appreciate what you're saying, but allow me to make an excursion from the legitimate point you're making ...
I don't think that there is anything in the KJV about signs of intelligent design in the human body. There is nothing about the design of the human eye, opposable thumb, bipedalism, or any other organ or function of the human body.
apokryltaros · 25 June 2012
TomS said:
apokryltaros said:
All of the alleged signs of "intelligent design" in the human body can all be found in the (King James translation of the) Holy Bible, and not the body, itself.
I appreciate what you're saying, but allow me to make an excursion from the legitimate point you're making ...
I don't think that there is anything in the KJV about signs of intelligent design in the human body.
The Bible says that God created humans out of dust, using magic. Therefore, because Christian fundamentalists believe that God is the most intelligent entity in the whole Universe, the human body is "intelligently designed." All other facts must either be made to fit this, or discarded as irrelevant, untrue, and of the Devil.
There is nothing about the design of the human eye, opposable thumb, bipedalism, or any other organ or function of the human body.
And there's no discussion of the "design" of various human body parts in Intelligent Design texts, either, beyond piddling elaborations of "how (insert biological phenomenon here) is too complicated/weird/difficult to understand to have ever evolved, therefore GODDESIGNERDIDIT, and evolution is wrong, stupid, false and evil."
SWT · 25 June 2012
TomS said:
apokryltaros said:
All of the alleged signs of "intelligent design" in the human body can all be found in the (King James translation of the) Holy Bible, and not the body, itself.
I appreciate what you're saying, but allow me to make an excursion from the legitimate point you're making ...
I don't think that there is anything in the KJV about signs of intelligent design in the human body. There is nothing about the design of the human eye, opposable thumb, bipedalism, or any other organ or function of the human body.
Au contraire ...
Psalm 139: 14-17:
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
Clearly the KJV views people as manufactured artifacts and must therefore be designed. Also, "how precious also are thy thoughts" is obviously an allusion to the importance of information theory.
terenzioiltroll · 25 June 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
Unfortunately for them, they will have to deal with bastards like me who know exactly how to make them wish they hadn’t tried to inject their pseudoscience into the schools.
Mr. Elzinga, I sincerely hope for you that "they" will never ever come to deal with you. As the sad history of some pro-choice activists teaches us, "they" tend to verge to rather physical confrontation: up to the point where acute lead poisoning becomes a probable outcome.
SWT · 25 June 2012
terenzioiltroll said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Unfortunately for them, they will have to deal with bastards like me who know exactly how to make them wish they hadn’t tried to inject their pseudoscience into the schools.
Mr. Elzinga, I sincerely hope for you that "they" will never ever come to deal with you. As the sad history of some pro-choice activists teaches us, "they" tend to verge to rather physical confrontation: up to the point where acute lead poisoning becomes a probable outcome.
How else can they honor the Prince of Peace?
John_S · 25 June 2012
Notice how apokryltaros immediately answers TomS but deftly ignores my challenge. I'll repeat it:
Compare Genesis to the Dakotan legend of creation (chosen at random - see http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html for a summary). Explain how Genesis is the better explanation of “intelligent design”. Then for extra credit, try the same thing with the far more difficult-to-refute Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://rpcmp.ru/canon/GOSPEL.pdf) (warning - big pdf file - about 10MB).
SWT · 25 June 2012
John_S said:
Notice how apokryltaros immediately answers TomS but deftly ignores my challenge. I'll repeat it:
Compare Genesis to the Dakotan legend of creation (chosen at random - see http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html for a summary). Explain how Genesis is the better explanation of “intelligent design”. Then for extra credit, try the same thing with the far more difficult-to-refute Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://rpcmp.ru/canon/GOSPEL.pdf) (warning - big pdf file - about 10MB).
Check your diet, you seem to be irony-deficient.
John_S · 25 June 2012
SWT said:
Check your diet, you seem to be irony-deficient.
??? I guess I am. Explain.
apokryltaros · 25 June 2012
John_S said:
SWT said:
Check your diet, you seem to be irony-deficient.
??? I guess I am. Explain.
Then tell us why it's necessary to bring up the Dakotan creation story when Intelligent Design proponents use only the King James' translation of the Holy Bible as the source of their information for "design."
That, and I ignored your challenge because you were missing the point of my sarcastic commentary completely.
SWT · 25 June 2012
1) If you follow apokryltaros's comments, you'll realize he is no friend of creationism, including ID.
2) "alleged signs of 'intelligent design'"
3) scare quotes around "intelligent design"
4) snarky parenthetical reference to fundie preference for KJV
SWT · 25 June 2012
Meh. The quoted note below was in response to John_S. Some days I so need an edit key.
SWT said:
1) If you follow apokryltaros's comments, you'll realize he is no friend of creationism, including ID.
2) "alleged signs of 'intelligent design'"
3) scare quotes around "intelligent design"
4) snarky parenthetical reference to fundie preference for KJV
Rolf · 26 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said:
Harold
I think that we can go a bit further than just reducing creationists/ID proponents to silence when asking what it is that they want taught.
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
Maybe I'm erecting a caricature strawman here, but it's trivially easy to prove that you can't explain or demonstrate something when you've embraced the power of positive giving-up.
Your mention of ecological management techniques struck me. That, and a lot of subjects relative to environment, climate and Earth sciences in general are not accounted for in creation 'science' myths, ('science', giving more credit than deserved. myths, because ID/creationism has not risen above that stage yet) are very important factors in evolution and survival on the planet but the static scenarios required by creation myths are a far cry from what we know about the hirsoty of our planet! Even though we were not there, CSI has made possible recontruction of much of the planets history. If geology and earth sciences are anywhere near true, the case is settled once and for all. The debate within science on evolutionary mechanisms will continue for a long time yet, but nothing indicates that evolution is not a fact.
Whereas ID/creationism hasn't laid anything edible on the plate yet.
That's my layman's take on status quo.
SteveP. · 26 June 2012
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
John_S · 26 June 2012
apokryltaros said:
That, and I ignored your challenge because you were missing the point of my sarcastic commentary completely.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. But please remember that sarcasm doesn't consist of saying something prima facia dumb and expecting everyone to see your tongue in your cheek, snickering at the keyboard as you type.
phhht · 26 June 2012
SteveP. said:
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
It's always a pleasure to read your posts, SteveP. Your preemptive nastiness is completely unmitigated by any substance.
apokryltaros · 26 June 2012
SteveP. said:
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
You're one to talk. But, hypocrisy comes so easy for you.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Well, what has the Intelligent Design crowd been doing recently? One gets the impression that due to its inactivity, the Discovery Institute has just about given up on Intelligent Design altogether. So why shouldn't we point out the current wrongdoings of Creationists? Because it hurts your thin skin? Maybe it hurts your empty head? Explain to us why it is wrong of us to point out that Creationists do dishonest things in order to force children to obey their religious dogma?
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
So what have Intelligent Design proponents done? That is, besides whoring themselves to Creationists and other science-deniers for Jesus.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry.
Why? Because you don't have the motivation or brainpower to understand it?
Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
When will that be, SteveP? Are you aware that Evolutionary Biology has been glittering for the last century and a half? Are you aware that Creationists have been saying how Evolutionary Biology is done for for the last century and a half? And yet, why is it that Evolutionary Biology is not going to fade away any time soon, and that the alleged alternative of Creationism and its supporters keep looking more and more stupid and dishonest every day? Perhaps there is an evil conspiracy of evil scientists out to make you look like a hypocritical moron, SteveP?
Or, perhaps it's because you're a malicious idiot who says the exact same stupid lies here, and repeatedly returns to insult us about how we're all so stupid and evil for not kissing your ass because you said some stupid lies For Jesus.
apokryltaros · 26 June 2012
John_S said:
apokryltaros said:
That, and I ignored your challenge because you were missing the point of my sarcastic commentary completely.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. But please remember that sarcasm doesn't consist of saying something prima facia dumb and expecting everyone to see your tongue in your cheek, snickering at the keyboard as you type.
I don't use sarcasm to be funny: I use sarcasm to point out stupid statements said by stupid people. Furthermore, I don't see why I need to put signs for your personal convenience on my statements or allegiances that should otherwise be grotesquely obvious.
Dave Luckett · 26 June 2012
ID and creationism are exactly as easy to attack as each other. That's because they are each other. Th only difference is that ID won't say what or when or how, and is thus even more useless as a method of understanding life than straight fiat creation.
Paul Burnett · 26 June 2012
SteveP. said: Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
Evolution has been "glittering" brighter and brighter for the last 150+ years, while the god-of-the-gaps of creationism has been getting smaller and smaller. Your plea in support of scientific illiteracy is pitiful.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 26 June 2012
Why do people suppose that the case for "intelligent design" can be made so pathetically unintelligently, and somehow be persuasive?
OK, I know that goddidit can't really be made intelligent or explanatory, but you'd think that this fact would clue in even the dullards.
Dave Luckett said:
ID and creationism are exactly as easy to attack as each other. That's because they are each other. Th only difference is that ID won't say what or when or how, and is thus even more useless as a method of understanding life than straight fiat creation.
At least creationism is wrong.
apokryltaros · 26 June 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Why do people suppose that the case for "intelligent design" can be made so pathetically unintelligently, and somehow be persuasive?
OK, I know that goddidit can't really be made intelligent or explanatory, but you'd think that this fact would clue in even the dullards.
Apparently not.
Glen Davidson
That's why the Creationists and their political cronies are attacking education in order to make children stupid and distrustful of science, but blindly agree with whatever the party leaders tell them.
Rolf · 27 June 2012
SteveP. said:
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
Attacks on ID? Doesn't need no attacking until there is something to attack. Can you please show some positive evidence for ID that we may attack? "Inference of design" or "teach the controversy" are somewhat, should I say vague?
We sell evolution, what have you got to sell? Dembski, Behe, Luskin 2LOT? Where is the supernatural in Shapiro's "Evolution": "Living cells and organism are cognitive... they possess decicion-making capabilities", or "cells are built to evolve"? His particular twist on interpretation hardly is an argument or evidence for a supernatural force, i.e. the God of Dembski or Behe as an active agent of evolution.
Reality is that evolution is as alive and kicking as ever while ID has proven sterile, infertile.
TomS · 27 June 2012
Rolf said:
Attacks on ID? Doesn't need no attacking until there is something to attack. Can you please show some positive evidence for ID that we may attack?
I would modify that last sentence by changing "evidence" to "statement".
harold · 27 June 2012
SteveP. said:
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?
2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?
3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?
4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
harold · 27 June 2012
John_S said:
apokryltaros said:
That, and I ignored your challenge because you were missing the point of my sarcastic commentary completely.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. But please remember that sarcasm doesn't consist of saying something prima facia dumb and expecting everyone to see your tongue in your cheek, snickering at the keyboard as you type.
This would have been a higher quality comment without the second sentence.
I don't know why people miss sarcasm. One otherwise highly intelligent person clarified to me that they cannot recognize sarcasm and irony unless in conversation, and even then only when an exaggeratedly sarcastic tone of voice is used. This was in the context of that person taking seriously some really, really obvious and broad sarcasm. It's also true that on the internet, so-called "Poes" can be hard to distinguish from sincere advocates. Because of all this, when I use sarcasm on the internet, I always explain at the end that I was being sarcastic. However, this does not imply that those who miss satire due to reading comprehension issues are in the right. Sometimes they are; sometimes the original statement can't reasonably be distinguished from a serious statement. Many other times they are not, the satire should be clear, and their ability to detect it is the problem. I can't recall what the original sarcastic statement was here, but it seems like time to drop the issue.
TomS · 27 June 2012
harold said:
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
The thought just occurred to me, and I'd like to hear from any of the creationists: Maybe miracles are not intelligently designed? After all, aren't miracles exceptions to the rules, but if design means anything, it is following the rules, isn't it?
(BTW, what became of your latest addition to the canonical list of questions: why creationists accept natural science overriding the plain statement of the Bible in cases like heliocentrism?)
apokryltaros · 27 June 2012
harold said:
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
Addendum:
9) How can we tell the difference between something that was not designed by the designer from something that was designed by the designer? How would we test this?
harold · 27 June 2012
TomS said:
harold said:
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
The thought just occurred to me, and I'd like to hear from any of the creationists: Maybe miracles are not intelligently designed? After all, aren't miracles exceptions to the rules, but if design means anything, it is following the rules, isn't it?
(BTW, what became of your latest addition to the canonical list of questions: why creationists accept natural science overriding the plain statement of the Bible in cases like heliocentrism?)
I left that one off deliberately since Steve P. is weaselish about YEC and has claimed at least once to be a Catholic. Not that it isn't a highly valid question anyway.
apokryltaros · 27 June 2012
Rolf said:
Reality is that evolution is as alive and kicking as ever while ID has proven sterile, infertile.
Intelligent Design has been proven to be more than merely sterile and infertile: it's a stillborn corpse so foul even that scavengers won't approach it. Sure, the pious followers, and some of the Hucksters For Jesus will still insist that Intelligent Design will obliterate Evolution and its evil, stupid followers, but, there's something to be said when its own parents at the Discovery Institute have made statements giving up on it as a replacement for science.
Rolf · 27 June 2012
TomS said:
Rolf said:
Attacks on ID? Doesn't need no attacking until there is something to attack. Can you please show some positive evidence for ID that we may attack?
I would modify that last sentence by changing "evidence" to "statement".
Absolutely an improvement!
Helena Constantine · 28 June 2012
SteveP. said:
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
Do you forget that it was proven as a fact in court that ID is just a cover for creationism?
Would you mind saying what it is that cdesign proponentsreations have done lately that makes it harder to attack their position, or which even supplies them with a coherent position? What is it that keeps you from seeing that saying 'a god intervened to design this' is the same as saying 'I don't understand this?' Are you afraid that if you admit that your own moral identity will collapse? Have you tired psychoanalysis?
John_S · 28 June 2012
apokryltaros said:
John_S said:
apokryltaros said:
That, and I ignored your challenge because you were missing the point of my sarcastic commentary completely.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. But please remember that sarcasm doesn't consist of saying something prima facia dumb and expecting everyone to see your tongue in your cheek, snickering at the keyboard as you type.
I don't use sarcasm to be funny: I use sarcasm to point out stupid statements said by stupid people. Furthermore, I don't see why I need to put signs for your personal convenience on my statements or allegiances that should otherwise be grotesquely obvious.
I apologize - I confused you with someone else.
Just Bob · 30 June 2012
Steve P, maybe you can help. I've been trying to get answer on this, but no luck so far.
If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?
What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?
bbennett1968 · 1 July 2012
Just Bob said:
Steve P, maybe you can help. I've been trying to get answer on this, but no luck so far.
If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?
What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?
If scientists accepted ID as "true", they wouldn't be scientists. Science is about testing hypotheses in the real world (and not about "truth"). ID strenuously avoids any discussion of a hypothesis, and consists only of evolution-bashing and sciency proclamations which are (semi-intelligently) designed to be untestable. The promoters of ID cannot bear the ramifications of having their obviously-religious assertions falsified. If an idea cannot be falsified, it cannot be science.
Like virtually all IDiots, Steve knows this and doesn't care because his interest in the integrity of science is entirely feigned. He only wishes to highjack science and use it as a means of promoting whatever set of silly religious superstitions he is obsessed with. Like the good little fundie he is, he hates real science because it fails to provide any support whatsoever for his corny belief system, and he knows it always will.
Just Bob · 1 July 2012
bbennett1968 said:
Just Bob said:
Steve P, maybe you can help. I've been trying to get answer on this, but no luck so far.
If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?
What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?
If scientists accepted ID as "true", they wouldn't be scientists. Science is about testing hypotheses in the real world (and not about "truth"). ID strenuously avoids any discussion of a hypothesis, and consists only of evolution-bashing and sciency proclamations which are (semi-intelligently) designed to be untestable. The promoters of ID cannot bear the ramifications of having their obviously-religious assertions falsified. If an idea cannot be falsified, it cannot be science.
Like virtually all IDiots, Steve knows this and doesn't care because his interest in the integrity of science is entirely feigned. He only wishes to highjack science and use it as a means of promoting whatever set of silly religious superstitions he is obsessed with. Like the good little fundie he is, he hates real science because it fails to provide any support whatsoever for his corny belief system, and he knows it always will.
And apparently he doesn't want to answer the question.
apokryltaros · 1 July 2012
Just Bob said:
bbennett1968 said:
Just Bob said:
Steve P, maybe you can help. I've been trying to get answer on this, but no luck so far.
If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?
What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?
If scientists accepted ID as "true", they wouldn't be scientists. Science is about testing hypotheses in the real world (and not about "truth"). ID strenuously avoids any discussion of a hypothesis, and consists only of evolution-bashing and sciency proclamations which are (semi-intelligently) designed to be untestable. The promoters of ID cannot bear the ramifications of having their obviously-religious assertions falsified. If an idea cannot be falsified, it cannot be science.
Like virtually all IDiots, Steve knows this and doesn't care because his interest in the integrity of science is entirely feigned. He only wishes to highjack science and use it as a means of promoting whatever set of silly religious superstitions he is obsessed with. Like the good little fundie he is, he hates real science because it fails to provide any support whatsoever for his corny belief system, and he knows it always will.
And apparently he doesn't want to answer the question.
That's because SteveP can't. Well, sometimes he pretends he can answer it by making sarcastic insults that serve only to highlight his own willful stupidity and unthinking hatred of science and science education.
Other times, he won't answer because he just can't be bothered to get out of his mindless routine of lying and attention-whoring.
And then there're times he can't answer because he's too busy boasting about how he's too busy making money hand over fist in his fabric empire.
And then there're times he can't answer because he's already fled, with his tail and ego tucked firmly between his legs, hiding in his favorite internet hideyhole, waiting for a new thread to hijack with his predictable script of sneers and anti-science lies.
119 Comments
John_S · 18 June 2012
This reminds me of the old adage: be careful what you wish for.
As the cartoon illustrates, recent Bible-Belt states' attempts to protect creationist teachers can easily backfire when someone decides to teach some off-the-wall personal "theory". Remember what happened in Albemarle County, VA when Falwell and his gang forced the schools to allow a Baptist Bible Camp flyer to be added to the children's take-home backpacks. A Unitarian-Universalist church soon demanded the same right and sent home flyers about its multicultural "winter solstice" celebration. The parents hit the roof ... they only wanted their religion to have that privilege. I understand the school has now discontinued the backpack flyers entirely.
Majority rule when it's my church; separation of church and state when it's yours.
Frank J · 19 June 2012
The "Non Sequitur" cartoon of a few years ago, about the "Preconceptual theory," remains my all-time favorite. This one, however, screams for a perfect comeback: "You can teach any 'alternative' explanation you want, as long as you include all its 'what happened when' conclusions and mainstrem science's critical analysis."
Before anyone objects that that too would violate the Establishment Clause, my point is that the scam artists would never dare advocate that, even though it would be infinitely more fair than the censored, double-standard propaganda that they do demand.
Matt Young · 19 June 2012
This one?
Henry J · 19 June 2012
For a perfect comeback, how about just saying that an explanation has to, uh, actually explain something!
(i.e., the conclusion has to be logically infer-able from the premise.)
Ron Okimoto · 20 June 2012
No one should forget that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted that space aliens is their most scientific alternative for an intelligent designer. If you aren't going to teach the most scientific, why teach the second, third or bottom of the barrel YEC alternative?
fittest meme · 20 June 2012
Are we laughing at Richard Dawkins? He seemed to be the one who suggested this theory after admitting that he had no idea where the coded information for the first "self-replicators" came from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxkQNP2NkCk
I think you are missing the point of the cartoon. Faced with the task of explaining life without the benefit of God, (as is required in our secularized public schools) and recognizing the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just "poofed" into being in the primordial sea, space aliens are all that's left.
Sir Isaac Newton arrived at a different conclusion after his years of fruitful scientific study and thought:
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of you here seem unwilling to accept this logical foundational paradigm which arguably girded humanity's periods of greatest scientific discovery.
apokryltaros · 20 June 2012
So, fittest meme, how does saying GODDIDIT enhance science?
DS · 20 June 2012
Fattest meme wrote:
"...the depravity of a theory that suggests that the coded information just “poofed” into being ..."
You can look high and you can look low, but a more apt description of creationism cannot be found.
terenzioiltroll · 20 June 2012
j. biggs · 20 June 2012
phhht · 20 June 2012
eric · 20 June 2012
j. biggs · 20 June 2012
fittest meme · 20 June 2012
DS · 20 June 2012
Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2012
Tenncrain · 20 June 2012
phhht · 20 June 2012
harold · 20 June 2012
phhht · 20 June 2012
apokryltaros · 20 June 2012
phhht · 20 June 2012
fittest_meme's gods strike me as being the opposite of Neils Bohr's apocryphal horseshoe: whether you believe in them or not, they still don't work.
As far as I can tell, fittest_meme's gods have no effect whatsoever on the real world. They don't answer prayers. They don't send rain. They don't cure disease. They don't change bread and wine into flesh and blood. They don't maintain the planets in their orbits. They don't do anything.
No matter how clearly he himself may see them, fittest_meme can never show his gods to anyone else. He can't take a picture with his iPhone. He may hear the voices of the gods inside his own head, but no one else will ever hear them, because the gods no longer speak from burning bushes, or from anywhere else in public. He can't say what his gods smell like or taste like or feel like because you can't smell them or taste them or feel them. It's just as if they don't really exist at all.
And increasingly, it's only fittest_meme and his fellow sectarians who even want the notion of gods. We used to need them to explain things, but we don't any more, because we have science. We used to call on them to smite our enemies, but now we have drones for that. There's never been godly relief of pain like that from modern analgesics.
The only lingering real-world effect of gods is that they're still all we have when we want to blaspheme. We still say Goddamnit! and Go to hell!, but those are living linguistic fossils, because nobody really cares. It's a much reduced and humbled circumstance for those beings who used to part seas and raise the dead.
fittest meme · 20 June 2012
phhht · 20 June 2012
Just Bob · 20 June 2012
Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2012
DS · 20 June 2012
Henry J · 20 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
KlausH · 21 June 2012
Non Sequitur sometimes has some very stupid anti evolution strips, such as
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/1992/09/06 .
harold · 21 June 2012
Frank J · 21 June 2012
Frank J · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
DS · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
Fittest Meme -
In this comment, I will write what I think are your true answers to the questions I posed. They are very disappointing. I welcome you to salvage a shred of dignity by clarifying. Otherwise, you'll just have to slink away, exposed as the weasel you are.
Sounds fair to me. What is your theory?
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? You want to say it's the Christian God, and that there is no scientific way to test this, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You want to say "6000 years ago", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues? You have no answer, don't care, and just want to say "God created everything by a miracle", but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn't work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn't work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present? Absolutely not, not even Jesus himself appearing and carefully explaining all the evidence to you, because you have adopted a rigid social/political dogma and will be scornfully rejected by your fellow travelers if you deviate from the dogma.
Am I incorrect in anything here? Please feel free to clarify. Obviously EVERYONE will interpret a failure to clarify as proof that I am exactly correct.
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
Fittest Meme -
In this comment, I will write what I think are your true answers to the questions I posed. They are very disappointing. I welcome you to salvage a shred of dignity by clarifying. Otherwise, you’ll just have to slink away, exposed as the weasel you are.
Sounds fair to me. What is your theory?
1) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? You want to say it’s the Christian God, and that there is no scientific way to test this, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
2) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
3) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
4) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? You want to say “6000 years ago”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
6) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues? You have no answer, don’t care, and just want to say “God created everything by a miracle”, but rather than honestly say so as your Bible would instruct, you keep silent, as part of a scheme to promote science denial in public schools, because this didn’t work - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. Sorry, that didn’t work either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
7) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of observations are now lacking, that would convince you if present? Absolutely not, not even Jesus himself appearing and carefully explaining all the evidence to you, because you have adopted a rigid social/political dogma and will be scornfully rejected by your fellow travelers if you deviate from the dogma.
Am I incorrect in anything here? Please feel free to clarify. Obviously EVERYONE will interpret a failure to clarify as proof that I am exactly correct.
co · 21 June 2012
DS · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
Oops sorry. Block quote editing mistake on the post above. DS just said the inside block.
bigdakine · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
DS · 21 June 2012
apokryltaros · 21 June 2012
Mike Elzinga · 21 June 2012
It appears that this troll is just mooning everyone; when they lose, they moon. Apparently this is how such “Christians” invite people to join their church.
It certainly demonstrates how one nasty, stupid “Christian” can single-handedly discredit thousands of nice, intelligent Christians. I wonder if that is deliberate.
co · 21 June 2012
co · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
John_S · 21 June 2012
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
fittest meme · 21 June 2012
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
j. biggs · 21 June 2012
phhht · 21 June 2012
harold · 21 June 2012
apokryltaros · 21 June 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 22 June 2012
Harold
I think that we can go a bit further than just reducing creationists/ID proponents to silence when asking what it is that they want taught.
One of the things I don't understand about ID is what, assuming anyone accepted their position, is their positive research programme in the life sciences going to be; maybe I'm really poorly informed, but I haven't seen any ID work that is trying to parlay their "valuable insight" about extra-mural design into a productive programme on pathogen research or ecological management techniques, for example.
Maybe I'm erecting a caricature strawman here, but it's trivially easy to prove that you can't explain or demonstrate something when you've embraced the power of positive giving-up.
harold · 22 June 2012
eric · 22 June 2012
Ron Okimoto · 22 June 2012
harold · 22 June 2012
harold · 22 June 2012
Those questions are for creationists, of course. Eric realizes that, but I don't want to confuse anyone else.
Just Bob · 22 June 2012
Paul Burnett · 22 June 2012
tomh · 23 June 2012
Mike Elzinga · 23 June 2012
harold · 23 June 2012
Mike Elzinga · 23 June 2012
Rolf · 24 June 2012
Rolf · 24 June 2012
While the subject of the origins of the first self replicating life may deserve a place in the carnival; but as long as some bright minds are already at work on the subject, why not wait and see what the outcome will be, if you are not satisfied with what we've got so far?
May I suggest that in the meantime it may be more productive to study what we already have with respect to evolution of self replication from the time when self replicating, living cells evidently were present on this planet? The study of how, from such a modest beginning, we have come such a long way? Just look at your own human body. Seriously, what are the signs of intelligent design?
apokryltaros · 24 June 2012
John_S · 24 June 2012
TomS · 25 June 2012
apokryltaros · 25 June 2012
GODDESIGNERDIDIT, and evolution is wrong, stupid, false and evil."SWT · 25 June 2012
terenzioiltroll · 25 June 2012
SWT · 25 June 2012
John_S · 25 June 2012
SWT · 25 June 2012
John_S · 25 June 2012
apokryltaros · 25 June 2012
SWT · 25 June 2012
1) If you follow apokryltaros's comments, you'll realize he is no friend of creationism, including ID.
2) "alleged signs of 'intelligent design'"
3) scare quotes around "intelligent design"
4) snarky parenthetical reference to fundie preference for KJV
SWT · 25 June 2012
Rolf · 26 June 2012
SteveP. · 26 June 2012
Yep, running your mouths is easy when you attack soft targets.
ID is getting harder and harder to attack successfully so creationism it is, right? Yep, Ken Ham, AiG, et al.
Shapiro, Axe, Gauger, nah. Best you can do there is turn rhetorical tricks.
Evolution is intellectual costume jewelry. Enjoy it while you can; before the glitter is gone.
John_S · 26 June 2012
phhht · 26 June 2012
apokryltaros · 26 June 2012
apokryltaros · 26 June 2012
Dave Luckett · 26 June 2012
ID and creationism are exactly as easy to attack as each other. That's because they are each other. Th only difference is that ID won't say what or when or how, and is thus even more useless as a method of understanding life than straight fiat creation.
Paul Burnett · 26 June 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 26 June 2012
Why do people suppose that the case for "intelligent design" can be made so pathetically unintelligently, and somehow be persuasive?
OK, I know that goddidit can't really be made intelligent or explanatory, but you'd think that this fact would clue in even the dullards.
Apparently not.
Glen Davidson
bigdakine · 26 June 2012
apokryltaros · 26 June 2012
Rolf · 27 June 2012
TomS · 27 June 2012
harold · 27 June 2012
harold · 27 June 2012
TomS · 27 June 2012
apokryltaros · 27 June 2012
harold · 27 June 2012
apokryltaros · 27 June 2012
Rolf · 27 June 2012
Helena Constantine · 28 June 2012
John_S · 28 June 2012
Just Bob · 30 June 2012
Steve P, maybe you can help. I've been trying to get answer on this, but no luck so far.
If all scientists accepted intelligent design as true, HOW WOULD IT HELP?
What problems could be better addressed that are now intractable? What new areas of PRODUCTIVE research would be opened up? What new technologies, or cures, or just useful understandings of biology would result? In short, what better results and PRODUCTIONS could we expect from intelligent design than we are currently realizing from methodological naturalism?
bbennett1968 · 1 July 2012
Just Bob · 1 July 2012
apokryltaros · 1 July 2012