Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Attack of the Super-Intelligent Purple Space Squid Creators
Debating evolution and intelligent design at FreedomFest 2008
(Page 2 of 2)
In addition, now that both the human and mouse genomes have been sequenced, researchers know that 99 percent of mouse genes are similar to those found in humans. Even more amazingly, 96 percent of the genes in both mice and men are present in the same order on their different genomes. Why would this be? A fascinating question for intelligent design researchers to answer is what constrains the super-intelligent purple space squid creators (or any other intelligent creator) to use the same genes over and over again in millions of species?
And here's another minor curiosity: Why did the purple space squids design humans so that we need to eat foods like oranges that provide us with vitamin C? Without vitamin C people die of the deficiency disease scurvy. It turns out that the super-intelligent squids created nearly all other mammals so that they have genes—including the GLO gene—that synthesize this vitamin in their livers. Biologists have discovered that when the purple space squids created us, they for some reason left a broken remnant of the GLO gene in our genomes. There is one group of mammals that share our inability to make vitamin C —orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and macques all have broken GLO genes. Even more interestingly, biologists have found that gorillas and chimpanzees have exactly the same errors in their GLO genes that people do. So why did the purple space squids create those species along with us with exactly the same errors so that they and we could not produce vitamin C?
One other consideration: Are the intelligent designers—the super-intelligent purple space squids—finished creating new species? Are they resting from their creative labors for now? What evidence would show that intelligent designers are still at work creating new species around us? And how would we know?
The point of the foregoing is that intelligent design proponents do not have good answers to the questions I have posed. But evolutionary biologists do. In his new book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, Brown University biologist Kenenth Miller argues, "Design rests ultimately on the claim of ignorance, upon the hope that science cannot show evolution to be capable of producing complex organs, assemblies of molecules, or novel biological information. If evolution cannot achieve that, the argument goes, then design must be the answer.
"Since any field of biology, including evolution, is filled with unsolved problems, intelligent design can be invoked as the default explanation for any one of them," adds Miller. "The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues of research."
Ultimately, the intelligent design hypothesis just leaves everything up to the ineffable whims of the moral equivalent of super-intelligent purple space squids or whoever else is the alleged "source of design."
One addendum: During his presentations, Gilder claimed several times that evolutionary biology somehow undermined the notions of freedom and economics. He just couldn't seem to get his head around the concept of bottom-up order. This so frustrated me that I eventually quipped, "Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics."
Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
Disclosure: I want to gratefully confess that I took many of the arguments I used in the debate from Kenneth Miller's interesting new book.
|7.15.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Ronald Bailey takes aim at the evidence that allegedly
proves intelligent design in nature.
Jeez Ron,
That's like going hunting at the zoo.
Lamarkian|7.15.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I predict an evolution toward hypertext links embedded in human speech.
ktc2|7.15.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Back with the popcorn now.
Come on Fundy nutjobs start with the entertainment!
Erÿk Boston, J.D.|7.15.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Here's the simple question to ask creationists:
If creationism (by whatever name you are calling it this year) were
wrong, how would we know?
BTW, P.J. O'Rourke used your quip a few years ago to describe
China's development of Shanghai as being, not a evolutionist market
economy where survival is based on fitness, but "a creationist
development where the city's greatness was bestowed by a higher
power. The city was literally ordered to be great."
|7.15.08 @ 3:39PM|#
The bottom line, ID is not a scientific theory, it doesn't have
compelling evidence, verifiable hypothesis or treads for further
investigation.
If North America wants to keep its status as a world power in
science all attempts of teaching ID in schools should be overruled
without political deliberations.
|7.15.08 @ 3:50PM|#
I'm going with Idiotic Design.
If the creator(s) were so smart, why did they put the playground
next to the sewer?
|7.15.08 @ 3:52PM|#
This is one reason to be wary of school vouchers that can be used at any school. A shocking number of people either believe this stuff is real or believe that it is a scientific equal to evolutionary biology and thus worthy of equal time in schools. If you don't believe me, head out of the large metropolitan areas and have conversations with people.
Dave B.|7.15.08 @ 4:01PM|#
This is one reason to be wary of school vouchers that can be used at any school. A shocking number of people either believe this stuff is real or believe that it is a scientific equal to evolutionary biology and thus worthy of equal time in schools.
This is a reason to support school vouchers. With school
vouchers, these people send their children to schools where ID is
taught. Without vouchers, they send ID to the schools where their
children are taught.
Episiarch|7.15.08 @ 4:01PM|#
If the creator(s) were so smart, why did they put the
playground next to the sewer?
The sewer is also a playground, hater.
|7.15.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Back when I worked as a Mexican (planting trees, etc.), I had a
coworker who laughed at me when I said I believed in evolution. Of
course, he did have a Pittsburgh Steelers deadhead tattoo, so I
think it's safe to say that he's worse than me in every possible
way. But it still bothers me to see such joyful idiocy.
Regarding Ron Bailey's speech: you might have gotten the point
across just as well by rolling your eyes, laughing, and making the
jerkoff motion for 10 minutes. These creationists get far too much
respect.
Episiarch|7.15.08 @ 4:09PM|#
So the ID'ers basically subscribe to David Brin's Uplift scenario. Who are our patrons? Why did they abandon us? Why do the Tandu hate us?
|7.15.08 @ 4:09PM|#
The sewer is also a playground
A turd and two tampon strings make a terrible swing-set.
If you think that makes me an elitist, I can live with that.
|7.15.08 @ 4:12PM|#
thedifferentphil said:
This is one reason to be wary of school vouchers that can be used at any school. A shocking number of people either believe this stuff is real or believe that it is a scientific equal to evolutionary biology and thus worthy of equal time in schools. If you don't believe me, head out of the large metropolitan areas and have conversations with people.
So what? I'm not sure why I should care if (other people's) kids
are taught ID, as long as it is with the parent's consent. Even on
my dime. Publicly funded education is meant (at a minimum) to make
people functionally literate. Teaching ID is not contrary to that
goal.
Kids in religiously oriented schools don't spend all day in Bible
study. And they don't spend all day in Biology. Far from it.
Episiarch|7.15.08 @ 4:13PM|#
A turd and two tampon strings make a terrible
swing-set.
NutraSweet, I wish I was perverted enough to understand this.
Please explain.
|7.15.08 @ 4:13PM|#
David Brin's Uplift scenario
This is really where the ID movement is revealed as a Christian
sham. If all they are talking about is evidence of intelligent
guidance of species adaptation, then Von Daniken is just as valid
as their precious Yahweh.
|7.15.08 @ 4:15PM|#
(sewer = playground) -> substandard playground equipment made with items found in a sewer
Episiarch|7.15.08 @ 4:23PM|#
You need to expand your sexual horizons, NutraSweet. Experiment, put things where they had never been before.
|7.15.08 @ 4:30PM|#
"The
patriarchy didn't come around until after farming was
invented."
I'm going to go play tennis. I've won the last 8 sets straight. I'm
unstoppable.
Episiarch|7.15.08 @ 4:40PM|#
I'm going to go play tennis. I've won the last 8 sets
straight. I'm unstoppable.
You should get outside and get off the Wii.
Last night I went to practice my serve and every fucking court was
occupied. Annoying.
|7.15.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Nah, my work wife had a kid back in January, and she's still not up to speed yet. It's hotter than Zues' balls outside, but I'll still whoop on her.
|7.15.08 @ 4:49PM|#
but I'll still whoop on her.
For some reason, I envision you looking like the dude from Balls of Fury.
|7.15.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Hey, let's have much more mammalian earbone shit in Hit & Run, from now on. And I'm afraid it's Kenneth Miller from Brown, not Kenneth Brown from Miller (my alma mater-- go mealie bugs!)
ThinkPositive|7.15.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Creationists are just trying to be missionaries when they argue about evolution. They just want to hit on a way to bamboozle enough simple minded folk to accept the Bible and won't be convinced by any counter arguments.
|7.15.08 @ 4:58PM|#
I'm going to get crapped on, but...
I don't find the idea of ID to be all that offensive. Is the
problem that ID'ers say that their "scientific theory" is somehow
more rigorous than the theory of evolution? Because if that's the
case, I totally agree with Ron.
But for people of faith (faith in Jesus, Yahweh, or purple space
squid thingies) to say that there was some kind of design in the
origin of life on earth, well, why not? Or that evolution gradually
proceeded according to some kind of plan (albeit a pretty fucked up
one)? Of course, it could be a complete accident too.
Maybe I don't know enough about the current theory of intelligent
design. As I understand things, it doesn't seem to conflict with
evolution in any way that concerned parents couldn't resolve with a
little ID-themed sunday school.
the innominate one|7.15.08 @ 5:06PM|#
taz- ID (which isn't a "theory" sensu stricto) violates the
principle of parsimony and additionally suggested examples of
"irreducibly complex" structures have been shown to not actually be
irreducibly complex. It's a hypothesis that at best doesn't add
anything useful to the discussion as of yet. At worst, it's a
thinly-disguised version of creationism.
That said, Ron's essay (of which I've only read the first part,
admittedly) is largely a strawman relative to Behe's version of ID.
I haven't read all the various versions of ID because it's
philosophically invalid on its face, and I don't want to waste my
time.
|7.15.08 @ 5:13PM|#
taz
If you don't invoke a deity at some point, ID turns into an
infinite regression.
i.e: Where did the super-intelligent beings come from?
|7.15.08 @ 5:34PM|#
If you don't invoke a deity at some point, ID turns into an
infinite regression.
i.e: Where did the super-intelligent beings come from?
Where did "God" come from? That question was my first step on the
hell bound journey to atheism.
|7.15.08 @ 5:34PM|#
innominate - Thanks. I have now added "parsimony" to my
vocabulary. It's a damn fine word. I don't intend to devote much
time to researching ID, because in my experience, evolution is
really only disturbing to the breed of post-reformation
fundamentalists that populate much of the Midwest. Unfortunately, I
don't feel free from my agnostic struggles just yet.
Aresen - I agree. However, I feel like I run into the same problem
when I ask where matter (or electrons, leptons, etc.) came from.
That certainly doesn't prove intelligence, but it is a similar
problem, I think.
Kendra|7.15.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Astute note about on the addendum.
I always found that weird about right-wing creationists in general
and George Gilder in particular. Somehow it is so easy and obvious
to believe that a market can self-organize on an emergent basis,
but they insist that biolgy must have a central planner.
ev|7.15.08 @ 5:56PM|#
damn you kent brockman!
ID is ridiculous, but i would have much less of a problem if the
theory was that some spacesquid 'invented' the process of
evolution
its not falsifiable but it makes sense to me. shit had to start
somewhere, according to physics
jtuf|7.15.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Bailey, great speech. You presented an excellent agrument in favor of evolution. On the science, you are 100% right. The ID proponents see evolution as a threat to capitalism and other freedoms, because of the way politicians have historically used evolution to justify socialist or communist policies. If you mention that you believe our freedoms are fundamental rights and not based on scientific theories, you will nullify this concern. Mentioning your support for school choice and parental rights will undo some of the damage Dawkins does when compains about Sunday schools. Thanks for educating people about evolution. Good luck in future debates.
BakedPenguin|7.15.08 @ 5:57PM|#
JMR - don't listen to them. Pastafari intelligently designed the planet in the image of his favorite meatball.
|7.15.08 @ 6:03PM|#
The writer of this piece is an obvious amateur. Otherwise he
would have known that one of his key arguments (re: GLO/GULO
"pseudogene" = common descent) has long since been refuted by
further studies. For more, consult the following website:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html
|7.15.08 @ 6:21PM|#
J sub D | July 15, 2008, 5:34pm | #
If you don't invoke a deity at some point, ID turns into an infinite regression.
i.e: Where did the super-intelligent beings come from?
Where did "God" come from? That question was my first step on the hell bound journey to atheism.
Considering the number of my friends that are thus "hell bound",
I'd say that the afterlife, if there is one, is going to see one of
the best libertarian gatherings since Chicago. ;)
Paul|7.15.08 @ 6:21PM|#
In all seriousness, ID was kind of a policital fad... hasn't that kind of faded?
|7.15.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Intelligent people should be able to simply ignore the ID
morons, in the same way we ignore flat-earthers and believers in a
geocentric planetary system.
Unfortunately, if we ignore them, they break out of their padded
cells and take over the asylum.
I recently read Richard K. Morgan's 'Thirteen' and was amused by
the idea of the sane states seceding from 'Jesusland'. It's
childish, but sometimes I wish we really could just leave the True
Believers to stew in their own ignorance... in another country
entirely.
... which, of course, is why the Middle East is such a mess. Maybe
that's not such a good idea.
stuartl|7.15.08 @ 7:28PM|#
Ron,
Nice speech. How did the overall debate go? Were your esteemed
opponents as intelligent as ID is in general?
Kendra|7.15.08 @ 8:14PM|#
Hmmm....
Seems that my grammar and spelling are lacking in intelligent
design.
|7.15.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Joel, darling. As much as I hate to give you the satisfaction of
responding to your post . . .
In science one does not begin with one's conclusion (e.g., Yahweh
created the universe) and massage the evidence (and the method) to
support that conclusion.
Ronald Bailey is not an amateur. But you -- as a mere MD at play in
the fields of the real scientific powerhouses -- are definitely a
poseur.
There's a child with a cough out there who needs you. Go attend to
him and leave the adults to move humanity forward.
Neu Mejican|7.15.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Ron would have improved his argument by citing this recent
finding regarding Tasmanian devils.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/714/1
the findings would make the devil the first known mammal to
rapidly evolve its reproductive patterns in response to a
disease.
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/ben/tassie/taz.jpg
|7.16.08 @ 12:25AM|#
This is a f***ing useless debate. The evolution-creationist
arguments are never going to end because the creationists don't
have any real goal except to piss off the evolutionists. They do,
they're happy, they'll keep up the attack because it costs them
nothing and garners infinite egoboo.
Let's just ignore them. When asked to debate an ID supporter,
require that that person have (paying) patents for biological or
medical products produced by creationist methods. Specify that
pro-ID debators must have advanced degrees in relevent scientific
subjects -- biology, for example, instead of law or architecture.
Demand to see the financial records of pharmaceutical firms
producing marketable products by ID-based technologies. Etc. Etc.
Etc.
Nick M|7.16.08 @ 9:18AM|#
I have no idea why "macro" evolution is more or less of a threat
to the existence of God than "micro" is.
Why can't this be the truce: Darwinists agree that evolution does
not disprove God or render him unnecessary in the grand scheme of
things, and IDers agree that evolution is best studied as natural
selection acting on variation, and we all came from a common
ancestor.
The fact is, in a deterministic universe such as ours, which
"random" organism was going to win which "random" contest for
survival was already programmed into the laws of physics, as they
were set by the big bang.
So there really is no randomness. Evolution is no threat to God.
But, the study of evolution doesn't require us to invoke God at any
point, or to deny the role of Natural Selection in all evolutionary
processes.
The only role I see for the existence of God to play
within the study of evolution is to give us the knowledge
that amazingly unlikely things are liable to happen in pursuit of
the evolution of life, if it's part of God's plan. However, a
nonbeliever could equally chock these miracles up to the Anthropic
Principle.
JRD|7.16.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Mike,
The problem with ignoring creationists is that whether we like it
or not, they have substantial influence over policy in some parts
of the country and are bent of expanding that base of power. The
American public is already grossly uninformed on the realities of
modern biology and if people like Ron Bailey (and Shermer, of whom
I'm also a big fan) don't speak out against these ideas then
they're only going to spread their influence further.
island|7.16.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Nick M,
That's not a principle, it is a "selection effect", and it requires
a unobservable multiverse to justify it.
The Anthropic Principle was put forth by physicist Brandon Carter,
in Krakow Poland, in 1973 as a "Line of [ ideological ] reasoning",
"a reaction against conscious and subconscious - anticentrist
dogma", which leads to absurdities by ideologically predisposed
scientists.
He was talking about counter-reaction-ism among scientists against
old historical beliefs about geocentricism and creationism that
causes them to automatically dismiss any relevance to features of
the universe that also permit our existence, and this leads to
equally absurd theoretical extensions for an expectation of
mediocrity and meaninglessness that do not agree with the direct
observation. It isn't hard to understand why this would be the
case, given the relentless pressure that scientists are constantly
put under by their ideological adversaries, but it is just as
obvious that this common reaction-ism is bad for science when it
causes scientists to become consciously ignorant of facts that they
wrongly perceive to support creationism. Which is something to
think about the next time that you hear someone make the righteous
claim that science isn't political, because science doesn't work
that way. While the statement may be necessarily-true, in of
itself, Carter's point is that it isn't generally true of
scienTISTS, which are a whole nother ideologically warped
ball-o-wax, and that's got to be the understatement of the new
millennium, contrary to the highly vocal denial by
scientists.
Carter's example was as follows:
"Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious
tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect
that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma
(which in its most extreme form led to the "perfect cosmological
principle" on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly
untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440,
1961)."
-Brandon Carter
How Carter's point applies, including the strength of the
statement, depends on the cosmological model that is being assumed,
so the mediocrity of Brandon Carter's own multiverse application
differs from what is actually observed, because the closest actual
natural approximation to what is observed to be in effect is a
biocentric cosmological structure principle, which produces a
Goldilocks Enigma of commonly balanced Habitable Zones that appear
over a very specifically defined region of the observed
universe.
It would appear that "being privileged in some sense" means that we
are only as privileged as the next galaxy over within the
intergalactic habitable zone of the observed universe, so there is
no established reason to claim that the principle is strictly
anthropic. The fact that this still isn't commonly known, proves
that Carter's point is even more true and applicable today than it
was in 1973, except that the AP is itself also now the target of
the very politicians of science who are interested only in abusing
the physics to their own selfish end, and regardless of the lack of
integrity that this generates when scientists intentionally or
otherwise suppress information that appears to support the
creationists argument.
Carter's statement gives a certain level of real scientific
credence to the point of Ben Stein's movie, in other words, so I
wouldn't advise "non-believers" to fall-back on anthropic selection
unless they have a complete theory to back it up.
|7.16.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Die Wahrheit writes: "In science one does not begin with one's
conclusion (e.g., Yahweh created the universe) and massage the
evidence (and the method) to support that conclusion."
TELL THAT TO THE HIGH PRIESTS (in this case, Richard Dawkins) OF
THE TEMPLE OF DARWIN:
"In 2005 online magazine 'Edge The World Question Centre' posed the
following question to a number of scientific intellectuals: 'What
do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?' Dawkins
revealingly answered: 'I believe that all life, all intelligence,
all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the
direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.'"
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf
the innominate one|7.16.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Because, Joel, the existing evidence supports that contention. Do you have any evidence that Dawkins started with that conclusion in mind and worked to torture the evidence to support it?
stuartl|7.16.08 @ 1:28PM|#
The fact is, in a deterministic universe such as ours, which
"random" organism was going to win which "random" contest for
survival was already programmed into the laws of physics, as they
were set by the big bang.
So there really is no randomness. Evolution is no threat to God.
But, the study of evolution doesn't require us to invoke God at any
point, or to deny the role of Natural Selection in all evolutionary
processes.
Nick M, you appear to be about a century behind in your knowledge
of physics.
Nick M|7.16.08 @ 2:13PM|#
stuartl | July 16, 2008, 1:28pm | #
...
Nick M, you appear to be about a century behind in your knowledge
of physics.
I assume you are saying that Quantum Mechanics describes an
indeterministic universe.
But, if we allow that Quantum Mechanics applies to observers as
well as to what they observe, and there's no logical reason not to,
then what Quantum Mechanics describes is not an indeterministic
universe, but a deterministic
multiverse.
|7.16.08 @ 2:37PM|#
There are also treatments of QM that are strictly deterministic,
like those that Gerard 't Hooft has published, not to mention the
fact that Schrodinger's equations are also strictly
deterministic.
You have to be very careful to distinguish the difference between
unproven or semi-established assumptions that the cutting edge
works from, and what is actually known.
It is a big mistake to assume that this has been settled without a
final theory.
|7.16.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Bailey's comments about ID are, of course, on the mark.
Obviously, postulating intelligent design is an unscientific and
unverifiable answer to the question of life on earth, which is why
it is rejected out of hand. However, evelution theory itself, while
it is the best explanation of the observed fact, is unsatisfactory
in at least one regard.
In all other scientific disciplines, water runs downhill and all
systems tend to run out of energy. Only in evolutionary biology
does the opposite happen. Unless we engage in magical thinking,
somehow energy is put into the system.
|7.16.08 @ 3:18PM|#
In all other scientific disciplines, water runs downhill and all systems tend to run out of energy. Only in evolutionary biology does the opposite happen. Unless we engage in magical thinking, somehow energy is put into the system.
Y'know, this one is trivially easy. It seems to be an ID/creation
science favorite, though.
Life operates by taking ordered energy (sunlight, mostly) and
transforming it into disordered energy (heat). Whatever order
organisms have comes from the ordered energy of sunlight, but it is
more than balanced by the disorder in the final product
(heat).
Besides which, entropy must only increase in a closed system. Which
the earth is not; the sun inputs energy, and the earth radiates
energy into space. And if you grant the existence of a transcendent
God, then even the universe is not a closed system. So give up the
entropy argument, guys; it doesn't work, unless the people you're
trying to convince don't know anything about science.
|7.16.08 @ 3:34PM|#
All the article proves is that some intelligent design
proponents aren't very good at defending their theory.
What if they posited an alien space geek video game programmer, who
created the whole "Earth and Mankind" game about 6,000 years ago,
complete with embedded evidence to make it look like the universe
was 14 billion years old and life had been evolving for the past 2
or 3 billion years.
If life is created randomly in nature, why does every living
species share the same basic program?
the innominate one|7.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Craig -
If life is created randomly in nature, why does every living
species share the same basic program?
common ancestry
you have a fundamental misunderstanding - mutations are random,
which mutations are preserved and increase in frequency is usually
not random
stuartl|7.16.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Nick M,
Nice wiki-ing, but the math works out such that quantum behavior in
this universe is uncertain.
|7.16.08 @ 5:22PM|#
the innominate one writes: "Because, Joel, the existing evidence
supports that contention. Do you have any evidence that Dawkins
started with that conclusion in mind and worked to torture the
evidence to support it?"
So Dawkins uses evidence to enhance the credibility of his FAITH.
Same approach as Creationists. Interesting.
And yes, it is quite obvious that Dawkins leans on Darwin to help
him feel good about his atheist faith committments:
"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before
Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist."
Dawkins, Richard , "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London,
1991, reprint, p.6.
the innominate one|7.16.08 @ 5:26PM|#
What Dawkins personally believes is irrelevant to the factuality
of evolution. If evidence pointed away from evolution, Dawkins
would have to abandon his belief (which is more like "opinion" in
this context).
Creationists frequently dishonestly distort facts, quotes,
evidence, etc. to support their particular interpretation of the
Genesis creation story and ignore the thousands of other creation
stories from other religious traditions.
Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is a
Christian who believes in evolution.
|7.16.08 @ 5:52PM|#
I think that Dawkin's belief can be independently verified by a
complete theory:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
|7.16.08 @ 6:21PM|#
the innominate one writes: "What Dawkins personally believes is
irrelevant to the factuality of evolution. If evidence pointed away
from evolution, Dawkins would have to abandon his belief (which is
more like "opinion" in this context)."
There is a huge body of evidence that points away from Darwin's
ToE. What do you think Creation and (to a lesser extent) ID
Scientists have been pointing out all this time?
the innominate one further writes: "Creationists frequently
dishonestly distort facts, quotes, evidence, etc. to support their
particular interpretation of the Genesis creation story and ignore
the thousands of other creation stories from other religious
traditions."
There are bad apples and people who make mistakes in both camps.
Indeed, the list of liars and frauds for evolution is quite long.
Should this then be used as grounds to throw out the ToE?
Finally, why should Christian and Jewish Creation scientists pay
attention to "thousands" of other creation stories? They are
testing the scientific merits of one particular creation
account--the one (primarily) contained in the Book of Genesis.
stuartl|7.16.08 @ 8:18PM|#
In all other scientific disciplines, water runs downhill and
all systems tend to run out of energy. Only in evolutionary biology
does the opposite happen. Unless we engage in magical thinking,
somehow energy is put into the system.
One of the all time best creationist arguments, showing clearly
that creationists do not believe in air conditioning.
There is a huge body of evidence that points away from to
Darwin's ToE.
True, sadly virtually none of it is in peer reviewed, scientific
journals.
Indeed, the list of liars and frauds for evolution is quite
long.
Go for it.
Joel, which kind of creationist are you? Young earth or old earth?
Do you accept micro-evolution? Do you accept that genotype leads to
phenotype? Do you accept that errors occur during gene
transcription?
Tell the truth, is there any possible evidence that would get you
to accept evolution and modern biology?
|7.16.08 @ 8:29PM|#
There are bad apples and people who make mistakes in both
camps.
Okay, so let's take that as a given. After excluding arguments
about bad actors on both sides, what we're left with is:
1) Evolution: a theory that explains the available evidence, is
falsifiable, and has proven to have considerable predictive power
in the field, versus
2) Creationism/ID: a just-so story that fails to explain the
available evidence, lacks falsifiability, and has shown, to date,
no predictive power whatsoever.
If you want to believe #2, that's your perogative, but please don't
pretend that what you're doing is anything like science.
the innominate one|7.16.08 @ 10:27PM|#
There is a huge body of evidence that points away from
Darwin's ToE. What do you think Creation and (to a lesser extent)
ID Scientists have been pointing out all this time?
no, there isn't. various points have been addressed and usually
debunked on endless evolution sites. what's been pointed out is
frequently shown to be ridiculous nonsense. see the comment above
on "water flowing downhill".
the list of liars and frauds for evolution is quite
long
I'd like to see just some of that list. If you include Piltdown man
hoaxes and the like, I'd like to point out that scientists debunked
Piltdown man using the scientific method, not by reading the
Bible.
They are testing the scientific merits of one particular
creation account--the one (primarily) contained in the Book of
Genesis.
No, they're not testing it, they're accumulating evidence to try to
prove it, it being their particular interpretation of the Genesis
creation story, which they've already decided a priori must be
true. Other Christians and Jews have other interpretations.
Russell|7.16.08 @ 11:50PM|#
It has been a long hard week for our Tentacled Purple Masters
:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/07/put-another-heretic-on-the-barby.html
|7.18.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Bailey does not give any evidence for a non intelligent way to
achieve the obvious design of livng things by mutations, random
variations and natural selection. He does not like the way the
designer did it, but does not prove the current Darwinian paradigm.
He has not given any reason to accept the Darwinian Theory, only he
has tried to ridicule his own version of ID. (That is called the
straw man fallacy). There are so many problems with Darwin that
only a "true believer" can accept it. I once posted ten reasons
Darwinism could not be true on a pro-Darwin website and got a few
feeble rebuttals and then my post was taken down so true believers
could not be contaminated. They had no answer to my problems with
Darwin.
ID is not just about evolution, it is also about big bang
cosmology, the fine tuning of the universe, the code of dna, the
creation of life and finally the failure of Darwin to explain the
purposeness of life. The big bang as currently believed, is the
first event in time. There is no infinite regress of causes. The
physical laws that govern the universe seem fine tuned so that
galaxies and life can exist. The simplest life has factories to
make proteins, a Fed-ex dept to package and ship as well as pick up
for disposal, a power plant, a membrane to admit wanted materiel
and bar unwanted, a governing body to regulate all this activity
etc. Anything simpler is parasitic and cannot be the first life.
The code of DNA is not just a chemical reaction, any more than a
code written out is just a reaction of ink to paper. As I
previously stated Darwinism has failed. All these point to an
intelligence.
If Bailey is so sure Darwin can explain the life evolved, I will be
glad to post my problems with Darwinian evolution for his
rebuttal.
|7.19.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Creationism and all its variants new as well as old - disguised
or open - institute in Seattle or elsewhere - deserve contempt for
all the lies and trickery that are their stock in trade. These sham
debates are good for only one thing to voice a scientist's contempt
for such trickery. Bailey did the right thing by dismissing the
devious proponents of creationism's latest variant. Scientists have
compared creationism and ID and found several points of difference
all of which are superficial. Here is one more. Creationism uses
the active voice - "You Know Who did it"
ID uses the passive - "It has been done/created/designed".
To users of science both statements invite scrutiny. If indeed "it
has been done" the next step is to find who did it. Bailey outlines
an excellent research program - and that's where we shopuld direct
our energies. Let's leave the neo-creos to wallow in their
self-pity.
Caged Lion|7.19.08 @ 12:05PM|#
We are the only idiotic country that wastes time with stupid debates like this. The future does not bode well for a bunch of fools who can't even discern ID and the theory of evolution.
TPE|7.21.08 @ 8:30AM|#
Honestly, I think the science heads and the god heads live
together in a very small and limited basket.
Science has no more Proof of the start of the universe than some
backwards power abusing follower of the holy church from 1,000
years ago.
Well they can show you "Proof" that that itself has yet to be
proven and to prove that you can use this theory, which of course
is theory and not proven in the least.
Sciences holds today life and not spontaneously generate ... and it
also holds that the start of life spontaneously generated. If it
can Prove it. Until then scientist you lose, after all those are
YOUR rules.
As for religions / faiths / whatnot they can't prove their points
at all. However, their points are based in belief so all they have
to do is . . . . believe.
In the end their both just beliefs, but the religious people know
this and the scientific people do not.
However, this idea or development of the use of science to prove
god is quite an odd twist.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Ronald Bailey
- Who Decides If Breast Tests Are Best?, Ronald Bailey, November 24, 2009
- The Methuselah Manifesto, Ronald Bailey, November 17, 2009
- How Green Are Your Nukes?, Ronald Bailey, November 10, 2009
Related Articles (Science, Evolution)
- The Methuselah Manifesto, Ronald Bailey, November 17, 2009
- SuperFreaking Out Over Climate Engineering, Ronald Bailey, November 3, 2009
- Myocardial Infractions, Jacob Sullum, October 21, 2009
- Alaskan Oil Abundance Versus Washington's Wasted Billions, Jon Basil Utley, September 22, 2009
- Ted Kennedy, Victorian Hero?, Ronald Bailey, September 15, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245