Woman to Woman

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Shaunti Feldhan - nitwit?? or proof that a little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing?

Galileo wasn’t ostracized by other scientists, he was ostracized, excommunicated and prohibited from teaching by the Church because they said his heliocentric theory for our galaxy went against the Bible.

As for scientists never wanting to revisit theory, that has to be the dumbest statement I’ve read from Feldhan in a few months. Scientists are ALWAYS revisiting and reevaluating theory - even a couple of weeks ago, scientists found evidence that the Grand Canyon is actually older than originally thought.

What most people are against - not just scientists - is creationism tarted up and called “Intelligent Design” which is nothing more than “well, if I can’t explain or prove it, I’ll just say that some higher being created it that way.” That’s not science - not in any way, shape or form.

By Truth

May 12, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

ID advocates willfully tear down anyone resisting their pre-ordained conclusion.

Is that what Shanti did? Apparently the only person insisting that only one viewpoint be accepted is Andrea. (Say it ain’t so!) Shanti just wanted another viewpoint considered.

And then Andrea pointed out that Ben Stein had committed the ultimate sin and had mentioned the mistakes of the German Government during the 1930s and 1940s. Why are liberals so terrified to talk about the National Socialist Workers Party and the mistakes that the German culture made in allowing such a rigid methodology to take over their government?

Rigid methodology like insisting that only one scientific viewpoint be considered.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

What most people are against - not just scientists - is creationism tarted up and called “Intelligent Design” which is nothing more than “well, if I can’t explain or prove it, I’ll just say that some higher being created it that way.” That’s not science - not in any way, shape or form.

USinUK—It looks like we’re going to get into it bad this week because you are propagating the same false dichotomy that Andrea and a lot of “scientists” keep defining: EITHER you buy into the whole Darwinian Evolutionary Nonsense OR you automatically buy into the whole Biblical Creation Nonsense.

The bottom line is that neither Darwinian Evolution nor Biblical Creation adequately explain the origin of species or, more fundamentally, the origin of life itself. Intelligent Design, although it has been co-opted by the Creationists, was postulated in response to the inadequacies of both of the above-mentioned “theories”. In it’s rawest form, ID simply acknowledges that “random genetic mutations” are NOT the catalyst which leads to changes within species or the creation of whole new species. Instead, it postulates that the creation of species/life is an INTELLIGENT process (i.e. DIRECTED and not RANDOM).

For anyone who doesn’t like hard-core science discussions, this might be a good time to check out…..

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

If you want to have another SCIENTIFIC theory included in class? then, great. But, creationism by any other name is still just that - the idea that some “higher being” started it all and still tinkers around with it on occasion. Call it what you will, but science, it is not.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

Dr. Carolyn Crocker explained that she regularly taught evolutionary theory at George Mason University, but then made one mention of its contradictions and the “Intelligent Design” theory as one potential solution. She was immediately removed from teaching and later fired.

Although I don’t know the specifics of Ms. Crocker’s labor complaint, I DO know that George Mason is the home of Robert M. Hazen, who many consider to be the foremost authority on Origins of Life research. For anyone who is unfamiliar with his work, it is definitely worth googling his name, both to understand his credentials AND to understand the “scientific bias” by which he practices his craft. Here is a link:

http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/cv/biography

His latest book is entitled “Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origins”, which details the role of minerals and carbon compounds in OOL studies. More importantly, he is one of the authors of “Science, Evolution and Creationism” which has become the “gold standard” for science education standards in the US and abroad. I beg anyone who opposes the ideological indoctrination of our youth to carefully read this propaganda which passes for “science”. I will be quoting extensively from this pamphlet in making a case against the indoctrination which is taking place in our classrooms.

In addition, Mr. Hazen is a member of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the International Society for the Studies of the Origin of Life (ISSOL), both of which require pledges of philosophical agreement with the “Science Nazis” which are running the show right now.

By Truth

May 12, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Galileo wasn’t ostracized by other scientists, he was ostracized, excommunicated and prohibited from teaching by the Church because they said his heliocentric theory for our galaxy went against the Bible.

But Galileo disagreed and said that it did in fact coincide with the Bible. He just believed that the writers of the bible were seeing the heavenly events from an earthbound view.

And remember, during the time of Galileo, the Church owned and ran most of the large advanced educational establishments. So the science community was, in fact the Church community. A very large science community were Jesuit Priests.

So no, there was not a Universal scientific acceptance of his concepts. There shouldn’t have been. When we stop questioning science, it is no longer science.

But the comparison is void, because his concepts are about physics, not history. I personally agree with Darwinism, but there are issues that are not resolved, so it is not the end-all, be-all viewpoint and since it is, in fact, about ancient history, bo one will ever know, for sure.

By Archie

May 12, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

As for the debate I will say I did not know there was visceral negative reaction to scientists exploring alternatives to evolution. If such a reaction exists it’s probably because scientists think evolution theory is more scientific than creation theory. I do look at evolution as a theory meaning it has not been proven and I do believe mankind just doesn’t know it all concerning the existence of mankind but I do understand that scientists deal with what they can prove logically.

Bruno this will be one of those weeks where I don’t post much at all.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

If you want to have another SCIENTIFIC theory included in class? then, great. But, creationism by any other name is still just that - the idea that some “higher being” started it all and still tinkers around with it on occasion. Call it what you will, but science, it is not.

In case you haven’t been following my posts, USinUK, I am not religious in any way, form, or fashion. I find the idea of an anthropomorphic Creator to be so implausible that it is laughable. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that I buy into the mumbo-jumbo that Darwinian Evolution represents.

Sadly, most people don’t have enough real science education to refute Darwinian Evolution, though deep inside they realize that it’s core premise that complexity “evolves” in some “random” way is ridiculous.

Personally, from a descriptive standpoint, I think ID hits the nail squarely on the head: The “evolution” of life and species is an “intelligent” process, a “teleological” process, a “purposeful” process. Does this mean that the Biblical Creationists are “right”?? Heck no. What it means is that we need to keep an open mind, something that Robert Hazen, et. al. have dedicated their professional careers to preventing.

By Truth

May 12, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Could I ask you a few questions about what you believe? And any other antidisestablishmentarianism leaning person, please chime in.

Do you believe in ghosts?

Do you believe in ESP?

Do you believe in Karma?

Do you believe that we receive messages in dreams?

Just those four.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Truth -

the fact is, whether your want to call them scientists or Jesuit priests, they didn’t argue with Galileo on a scientific basis, they argued with him on a Biblical basis. They made him recant his theory and held him under house arrest - and it was the Inquisition (not even in the same neighborhood as scientists) that prohibited the publishing of his work.

The question isn’t why is there such a visceral reaction to teaching creationism in our classrooms - the question is why does religion look at science as refuting God??

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

• I do look at evolution as a theory meaning it has not been proven and I do believe mankind just doesn’t know it all concerning the existence of mankind but I do understand that scientists deal with what they can prove logically*.

Bruno this will be one of those weeks where I don’t post much at all.

Hey Archie. Glad to hear from you. I understand your lack of interest in the “facts” about Evolution and Creationism, but I think it’s important to understand that the folks in charge of setting the science curriculum in our country are totally biased in their promotion of DE. Here’s the key quote from the Science, Evolution, and Creationism document:

In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. A good example is the theory of gravity. After hundreds of years of observation and experiment, the basic facts of gravity are understood. The theory of gravity is an explanation of those basic facts. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances. Such predictions have been verified in countless experiments, further confirming the theory. Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence

The FACT is that this is a bunch of total LIES. Comparing the “theory” of Evolution to the “LAW” of Gravity is COMPLETELY INVALID. Gravity is a PHENOMENON, one which we understand QUANTITATIVELY but not QUALITATIVELY. In simple language, Newton showed that we can make numerical predictions about the force of gravity using the following relationship: F = GMm/r^2. However, when you study the basic properties of atoms and molecules, there is NO EXPLANATION for why this force arises in the first place. In fact, Einstein, the author of Special Relativity (i.e. curved time-space) spent the last 40 or so years of his life trying to come up with a Unified Field Theorem, which tied together weak nuclear forces, strong nuclear forces, and gravity. He failed.

By ellis

May 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

First, evolution is NOT the study of the origin of life.

Secondly, for ID to be considered scientific, it must provide, at a minimum, a scientific hypothesis and must test that hypothesis.

What is the scientific hypothesis that ID proposes?

What testing of that hypothesis have ID scientists performed?

When ID can provide those two items, then it should be considered. Otherwise, it’s just another fairy tale with not an iota of proof.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

What it means is that we need to keep an open mind, something that Robert Hazen, et. al. have dedicated their professional careers to preventing

Scientific theory is one thing, creationism is another. The Discovery Institute’s goal is to have creationism taught in classrooms - tarting it up as ID is just one way to accomplish that goal. ID is really just laziness - “I can’t be bothered to figure out why this is, so I’ll just say someone/something made it that way”. Call it religion, call it philosophy, but don’t call it science.

As for the theory of evolution, of course there are holes in it - there are things that have yet to be explained - and scientists are out there looking for the answers, they’re not just sitting there with their hands over their ears saying “lalalalalala I can’t hear you lalalalalala” to other theories. They’re looking for the “missing links”, which is why the duckbill platypus genome project is so important.

“Equal time” for its own sake is an injustice to our kids. You wouldn’t give equal time to a crackpot who says the holocaust never happened. You wouldn’t give equal time to some ninny who thinks the earth is flat. We shouldn’t give equal time to a religious belief that is dressed up as science.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I don’t know what your questions have to do with the discussion, but what the heck:

Do you believe in ghosts?

I’ve never seen one, but I think they can exist.

Do you believe in ESP?

Yes - I think we are only just beginning to understand the brain’s abilities.

Do you believe in Karma?

Yep.

Do you believe that we receive messages in dreams?

No. I think that dreams are our way of processing all the things we see/read/hear during the day.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, Darwinian Evolution doesn’t stand up to any hard-core scientific inquiry. However, this doesn’t prevent people like Andrea for buying into it hook, line, and sinker. Her statement is pure hogwash:

a theory that simply sounds better to you than a century of evidence building?

My concern is simple here: Darwinian Evolution is bad science. I have no religious axe to grind. But by dogmatically INSISTING that DE is the ONLY way, the science community has EARNED the disrespect which Andrea refers to:

Yet respect for scientists themselves is on the wane

Her claim is:

ID advocates willfully tear down anyone resisting their pre-ordained conclusion

when in fact, the opposite is true. It is the DE crowd which has the “pre-ordained” conclusions, and won’t recognize the obvious: Life is intelligent, not random.

By lyrazel

May 12, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

My brother that works for NOAA believes in ID and reports many who are employed in science & engineering fields are also advocates of this theory. This is all I know about ID except there has yet to be a singular hypothesis used to make ID is concurrent to all.

Can someone believe in ID and believe in evolution? Didn’t Darwin have strong belief in creation by god when he published his thesis of evolution?

Showing my ignorance here……but is Ben Stein an actor or is he a comedian or a financial advisor?<

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Lyra -

Ben Stein an actor or is he a comedian or a financial advisor

yes.

he was a speechwriter for Nixon and Ford, he’s an econ egghead (and the son of an economist), of course, he had his “Bueller … Bueller” moment … and he was the host of “Win Ben Stein’s Money”.

By Copyleft

May 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

I’ll be interested to see if anyone can answer Ellis’ questions—which would force ID proponents to actually BUILD UP their own case, rather than just try to tear down evolution.

Saying “Evolution is garbage and I can prove it!” doesn’t advance the cause of ID one iota. But it’s all the IDers ever seem to say. I wonder why that is?

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

ellis, thank you for asking good questions. If you haven’t already made your mind up, ID CAN answer them. However, if like USinUK, you insist upon equating ID with Creationism, then it’s already a lost cause. Believe me, I HATE the fact that many Biblical Creationists have tried to co-opt ID as a cover for their nonsense. The bottom line is that ID, in fact, explains the phenomenon known as “evolution” far better thatn the Darwinian model. Currently, the mechanism for ID isn’t fully known, although I personally believe the answer lies in the proteins known as epi-genomes.

First, evolution is NOT the study of the origin of life.

True. In it’s strictest form, DE postulates that changes in already established species occur through some unnamed mechanism, and that “natural selection” ensures that the most successful adapters survive and pass these new-found characteristics along. However, if you think about it hard enough, this is a tautology. Obviously, the most “successful adapters” are the ones who survive. It’s a circular definition which sheds no light on anything. As such, traditional DE has been extended over the years to include a provision for “random genetic mutation” as the force for change, and extended further to provide an explanation for the origin of life itself. No one, whether DE’ers, ID’ers, or Creationists deny that changes in species occur over time. The sticking point is what drives those adaptations and whether such changes are “random”, or “purposeful”. To me, the evidence suggests “puroposeful”.

Secondly, for ID to be considered scientific, it must provide, at a minimum, a scientific hypothesis and must test that hypothesis.

What is the scientific hypothesis that ID proposes?

As mentioned above, the main premise of ID is that changes within species, and by extension, the creation of new species, and in fact life itself, is not a “random process”, but a “purposeful” process. NOT a process directed by an unseen “Creator”. That is Creationism, which is distinct form ID.

What testing of that hypothesis have ID scientists performed?

If you study the development of drug resistance in bacteria, no model of “random genetic mutation” can explain the rapidity and “purposefulness” of the drug resistance. In other words, it’s not a “happy accident”. I believe one day, when we understand more about the proteins know as “epi-genomes”“, it will be PROVEN that drug-resistance in bacteria is a “teleological” process, i.e. an “intelligent” action taken by the DNA of the bacteria interacting with their environment via epi-genomes.

When ID can provide those two items, then it should be considered. Otherwise, it’s just another fairy tale with not an iota of proof.

Unless your mind is already made up, ID says a lot about “biological processes”. What is confusing to many is the fact that it uses the same exact data that DE uses, but interprets it in a very different way.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

BTW -

for anyone who is interested, here’s the “Wedge Strategy” - The Discovery Institute’s manifesto about ID

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

a sample:

Governing goals - “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

20 year goals: to see ID theory as teh dominent (emphasis theirs) perspective in science

to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

… do you STILL want to call this “science” ??? sounds to me more like a religious movement.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Didn’t Darwin have strong belief in creation by god when he published his thesis of evolution?

No, Darwin was one of the first of a long line of atheist “scientists” who have dominated the scientific community the past 100 years or so. On the other side of the fence, all the TRULY GREAT scientists like Newton and Mendel (aka the father of modern genetics) have all been devout men. When I say devout, that doesn’t mean that they necessarily believed in an anthropomorphic Creator. If you read the Bible carefully, God is described as a SPIRIT. A SPIRIT, by definition, is non-corporal. In a similar way, INTELLIGENCE is non-corporal.

By Truth

May 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

USinUK

My point is that there is enough reference in the bible to those topics as being fact, that separate religions could (and have) been built. These are all spiritual beliefs. ESP totally defies physics, as we know it. People have been known to find each other’s frequencies from around the earth and even from other dimensions.

A radio transmitter that generates enough power to just broadcast a few hundred miles would produce enough raw energy to make a human head explode, but that human head can generate enough energy to circumnavigate the globe?

We just simply don’t know everything. And when we stop questioning scientific theories, we are done.

Up until a few years ago, science was sure that dinosaurs were ancestors of reptiles. But now, we know that this theory was wrong. They were ancestors of birds. Before, they were killed by an invasion of small mammals that ate their eggs, but now we believe it was a meteor collision.

We just don’t know, and when the scientific community folds their arms and says “That’s it!!” That’s usually a good sign that right around the corner will be another theory that makes a lot more sense.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Saying “Evolution is garbage and I can prove it!” doesn’t advance the cause of ID one iota. But it’s all the IDers ever seem to say. I wonder why that is?

If you read my 11:39 post, 72Copyleft, there is your answer. If you want atomic explanations, I can provide those also. In a nutshell, aggregates of atoms exhibit properties which individual atoms don’t. Robert Hazen, designated as the world’s foremost “expert” on the Origins of Life research, conveniently tries to sweep this under the rug by calling them “emergent properties”. He, nor anyone else, can explain these “magical” properties which matter possesses, and likely never will.

The whole problem with ID isn’t within the theories of ID, it is the mistaken association of ID with Biblical Creationism. Certainly, a lot of “stealth Creationists” like our own Shaunti try to hide their Biblical views behind ID, but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

for anyone who is interested, here’s the “Wedge Strategy” - The Discovery Institute’s manifesto about ID

For the thousandth time, USinUK, I fully understand that a lot of Biblical Creationist have tried to co-opt ID as a cover for their nonsense. However, this guilt-by-association in NO WAY disproves the central premise of ID, that “evolutionary changes” that are easily observed are the result of INTELLIGENCE and not RANDOMNESS.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Truth -

We just don’t know, and when the scientific community folds their arms and says “That’s it!!” That’s usually a good sign that right around the corner will be another theory that makes a lot more sense.

I think we’re arguing the different sides of the same coin here. I don’t see the scientific community folding their arms and saying “that’s it” AT ALL. As I said earlier, scientists are constantly asking “why” and “how” - that’s how they figured out about dinosaurs and birds, the meteor, etc. That’s why they are looking at the genetic sequence of the duckbill platypus. That’s why they constantly go back and revisit discoveries like Lucy - because they know they DON’T have all the answers.

All ID does, though, is give a false solution - “something must have known what he/she/it was doing when it made that!!”.

As I said before - you want to call it philosophy, fine. You want to call it religion, no problem. But it ain’t science.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Here’s a nice link which talks about Gregory Mendel:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3696/intro/history1.htm

I thin everyone who is concerned about the false indoctrination of our youth by atheist “scientists” who have a definite agenda should study more about the history of science.

Again, GOD is a SPIRIT, which means NON-CORPORAL (i.e. doesn’t have a “body”, or “mass”). While this is somewhat hard to understand at first, it is simply another way of describing “Gestalt” or “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. Robert Hazen calls it “emergent properties”.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

No, Darwin was one of the first of a long line of atheist “scientists” who have dominated the scientific community the past 100 years or so

ah. no.

Darwin belonged to the CofE and was going to become a clergyman. He lost faith in God when his daughter died, but still remained involved with his church. He called himself a theist and said that God was the “First Cause.”

so, atheist? no.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

All ID does, though, is give a false solution - “something must have known what he/she/it was doing when it made that!!”.

As I said before - you want to call it philosophy, fine. You want to call it religion, no problem. But it ain’t science.

USinUK—Normally you are a very intelligent person. However, becasue of yor false association of ID with Creationism, you have developed a blind spot a mile wide about ID. ID DOES NOT presume an outside Creator, and, in fact, makes NO ASSERTIONS about an external Creator. Although it is easy for Biblical Creationists to extrapolate the ideas of ID to include a Creator, it is NOT a part of the theory.

By ellis

May 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Bruno, but you have not stated a scientific hypothesis nor have you provided any testing for one. Perhaps you need to refresh your memory on what is meant by those terms.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

Bruno - I fully understand that a lot of Biblical Creationist have tried to co-opt ID as a cover for their nonsense.

you have it backwards - BC’s aren’t co-opting ID, ID is BC in disguise.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

He lost faith in God when his daughter died, but still remained involved with his church. He called himself a theist and said that God was the “First Cause.”

Perhaps I was splitting hairs a little, but “losing faith in God” can also be defined as atheism.

The main point is that your “guilt by association” argument is invalid.

By Truth

May 12, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

USinUK

But something did know what it was doing when it made that. It knew that specific chemical reactions will produce a chain reaction called life. Is that “something” just the rules of nature? Mix “that” with “this” at a certain temperature and “these things” will happen.

Some ID people probably think that an old man sets on a throne and orders the creation of every blade of grass on every planet in the universe, but not even a majority of them. I believe that Darwinism is Intelligent Design.

By chuck

May 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

I don’t have a lot of time to post today, but I heard one explanation that goes something like this:

“Specified Complexity” implies a DESIGNER. Nature itself can account for complexity, but it cannot account for SPECIFIED complexity. The analogy used makes a lot of sense. A group of thousands of random letters would be considered complex, but it would have no meaning (unspecified). On the other hand, a Tolstoy novel or a Shakespearian sonnet would have both complexity AND specificity.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Bruno, but you have not stated a scientific hypothesis nor have you provided any testing for one. Perhaps you need to refresh your memory on what is meant by those terms.

Sorry, ellis, but my reference to the mechanism by which bacteria develop resistance to specific drugs is a testable phenomenon. According to DE’ers, this resistance is a “happy accident” by which some kind of “random genetic mutation” occurs, and then that one or two “fortunate bacteria” reproduce like crazy an replenish the population. ID, on the other hand, postulates that drug resistance is a PURPOSEFUL activity which doesn’t have to rely on RANDOMNESS. That’s the difference. In fact, the mechanism by which drug resistance is developed, or any other observed “changes” in species is not known by ANYONE, DE’ers OR ID’ers. So in the end, neither “theory” has any proof to back it up. However, I believe one day that epi-genome research will prove that “evolution” is purpose-driven.

you have it backwards - BC’s aren’t co-opting ID, ID is BC in disguise.

USinUK—I understand the false association of ID with Creationism. What say you to someone like me who is not religious in any way?? I laugh at “literal Creationism”. In fact, a lot of “non-religious” scientists think that ID is the superior explanation. Guilt by association is all you have.

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

Perhaps I was splitting hairs a little, but “losing faith in God” can also be defined as atheism.

ah, no again.

you can lose faith in God but still believe in he/she/it. ask anyone who has ever watched a loved one die from an illness if they didn’t lose faith or question what the heck he/she/it was thinking. losing faith and not believing are two very different things. And that’s not splitting hairs, that’s being factual.

*The main point is that your “guilt by association” argument is invalid. *

???

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

What say you to someone like me who is not religious in any way?? I laugh at “literal Creationism”. In fact, a lot of “non-religious” scientists think that ID is the superior explanation.

What do I say? two words: Trojan. Horse.

you’ve let good marketing sell you a bill of goods which is nothing but creationism in disguise.

By silly old git

May 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Welcome to the lab of Critical Thinking. Let’s start by putting this week’s question under a microscope. See any reality mutations?

Its very risky using a movie whose main actor is known for sarcasm to be quoted in essay an on scientific theory pro or con. Both women should have delved into the subject to explain what ID is and how it differs from evolution! Are Ben Stein movies used in the hypothesis of ID?

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

We just simply don’t know everything. And when we stop questioning scientific theories, we are done.

Truth, you have made the most intelligent statement anyone has made today. Unfortunately, despite objections to the contrary, there is a blatant form of “political correctness” within the Science community today, in which if you don’t profess certain beliefs, you aren’t welcome in “the club”. For proof, do a little research into the NAS and ISSOL. Instead of being open scientific societies in which any thinking person can join, you have to pass certain indoctrination tests before you are admitted. Though I don’t know the facts of the lady professor fired (or not rehired) by George Mason U, I gar-on-tee that Robert Hazen was behind it.

BTW, to show I’m not biased, I have in my collection of Teaching Company courses both of Mr. Hazen’s courses: The Joy of Science and The Origins of Life. I’m not closed-minded like he is.

P.S to ellis: You need to read the works of Richard Feynman more closely, if you know who he is. He clearly states that iit is far better to admit ignorance than to try to defend a bunch of mumbo-jumbo guesses, which is what DE amounts to.

By chuck

May 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

I found the article that I had read at:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm

here’s an interesting excerpt:

In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10 to the 40,000.

…the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation ‘is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.’ Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 10 to the 50 is in the realm of metaphysics — i.e. a miracle.1

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

“Specified Complexity” implies a DESIGNER

I was waiting for you to weigh in, chuck. Though we certainly both agree that randomness can’t produce complexity, I disagree that this IMPLIES a DESIGNER. It is possible to make that leap, but in the end that’s all it is: a leap of faith. My scientific background and intuition don’t allow me to dream of an anthropomorphic Creator. And my Biblical studies tell me that GOD is clearly described as being a SPIRIT—i.e. a non-corporal “non-entity”. Though it’s kind of hard to talk about a “non-entity”, ultimately that’s what “intelligence” is. It is the Gestalt which makes one particular group of atoms exhibit “emergent properties” which a similar collection of other atoms doesn’t. Obviously this eludes traditional “scientific explanation”, but so what?? I don’t think our limitations as humans should lead us to either (1) Deny the obvious INTELLIGENCE which permeates the Universe or, just as importantly (2) Develop non-Biblical fairy tales to account for our ignorance. In the end, some things are just plain UNKNOWABLE. Honest people admit that. Do you???

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

you’ve let good marketing sell you a bill of goods which is nothing but creationism in disguise.

Sorry, USinUK, I came to the same conclusions about DE on my own, many years before the phrase Intelligent Design had even been invented. My journey began with the recognition that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is qualitatively false. I then recognized that Gestalt is a true phenomenon—i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts, and can never be explained within the framework of the parts. Specifically, aggregates of atoms exhibit properties which can’t be explained in terms of atomic properties.

Like chuck points out, the “odds” of life emerging on its own are beyond calculation. Differently from chuck, however, I’ve spent a lifetime reading Physics books.

By Copyleft

May 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

So, the current spin on the ID wedge strategy is as follows: “Don’t even talk about a creator… just say there’s an obvious Intelligence and Purpose at work, and that anyone who disagrees has the burden of proof.”

Sorry, nice try—but that still doesn’t qualify as science. Philosophical argument, perhaps… but not science.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Gotta run and be productive today.

The bottom line is that Darwinian Evolution IS NOT a scientific theory on par with other “theories”. It has no proof to back it up, only rigid dogma. As stated above, “survival of the fittest through natural selection” ultimately is a tautology (i.e. a circular definition) because we DEFINE the “fittest” as those who survive. So, in the end, DE in its purest form actually says nothing.

By Lee

May 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

It’s not about science, it’s about faith. So, let’s see more faith. All those who oppose evolution, please designate a small child in your family to be innoculated with some drug-resistant tuberculosis bacilii. If you don’t believe the bacilus can evolve and adapt against a drug, and then pass that resistance down through the generations as a mutation, then here is your opportunity to play Abraham and sacrifice your Isaac and prove your faith. Who knows, maybe God will send an angel in the shape of a white coated scientist and tell you not to do this. And then, maybe not. After all, it is your faith to prove. And if you are unwilling to do this, then perhaps you don’t really believe that evolution is wrong. Any takers? Ben Stein, perhaps?

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

So, the current spin on the ID wedge strategy is as follows: “Don’t even talk about a creator… just say there’s an obvious Intelligence and Purpose at work, and that anyone who disagrees has the burden of proof.”

Sorry, nice try—but that still doesn’t qualify as science. Philosophical argument, perhaps… but not science.

Quick question, Copyleft: When you observe the phenomenally intricate way in which organisms are constructed, does that strike you as the result of INTELLIGENCE or RANDOMNESS??

Maybe that is a question better relegated to the realm of metaphysics, but in the end, Darwinian Evolution provides no more answers than Intelligent Design does. So why do school systems insist upon teaching one non-theory and oppose the mention of the other non-theory? Neither one has any more “proof” for it than the other, yet one is pushed and the other shunned. I understand the “guilt by association” Trojan Horse argument that USinUK keeps making, but that doesn’t invalidate the core idea of ID.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

If you don’t believe the bacilus can evolve and adapt against a drug, and then pass that resistance down through the generations as a mutation, then here is your opportunity to play Abraham and sacrifice your Isaac and prove your faith. Who knows, maybe God will send an angel in the shape of a white coated scientist and tell you not to do this. And then, maybe not. After all, it is your faith to prove. And if you are unwilling to do this, then perhaps you don’t really believe that evolution is wrong. Any takers? Ben Stein, perhaps?

Lee, if you can bring yourself to move beyond your false dichotomy of Darwinian Evolution OR Creationism, you might get somewhere in life. Though it’s sad that many Creationists don’t have the guts to be open about their beliefs and try to co-opt Intelligent Design for their Trojan Horse stealth agendas, ID is a far more accurate description of real-world phenomena than DE is.

Do you have any background in science, or are you just an anti-religionist?

By USinUK

May 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

because we DEFINE the “fittest” as those who survive

now, you’re just getting hung up on rhetoric.

okay, let’s call those that survive and continue to evolve the “weirdest” … or the “funniest” … or whatever you want to call them. That doesn’t really matter - the things that adapt to their environment continue on to the next generation, passing those adaptability genes along. See: MRSA and other penicillin-resistent viruses.

I came to the same conclusions about DE on my own, many years before the phrase Intelligent Design had even been invented

wow. you’ve convinced me. ID is no longer BC in disguise because Bruno thought of it a few years ago.

By chuck

May 12, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

In the end, some things are just plain UNKNOWABLE. Honest people admit that. Do you???

I would be the FIRST to agree with that statement Bruno. However, I don’t believe that the question of CREATION is one of those things.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

See: MRSA and other penicillin-resistent viruses.

In case you didn’t know, viruses are unaffected by penicillin. Only certain types of bacteria are killed by penicillin.

The core question is, HOW DOES RESISTANCE TO PENICILLIN DEVELOP? No one denies that it happens. No one. The only difference is that one group, the Evolutionists, postulate that some kind of random genetic mutation occurs, and voila, specific drug resistance magically appears. The second group, those who think Intelligent Design is a better description, postulate that the developed resistance is not a “happy accident”, but is a PURPOSEFUL activity undertaken by the bacteria.

wow. you’ve convinced me. ID is no longer BC in disguise because Bruno thought of it a few years ago.

Well, apparently you’ve made your mind up already that anyone who views nature and sees purposeful modification (or in fact, a purposeful existence)is automatically a Biblical Creationist. Sorry I couldn’t make a dent in your armor. I stand with you in the rejection of Biblical Creation accounts, primarily because the story of Genesis is strictly a myth, and was never intended to be a substitute for a mechanistic “scientific” explanation. Intelligent Design is simply a better description of how the observable world works, that’s all. And I’m not the only “non-religious” person to think so.

Don’t you have any appreciation for the mystery that we call “life”??

By chuck

May 12, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Make no mistake about my beliefs in this area. I believe 100% in Biblical CREATION as described in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. I have no real problem with the teaching of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, because it contains within it the basic belief in a creator (or designer, if you will). It is not however, sufficient in its explanations because it doesn’t tell the whole truth about creation. In the beginning…GOD.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

However, I don’t believe that the question of CREATION is one of those things.

I don’t disrespect the WISH for an anthropomorphic God, chuck. I’d love to believe in a “personal Creator” who watches from afar and intervenes when the going gets rough. Unfortunately, my experience is that life’s a bit-ch and then you die.

By Copyleft

May 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

To answer Bruno’s earlier question: Mutations are random; natural selection is not. Lumping all of evolutionary biology together under the banner “Life Is Random!” is as much a caricature as you complain of when people lump ID together with creationism.

And I notice you’re still arguing AGAINST evolution, rather than FOR intelligent design. Why is that?

By Copyleft

May 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Oh, and the ‘Circular Reasoning’ argument is bogus as well.

“The simple version of the so-called ‘tautology argument’ is this:

Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition).

The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all. ‘Fitness’ to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology—or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F = ma, which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.”

Pointing out that A + B = C (or e = mc^2) isn’t a tautology.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Make no mistake about my beliefs in this area. I believe 100% in Biblical CREATION as described in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. I have no real problem with the teaching of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, because it contains within it the basic belief in a creator (or designer, if you will). It is not however, sufficient in its explanations because it doesn’t tell the whole truth about creation. In the beginning…GOD.

You being the Biblical expert that you are, chuck, maybe you can tackle the question that my man Bart Ehrman (a true Biblical scholar) couldn’t answer in his book entitled “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer”.

If you say that suffering is punishment for doing wrong ala Sodom and Gomorrah, you are disregarding the story of Job, a blameless man. Or, is it just a “test” of our faith? In the end, Jesus said “The poor will always be among us”. Or in my own version of that saying “Life’s a bit-ch and then you die”.

I’m ready for your enlightenment, chuck.

By chuck

May 12, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, my experience is that life’s a bit-ch and then you die.

I understand Bruno. That used to be my experience, too. Lao-Tzu said:

“The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one’s feet.” (often this is translated “with a single step”). While I was somewhat young (10 years old) when I became a Christian, I spent my entire teenage years and into my college years exploring other options. I never quit believing, but I really wanted to be sure. My faith has really been a journey.

I studied all manner of other faiths and other denominations in the Christian faith. I went to Temple with Jewish friends, LDS church with Mormon friends and Kingdom Hall with Jehovah’s witness friends, for instance. I read everything I could get my hands on. I didn’t come to my faith lightly. I have spent most of my life studying it. Maybe your experience is different because your focus was different.

By Gandalf, the Grey

May 12, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

what species can we prove evolved from another? simularities yes, proof? I think not. How many species have evolved since man has been around?

God having his hand in all this should be easy to see, at least for me.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Mutations are random

I’ll tell you what, 72Copyleft: Show me even ONE reputable scientific study or experiment which PROVES that the basis of genetic improvement is “random mutations”, and I’ll be quiet. I’ve searched for years for such a study, and have never found one. On the other hand, epi-genome research indicates that our genes interact with our environment in an intelligent way. As such, I am both AGAINST Darwinian Evolution and FOR Intelligent Design.

This is not a tautology—or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F = ma, which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.”

Pointing out that A + B = C (or e = mc^2) isn’t a tautology.

Sorry, bro, but the two relationships you mention involve several variables. Saying that the fittest are those who survive is a TRUE tautology, because two variables are simple equated to each other. You might want to reread some basic texts on logic.

By NetBanker

May 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Darwinian Evolution doesn’t stand up to any hard-core scientific inquiry If this is really true, then why has it met the scientific standards to achieve the level of a scientific theory?

The name Intelligent Design is also extremely misleading for lay people. It gives the impression that there was a great deal of thought that went into our design, but when you look at some aspects of humans the design isn’t all that intelligent. For example, how intelligent is that we have an appendix? Or what about wisdom teeth? Did you know that 25% of people born today are born with less than 4 wisdom teeth? could it be that we’re still evolving?

As someone pointed out the origin of life isn’t what evolution attempts to explain which is why the ID people attacking the evolution people makes no sense to me. The concepts are mutually exclusive and it has been proven that evolution does happen. How else to explain drug resitant bacteria? What proof is there of intelligent design? And is ID an attempt to explain the origin of life or what happens after life began? If the first then it and DE are mutually exclusive concepts…with the second having met the scientific criteria for being declared a theory.

Lastly, of course there is more going on that we can’t fully sense or be aware of. Concrete examples…I can’t hear in the same range as my dog and my vision is limited to a tiny slice of the range of energy waves.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

LDS church

I thought you never took drugs, chuck. ; > }

I’m sure you spent a lot of time reading about and studying other faiths. I’ve got a library of books and Teaching Company courses on every faith imaginable, but have simply come to a different conclusion than you regarding the “literality” of the Bible.

Can you respect that others don’t share your vision?

P.S. I’d better run before I get accused of ruining W2W by being a bit-chy male who isn’t invited to the discussion.

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

If this is really true, then why has it met the scientific standards to achieve the level of a scientific theory?

To many scientists, ED is a weak theory at best. It explains nothing and relies on a circular definition of the “fittest” being those who “survive”. Think it through, NetB. And you, of all people, should understand that “standards” are strictly “man-created”. I would think that the main-stream rejection of your “lifestyle” should prove that to you.

For example, how intelligent is that we have an appendix? Or what about wisdom teeth? Did you know that 25% of people born today are born with less than 4 wisdom teeth? could it be that we’re still evolving?

Poor examples, my friend. The appendix has immune system functions, as do the tonsils. Don’t take antiquated medical opinions as fact. The reason that our mouths are changing over time is that our diet has dramatically changed over time. Again, no one denies that changes in species occur. The central question remains “Are these changes the result of randomness (ED) or purposefulness (ID)?”

How else to explain drug resitant bacteria?

If you can come up with a mechanism for that, you will be rich and famous. Or should I say, even MORE rich and famous than you already are?

What proof is there of intelligent design? And is ID an attempt to explain the origin of life or what happens after life began? If the first then it and DE are mutually exclusive concepts…with the second having met the scientific criteria for being declared a theory.

The bottom line, Net,is that DE and ID cover the same exact ground and use the same standards of proof. It’s simply a case of one is embraced by the “scientific community” because if its “naturalistic philosophy” while the other is rejected out of hand because of its ties to religious organizations. n the end, neither “theory” explains much.

By ellis

May 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Bruno: You still have not provided a scientific hypothesis nor any testing of any scientific hypothesis supporting ID. If you want ID to compete in the world of science, you need to have a scientific approach otherwise you have a really nice fairy tale but nothing more.

nothing else will do.

By Nutshell

May 12, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

I can’t hear in the same range as my dog and my vision is limited to a tiny slice of the range of energy waves.

In short, there is a lot we do not know, but can merely speculate. And since we do not know, it must be Intelligent. After all, it is always Intelligent until we know.

By ellis

May 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Bruno writes: “The bottom line, Net,is that DE and ID cover the same exact ground and use the same standards of proof.”

Ah, no, they don’t. I keep asking you for any scientific methods that are used in ID but you can’t supply them.

Why not?

By Bruno

May 12, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Bruno: You still have not provided a scientific hypothesis nor any testing of any scientific hypothesis supporting ID. If you want ID to compete in the world of science, you need to have a scientific approach otherwise you have a really nice fairy tale but nothing more.

ellis—are you reading any of my posts?? Both DE and ID postulate that changes occur over time in species. DE is simply based on the idea that some kind of random genetic mutations are the mechanism by which these changes occur, while ID postulates that the changes are not random, but purposeful. In the end, there is no proof that random genetic mutations lead to ANY improvement in species. In fact, mutated organisms are usually compromised to the point that they cannot survive and reproduce. On the other hand, epi-genome research which is going on right ow provides a mechanism for purposeful change based on interaction with the environment. I’m not sure how else to explain the difference to you.

Personally, I think that in your mind, you continue to equate ID with Creationism. And although a lot of “stealth Creationists” are trying to hide behind ID and not come clean about their true beliefs, the two ideas are NOT the same. Is that where your difficulty in comprehension comes into play? Ultimately, DE and ID study the same exact phenomena, but have different conclusions regarding the mechanism of change. That’s all.

Gotta run and get the oil changed. Family reunion later this week….

By ellis

May 12, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Bruno, all the ontological handwaving in the world won’t change the fact that you have NOT provided any scientific hypothesis that supports ID.

Therefore, you have a fairy tale, not science.

By chuck

May 12, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

If you say that suffering is punishment for doing wrong ala Sodom and Gomorrah, you are disregarding the story of Job, a blameless man. Or, is it just a “test” of our faith? In the end, Jesus said “The poor will always be among us”.

Each one of those concepts is a different case Bruno. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah for instance, God gave them specific warnings. They violated those warnings and God did what He said He would do. It was a case of punishment.

As for Job, Satan Himself went to God and challenged Him concerning Job. God relented, I believe, because of the greater lesson that came from the life of Job. Everything we have comes from the Lord God. We are merely stewards of it. It is still His to do with as He sees fit. Think of the lesson of that life concerning this world. We can take much comfort from Job when it comes to dealing with the suffering of this world. Job understood who God was and NEVER wavered in his faith.

In any case, I don’t think that it is a case of either/or. It’s both and MORE. I believe also that at times, bad stuff just happens. We live in a fallen world where selfishness (PRIDE) is rampant. People do bad things and often times the innocent suffer at the hands of those who do them (though the argument could be made that there are no “innocent people” since the fall). People have to make choices. God doesn’t make them all for us. AND, as I have said many times, there are consequences for our choices.

Can you respect that others don’t share your vision?

Certainly I can, if you can respect the fact that the Bible teaches, and I believe, that they will go to Hell.

By Jack

May 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Hello All. I miss my old blog buddies and think of you often. Can’t blog like the old days. A big wet SMOOCH to all of the lovely ladies of the blog. (an extra one for Kim). Handshkes to Net, Chilao, Chuck & Dog. Love to all. Miss ya.

By Copyleft

May 13, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

I’ll tell you what, 72Copyleft: Show me even ONE reputable scientific study or experiment which PROVES that the basis of genetic improvement is “random mutations”, and I’ll be quiet.

Done: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml

In fact, the research done by the Lederbergs specifically addressed the very example you used: bacterial resistance to antibiotics! And they found no evidence of directed, or intelligent, mutation whatsoever. Just the opposite, in fact. They found natural selection at work on pre-existing, RANDOM mutations.

And again I must point out: you’re still attacking evolution, rather than defending intelligent design. Why is that? Isn’t tthere anything positive you can put forward about ID—other than saying “It’s just the most reasonable,” that is?

Saying that the fittest are those who survive is a TRUE tautology.

Quite correct. Fortunately, evolution doesn’t say that. It says that characteristics which confer an advantage in reproductive potential (including survival, fertility, etc.) tend to be selectively favored as generations progress: a very different statement than the tautology you propose.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.html

A tautology has no predictive power and cannot be falsified; evolution, however can (and ID cannot). Adaptation is not an a priori assumption, but rather a FUNCTIONAL definition in probabilistic terms (at the gene level not the individual or even the species).

Karl Popper originally made this same error when he claimed that “any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist.” Fortunately, Popper eventually figured out his mistake: http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm

Finally, “survival of the fittest” is not Darwin’s phrase; rather, it’s a popular interpretation of what evolutionary biology shows, and as such, it has serious limitations. You’re criticizing the pop-science version of the theory, rather than the theory itself. (Sort of like complaining “Evolution says we come from monkeys!”, which is untrue.)_

You might want to reread some basic texts on logic.

Right back atcha, bub. Now, do you have any answer to Ellis’s questions about what qualifies ID as legitimate science? What are its testable, falsifiable claims, and how have they been tested?

(Remember, whining about the unpleasant philsophical implications of evolution in favor of something more “satisfying” dosn’t constitute a theory. Heck, it’s not even an argument. It’s a tantrum.)

By the way, that’s why IDers are so often compared to creationists: because they’re both arguing with evolution for the same reason, and it has nothing to do with science. “I don’t like what science is saying, so it can’t be true!” is a very understandable attitude, but it’s a weak argument. Do you have anything better to offer?

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this

bruno -

here’s the thing. I find it difficult to accept that you believe that an “intelligent designer” - a non-anthropomorphic spirit - has created a master plan for nature and how things work - AND YET, you don’t believe in “creationism.”

sorry, but you can’t have one without the other (although, I can accept that you don’t believe in the Genesis version of events as written). either something was there at the beginning and caused it all to be or it wasn’t,

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

ellis -

ontological handwaving

the best and most descriptive phrase I’ve read today. perfect. spot. on.

By Jokester

May 13, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

ontological handwaving

is that different from scatological handwaving?

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

and YAY AJC for staying on top of the porn spam this week!! (raucous applause)

you have NO IDEA how much we appreciate your efforts!

By Truth

May 13, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Bruno

I have read most of your logical and civil discussion. I have seen how the “open minded” liberals have summarily rejected everything you have said.

USinUK said that science is always looking for answers and reexamining their own conclusions, but that trend is certainly not happening here.

Liberalism is mostly ego driven. After a liberal friend had been preaching at me for hours about the media, I simply pointed out that I had worked in the media since 1979, but he was certain that he knew much more about the media than I did.

He just said that he was much smarter and because he was a liberal, that proves it.

There is no reasoning. There is no offering of alternatives. Their mantra is so concrete and so incredibly close minded that for them to accept ANYTHING other than the mantra they are told, they would need to step back and look at their whole non-realistic stances on almost all issues.

Get out of Iraq (what then?)

Bush is why our gas prices are so high. (Dims have been in charge of our government for almost two years)

Tax everything to increase government revenue. (Has NEVER worked as well as a thriving economy)

The war is bankrupting our country (but every war before this one caused a huge economic upswing)

The media is fair accept for FOX. (LOL!!!)

George Soros is good for America (One of the world’s biggest arms dealer)

They have a need to believe that they are smarter than you. They have a need to believe that only they can possible be correct.

Good luck to you, Pal. Just like Andrea said ID advocates willfully tear down anyone resisting their pre-ordained conclusion, While Shanti did no such thing and Andrea did insist that only her viewpoint could possible be the correct one, you are facing the same kind of close minded, one-track thinking.

You can type until your fingers fall off, but you cannot change those egos. It’s really all they have.

By Mara

May 13, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

USinUK - I find it difficult to accept that you believe that an “intelligent designer” - a non-anthropomorphic spirit - has created a master plan for nature and how things work - AND YET, you don’t believe in “creationism.”

maybe he’s a Scientologist and thinks it was the thetans that “designed” all life…after all, the Introduction to Scientology states “That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.”

:^)

By Nikita

May 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

I must admit that I don’t get this whole argument. Specifically I don’t understand why scientists are considered a threat to faith. Isn’t your God bigger than a test tube?

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Truth -

USinUK said that science is always looking for answers and reexamining their own conclusions, but that trend is certainly not happening here.

yeah, because we’ve never considered this question before this forum brought it up.

sheesh.

I went to a SoBap elementary school and am WELL-steeped in creationism (and the religious right’s prejudice about evolution). I also read with interest articles about ID when it started to be promoted a few years ago. I’ve done my research and think ID is a bunch of hoke. I’d like to say I’m sorry if you don’t like that conclusion, but I’m not.

And, as I said earlier, I think that presenting school kids with something as scientific theory when it is quasi-philosophical/religious is doing them and their education a disservice. We don’t present them with Holocaust denier’s “evidence” or the writings of people who believe the earth is flat - why should we present them with something that is equally unscientific/inaccurate??

Now, then, if teachers of religion or philosophy want to present the theory of ID, then have a ball.

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Mara -

eeeeeeyeeesh … Scientology. I heard somewhere that L Ron Hubbard basically created Scientology on a dare — but that could just be urban legend.

By real zoologist

May 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Bruno,

this passage from you: In a nutshell, aggregates of atoms exhibit properties which individual atoms don’t. Robert Hazen, designated as the world’s foremost “expert” on the Origins of Life research, conveniently tries to sweep this under the rug by calling them “emergent properties”. He, nor anyone else, can explain these “magical” properties which matter possesses, and likely never will.

For someone that thinks himself a master of logic, your last statement is pretty lame. This is the whole premise of ID though. Something has not “yet” been explained so this somehow leads to the fact that an intelligent designer is responsible…what happens when it is explained? What is your statement “likely never will” based on?.certainly not any historical evidence. Scientists are discovering answers all the time.

as to this statement: while ID postulates that the changes are not random, but purposeful. How do you use the scientific method to test this? How do you test what the purpose is? How do you test who the designer is (the entity that provides the purpose)? How do you prove that changes did’t just happen. Saying it just doesn’t seem likely doesn’t prove anything.

Your babble about epi-genome supporting ID is just circular reasoning. That research ONLY makes sense IF you have already accepted that genetic changes are purposeful..it doesn’t prove it..

so this statement: epi-genome research which is going on right now provides a mechanism for purposeful change based on interaction with the environment

Who is doing this research? What is the mechanism you refer to? That is please explain an example and how the mechanism works. What examples of a genetic interaction with the environment can you provide? And if you cite some study please explain why you agree with it. And not with a “it just makes sense” explanation

These are all fair questions that any scientifically literate person should be glad to answer. By the way, I’m a zoologist and have some experience studying evolutionary genetics so don’t worry about going over my head.

By Truth

May 13, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I just wrote a very long detailed answer to your post, but really: who cares. Even though you believe in Karma, ghosts and ESP, anything connected to religion is always going to be considered nonsense. I do understand my limitations.

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Even though you believe in Karma, ghosts and ESP, anything connected to religion is always going to be considered nonsense

… speaking of closed-mindedness … you know nothing about my feelings about or opinions on religion - all you know is that I’m liberal, so case-closed, I’m either an atheist or totally anti-religion.

“Religion” (strictly speaking) has nothing to do with my issues with ID. Again - read my posts - I have no problem with kids being taught ID - just not in a science classroom as it isn’t science.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

I’m a little late this AM—looks like a lot of material to cover. Before I launch into critiquing the questions and websites referenced, I think it’s important to review WHY the ID debate has any importance.

Prior to the 19th century, virtually all scientists were people of faith—not necessarily faith in an anthropomorphic Creator, but faith in an intelligence which permeates the Universe. And with faith comes respect. Fast forward to the 20th and 21st centuries in which the world of science seems to be dominated by athiests—those that have no faith in the intelligence which permeates the Universe and who thus have no respect for the miracle of life. To me, this lack of respect is evident at every turn, from Frankenfoods to “cloning” to experimentation using tissue from aborted babies. To materialistic atheists, there should be no boundaries to ethical scientific research—everything is up for grabs. I have a different opinion, and beleive that the farther we veer from the ways of Mother Nature, the worse off we’re becoming.

The biggest challenge I face in defending ID is to separate it from Biblical Creation, or in fact, external Creation of any kind. Right off the bat, USinUK said the following:

here’s the thing. I find it difficult to accept that you believe that an “intelligent designer” - a non-anthropomorphic spirit - has created a master plan for nature and how things work - AND YET, you don’t believe in “creationism.”

sorry, but you can’t have one without the other (although, I can accept that you don’t believe in the Genesis version of events as written). either something was there at the beginning and caused it all to be or it wasn’t,

The tricky part of my understanding, USinUK, is that I don’t believe in or allow for ANY external Creator. Creation has