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 to occur from the inside out. Logically, this is difficult to understand, because in the end, our human logic is, in fact, limited. However, that is how it has to be from a “system standpoint”. In other words, the Universe, by definition, is a closed system. It includes everything. To get around this logical difficulty, I prefer the term “Immanuel”, which means “God Within”. BUT (and a BIG BUT), Immanuel is not a “supernatural” force which can change the Laws of Physics by a whim. Immanuel = Physics, including Physics which we haven’t yet discovered.

By Flying Spaghetti Monster

May 13, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

Believe in my noodily appendages…

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Next, 72Copyleft—I see that you have referenced a number of links which I will try to quickly peruse for comments. However, you failed to give credit yesterday to talkorigins.com for your invalid complaint that ultimately “survival of the fittest” is a tautology. Maybe you’re just Brian Curtis in disguise….

Specifically, you said: 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.”

From talkorigins.com: 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 [Sober 1984, chapter 2], which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.

So, in addition to being wrong, you’re a plagiarist. Again, a tautology occurs when two terms are equated, with no other relationship delineated. As such, the reference to F = ma is invalid, because that equation describes a relationship between three variables, and is thus a true relationship and not a tautology.

As for “fitness to survive”, if that isn’t a subjective judgment call, I don’t know what is. In any field, post-historical analysis is invalid. In order to be true science, it must be predictive and forward looking, which Darwinian Evolution certainly is not.

Specifically, you said: *

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

I believe, FSM!!!

in particular, I’m very fond of your 8 I’d Rather You Didn’ts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheGospeloftheFlyingSpaghettiMonster#TheEight.22I.27dReallyRatherYouDidn.27ts.22

By Mara

May 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Believe in my noodily appendages…

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

I don’t want to spend much more time critiquing the crackpot website talkorigins.org, but buried in its bowels are all the ammunition any THINKING person needs to discredit DE. From the site:

Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can’t be falsified it isn’t science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn’t mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn’t as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn’t an ideal world, anyway.

Read that paragraph closely. The author is saying that because DE doesn’t meet the well-establiched criteria of what constitutes hard-core, verifiable science, then the REAL problem isn’t contained within DE, it is contained within the definition of science itself! What a joke!! The bottom line is that DE is predicated upon a tautology involving “survival” and those “likely to survive”, and thus, in the end, actually says nothing and can predict nothing. As such, it isn’t science, by definition.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

Next, BCCopyleft, from the Berkely website you referenced:

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

Do you even READ these crackpot websites you reference? In plain language, it says scientists “generally think” that dierected evolution is not possible. “Generally think”?? What kind of scientific standard is that?? In the next paragraph, it says that the “results can be interpreted in many ways”. What happened to the iron-clad proof you claimed to have in support of DE??

As for your other two links, they unsuccessfully try to wiggle around the fact that “Survival of the fittest” is, in fact, a circular definition.

Like I keep saying, get back to me when you have some real proof of DE, and not a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Your ability to critically analyze these crackpot websites seems to be compromised by your blind adherence to atheism.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Next, back to ellis and USinUK:

ontological handwaving

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

I’m really not sure why both of you think I’m trying to advance some type of metaphysical explanation, when my concern is in answering the very PHYSICAL questions contained within the fields of Physics, cosmology, and biology. How did the Universe begin? How did life itself begin? How do we account for the verifiable changes which occur within species over time? How exactly do these questions fall within the realm of metaphysics? They don’t. Care to defend your charges?

As far as answering any of these questions definitively, it’s a challenge likely beyond human ability. To recap, the “traditional” story told in science classes is the following: In the Beginning, there was an amorphous mass of material condensed in a sphere, in which no internal space existed, such that individual atomic particles couldn’t exist (i.e. protons, electrons, and neutrons). For some unknown reason, this sphere began to expand (the Big Bang), such that separation of particles came about (perhaps into matter and anti-matter). This “expansion” was not into pre-existing space, but, in fact, CREATED space itself. And, as these particles expanded outwards at incredible speeds, somehow the newly-formed protons, electrons, and neutrons perfectly combine in the proper ratios to form hydrogen, along with a tiny bit of helium. A few billions years later, these widely dispersed hydrogen atoms somehow coalesced into “clouds” of hydrogen which began to spin. This spinning, along with newly created local gravitational forces, allowed these clouds of hydrogen to coalesce into “stars”, in which heat built up to a point that nuclear reactions could occur, leading to the formation of helium and tiny amounts of heavier substances like carbon.

Eventually, through the “explosion” of stars which had nomore fuel, these heavier elements were again expelled into space, eventually coalescing into planets. Then, on at least one of these planets, these carbon atoms “spontaneously” combined with one another to transcend the barrier we call “life” by miraculously combining themselves into a “cell”. Then, according to neo-Darwinists, through some unknow series of “happy accidents”, these primitive cells eventually became more complex, started combining with one another, and eventually led to Man, a self-aware creature.

Quite a story, no? And this, my firends, is what passes for science—a bunch of wild guesses supported by the slimmest of evidence. But, try to challenge the incredulity of the story, and you are branded a Biblical Creationist, even if you aren’t religious in any way, form, or fashion.

By Whateva

May 13, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

BCCopyleft??

not 72Copyleft?

what happened?

By Copyleft

May 13, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Fast forward to the 20th and 21st centuries in which the world of science seems to be dominated by athiests…. I have a different opinion, and beleive that the farther we veer from the ways of Mother Nature, the worse off we’re becoming.

Which is fine as a philosophical perspective—-but we’re talking about SCIENCE here. And whether ID qualifies. So far, even you haven’t given any evidence to suggest that it does.

As to the tautology argument: First, I pointed out how the complaint is based on a misunderstanding, and is then invalid even on those terms! But you don’t have to accept that; I ask only, once again, that you provide ANY testable hypothesis that could substantiate ID and have it qualify as science.

And again, you fail to do so. Surely if you HAD some evidence you’d present it, right? So what can we conclude from your continual ducking of this question?

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue. “Generally think”?? What kind of scientific standard is that?? In the next paragraph, it says that the “results can be interpreted in many ways.”

It’s called consensus among those who know what they’re talking about, Bruno. All conclusion in science are tentative-—surely you’re not calling that a weakness? To do so misunderstands the nature of scientific inquiry.

And again I note: You’re not defending ID; you’re only attacking evolution, which you’ve already admitted you have a purely visceral (philosophical, emotional) distaste for. And apparently, for no other reason than your personal dislike of what evolution seems to imply about “life’s purpose.”

But such an objection isn’t scientifically valid, or even logically consistent. And that’s what lumps IDers in with the biblical creationists-—their purely emotional response to the truths uncovered by science.

As for your other two links, they unsuccessfully try to wiggle around the fact that “Survival of the fittest” is, in fact, a circular definition.

Again you fail at reading comprehension. “Survival of the fittest” is no more a correct summary of evolution than “We came from monkeys” or “Life is random.” Don’t blame me for the failures of the strawman YOU created.

Once again I ask: What’s your testable, fasifiable hypothesis to support the notion that ID is valid science?

Like I keep saying, get back to me when you have some real proof of DE, and not a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

I don’t need to prove Darwinian evolution; others have already done it for me, exhaustively. Now, where’s YOUR proof of YOUR theory? We’re waiting….

Your ability to critically analyze these crackpot websites seems to be compromised by your blind adherence to atheism.

You’re really tripping yourself up with these personal assumptions, Bruno. They’re always wrong, and the resulting petulant ad-hominems just make you look silly. You have zero knowledge about my religious or spirutual beliefs; nor are they relevant to a dicussioin of legitimate science vs. crackpot speculation.

I don’t know how many times I have to point it out: Criticizing evolution does NOTHING to improve the validity of ID. Nada. To get ID taken seriously, you have to offer evidence that supports it, and you haven’t.

Now, if you have any supporting evidence for ID, why are you withholding it?

By Copyleft

May 13, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Apparently, Bruno’s argument consists entirely of attacks on legitimate science in an attempt to drag it down to ID’s level.

It’s sort of like the Fox News fans do: “Of course it isn’t journalism—but neither is anything else!” That’s called the “tu quoque” fallacy, or “Nyah, nyah, so’s your old man.”

What’s curious is how Bruno on the one hand regularly condemns scientists as idiots to be ignored… and then on the other declares, “But I’m a REAL scientist; respect me and my formidable intellect.” Which is it?

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

And finally, to the “real zoologist”: I think that I’ve answered many of your questions already, but I’ll take my best shot at filling in the blanks.

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

In case you haven’t studied the History of Science very closely, every hundred years or so a “Revolution” occurs in which the models we thought were the perfect models are thrown out in favor of better models. Then, typically, pronouncements are made that there is nothing left of significance to discover. The reason I’m so sure that we will never reach the ultimate truths is simply based on the fact that our brains are hard-wired to think in certain, limited ways. In fact, the process of modeling itself has inherent limitations that will never be overcome, because simply put, “A picture of the ocean is very different form the ocean itself”. Do you understand?

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

Again, zoologist, I am NOT postulating ANY external Creator. You’re putting words in my mouth based upon your experiences with Biblical Creationists. As for the epi-genome research, if it can be shown that individual organisms change their original DNA based upon interaction with the environment, then, in my mind, that is proof of ID, and refutation of neo-Darwinism which is based upon the idea that “random” changes in DNA lead to improvement of species. If you consider the rapidity and specificity by which organisms adapt to their environments, including the creatures on the Galapagos Islands that Darwin encountered, it’s not plausible that these incredible adaptations came about purely by chance. Epi-genomes interact with DNA in order to activate or deactivate whole sections of DNA based upon environmental stresses. I believe it will be shown that they eventually modify the DNA code itself. Call that what you will, but I see it as evidence of intelligence, not randomness.

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.

Since you’re the expert, why don’t you explain to me what research has EVER shown that “genetic drift” or “background-radiation induced genetic mutations” has EVER led to the improvement of a species, whether bacteria or mammals. I’msorry that you can’t recognize what has been obvious to all of teh great scientists through the ages, including Newton, Mendel, and Einstein: The perfect way in which the Universe works together CAN’T be based upon random “chance”. DOes this prove an external, Bibical Creator who can change the Laws of Physics upon a whim? Heck no. DO I have all the answers? Heck no. BUT, I am able to recognize that the Science Emporer has no clothes on. Do you?

By ellis

May 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

And still Bruno dances away from the questions.

I also like the way he attempts to move the goal posts to psysics and away from evolution and ID.

I still await a scientific hypothesis and experiments that support ID but that will never happen and Bruno and I both know why.

By ellis

May 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

And still Bruno dances away from the questions.

I also like the way he attempts to move the goal posts to physics and away from evolution and ID.

I still await a scientific hypothesis and experiments that support ID but that will never happen and Bruno and I both know why.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Apparently, Bruno’s argument consists entirely of attacks on legitimate science in an attempt to drag it down to ID’s level.

The bottom line, BCCopyleft, is that DE isn’t legitimate science, by any standard. However, you and your ilk use the force of law to cram this dangerous nonsense down the throats of school children and don’t allow any rebuttal in the classroom without firing the teacher.

Which is fine as a philosophical perspective—-but we’re talking about SCIENCE here. And whether ID qualifies. So far, even you haven’t given any evidence to suggest that it does.

When trying to answer unanswerable questions, ultimately faith does creep in there. And, I feel most comfortable siding with people who have respect for life and Mother Earth. In the words of Harvey Mudd College “Technology divorced from humanity is worse thatn no technology at all”. Evidence for this statement can be seen in the rampant, long-term pollution of our planet with substances like PCBs produced by the good sceintists over at Dow Chemical.

As to the tautology argument: First, I pointed out how the complaint is based on a misunderstanding, and is then invalid even on those terms! But you don’t have to accept that; I ask only, once again, that you provide ANY testable hypothesis that could substantiate ID and have it qualify as science.

Total BS. You have shown nothing except for the fact that you are a plagiarist. Your sacred talkorigins.org website admits in couched terms that DE is nothing but junk science based upon a tautology.

To get ID taken seriously, you have to offer evidence that supports it, and you haven’t.

I’m sorry if you can’t see the intellignce which permeates the Universe. I, along with all the greatest scientists like Newton, Mendel, and Einstein have no problem seeing it. YOU don’t see it becasue you are too busy ripping off the public with your bogus “studies” funded by my tax dollars.

What’s curious is how Bruno on the one hand regularly condemns scientists as idiots to be ignored… and then on the other declares, “But I’m a REAL scientist; respect me and my formidable intellect.” Which is it?

I don’t have all the answers to life’s mysteries, but I do have respect for the miracle. Do you?

By Truth

May 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

USinUK

… 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.

No. I can read. And I have read months of your taking the side of atheists (which I believe is a much more demanding religion than Christianity) and anti-religous people.

I’m sure there is a whole ‘nuther logical, side to you, but we don’t see much of that person on here.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

To the lady readers of W2W, I apologize for these discussions of logic and science which I know most of you find boring. However, if you look at the bigger picture, the issue at stake is freedom vs. totalitarianism, respect for Mother Nature vs. disrespect.

For too long, idiots like BCCopyleft have been determing both the science curriculums at school which allow no dissent to the “official party line” and the direction of misguided scientific research, all at taxpayer expense. They try to snow the uneducated with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo packaged as “science”, when in fact, a closer analysis reveals it to be what it really is: a bunch of lies predicated upon a very specific philosophical agenda.

By ellis

May 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Ah, yes. Your arguements are worthless so you make ad hominen attacks.

Much easier than that pesky proof stuff, eh, Bruno?

By Copyleft

May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Bruno, you seem somehow “angry” at science. Perhaps because you think science has a philsophical agenda or perspective at odds with your own.

But that’s not the case. Science has no “agenda.” Individual SCIENTISTS may have personal beliefs, and it’s even possible that such beliefs may color their work. But the great advantage of science is that it progressively uncovers such biases and invalid conclusions, moving us ever closer to objective truth.

When it comes to religion and spirituality specifically, evolutionary biology has NO opinion, for or against. None. You feel persecuted by an alleged “atheist agenda,” but it simply doesn’t exist any more than there’s an anti-Semitic bias in geometry, or a racist undertone to chemistry.

Science doesn’t address any spiritual or supernatural matters, true—because that’s not what it’s FOR. Your philosphy is not under attack; scientists (of all beliefs) don’t really care WHAT you believe about the “magic and wonder and intelligence of the universe,” as long as you don’t try to pretend that it’s science.

In other words, they want to study and teach facts only… and you’re angry that they’re not teaching your personal opinions AS IF they were fact. How is that their (or my) fault? And for that matter, how is having evidentiary standards an example of “totalitarianism”?

And I’ll repeat the question you’ve been ducking over and over, from Ellis: where’s your evidence for ID?

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

I also like the way he attempts to move the goal posts to psysics and away from evolution and ID

In case you skipped physics and chemistry classes, ellis, the smallest indivisible building block of all matter is the atom. As such, all macroscopic properties of matter, including living systems, must ultimately rely on atomic properties. However, aggregates of atoms exhibit Gestalt-like properties which are unexplainable in terms of the properties of the individual atoms themselves. Because physicists and biologists alike are unable to explain this Gestalt phenomenon, the one that actually gives meaning to our existence, they try to relegate such questions to other fields of inquiry, like philosophy, or, like Robert Hazen, the one who probably got the lady professor fired that Shaunti referenced, categorize it with new terms like “emergent properties” which, in the end, say nothing more than IDers have been saying all along.

Much easier than that pesky proof stuff, eh, Bruno?

Ther is ujust as much logical support, and evidence for ID as there is for neo-Darwinism, which is slim on both accounts. Let me turn the questioning around then: Sonce you appear to support DE, SHOW ME ONE IOTA OF PROOF. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist, a fact that all the websites referenced by BCCopyleft themselves show, e.g. talkorigins.org.

So, quit jawing and start proving.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

But that’s not the case. Science has no “agenda.” Individual SCIENTISTS may have personal beliefs, and it’s even possible that such beliefs may color their work. But the great advantage of science is that it progressively uncovers such biases and invalid conclusions, moving us ever closer to objective truth.

I agree, BCCopyleft: The Scientific Method, in and of itself, has no agenda. Unfortunately, ALL scientists, who are, in the end, human beings, DO have an agenda. And if you can’t see the atheistically driven agenda which has taken over our classrooms and labs, then you’re just not looking hard enough. If you are Brian Curtis, your agenda has already been exposed a long time ago. You make a pretty penny duping the public into paying for your endless studies which prove nothing.

Science doesn’t address any spiritual or supernatural matters, true—because that’s not what it’s FOR. Your philosphy is not under attack; scientists (of all beliefs) don’t really care WHAT you believe about the “magic and wonder and intelligence of the universe,” as long as you don’t try to pretend that it’s science.

In a nutshell, you’ve described the problem with modern science: When something is confusing, it’s simply declared “outside of the realm of science”. I’m sorry that you can’t see the miracle, and have no respect for the miracle. And does this lack of respect have real-life implications?? Heck yes, both in terms of setting school curriculums and in deciding what types of “science” to fund and which not to fund.

where’s your evidence for ID?

If you read the berkeley website yuo referenced earlier more carefully, you will see that it admits that the same research which “proves” neo-Darwinism also “proves” ID. Your own webiste says that.

BTW, are you man enough to admit that you are a plagiarist? You directly copied info from talkorigins.org and tried to pass it off as your own thoughts.

*

*

By ellis

May 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

So you still can’t provide a scientific hypothesis that supports ID nor can you provide any experiments that would test any hypothesis of ID.

By Mara

May 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

To the lady readers of W2W, I apologize for these discussions of logic and science which I know most of you find boring.

condescend much? since this is a discussion about science, LOGIC would dictate that if we’re bored by science…we wouldn’t bother lurking (or posting). Yes?

It isn’t the science or logic that bores us…

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Truth -

I can read. And I have read months of your taking the side of atheists (which I believe is a much more demanding religion than Christianity) and anti-religous people.

you may be able to read, but you seem to have missed the point. I do take the side of atheists … and Buddhists … and Muslims … and all religions - we have the freedom to believe and worship how we wish in the US and the UK - or haven’t you heard?? I take that freedom VERY seriously and defend it everytime I see it under attack - which happens with alarming regularity on this forum.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

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.

Truth, once again you have hit the nail on the head. No matter how much I detail that what passes for “Science” is a bunch of junk, people like BCCopyleft, ellis, and zoologists will never take the time to analyze my arguments. Why? The bottom line is that “There are nono so blind as those who REFUSE to see”. Although I completely understand their “proof” of neo-Darwinism, in return, they just can’t see that unexplainable “Intelligence” permeates the Universe.

Liek I said a long time ago on the blog, if I were forced to choose between a “literal Bible” and atheistic, deterministic explanations of the miracle of life, I would have to hold my nose and go with a literal Bible, wven though I know it isn’t the right answer. Why? Because the alternative is unthinkable. The miracle is all around us. I see it with my own two eyes every day.

I’m going to give up on trying to convince dimbulbs BCCopyleft, ellis, and zoologists that life is a miracle, and hence unexplainable. Apparently, they’ve got all the answers. Too bad they can’t prove not a one of their ideas, but can only criticize anyone else who recognizes the miracle of life.

By Truth

May 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

When it comes to religion and spirituality specifically, evolutionary biology has NO opinion, for or against. None. You feel persecuted by an alleged “atheist agenda,” but it simply doesn’t exist any more than there’s an anti-Semitic bias in geometry, or a racist undertone to chemistry.

And this is the problem. The laws of physics are written in stone. The Theories about evolution are not. Darwinism is a very strong case, but it does not explain everything.

Evoluntionary biology is definately made up of hundreds of OPINIONS. It is NOT a finite science. The difference is theories vs. facts.

That seems to be the difference. If liberals are told that most sources think evolution is strictly along the lines of darwinism, then every other idea is not to even be considered.

A few weeks ago, someone wrote to the AJC editorial board, condemning them for even allowing discussion about global warming, even though the average mean worldwide temp has dropped for three years in a row. They said that it was a decided science.

Should I list all of the “decided sciences that I can come up with?” A little research and the blog is simply not big enough to list the bone headed conclusions that have been decided as accepted science.

Open your minds liberals. For once, don’t just “go along”. Think for yourselves. Be a rebel. Dare to question. You know … be a Republican.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

condescend much? since this is a discussion about science, LOGIC would dictate that if we’re bored by science…we wouldn’t bother lurking (or posting). Yes?

Well, jump in if you have anything to contribute, Mara.

Maybe you can offer an opinion about something my Dominican friend has worked hard to get me to see. She says: “Women are here to be LOVED, not UNDERSTOOD”. I thought it was a very profound statement, one I hope to adopt as a new philosophy toward dating.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

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

Switching gears a little, I’m wondering if anyone has any opinions regarding chuck’s theology? When I read crap like that, I understand why ID is not taken more seriously, due to its association with fundamentalist Bible-thumpers who believe that anyone who doesn’t toe the line THEY have set, that they’re in for an eternity of suffering. No coercion there, right?

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Maybe you can offer an opinion about something my Dominican friend has worked hard to get me to see. She says: “Women are here to be LOVED, not UNDERSTOOD”. I thought it was a very profound statement, one I hope to adopt as a new philosophy toward dating

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little

jeeeeeebus.

By Ellis

May 13, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Bruno, if you want ID to be in the realm of science, you’re going to need to come up with that hypothesis and those experiments.
Otherwise, as indicated previously, you have a fairy tale.

By Truth

May 13, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Sorry. LOL!! I just don’t remember you taking the side of Baptists. LOL!! You may have supported some religions, but certainly they were only the politically correct ones that the DNC approves of.

You are a good person and you are smart, but I can almost always write your posts before you do.

This week’s blog says the same thing so many have said in the past: Only the liberal POV will do. All others are nonsense. All others are wrong. None others should even be considered. And when religion is concerned, the reactions of the entire forum is about as individual as wearing shoes. There is no individual thought and individuality is attacked with a fervor that is rarely as polarizing in the real world.

I’m proud to say that I am still open to the perfect solution and/or explanation of so many scientific phenomena. I’m sure you will disagree, but I just don’t see any sort of open mindedness among the liberals on this blog.

Agree with PC or get ready for the onslaught.

By real zoologist

May 13, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Bruno,

I can point you to a number of scientific papers that show the mechanisms for the divergence of biological species. Improvement of a species is not really useful as it is a relative term. And it shows your bias for ID, i.e., a purpose. The investigators don’t set out to prove evolution because they have already accepted that this process occurs. What they strongly suggest are how for a particular example (striped back wren, salamander, drosophila, etc) the different species originated. I can provide several links, but I’m not going to do so unless you are committed to reading them (or at least a couple) and either agreeing with their conclusion or explaining (in scientific terms) why they are wrong.

This is probably a waste of time because such publications involve a certain background in genetics, taxonomy, embryology, anatomy, and even geology. And even more important, even to argue the points on such papers requires some degree of common agreement on the premise. You seem to reject the study of evolution as an agenda so why would you accept any examples that support the premise..

What would prove to you that biological evolution has occurred as scientist understand it?

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little

C’mon, USinUK. I thought her statement certainly matched MY experiences in both dating and marriage. Does your hubby understand YOU? ; > }

Also, to anyone who will be glad to see me gone, I signed a contract to begin working on June 1.

To anyone I’ve offended along the way (especially kimberly), that wasn’t my intent.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

I can point you to a number of scientific papers that show the mechanisms for the divergence of biological species.

Then why don’t you?? What use is ther in mentioning studies you are unable to point me toward??

This is probably a waste of time because such publications involve a certain background in genetics, taxonomy, embryology, anatomy, and even geology. And even more important, even to argue the points on such papers requires some degree of common agreement on the premise. You seem to reject the study of evolution as an agenda so why would you accept any examples that support the premise..

Oh, so you think I’m not smart enough to understand your studies which you won’t provide a link to?? I’ll stack my IQ and science education against anyone on this board, including you. BTW, I’ve taken numerous courses in the exact disciplines you have mentioned. And why should any “premise” be required to understand these unnamed studies?? I fully understand the “premise” of neo-Darwinism, just don’t thin the evidence I’ve seen supports it.

Bottom line, zoologist: Put up or shut up.

By Mara

May 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

She says: “Women are here to be LOVED, not UNDERSTOOD”. I thought it was a very profound statement, one I hope to adopt as a new philosophy toward dating

Actually, it’s a quote from Oscar Wilde’s “The Sphinx without a Secret”.

I don’t know what exactly you want out of a relationship, but I’d advise against using this as a dating philosophy.

I don’t know any woman who’d be content with having a “friend” that makes no attempt to get to know and understand her.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Actually, it’s a quote from Oscar Wilde’s “The Sphinx without a Secret”.

Thanks for the shout, Mara. I didn’t know that she was quoting Oscar Wilde.

I don’t know what exactly you want out of a relationship, but I’d advise against using this as a dating philosophy.

Unfortunately, I often get in trouble by demanding a certain amount of logical consistency from ladies I’ve dated. My guess is that you and USinUK are exceptions to the rule, as both of you are more logic-driven than hormone-driven. I’m sure both of yuo have your moments, though. (P.S. just throwing some bait out, don’t be offended)

I don’t know any woman who’d be content with having a “friend” that makes no attempt to get to know and understand her.

I do all I can to get to know the likes and dislikes of my female companions. However, and you hacve to admit, many ladies seem to have difficulty being honest about what they really want. We men are often expected to be mind-readers.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Actually, Mara, I think the loving/understanding statement could be applied to life in general with good results. In order to love something, you have to appreciate it, which definitely involves a certain level of understanding, even if only on the intuitive level. My problem is in wishing for a simple algorithm by which everything makes sense. A Theory of Everything, so to speak. As far as I know, no one has ever come close to such a discovery, not in science, and certainly not in romance.

BTW, you have my full respect as does USinUK. I believe that both of your hubbies are very lucky men to have partners as smart as the two of you are. Sincerely.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

Gotta run, but while I’m waiting for zoologist to come up with some links to support neo-Darwinism, I typed “epigenome research” into google, and came up with hundreds of links which point to research which shows that epigenomes interact with the environment to create changes in alleles. Here’s one of the links straight from the top:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6188838/Maternal-genistein-alters-coat-color.html

Any commentary, zoologist, BCCopyleft, or ellis?? A quick read of this link proved to me that documented changes in allele composition and expression are intelligent adaptations based on interactions withthe environment, and NOT as a result of “genetic drift” or any other such random process.

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Truth -

This week’s blog says the same thing so many have said in the past: Only the liberal POV will do. All others are nonsense. All others are wrong. None others should even be considered. And when religion is concerned, the reactions of the entire forum is about as individual as wearing shoes. There is no individual thought and individuality is attacked with a fervor that is rarely as polarizing in the real world.

ohfercryingoutloud. get over yourself, already. I don’t think anyone here has a problem with ID being taught - as long as it’s not taught in the science class. It’s an interesting philosophical theory. It’s an interesting concept of God. But science, it is not.

Please, learn the difference between closed-mindedness and standards (scientific standards, in this case).

As far as defending the SoBaps - when I see one under attack, I’ll defend him/her. However, I really don’t think the faux-martyrdom of “he wished me happy holidays instead of merry christmas” is repression. If people want to hear the Creation story, go to church - you can’t swing a dead cat in the greater Atlanta area without hitting a church of one denomination or another.

By USinUK

May 13, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

I thought her statement certainly matched MY experiences in both dating and marriage. Does your hubby understand YOU? ; > }

Bru-noooooo (shaking my head)

if anyone tells you they “don’t want to be understood, they want to be loved” - that’s code for “shut up and worship me, already.”

a good friendship/partnership/marriage HAS to be about the meeting of the minds (as well as parts south). being understood - being seen for the person one truly is - is what everyone wants. to have at least one person out there who knows the real you, and loves you for it, anyway.

does my hubby understand me?? most of the time, I think so - of course, sometimes we both baffle each other. but, the important thing is that we both keep trying.

By real Zoologist

May 13, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

Here is an example of the type of research evolutionary biologist do: It is very dry and specific.

http://www.yale.edu/turner/publications/p30.pdf

This is an example of Reproductive Isolation. This basically says that speciation (the emergence of species) emerges as different members of a species become isolated over time to the point they can longer reproduce together. This is a result of time, geographical barriers, and genetic changes.
Most research involves these types of studies and genetic mapping.

This may not be very useful or indicative of evolution because it doesn’t show a lizard turning into a bird. I think you would agree that most biologist don’t live the thousands of years it would take to actually observe that. But if you can get your head around how one fish can evolve into a different species of fish (there is an actual genetic difference) you can envision how the taxonomic family tree adapted and radiated out to new visibly different species and then visibly different families, etc. This is what I mean by accepting the premise.

By real zoologist

May 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

I read the link, or as much as it would allow…what about this proves to you “that documented changes in allele composition and expression are intelligent adaptations based on interactions with the environment”. Wjere do get “intelligence”? I’m missing something.

It doesn’t even mention alleles, in fact it’s not related to evolution at all, it’s just a paper about gene therapy.

You use this term neo-darwanism a lot. You do know that a lot of research has been done since Darwin don’t you? His work is important from a historical point of view, but modern research isn’t based strictly on Darwanism.

By AGFNPR

May 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

real zoologist:

The investigators don’t set out to prove evolution because they have already accepted that this process occurs.

This will be my only comment on this subject since we have hashed and rehashed this topic on numerous occasions. I am simply going to suggest (as I have in the past) that everyone read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. Bruno referred to it earlier when he stated “In case you haven’t studied the History of Science very closely, every hundred years or so a “Revolution” occurs in which the models we thought were the perfect models are thrown out in favor of better models.” I couldn’t have summed up the book better myself.

My take on the book - science is fallible because scientists are just like the rest of us - stubborn, petty, arrogant, and blind to the truth. Scientists need mountains of data before they will even consider their “paradigms” are incorrect. Yet for some reason we hold them to unobtainable standards as if they are somehow “above it all”. We look to the holy grail of science to provide all the answers without stopping to consider that science is made by scientists, not the other way around.

And to all of the experts on the board who claim evolution to be true – well the devil is always in the details. No one is arguing that microevolution takes place. It has been observed in nature and is therefore a fact. But for Darwinism to be true, the changes that take place require that simple organisms evolve into more complex ones. This has not been proven and has not been observed because these so-called changes have to take place over several generations.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

a good friendship/partnership/marriage HAS to be about the meeting of the minds (as well as parts south). being understood - being seen for the person one truly is - is what everyone wants. to have at least one person out there who knows the real you, and loves you for it, anyway.

I guess that’s what we all desire, USinUK, but I haven’t had a lot of luck in finding anyone who seemed to understand me, at least in the “northern regions”. Fortunately, I’ve had a few nice journeys “to the south”, for which I’m grateful.

Thanks again for being a good person, USinUK. You are kind to everyone on the blog, unlike me.

By Bruno

May 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

This is an example of Reproductive Isolation. This basically says that speciation (the emergence of species) emerges as different members of a species become isolated over time to the point they can longer reproduce together. This is a result of time, geographical barriers, and genetic changes. Most research involves these types of studies and genetic mapping.

Zoologist—As much as I can convince you, I fully understand the premise of pure DE—again, no one denies that changes occur in species over time, and that perhaps species “evolve” from one another. My concern is in the proposed mechanism. Neo-Darwinists propose mechanisms which just don’t pan out in nature. No amount of random processes will create an ear from scratch, no matter how much time is involved.

I will peruse the article you mention later and thank you for looking at the one I proposed. I simply picked it because it was the first of many thousands which popped up when I typed “epigenome research” into google. Personally, I think the epigenome proteins are the “missing link” which shows that the agreed-upon, documented changes we see in species over time are the result of intelligent interaction between organisms and the environment, and not the result of random processes like genetic mutation, genetic drift, or what have you.

I don’t blame you for pigeonholing me along with the other religous nuts who support ID. That’s not my perspective, however. I attended the #1 engineering college in the US, Harvey Mudd College, and have gone on to compile more than 500 college credit hours at three other colleges. My biggest concern with neo-Darwinism and materialistic philosophy in general has to do with the ongoing disrespect that mankind keeps showing to Mother Earth. If I have an axe to grind, that is it. Hopefully that’s something we can agree upon.

In the meantime, watch your assumptions about who is educated and who is not. I’ll look at your article and critique it tomorrow. Thank you for your polite responses, though. I’m not always as diplomatic as you seem to be.

By Copyleft

May 14, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this

Bruno, your argument seems a bit muddled now. You claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, yet you point to a variety of religious scientists as examples!

And ironically, none of those scientists ever claimed that their faith was a viable, testable scientific hypothesis. This is what ID tries, and fails, to accomplish.

*Although I completely understand their “proof” of neo-Darwinism, in return, they just can’t see that unexplainable “Intelligence” permeates the Universe. *

You’re the one who’s missing the point, Bruno. You insist that your PHILOSOPHICAL position on spiritual topics is somehow a valid scientific theory, even though you continually refuse to provide any evidence or otherwise meet the standards of science. Instead, you whine that “evolution can’t be proven either!”—-which does nothing to support your claim.

If I were forced to choose between a “literal Bible” and atheistic, deterministic explanations of the miracle of life, I would have to hold my nose and go with a literal Bible, wven though I know it isn’t the right answer. Why? Because the alternative is unthinkable. The miracle is all around us. I see it with my own two eyes every day.

Are you likewise angry that chemistry classes don’t address the problem of good and evil? Or that trigonometry remains silent about the Ten Commandments? Come on, Bruno; just admit you’re pushing a philosophical position, not a scientific one, and all these conflicts will disappear.

Religious scientists (and there are millions of them) are well aware that their spiritual beliefs are entirey separate from the activities of science. Possessing REAL faith, they feel no insecurity about that. They don’t feel the need for scientific validation of something inherently unrelated to science.

From Ellis: Bruno, if you want ID to be in the realm of science, you’re going to need to come up with that hypothesis and those experiments. Otherwise, as indicated previously, you have a fairy tale.

The requirement still stands, Bruno. Put up or shut up. Or, more accurately, quit trying to claim your beliefs are “scientific” and accept that they’re just that—belief. Nobody will condemn you for it.

P.S.: Yes, I did a Google search on “evolution tautology” and found a number of sites that addressed the topic. I used that information to answer your earlier confusion. If that makes me a plagiarist, so be it; I’m chatting on a blog, not writing a term paper. And you’re still ducking Ellis’s questions by attacking evolution, rather than defending ID. Why is that?

By candide

May 14, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

There is no alternative to evolution. There is science and there is redneck Christianity.

By lovelyliz

May 14, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Visceral negative reaction to those studying climate change/global warming there is plenty of negative reaction, but when it comes to scientists who uses scientific method to study alternative to evolution, I just haven’t seen it.

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

My view on ID: http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Heroes/miracle.jpg

By Newzwyre

May 14, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

I thought this was very nice. From an Austrailian newspaper “Yay for the USA” -

THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.

Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you’d figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do. And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you’d figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven’t. At least not yet.

[snip]

The need to paint Americans as a greedy, selfish, war-mongering superpower cannot be disturbed by facts. It matters not that, in the year before the tsunami, the US provided $2.4 billion in humanitarian relief: 40 percent of all the relief aid given to the world in 2003. Never mind that development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion during the last year of Bill Clinton’s administration to $24 billion under George W. Bush in 2003. Or that, according to a German study, Americans contribute to charities nearly seven times as much a head as Germans do. Or that, adjusted for population, American philanthropy is more than two-thirds more than British giving.

[snip]

The US has had isolationist periods in the past and it must be enormously tempted sometimes to have another one soon. The consequences of that possibility deserve some serious thought. If the neighbours worry about Russian bullying over oil and gas, just imagine a Russia unfettered by a US military presence in Europe. How long would South Korea, Israel or Taiwan last if the US decided it wanted to spend on itself the money it presently devotes to military spending in the Middle East and Asia?

None of this is to say the US does not deserve loud and frequent criticism. No country has as many or as strident critics - internally and externally - as the US. The US actually promotes such debate. But just occasionally we should moderate that criticism when circumstances demand a dose of fairness.

Indeed, why not break into a standing ovation every now and again? As more US C-130s and helicopters stand waiting on Burma’s doorstep, desperate to help a shattered populace and stymied only by an appalling anti-US regime, this is one of those times.

Let’s hear it for America.

More at link - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23693121-7583,00.html

By chuck

May 14, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

NEWZWIRE, was this a description of the DEMOCRAT PARTY?

Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you’d figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do. And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you’d figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven’t. At least not yet.

By YouDontSay

May 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

My view on ID: http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Heroes/miracle.jpg

and just yesterday there was a news item about Albert Einstein having a very different concept of God than normal religions, including Judaism. Seems he began questioning it all at about age 12.

By chuck

May 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

BTW, that was a great opinion piece. Can you imagine seeing those sentiments in a U.S. paper like the NYT?

By Truth

May 14, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

candide

Name calling and being close minded. Thanks for making my case that most liberals do not have the ability to think for themselves.

By Newzwyre

May 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

chuck - was this a description of the DEMOCRAT PARTY?

it’s the Democratic Party, and “no”. I think it’s both rude and small-minded for you to imply that those with whom you have political and ideological differences “hate America”. The Democratic Party is the largest of the American political parties, so one has to wonder — do you really believe that MOST Americans hate their country?

By Truth

May 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

As far as defending the SoBaps - when I see one under attack, I’ll defend him/her. However, I really don’t think the faux-martyrdom of “he wished me happy holidays instead of merry christmas” is repression.

If you can come on this blog and read the comments from people like Copyleft about Christians and believe they are suffering from a faux martyrdom, then there is not much I can say. You see what you want to see.

But your post says it all. You will defend any religion, even Southern Baptists if you can find a reason to defend them. LOL!!

Yor party tells you who to hate, girl. You party has thrived on hate since 1870. They hated Blacks for generations and now they hate Christians. (Don’t give me the crap that most ARE Christians. I am talking about the liberals with the far left mentality that I see on here)

You and others cannot spout this crap for months and then say that you are fair toward all religions. There have been days that I have read the blog after it closed and if chuck, Bruno or myself wasn’t here, this place becomes one huge Christian bashing site.

Indoctrination makes a person think differently, so I’m sure you don’t even think about it. Someone created a post just this morning calling Christians Rednecks. If they called ANY other group of people a name that the DNC thought-police had declared politically correct, everyone here would be all over them. But because it was about Christians, no one will say a word.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Yes, I did a Google search on “evolution tautology” and found a number of sites that addressed the topic. I used that information to answer your earlier confusion.

Hey Copyleft—I understand now why you chose your new name: You’re a plagiarist, pure and simple. You directly cut-n-pasted from talkorigins.org and claimed that it was your own thoughts. Pure plagiarism at its worst. You easily could have given credit for the quote, but didn’t. And why not? Because talkorigins.org is an imbecilic website which doesn’t prove a thing with its rambling discussions, and you knew that I would unmask your real identity if you directly referenced it.

I’d love to have an intelligent discussion with you, but that isn’t possible since you are nothing but a liar. The other web sites you put up were similarly childish. Zoologist, on the other hand, referenced a real study, which I will address in a moment.

My point remains (a purely scientific point): Arrangements of atoms exhibit properties which can’t be explained in terms of atomic properties. No one can explain how life began. This is not a religious question, although you keep trying to claim it is in some way.

And you’re still ducking Ellis’s questions by attacking evolution, rather than defending ID. Why is that?

In order to promote a better viewpoint, it is necessary to discredit the prevailing lies that are being told. But you and your ilk, people who are making a pretty penny duping the public with your idiotic, endless studies which prove nothing, continue to cling to an outdated model of how complexity arises. Worse yet, you won’t even allow the mere mention of the fact that a better model exists.

And despite all your protests to the contrary, Science never stands alone, because it is a human activity. As such, the specific philosophical viewpoint of those undertaking it does factor into the results. You can refuse to acknowledge this all you want, I don’t care. You’ve proven yourself to be both a liar and a dimwit time and again. So go F yourself.

By lovelyliz

May 14, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Possessing REAL faith, they feel no insecurity about that. They don’t feel the need for scientific validation of something inherently unrelated to science.

I agree with that.

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Thanks for making my case that most liberals do not have the ability to think for themselves.

NEWZWIRE, was this a description of the DEMOCRAT PARTY?

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah …. same crap … different day …

By lovelyliz

May 14, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

By Truth Thanks for making my case that most liberals do not have the ability to think for themselves.

As opposed to what? neo-cons who don’t think at all?????!?!?!?!?!

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

There is no alternative to evolution. There is science and there is redneck Christianity.

and just yesterday there was a news item about Albert Einstein having a very different concept of God than normal religions, including Judaism. Seems he began questioning it all at about age 12.

The biggest problem in having any discussion is agreement on definitions. As soon as the word GOD is mentioned, many people assume that it is a reference to an external, anthropomorphic being. When someone like Einstein references God, however, I’m very confident that he has his own vision, one based on Scientific truth.

As for the word evolution, a similar problem exists. No one denies that changes in species occur over time. No one, whether neo-Darwinist or Intelligent Designer. That’s not where the difference lies. As such, all of you who keep trying to equate ID with Creationism or religion in general are WRONG, pure and simple. The difference between the two positions is in the mechanism by which these changes occur. Neo-Darwinists postulate (believe) that this perfectly ordered Universe which includes complex living beings all came about through random chance. Specifically, they account for the rise of complex organs within living beings by referencing “random genetic mutations”. IDers postulate (believe) that the mechanisms which built the Universe from scratch are not random. That’s the difference. Unfortunately, closed-minded people like candide and Copyleft bring their own definitions to the table and use them to try to shut down anyone who doesn’t buy their wrong-headed viewpoint hook, line, and sinker.

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Truth -

But your post says it all. You will defend any religion, even Southern Baptists if you can find a reason to defend them. LOL!!

um. yes. that’s how “defending” works - when someone/something is attacked, THEN you defend. if someone/something is not being attacked, there is no reason to defend.

Yor party tells you who to hate, girl. You party has thrived on hate since 1870. They hated Blacks for generations and now they hate Christians. (Don’t give me the crap that most ARE Christians. I am talking about the liberals with the far left mentality that I see on here)

have another drink, Truth - you seem to have started early today.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

Before I critique Zoologist’s referenced study, I want to challenge USinUK and the rest of you who keep making assumptions about ID to go to this link from the Discovery Institute which addresses many of the false statements you have been making about ID and the Discovery Institute itself:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

Again, I understand your false association of ID with Biblical Creation. However, in its purest form, the concept behind ID isn’t Biblical in any way, and not even a religious POV. Of course, if you want to go to your graves believing your own misstatements, that is your choice. I know Copy left is going to.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

um. yes. that’s how “defending” works - when someone/something is attacked, THEN you defend. if someone/something is not being attacked, there is no reason to defend.

Since you have wrongly attacked Intelligent Design, USinUK, I’m challenging you to go to the link below and find out the real facts. You’ve shown yourself to be an intelligent person in the past, but you seem to have a blind spot about the truth behind the political movement which disguises itself under the banner “Evolution”.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

By Copyleft

May 14, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

The problem seems to be one of terms, all right, Bruno—specifically what “science” means.

You seem to endorse a definition of science to include “any and all explanations for the universe that I can think of, whether they’re testable and provable or not.” But that’s not science; that’s philosophy.

To qualify as science, ID would have to offer testable, falsifiable claims… and it has failed to do that.

Your personal attacks and sweeping condemnations aside (as usual), do you have anything to offer in that area? Any evidence in the form of testable claims? And before you reply, remember: complaining that “evolution doesn’t either!” is not an answer.

ID may not be identical to religion, but it’s also not identical to science. People who are secure in their beliefs and ideals don’t need science to carry their water for them, and they don’t insist that their views on spirituality carry the stamp of scientific validity. Why does ID try to have it both ways—wanting the authority and credibility of science without having to earn it?

P.S. I really shouldn’t encourage your paranoid delusions and seeming need to “discover my identity,” but I’ll tell you this much: I’m not a practicing scientist, and I’m not a teacher. I also haven’t claimed that anything I found on the web was my own work, despite your melodramatic cries of “plagiarism!”

By Copyleft

May 14, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

You’ve proven yourself to be both a liar and a dimwit time and again. So go F yourself.

Side note: I notice that Bruno resorts more and more to personal attacks as the demand for testable, falsifiable claims keeps coming up. I wonder why that is?

By Truth

May 14, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Sadly, typical. If someone observes the obvious, and the obvious is not complementary toward a liberal, that liberal is certain that something must be wrong with that person.

Drinking? After you have known me and read what I think about drinking? Damn girl. Wake the f*ck up.

When I’m on this blog, I’m not getting paid.

See Ya.

By Newzwyre

May 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Bruno, how many genes are there in the human body? A finite number, yes? So can genetic mutations actually be “random” if there are only a set number of possible combinations? Since I’m not a scientist, I started with googling “darwin random chance”. Looked through a few sites and came on the names Kirschner and Gerhart, their thoughts on Darwinism, and their suggestions for revising evolutionary theory - “facilitated variation” replacing “random chance”.

In a Nov. 30 lecture sponsored by Cambridge Forum, Marc Kirschner, professor and chair of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, presented a revisionist concept of “facilitated variation” at the First Parish Church.

This modification stems from Kirschner’s belief that the current model of random mutations is inadequate. In the existing theory, random genetic mutations cause a plethora of variations, from which advantageous variations are selected for and perpetuated. But how is it possible for chance mutations to generate so many similar, well-functioning variations? Kirschner and Gerhart believe that random mutations are internally constrained.

To explain “facilitated variation,” Kirschner offers the following metaphor: It would take infinite time for a monkey with a stick to scrawl a random set of markings that would constitute the word “monkey.” If instead, the monkey was choosing randomly from the letters of the English alphabet, it could conceivably piece the word together in a decade. Given words in the English language, it could probably generate “monkey” in a day.

Just throwing out ideas —-

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

Since you have wrongly attacked Intelligent Design, USinUK, I’m challenging you to go to the link below and find out the real facts.

first of all, I’ve thoroughly read the Discovery Institute’s website, including the “Center for the (ahem) Renewal of Science and Culture” - an Orwellian “peace through war” name if ever I’ve heard one. I have been going back and rereading it since this topic was posted.

secondly, you may not agree with me, but that doesn’t mean I’m arguing wrongly - in fact, my argument time and time and time again is that this theory is a lovely philosophical discussion - you want to teach it in a philosophy class, have a great time. But, science it is not and has no business being anywhere near a lab and bunson burner.

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

If someone observes the obvious, and the obvious is not complementary toward a liberal, that liberal is certain that something must be wrong with that person.

yes. I do think something is seriously wrong with a person when they launch into a semi-coherent rant such as:

Yor party tells you who to hate, girl. You party has thrived on hate since 1870. They hated Blacks for generations and now they hate Christians. (Don’t give me the crap that most ARE Christians. I am talking about the liberals with the far left mentality that I see on here)

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. that’s sane, totally “hinged” rhetoric there - “your party tells you who to hate” … indeed. I must get my marching orders from Howard Dean via e-mail every morning - just like you guys get yours from Rush and Karl.

By Mara

May 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

…get my marching orders from Howard Dean via e-mail every morning

LOL!! Good one!

By chuck

May 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

Oh come on copyleft. You know good and well that Darwinian Evolution CANNOT serve as an “explanations for the universe”. You also know good and well that it is neither “testable or proveable”.

Can you describe the “experimental design” that was used to PROVE evolution? Of course not. As for your assertion that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, you have blown that out of the water by calling it an explanation of the universe. You know yourself that evolution, by definition, claims to explain the origins of life, or at least life since the laughable “primordial-soup-struck-by- lightning”.

There are “experiments or methods” to date certain objects, but those methods require UNPROVEABLE assumptions. I read an explanation on one of your favorite sites that basically said that evolution had to be right, because it could not be proven to be wrong. That is the BEST description I have ever heard about what PASSES for science these days. That being said, ID is every bit as much a science as evolution, because there is no way to prove it to be false.

Finally, since most environmentalists also believe in evolution, why do they try so hard to protect “endangered species”? It seems to me that they should welcome such an event as extinction since that gets one more “unevolved” species out of the way. Of course that is ridiculous, but so is any argument the DE is science. It is a faith based system that ultimately requires a willful supension of disbelief.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Zoologist—Thank you again for providing a “scientific” study to critique. Before I get into specifics as to why I don’t believe your study “proves” anything, I want to make sure we agree on appropriate definitions. I attempted to send this post through a few minutes ago, but I don’t think it made it. If it is a repeat, then I apologize.

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.

No one disagrees that changes in species occur over time. The central difference between neo-Darwinists and Intelligent Designers is in the interpretation of whether the documented changes in genomes are a result of “random forces” acting upon organisms or whether the changes are the result of “intelligent adaptation” to the environment. Hopefully, epigenome research will shed more light on the process. In both cases, there is a subjective component involved, however. In the case of neo-Darwinism, the subjective judgment “more likely to survive” is used. As such, in my opinion, both outlooks are on equal footing. However, NDists try to claim that no subjectivity is involved in their interpretations of research data, when in fact it is. Unfortunately, NDists also use the force of law to try to squash any dissenting opinions. As for your reference to a “designer”, ID makes no such assertion. No specific “designer” is a part of the theory, even though people like USinUK keep insisting that it is.

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

I apologize for not providing a better epigenome study for you to review. I picked the link I provided hastily. I’ll look later for a more demonstrative study. However, even this study shows that phenotype expression is affected by a change in diet. In my mind, this represents “intelligent” adaptation to the environment. Maybe in return you interpret this to be a “random change”. In both cases, the judgment is subjective, and thus on equal footing “scientifically”.

As for your study, you claim: This is an example of Reproductive Isolation. This basically says that speciation (the emergence of species) emerges as different members of a species become isolated over time to the point they can longer reproduce together. This is a result of time, geographical barriers, and genetic changes. Most research involves these types of studies and genetic mapping.

Again, Zoologist, no one disagrees that genetic changes occur over time, especially among isolated populations. However, as I will show in a minute, your study doesn’t address the more fundamental question as to HOW the genetic changes occur. Are they truly “random”, or are they “intelligent adaptations”?? Unfortunately, your study never addresses this question—it simply skips over the question of mechanism and assumes that the reader already wholeheartedly embraces the neo-Darwinistic model.

This may not be very useful or indicative of evolution because it doesn’t show a lizard turning into a bird. I think you would agree that most biologist don’t live the thousands of years it would take to actually observe that. But if you can get your head around how one fish can evolve into a different species of fish (there is an actual genetic difference) you can envision how the taxonomic family tree adapted and radiated out to new visibly different species and then visibly different families, etc. This is what I mean by accepting the premise.

Again, Zoo, I accept that “evolution” occurs, it’s the MECHANISM which is in question. And although you and the others here want to categorize my conclusion that “evolution” is a “purposeful” process as being in the realm of philosophy or religion, it isn’t. Either organisms adapt through interaction with the environment, or they don’t. In neither case does this “prove” or “disprove” an external Creator. Personally, I don’t “believe” in an external Creator, so in my case, it’s truly a stretch to characterize my opinions as being “religious” in some way.

You use this term neo-darwanism a lot. You do know that a lot of research has been done since Darwin don’t you? His work is important from a historical point of view, but modern research isn’t based strictly on Darwanism.

The term “neo-Darwinism” specifically refers to the research done SINCE Darwin. As such, we are talking about the same thing. I hope you understand this.

Now, on to your article:

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Here’s the link Zoologist provided which he believes “proves” the neo-Darwinistic idea that random variations in genomes caused by such proposed mechanisms such as “genetic drift” and “background radiation form space”. I invite everyone, especially ellis and Copyleft to read the article themselves. As I will show via specific quotes, the whole question as to whether the documented genome changes are “purposeful adaptations to the environment” or simply “random mutations” is never addressed. Instead, the authors ASSUME that the reader already buys the NDist “theory” hook, line, and sinker:

http://www.yale.edu/turner/publications/p30.pdf

Again, before I start, I need to emphasize that the word “evolution” refers to changes over time in a genome, regardless of whether the change is “directed” or “random”. The word “mutation” simply means “change”, whether the change is “purposeful” or “random”. From the top:

We tested this expectation by monitoring the evolution of reproductive isolation in laboratory populations of an RNA virus that undergoes genetic exchange only when multiple virus genotypes coinfect the same host. We subjected four populations of the RNA bacteriophage 6 to 150 generations of natural selection on a novel host. Although there was no direct selection acting on host range in our experiment, three of the four populations lost the ability to infect one or more alternative hosts. In the most extreme case, one of the populations evolved a host range that does not contain any of the hosts infectible by the wild-type 6. Whole genome sequencing confirmed that the resulting reproductive isolation was due to a single nucleotide change, highlighting the ease with which an emerging RNA virus can decouple its evolutionary fate from that of its ancestor. Our results uniquely demonstrate the evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric experimental populations. Furthermore, our data confirm the biological credibility of simple “no-gene” mechanisms of assortative mating, in which this trait arises as a pleiotropic effect of genes responsible for ecological adaptation.

In summary, different cultures of viruses adapted to their new environments in different ways. As such, this doesn’t prove that the adaptation was “random” at all. “Purposeful adaptation” is just as likely. As I keep explaining to ellis and Copyleft, the same research which “proves” ND also “proves” ID, since both ultimately depend on subjective interpretation.

Host shifts may represent the most likely scenario for assortative mating to arise via a no-gene mechanism because mate choice is often determined by host preference. For example, assortative mating between host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, may have evolved via selection acting directly on host preference (Feder et al. 1998; Filchak et al. 2000). In Rhagoletis, a new host race emerged following the introduction of apples to North America. Regardless of whether the host race formation occurred in allopatry before the introduction of apples (Feder et al. 2003) or in sympatry after the introduction, the divergent host preference, itself, may have conferred an ecological adaptation by allowing the new host race to escape resource competition on hawthorns, the ancestral host plant (Feder et al. 1998). Thus, assortative mating (host preference) and ecological adaptation in Rhagoletis might have a shared genetic basis. However, the genetic intractability of ecological models such as Rhagoletis has made it difficult to confirm that the same gene underlies both traits.

Again, a change in the environment leads to changes in genotype in organisms. The fact that more than one type of adaptation occurs DOES NOT prove that random forces are at work. it is just as likely that intelligent, directed adaptation takes more than one form.

Previous experiments have shown that viral adaptation to a single host is often accompanied by a reduced ability to infect alternative hosts (reviewed in Fenner and Cairns 1959; Ebert 2000). For example, adaptation of the bacteriophage X174 to Salmonella enterica was accompanied by a reduced ability to infect Escherichia coli (Crill et al. 2000). One might logically conclude, therefore, that adaptation to a novel host—a host that is not infectible by the wild-type virus—should often produce an evolved virus that no longer infects the ancestral host, so that the host ranges of the closely related wild-type and evolved viruses no longer overlap. However, this conclusion has yet to be experimentally validated. To our knowledge, no study has shown that viral adaptation to a single host led to nonoverlapping host ranges between closely related viruses.

Again, “random” adaptation, or “intelligent” adaptation. Nothing stated here proves the difference.

We used phage6broad to found four replicate populations (E1–E4) subjected to experimental evolution via plaque growth on P. pseudoalcaligenes ERA lawns (seeded using ∼2.5 × 108 stationaryphase bacteria, measured in colony-forming units). Each day, an evolving lineage was allowed to form ∼300 plaques (always between 150 and 600 plaques), where each plaque initiates from a single virus particle. Viral titers were thus measured in plaqueforming units. After 24-h incubation, plaques were harvested and filtered to obtain a bacteria-free lysate containing the virus progeny for the lineage.To maintain the population bottleneck size of ∼300 individual viruses, the lysate was subsequently diluted and plated again in the presence of na¨ıve (unevolved) bacteria. Use of na¨ıve bacteria that were freshly grown from frozen stock prevented evolution of bacterial resistance to phage, as well as any possibility for coevolution between bacteria and phage. The 24-h propagation scheme was repeated for 30 consecutive days, to achieve 30 passages per virus lineage. As overnight plaque growth corresponds to approximately five generations of viral evolution, the populations experienced ∼150 generations of experimental evolution (30 passages × 5 generations per passage)

As for the experiment itself, all it shows is that viruses subjected to a new environment demonstrate a genetic change. I view this adaptation as being intelligent, while Zoologist sees it as being “random” in some way. I think “intelligent” is a better description.

Fitness of an evolved test phage was determined by estimating its growth rate on P. pseudoalcaligenes ERA, relative to a reference strain of 6 (paired growth assays [Turner and Chao 1998; Duffy et al. 2006]). This reference strain is denoted “ERA common competitor,” or ECC. ECC is descended from 6wt but has a mutation that allows it to infect the relevant host range of the evolved viruses, as well as host P. syringae pv atrofaciens.

If you notice, the authors have come up with their own definition of “fitness”. Totally subjective. What happened to “hard-core” science?? It seems to involve a subjective component in choosing the definition of “fitness”, as I keep pointing out.

And here are the grand conclusions of this “experiment”:

We tested the plausibility of the no-gene mechanism of speciation by examining the consequences of adaptation to a novel host in laboratory populations of the RNA phage 6, which infects a number of Pseudomonas species. We founded four replicate populations (E1–E4) with a broad host-range phage (6broad) that differs from the wild-type (6wt) only by the mutation E8G in the host attachment gene P3 (Duffy et al. 2006). This mutation confers the ability to infect two host strains that do not permit infection of 6wt, including the novel host P. pseudoalcaligenes ERA (Table 1). Each of the populations founded by 6broad was subjected to selection on the novel host P. pseudoalcaligenes by plating the phage population on a lawn of the novel host, incubating for 24 h to allow individual phages to form plaques, harvesting progeny phages from ∼300 of the resulting plaques, and plating these phages on a fresh lawn of the novel host. This cycle was repeated for 30 days, corresponding to ∼150 virus generations. The presence of only a single host in the habitat ensured that selection was not acting directly on host range (i.e., host-use specificity; the mechanism by which viruses achieve assortative mating). Rather, if host specificity evolved, it could only occur as an indirect consequence of selection for improved performance on the novel host

By the end of the experimental evolution on the novel host, three populations became dominated by genotypes with a narrowed host range (Fig. 1). These data strongly suggest that narrowed host range genotypes were generally favored by selection, such that viruses featuring this trait either fixed or were on their way to fixation by generation 150. Individual narrow hostrange genotypes isolated from populations E3 and E4 (6E3narrow, 6E4narrow) lost the ability to form plaques on one of the six hosts (P. syringae pv. tomato) within the host range of the ancestral phage 6broad (Table 1). The narrow host-range genotype isolated from population E1 (6E1narrow) lost the ability to form plaques on five hosts, including all four hosts within the host range of 6wt

Ok, the viral populations changed genetically over time. I already knew that was going to happen, so it proves nothing to me. The key phrase in their conclusion is “strongly suggests”. “Strongly suggests”????? What kind of crapola is that???? More importantly, who paid for this crap???? I sure hope it wasn’t another taxpayer-funded fiasco.

In addressing the “inmportance” of their study, the authors conclude:

Our laboratory experiment with RNA phage 6 shows reproductive isolation can evolve via natural selection. By investigating the process of speciation in laboratory populations of a genetic model system we addressed the role of natural selection in speciation in ways that have not been possible in natural populations, nor in ecological model systems (e.g., stickleback fish [Vines and Schluter 2006], apple maggot flies [Filchak et al. 2000], walking 6 EVOLUTION 2007 HOST SHIFTS LEAD TO VIRUS SPECIATION stick insects [Nosil et al. 2006]).We confirmed that in 6 assortative mating (host range) and ecological adaptation (performance on the novel host) had a shared genetic basis. But this result was not due to reproductive incompatibilities that fixed in a population via drift or through genetic hitchhiking. Rather, our results showed that assortative mating evolved via a biologically simple “no-gene” mechanism in which assortative mating arises as a pleiotropic effect of mutations that produce ecological adaptation. In addition, we demonstrated that the action of natural selection can produce reproductive isolation over a short time period, causing incipient viral speciation in 6. Our study demonstrates the power for microbial evolution experiments to bridge the study of microevolution (change within a species) and macroevolution (change from one species into another). The same microevolutionary processes of mutation and natural selection, which led to the adaptation of 6 populations to a novel host also resulted in a macroevolutionary event: the evolution of a new virus species that is reproductively isolated from the ancestral phage 6wt. Although we are not the first to use microbes to investigate speciation (Friesen et al. 2004; MacLean 2005; Rozen et al. 2005), we recognize that our unique success in achieving reproductive isolation in the laboratory likely resulted from our unorthodox choice of an RNA virus as a model for studying speciation. However, only two characteristics of the 6 system were critical to our success—the short generation time and the high mutation rate. Other characteristics of the 6 system (e.g., viruses mate in the habitat where they eat) make our results highly relevant to speciation processes in a variety of organisms that share these characteristics (e.g., walking sticks, apple maggot flies, and sticklebacks). However, the pleiotropy between improved performance in a new habitat and increasing specificity has rarely been as clearly observed as it was in our study (e.g., trait associations can also be explained by linkage disequilibrium [Via and Hawthorne 2002]). We attribute our success to the ability to completely dissect the genetic basis of adaptation and to measure fitness instead of fitness components.

In conclusion, although the authors of this experiment seem convinced that they have somehow bridged the gap between microevolution and macroevolution, they haven’t. All they have shown is that viruses demonstrate genetic changes over time by subjecting them to a new environment. BFD. I could have saved them a lot of money by predicting the outcome in advance.

In the end, the mechanism by which the documented genetic change occurred is never explored, only assumed. Talk about some major “hand-waving”!

Zoologist, you asked me to read your article carefully and critique it. Are you satisfied now. As I have been saying all along, the same experiments which “prove” neo-Darwinism can be used to “prove” Intelligent Design. I welcome your rebuttal.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

first of all, I’ve thoroughly read the Discovery Institute’s website, including the “Center for the (ahem) Renewal of Science and Culture” - an Orwellian “peace through war” name if ever I’ve heard one. I have been going back and rereading it since this topic was posted.

USinUK—If you read the link I provided by the Discovery Institute, why do you keep claiming that it is a “stealth” Christian organization. Please restore my respect in you by going to the link and reading their answers to your false statements. For the ten-thousandth time, I completely understand your association of Intelligent Design with religion. However, the idea which drives ID—intelligent adaptation to the environment—has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical Creation.

Please help me restore my respect in you.

By Monica

May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Greetings, fellow bloggers. :)

After muddling through the posts, I have come to the conclusion that I am nowhere near as intelligent as I thought I was. Wow. Lots of information. I should have paid more attention in my science classes.

I will admit that part of the reason that I tuned out some in my science classes is that I perceived that science theories i.e. evolution/Big Bang Theory/theory du jour conflicted with religious teachings about the creation and the age of the Earth. As I grew older, I realized that the two are not mutually exclusive. We need to do a better job of teaching that to our children.

Doesn’t the idea of Earth’s creation defy the laws of science, no matter the method? I remember learning that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If that is the case, then every theory of the beginning of the Earth defies science. How can something come from nothing?

At the risk of sounding simple-minded, why do we expend so much energy attempting to prove and debating the Earth’s creation? We could spend this time finding a cure for cancer or for AIDS, or an discovering an alternate fuel source. Just my .02. Please continue boggling my mind. :)

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Bruno, how many genes are there in the human body? A finite number, yes? So can genetic mutations actually be “random” if there are only a set number of possible combinations? Since I’m not a scientist, I started with googling “darwin random chance”. Looked through a few sites and came on the names Kirschner and Gerhart, their thoughts on Darwinism, and their suggestions for revising evolutionary theory - “facilitated variation” replacing “random chance”.

Newz—I appreciate the shout AND your support for my assertion that “random” changes in the DNA/RNA of organisms CANNOT lead to improvements in the “fitness” of organisms. Maybe your “support” was unintentional by mentioning that DNA chains contain a finite number of molecules. HOWEVER, if you understand the mathematics behind “permutations”, i.e. the number of possible arrangements of a finite number of objects, I think you will change your tune a little. Point blank, given only 8 objects, how many different arrangements are possible of these objects? I’ll let you ponder that before answering in the next post. Hint: you will be surprised at the number. Put in a different way, if you had 8 books on a shelf, and rearranged them once a day, how long would it take to arrange them in all possible ways??

BTW—“facilitated variation” is simply a restatement of what the Intelligent Design folks have been saying all along. In the same way, Robert Hazen’s term, “emergent properties” is a restatement of what IDers have been saying all along. Too bad these idiots aren’t men enough to admit that they were wrong from the beginning. Just like I don’t expect either ellis or Copyleft to admit that they were wrong when they read my critique of Zoologist’s link. I still have hope for Zoologist, but that remains to be seen.

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

whether or not you “restore your respect in me” is your decision. I’ve read the site. and I’ve also done a little digging into the organization.

why do I think they’re a religious organization? cuz of the truism that “ya gotta dance with the ones what brung ya” - check into the discovery institute’s funding. specifically, check out the maclellan foundation, one of their original sources of funding.

However, the idea which drives ID—intelligent adaptation to the environment—has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical Creation.

okay - just for giggles, let’s set aside the idea of biblical creation. the theory still says that there is a higher being (although they call it “intelligence”) that was and still is directing how the universe evolves. to quote the site: One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. (in other words, if something looks complicated, it had to be created)

to that, I say: http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Heroes/miracle.jpg

By ellis

May 14, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Bruno, I’m still waiting for that scientific hypothesis.

If you’re gonna pretend ID is science, you need a bit more than your “intuition” that intelligence is involved in selection.
But you know that. You just don’t have any science to back up the fairy tale.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Here’s the answer to the math problem I posed:

If you have 8 objects, there are 8 ways to choose the “first” book, 7 ways to choose the “second” book, 6 ways to choose the “third” book, etc. The total number of arrangements is then 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 which is equal to 40,320. If you rearranged these 8 books once per day, it would take 40,320/365 = 110.47 years. And that is only using 8 objects!

In the world of DNA/RNA, there are only 4 distinct nucleotides. however, there are thousands upon thousands of “positions” for these nucleotides. As such, the possible number of different combinations is a number so large that I can’t fit it onto this website. as such, from a “probability” standpoint, the idea that “random variations” in the nucleotide sequence leading to “better” adaptation to the environment is absurd at best. If you study the developed drug resistance by bacteria, for example, it develops very rapidly, and is extremely specific. Maybe Zoologist, ellis, and Copyleft can see this as a result of a “happy accident”, but I can’t. The mathematics is staggering to consider it to be a “happy accident”.

SO, if any of you out there want to believe that my views are based on religion in some way, believe what you want. My views are based on math and science.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

the theory still says that there is a higher being (although they call it “intelligence”)

Sorry, USinUK, the term “intelligence” does NOT imply a “higher being” or any type of being at all. As I keep trying to get across to you, “intelligence” defined at the atomic level refers to the specific arrangement through which those atoms serve a “greater purpose” which is not expressed by the individual members. Take your liver for example. Ultimately, it is composed of carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, etc. From the perspective of each atom, they have no “purpose”. As such, wouldn’t you expect ANY arrangement of these “purposeless” atoms to be “purposeless” as well?? But, from a macro-level, these “purposeless” atoms serve a tremendous “purpose” in keeping the host organism alive.

The whole crux of my argument rests on an understanding of chemistry and physics. Once again, particular arrangements of atoms exhibit a Gestalt like phenomenon in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you simply look at the parts, you will never discover the “higher purpose” of the particular arrangement. However, this arrangement is not a “material thing”—it’s kind of like a “ghost”. That’s about as religious as I get.

Please ponder the “problem” that Gestalt poses, and you will have some insight into what my vision of GOD is. GOD isn’t a “being”, GOD is a SPIRIT. Specifically, the SPIRIT by which “purposeless” atoms arrange themselves into “purposeful” entities. Comprende, mi amor?

By Newzwyre

May 14, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Bruno - —“facilitated variation” is simply a restatement of what the Intelligent Design folks have been saying all along.

now, I didn’t get that at all. My understanding wasn’t that these variations were “by design” so much as there were a finite range of possible variations (huge though the number might be) simply because there are a set number of genes. Over time these minute variations accumulate and ultimately lead to species differentiation. I saw nothing in my admittedly cursory research that would indicate the necessity of a guiding intelligence.

But then, I don’t pretend to be anything more than an interested layman.

By USinUK

May 14, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

SO, if any of you out there want to believe that my views are based on religion in some way, believe what you want. My views are based on math and science.

fwiw, I don’t think your belief in ID is based on any religion. that doesn’t mean that ID, itself, isn’t based on a faith in a higher being (not to be confused with religion) or that its founders aren’t funded by those with religious agendas.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

If you’re gonna pretend ID is science, you need a bit more than your “intuition” that intelligence is involved in selection. But you know that. You just don’t have any science to back up the fairy tale.

Hey D-wad. Did your read my critique of Zoologist’s study which he believes “proves” neo-Darwinism? Most likely, both the article and my critique were way over your head. In summary, the same “science” which you believe “proves” ND also “proves” ID, because utlimately both rely on a subjective judgment of what constitutes “intelligence”. If you define intelligence to mean specific adaptation to environmental changes, then ID wind hands down every time.

In the end, you are nothing more than a parrot repeating the same question over and over. I’ve answered you both scientifically and mathematically several times, but you’re too stupid to understand what I’m even talking about. As such, I’m not going to waste my time talking to you anymore.

By Mara

May 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

If you rearranged these 8 books once per day, it would take 40,320/365 = 110.47 years

how about if a million people all had the same eight books to rearrange? Wouldn’t that cause the numbers to change? After all, we aren’t talking about a single, lonely little creature trying to tidy up their home library…we’re talking about an entire species.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t the idea of Earth’s creation defy the laws of science, no matter the method? I remember learning that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If that is the case, then every theory of the beginning of the Earth defies science. How can something come from nothing?

Monica, don’t downplay your intelligence here. In the end, your statement, based in common sense, says a lot more than all the Big Bangers/Evolutionists combined. In your case, you look to a Creator to answer your questions. Me, being the scientist and general stick-in-the-Mudd that I am, I can’t accept the idea of an external, anthropomorphic Creator. Maybe ultimately I am a materialist, because I believe the “answer” has to come from the inside out. However, differently from the Big Bangers/Evolutionists, I am honest enough to see that their explanations just don’t cut the mustard. In fast, the “dimaggio” link that USinUK referenced perfectly describes the crap that is being forced down our children’s throats at school. As I detailed yesterday, the “story” of some amorphous lump of material “expanding”, forming atoms, forming stars, forming planets, and somehow miraculously leading to life is incredulous. It is not based on science at all, but is a wild guess at best. Good luck trying to get “scientists” like ellis and Copyleft to admit that.

Though I don’t agree with your vision of a “Creator”, at least it makes sense. Personally, I think if you factor in the fact that GOD is a spirit (i.e. non-corporal), the Biblical explanation makes perfect sense, even if only in a mythological way.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

now, I didn’t get that at all. My understanding wasn’t that these variations were “by design” so much as there were a finite range of possible variations (huge though the number might be) simply because there are a set number of genes. Over time these minute variations accumulate and ultimately lead to species differentiation. I saw nothing in my admittedly cursory research that would indicate the necessity of a guiding intelligence.

Once again, Newz, thank you for your humble and honest inquiry. Once again, the leap of imagination I’m asking you to make is to get past the idea of an external Creator. Intelligence comes form the inside out, not the outside in. Please think long and hard about that point, because it is the critical point which brings it all back together, IMO. It is hard to do, because we are exposed to a lifetime of church teachings which imply that GOD is a separate entity. However, when you think about the terms “omni-present” and “omniscient”, you CAN’T end up with a GOD which is separate from this world. that is why I prefer the term “Immanuel”—God Within , or “God With Us”.

As for your specific comment about “over time, minute changes accumulate”, that is the BS that Big Bangers/Evolutionists want us to buy in to. However, I beg you to learn more about calculating probabilities, specifically how to calculate permutations. The number of permutations of DNA is gazillions upon gazillions upon gazillions. If random permutations were the mechanism by which adaptation to the environment took place, it would never have happened. In addition, we wouldn’t see well-defined species roaming this planet. Instead, we would have a mixed bag of bizzare, amorphous creatures running the gamut. But that’s not what we see.

In the end, I don’t have the definitive answers, but mathematics and probability alone prove that the Big Bangers/Evolutionists are totally full of s**. Which I could live with, if they didn’t insist upon shoving their ridiculous POV don’t my throat at the point of a gun through the setting of school curricula and through the funding of endless research projects which prove nothing other than the bias of the investigators.

By Ellis

May 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Bruno - ad hominem attacks only prove that your arguments are worthless.

If you feel you’ve “proven” ID to be scientific, then provide the scientific hypothesis thas supports ID and then you may provide some testing that will validate your hypothesis.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

how about if a million people all had the same eight books to rearrange? Wouldn’t that cause the numbers to change? After all, we aren’t talking about a single, lonely little creature trying to tidy up their home library…we’re talking about an entire species.

Nice to hear from you, Mara. I appreciate your logical inquiry, but when you consider the number of positions of nucleotides, it is in the thousands. The number of possible arrangements of the nucleotides is gazillions upon gazillions. The numbers just don’t support any scheme which involves “random changes”.

Further evidence of specificity and not randomness involves the “chirality” or “handedness” of bio-molecules. If you recall from chemistry classes, the same exact arrangement of atoms can occur in two stereoscopic mirror images. As such, wouldn’t you expect there to be an equal number of them used by living creatures? Not only is there not an equal number, only one type of chirality found in nature: the “left-handed” variety. E.G. L-Lysine.

You can call all of these facts bizarre coincidences or, like me, at some point you have to set aside coincidence or “random chance” as a possibility. Especially when you try to imagine the first “living” being. The transcendence from “non”-living to living is an unbridgeable chasm IMO, and can only rightly be described as a miracle. A Biblical miracle?? I don’t think so, but a miracle non-the-less.

By AGFNPR

May 14, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

USinUK:

fwiw, I don’t think your belief in ID is based on any religion. that doesn’t mean that ID, itself, isn’t based on a faith in a higher being (not to be confused with religion) or that its founders aren’t funded by those with religious agendas.

OK I lied. I am going to make two posts on this issue, but USinUK you will have the last say. I know you wrote the above statement to Bruno, but I would like to offer a compromise between religious conservatives and those who believe in evolution. Let’s play “I’ll admit if you’ll admit”.

I’ll admit 1. There are SOME creationists that are using ID to try and force biblical views on publicly educated students. These groups have an agenda and are therefore willing to give money to fund and promote these theories. Because they have an agenda, they will use any means necessary to squash debate on evolution by claiming “God did it, the bible says it, that PROVES it”. 2. ID cannot be observed or proven and therefore a theory AT BEST.

If you’ll admit 1. There are SOME people who believe in evolution that have an agenda to indoctrinate publicly educated students with their version of the truth. They are willing to give money to fund and promote their theories. Because they have an agenda, they will use any means necessary to squash debate by claiming “evolution did it, scientists said it, that PROVES it”. 2. If evolution (not microevolution) is defined as simple organisms evolving into more complex ones, then evolution has not been observed or proven and is therefore a theory AT BEST.

Now I can admit to the faults of those on my side of the issue - can you?

By chuck

May 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: Observation is not enough to make conclusions about other the origin of species OR Macroevolution. Observation can only help to explain what is occurring at the time of the observation. In order to extrapolate those observations to explain the origins of life, you have to make assumptions that are both untestable and unproveable, both because they occurred before such observation was possible AND because we assume the laws of physics are immutable and have not changed over time. Therefore, the theory of evolution and ID are no more “scientific” or plausible than is Biblical Creation. ALL REQUIRE the willful suspension of disbelief. The difference is that FAITH in God has benefits that faith in the other 2 can’t match.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

I gotta run and get ready for my trip.

I have a special favor to ask everyone today. Last week, I made some untrue, horrible statements about kimberly. Although I don’t know for sure, I think she became so offended that she doesn’t want to post anymore. Personally, I think she should just consider the fact that I am a rude, mean scumbag and overlook my comments.

Please, in case she is tuning in today, I am asking everyone who loves and misses kimberly to give a shout out to her to encourage her to come back.

Mara, USinUK, Truth, Copyleft, Newz, everyone: Please invite kimberly to come back on board. I was wrong to malign her, and I’m upset that she isn’t here this week.

By Reality Check

May 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

You are all overestimating the extent to which the average American student or anyone else cares about this topic, and underestimating the intelligence and diligence of students who enjoy and pursue scientific studies. Neither group is interested in how intelligent you think you are nor how faithful you claim to be.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR—Nice to hear your input as well. You exhibit an honesty which I don’t find in some others here. The bottom line is that we humans aren’t smart enough to answer life’s mysteries, and likely never will. I find it beyond amazement that we are able to even ask questions about it.

ellis, Copyleft—Sorry for the personal attacks. It’s part of my nature to be a rude a*-hole. Don’t take it personally.

Again, I hope everyone reaches out to kimberly and invites her back. I’m returning to work on June 1 and won’t be posting anymore.

I’ve greatly enjoyed the discussion this week. I don’t know if I have swayed anyone’s opinions, but hope I put some good food for thought out there. Best wishes to all.

By ellis

May 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Bruno - so no hypothesis of ID? No tests to provide proof of ID? How surprising.

Your ad hominem attacks are inexcusable and only show that your arguments are worthless as the hypothesis you cannot provide.

By Mara

May 14, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

lyrics for Bruno -

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance, a host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings, we dance on the strings of powers we cannot perceive.

“The stars aren’t aligned or the gods are malign,” blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand, the cards were stacked against them, they weren’t born in Lotus-Land.

All preordained, a prisoner in chains a victim of venomous fate.

Kicked in the face, you can’t pray for a place in heaven’s unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill.

Each of us, a cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete.

Genetic blends with uncertain ends on a fortune hunt that’s far too fleet.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose freewill.

By Fred

May 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

MARA! I love that song! Thanks for the smile!!

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

lyrics for Bruno

Thanks for the shout, Mara, but I think your poem would be better directed at chuck or the materialist determinists on board today. If you understand my position at all, you will see that I am the ONLY one who is arguing for intelligent adaptation here. Part of intelligent adaptation is FREE WILL.

I don’t look to an external Creator who would represent “a celestial voice”.

BTW, I am a HUGE Rush fan. Geddy Lee is one of the most talented musicians on the planet. He plays two instruments simultaneously and sings at the same time in concert. I have to admit that your are one of the few WOMEN fans of Rush that I have ever encountered. Their concerts are usually 95% male. Further evidence that you are ONE COOL CHICK and that your hubby is ONE LUCKY SOB.

By Mara

May 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Hi Fred! Glad you enjoyed it!

Bruno - I was going to go with “I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins…” but decided that “Each of us, a cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete. Genetic blends with uncertain ends on a fortune hunt that’s far too fleet.” was way more apropos.

I’ve been a Rush girl for, well…decades. By-tor and the Snowdog, Subdivisions, the Trees, Red Barchetta, Spirit of the Radio…well, love ‘em all really. Rush, Malmsteen, Dio, and Satriani…rock GODS one and all. Just a few from my very eclectic cd collection.

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

I’ve been a Rush girl for, well…decades. By-tor and the Snowdog, Subdivisions, the Trees, Red Barchetta, Spirit of the Radio…well, love ‘em all really. Rush, Malmsteen, Dio, and Satriani…rock GODS one and all. Just a few from my very eclectic cd collection.

OMG—You ARE perfect—just like USinUK. All except no tats. ; > }

Hey, don’t forget The Analog Kid from the “Signals” album. “You move me, you move me, with your buildings and your eyes, autumn woods and winter skies….”

Actually, if I had to pick a single Rush song to represent me, I’d have to go with “New World Man”:

He’s a rebel and a runner

He’s a signal turning green

He’s a restless young romantic

Wants to run the big machine

.

He’s got a problem with his poisons

But you know he’ll find a cure

He’s cleaning up his systems

To keep his nature pure

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Of course, I’m from the “old days”—We used to get really wasted and listen to 2112.

I’ve been wondering for the longest what your musical tastes were. Thanks for cluing me in.

By chuck

May 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

Hey Mara, Did you see Satriani at the Variety Playhouse a couple of years ago? Great concert. He was on his “Super Cool” tour. Saw him a few months ago at the Tabernacle in the G3 concert with Petrucci and Paul Gilbert, also. Michael Romeo of Symphony X is another great guitarist. Saw them at the Masquerade a couple of weeks ago. I like Rush, but not everything they do. My son and I are kind of on a great guitarist “tour”. Malmsteen is one of our targets along with Hetland of Metallica. We’ve already gotten his picture with Satriani, Petrucci, Michaelangelo Batio (formerly of nitro), and Michael Romeo.

By Gandalf, the Grey

May 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

HOWARD DEAN send you an e-mail each day? Wow! You guys are organised!

By Bruno

May 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Gandalf—You’ll be proud of me. On Monday night, I had a chance to meet Jane Fonda. She was part of a group which threw a benefit to prevent teen pregnancy down at the Woodruff Arts Center. My friend whose mother is Pat Mitchell, the former Prez of PBS (and one of Jane’s best friends) had an extra ticket. I turned it down.

I found out later that rocker Tommy Lee was there along with rapper Ludicris. I might have gone if I knew Tommy Lee was there. My friend said that a lot of pretty girls attended.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

Gandalf -

HOWARD DEAN send you an e-mail each day? Wow! You guys are organised!

haha … you can accuse the Dems of a lot of things, but being organized is usually not one of them

“I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat!” - Will Rogers

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

I’ve seen Rush 4 times - Moving Pictures, Signals, something in the late-80s and when they were on tour in 2005. The boys still put on one heckuva show! ;-)

(gotta say, though, they peaked with Signals - haven’t really liked a lot of their stuff since then … ymmv)

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

AGF -

There are SOME people who believe in evolution that have an agenda to indoctrinate publicly educated students with their version of the truth. They are willing to give money to fund and promote their theories. Because they have an agenda, they will use any means necessary to squash debate by claiming “evolution did it, scientists said it, that PROVES it”. 2. If evolution (not microevolution) is defined as simple organisms evolving into more complex ones, then evolution has not been observed or proven and is therefore a theory AT BEST.

I gotta ask - what is the agenda?? turn people into atheists? get kids to pledge allegiance to Charles Darwin and the HMS Beagle?

I really don’t mean to be sarcastic, but, on one side, you have people openly saying they want to bring God back into the classroom. On the other side, you have the “separation of Church and State” folks - there’s a BIG difference between that and “we want all kids to be atheists”. I watch a lot of news and documentaries, but I’ve never seen or read about any scientist who says they want kids to have LESS religion in their lives - they just don’t want religious mythology and science to be mingled. That’s the only agenda I see - and, frankly, I think it’s a fair one.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this

’ve seen Rush 4 times - Moving Pictures, Signals, something in the late-80s and when they were on tour in 2005. The boys still put on one heckuva show! ;-)

Good morning, gorgeous!! You and Mara have to be two of the “coolest chicks” I have ever encountered!!

To Mara—Sorry I didn’t give you more praise for coming up with “Free Will” to characterize the discussion this week. The more I think about it, it was pure genius!

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Revisiting last week, USinUK, I was curious which YES shows you saw in Atlanta. I think I saw them every time they came to town, starting with the “90125” tour in 1984. I remember they had a funky stage set-up that year which reminded me of a painter’s paint pallet. Were you there?

Another YES show that stands out in my mind came in the late 1990s at Chastain. They had just instituted the “reduced noise” ordinance due to complaints by the neighbors who live near the park. A few minutes into the show, all the fans started yelling “Turn it up!” To his credit, Jon Anderson stopped the show to try to figure out what the fans were saying. And he responded!! They cranked it up and gave one helluva show that night. Such an incredibly talented bunch.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

you never said where you were planning to go for your vacay before you start the new gig … ???

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

I really don’t mean to be sarcastic, but, on one side, you have people openly saying they want to bring God back into the classroom. On the other side, you have the “separation of Church and State” folks - there’s a BIG difference between that and “we want all kids to be atheists”. I watch a lot of news and documentaries, but I’ve never seen or read about any scientist who says they want kids to have LESS religion in their lives - they just don’t want religious mythology and science to be mingled. That’s the only agenda I see - and, frankly, I think it’s a fair one.

USinUK—As much as I like you as a person, you again seem to have a blind spot a mile wide regarding the “agenda” which underlies “modern science”. If you get deep enough into the “studies” which supposedly “prove” Darwinian Evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc., you will see that they are ABSOLUTELY predicated upon a specific philosophical/religious viewpoint, despite their every cries to the contrary. Just yesterday, I picked apart the “scientific” study which Zoologist presented to me as “proof” that speciation occurs via the postulated mechanisms advanced by neo-Darwinists. The same study which he says “proves” ND, simultaneously “proves” ID as I showed.

The bottom line is that the “Scientific Method” is a very limited tool to discover “truth”. I’m not knocking it as an approach to verifying small, often unimportant “facts”, just pointing out that it has severe limitations in revealing the “big picture” to us, especially as applied to “forensics”—i.e. the “reconstruction” of “historical” events like the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of life, etc.

I think your biggest blind spot comes in your refusal to recognize that the term “GOD” doesn’t HAVE to represent an anthropomorphic external Creator. When Einstein said “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe”, I doubt seriously that he was referring to the same childish vision of GOD that chuck and his Southern Baptist buddies believe in. Please open your mind a little more.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

you never said where you were planning to go for your vacay before you start the new gig … ???

I’m extremely confused right now. I thought things were over between me and my Dominican friend who lives in Miami. Especially this week, when her former fiance flew in from Spain to visit her. But, for whatever reason, she has been calling me three times a day now, and has been dropping some major hints that she might want to get married. I can’t figure out if she’s just using me as a pawn to punish her old BF, or if she really wants to make a go of it with me. As I said before, I’m smart when it comes to Science and Math, but extremely dumb when it comes to figuring out women.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

I was curious which YES shows you saw in Atlanta. I think I saw them every time they came to town, starting with the “90125” tour in 1984

I was there, too!! I was the one in the t-shirt ;-)

sadly, that’s the only Yes show I saw - would have loved to have seen them in their earlier days.

I sooooooooo miss Chastain! Saw some amazing shows there - Steve Miller Band and Lyle Lovett (and his ginormous band) were a couple of the best. Best show EVER at Lakewood - B-52s. For 2+ hours, EVERYone “danced this mess around.”

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

re: your dominican friend - danger, will robinson. she’s messing with you when she has a fiance??? danger, danger.

re: my earlier post to AGF - my question was what’s the agenda? To paraphrase Bones, “dammit, Jim, I’m an economist, not a scientist” so maybe I’m missing something, but I really don’t see an agenda when it comes to teaching Darwinian-based evolution. (that’s as opposed to the evangelicals who are using ID to crow-bar discussion of creationism)

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

I don’t have much time this AM, but would like to revisit the mathematics which underlies DNA. Newz yesterday questioned whether a finite number of nucleotides along the DNA strands could lead to many possible variations, such that “randomness” represented a manageable number. I did some digging last night and saw estimates for the number of pairs of nucleotides in humans to be anywhere from 3 Billion to 4.2 Billion. When you consider that each of these “positions” could be occupied by one of four nucleotides, the number of permutations possible is beyond human comprehension.

Specifically, the number of possible permutations would be the number 4 multiplied by itself 4 billion times. If any of you have a calculator or computer handy, try to calculate this number. As a warm-up exercise, try out the number 4 multiplied by itself only 100 times. That is 4^100. Well, it results in a number which contains 60 zeros. Written out in long hand, that is 1,610,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And that, my friend, is only to the 100th power. If you want to move up to 4^1000, you have to multiply the above number times itself 10 times. As such, 4^4,200,000,000 is a number which is so large, it wouldn’t fit on this website.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

My point in analyzing the mathematics behind DNA is that every section of DNA is responsible for the production of a specific protein. If you alter even ONE of the nucleotides in a specific sequence, that particular protein is made differently, and no longer works together with the other manufactured proteins to create a unified, organized creature, whether virus, bacteria, or mammal. As such, the idea that various “random” mutations (i.e. changes in the nucleotide sequences) is the mechanism by which complexity arose from simplicity is beyond preposterous to me. It’s downright blasphemous.

The bottom line again, USinUK, is that neo-Darwinism is junk science at best. However, the alternative, the idea that genetic modification ultimately has to be an intelligent, directed activity, is dismissed as belonging to the realm of philosophy or religion and is prevented from even being suggested in the classroom as a possible alternative. You yourself keep doing that. Can you explain why??

By Mara

May 15, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

chuck - Did you see Satriani at the Variety Playhouse a couple of years ago?…Saw him a few months ago at the Tabernacle in the G3 concert…

I was lucky enough to catch the G3 concert at the Tabernacle back in ‘03. Satriani, Malmsteen and Steve Vai all in one concert. It was fantastic! Hetfield is an okay guitarist, but the whole Metallica phenomenon palled for me when they sold out to MTV and made the “One” video.

USinUK - they peaked with Signals

gotta disagree with that. Mystic Rhythem? Presto? Show Don’t Tell?! (DAMN! Now I got the music from Mystic Rhythem stuck in my head!!! Arrrggg…)

Bruno - predicated upon a specific philosophical/religious viewpoint

and what exactly do you believe that viewpoint is? Because I don’t see the “agenda” anymore than poor, blind USinUK…

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

re: your dominican friend - danger, will robinson. she’s messing with you when she has a fiance??? danger, danger.

That would be former fiance. My intuition isn’t good here, but she is sooooo beautiful and sooooo sexy, USinUK. Plus she is only 31 years old. For an old man like me (47), it seems a miracle that a young woman like her would be interested in getting married. Should I believe in miracles??

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

genetic modification ultimately has to be an intelligent, directed activity, is dismissed as belonging to the realm of philosophy or religion and is prevented from even being suggested in the classroom as a possible alternative. You yourself keep doing that. Can you explain why??

if it is directed (using your word), then it has to be directed by someTHING (spirit or otherwise). that’s why it moves from the science pile into the philosophy/religion pile. especially when you move from the “what” - designer - to the “why”, as in why were systems designed as they were?

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Bruno -

That would be former fiance. My intuition isn’t good here, but she is sooooo beautiful and sooooo sexy, USinUK. Plus she is only 31 years old. For an old man like me (47), it seems a miracle that a young woman like her would be interested in getting married. Should I believe in miracles??

think with what’s between your ears, not your hips.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

I have to say that I’m EXTREMELY disappointed with “real Zoologist”. He came on board here and claimed that he knew of a plethora of studies which “proved” that new-Darwinism was “real science”. When I pressed him to produce a study, he tried to imply that I simply didn’t have the brains or education to understand his unnamed studies. If anyone took the time to read my analysis of his bogus study, I think they will see that there was nothing about that study which is beyond comprehension even to an “uneducated layperson” like me. The bottom line is that all these “studies” are a bunch of crapola funded by hard-earned tax dollars. His implication that only he and his “educated” buddies are qualified to even UNDERSTAND his crapola reminds me of the policy of the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation in which they claimed that only priests were qualified to understand the Bible.

Tell me again that there’s no agendas working here, USinUK. Better yet, apply the brainpower you have to read some of these studies and see what a sham they are yourself.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

USinUK, you put your finger on the problem with this statement:

they just don’t want religious mythology and science to be mingled

YOU DON’T SEE THIS AS AN AGENDA?!?!

Of course it’s an agenda and it is OFFENSIVE to people of FAITH. See, they start out with the CONCLUSION that Creation is a MYTH. They STRESS the idea that EVOLUTION is a proven fact and it is in direct conflict with what they are taught at home and in church. By CALLING it “science”, they act as if it is a foregone conclusion and that anyone who believes in CREATION is a moron.

AND YOU DON’T SEE WHY THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR CHRISTIAN PARENTS?!?!

You don’t see how this would be a conflict for young students? I know of students who have stood up for their beliefs in class and who have been ridiculed for it by their teachers. There is absolutely no reason for teaching MACROEVOLUTION in science classes. NONE. It is unproveable and untestable, so why teach it at all EXCEPT to convince children to abandon the faith of their parents.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

if it is directed (using your word), then it has to be directed by someTHING (spirit or otherwise). that’s why it moves from the science pile into the philosophy/religion pile. especially when you move from the “what” - designer - to the “why”, as in why were systems designed as they were?

If you can get away from your ASSUMPTION that the “direction” by which we improve has to be from the OUTSIDE IN, you will get the big picture, USinUK. It isn’t externally driven, it’s internally driven. In other words, it is self-driven. And I’m not talking about “self-driven” in some esoteric, philosophical way, I’m talking about physically self-driven, which falls squarely in the realm of physics, chemistry, and biology. Specifically, I believe the structure known as epigenomes are the mechanism. Epigenome research is fairly new, so the results are limited so far. I will put up some links in a minute which show that epigenomes alter the expression of genes through a process known as methylation.

ellis and Copyleft keep asking for “verifiable hypotheses” to prove intelligent adaptation to the environment. I keep pointing them to epigenome research, but instead of checking it out, they keep repeating their challenges like a broken record. Unfortunately, epigenome research isn’t far enough along to “prove” what I think it will, so it’s still just a hunch. However, the alternative, “random mutations” is NOT the mechanism by which organisms adapt and become more complex. However, the geniuses in charge of our science curricula at school, in their anti-religious fervor, use the point of a gun to force the non-sensical view on our students, and prevent the more intelligent, reasonable explanation from being even SUGGESTED as an alternative.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Hey Mara, would have loved to see Vai and Malmsteen. It’s good to see that the Tab is almost back on line. That’s a great venue. Much better than Masquerade.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Of course it’s an agenda and it is OFFENSIVE to people of FAITH. See, they start out with the CONCLUSION that Creation is a MYTH. They STRESS the idea that EVOLUTION is a proven fact and it is in direct conflict with what they are taught at home and in church. By CALLING it “science”, they act as if it is a foregone conclusion and that anyone who believes in CREATION is a moron.

Sorry, chuck, but my opinion as a scientist is that folks who believe in a literal Bible ARE morons. Especially you, whose views are not even contained in the Bible. No where in the Bible is that age of the Earth mentioned, or even implied. No where in the Bible is the MECHANISM by which the Universe came into being detailed in a way that is a substitute for scientific inquiry. No where. I’ve challenged you time and again to show me where, and you keep coming up as empty as “real Zoologist”.

I do, however, agree with you that what passes for Science these days is total crap. So, we agree on one thing.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Bruno, I spent hours a couple of years ago speaking to those questions. I just don’t have the time or the energy to go back and reproduce that. If I get time later today, I’ll post some websites that may explain it to you.

By Copyleft

May 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

ellis and Copyleft keep asking for “verifiable hypotheses” to prove intelligent adaptation to the environment.

Yes, that’s what “real scientists” do. (Although I’m not a scientist myself.) I notice you again adopt that title for yourself, while simultaneously sneering at those who come by it legitimately. Why is that? What’s behind the constant craving for scientific credibility, partnered with a contempt for doing the actual work required to EARN it?

I keep pointing them to epigenome research

which you acknowledge doesn’t prove anything!

However, the alternative, “random mutations” is NOT the mechanism by which organisms adapt and become more complex.

And where’s your proof of THAT claim? You’re very long on making absolute, dead-certain claims, but very short on backing them up. And then you wonder why your views keep getting confused with blind faith?

Your telltale remarks to USinUK demonstrate the ego-drive underlying your supposedly rational conclusions; “Gee, you SEEMED intelligent, but in this area you disagree with me, so you must be stupid. Prove me wrong; agree with me and reassure me that you really ARE smart!” That’s not a rational statement, it’s simple arrogance.

However, the geniuses in charge of our science curricula at school, in their anti-religious fervor, use the point of a gun to force the non-sensical view on our students

Which is WHAT, exactly? You go on and on about this supposed “agenda,” but you don’t actually say what the agenda IS, or what it’s supposed to accomplish. Are details beneath you? Or are you going to wave your lordly hand again and announce, “You’re too stupid and narrowminded to understand my brilliance,” as most crackpots do?

I’m glad you’re leaving, Bruno. You seem tiresomely long-winded and WAY too in love with yourself and your alleged “brilliance.”

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

I did a quick google search of “epigenome research” and came up with what looks like a fairly good link which details some of the facts about how epigenomes work:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867407001286

Here are some quotes from the website:

Chemical modifications to DNA and histone proteins form a complex regulatory network that modulates chromatin structure and genome function. The epigenome refers to the complete description of these potentially heritable changes across the genome. The composition of the epigenome within a given cell is a function of genetic determinants, lineage, and environment. With the sequencing of the human genome completed, investigators now seek a comprehensive view of the epigenetic changes that determine how genetic information is made manifest across an incredibly varied background of developmental stages, tissue types, and disease states. Here we review current research efforts, with an emphasis on large-scale studies, emerging technologies, and challenges ahead.

The sequencing of the human genome is now essentially complete (Lander et al., 2001 and McPherson et al., 2001 J.D. McPherson, M. Marra, L. Hillier, R.H. Waterston, A. Chinwalla, J. Wallis, M. Sekhon, K. Wylie, E.R. Mardis and R.K. Wilson et al., A physical map of the human genome, Nature 409 (2001), pp. 934–941. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (371)McPherson et al., 2001). Yet, the primary sequence is only a foundation for understanding how the genetic program is read. Superimposed upon the DNA sequence is a layer of heritable “epigenetic” information that we have only just begun to read and appreciate. This epigenetic information is stored as chemical modifications to cytosine bases and to the histone proteins that package the genome. By regulating chromatin structure and DNA accessibility, these chemical changes influence how the genome is made manifest across a diverse array of developmental stages, tissue types, and disease states

In addition, compelling evidence supports the heritability of specific histone modifications in multicellular organisms. In particular, H3K27 and H3K4 methylation are catalyzed by Polycomb-group (PcG) and trithorax-group (trxG) protein complexes, which mediate mitotic inheritance of lineage-specific gene expression patterns (Ringrose and Paro, 2004 L. Ringrose and R. Paro, Epigenetic regulation of cellular memory by the Polycomb and Trithorax group proteins, Annu. Rev. Genet. 38 (2004), pp. 413–443. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (258)Ringrose and Paro, 2004; see also the Review by B. Schuettengruber et al., page 735 of this issue). PcG proteins dissociate from chromosomes during mitosis, raising the question of how they maintain this information. A physical interaction between PcG complexes and methylated histones retained within the chromatin could direct them back to their target sites after cell division. Still, the details of this intriguing model remain elusive and, furthermore, the extent to which other modifications are heritable remains enigmatic. Models of inheritance are further obscured by replication-independent histone deposition and by the potentially significant role of histone variants (Henikoff et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the term epigenome is used loosely to refer to cytosine methylation and the full repertoire of histone modifications, with the expectation that only a subset of the latter modifications will have epigenetic inheritance.

In a nutshell, epigenomes interact with our environment to produce changes in the DNA expression within us. Furthermore, these changes are heritable—that is able to be passed on to the next generation. Now, if this isn’t intelligent adaptation to the environment, as i keep postulating, then I’m Barack Obama.

You hear me, ellis and Copyleft?? This is the verifiable science you keep challenging me to produce. I’ve put up, so I’m not going to shut up. In return, both of you are mindless imbeciles, ok? What you think is “real” Sceince, i.e. neo-Darwinism, is a total bunch of crap.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

chuck -

See, they start out with the CONCLUSION that Creation is a MYTH.

I hate to break the news to you, but he earth is older than 10,000 years old. SCIENCE has PROVEN that. We didn’t all decend from Adam and Eve and they didn’t live in the Garden of Eden with Tyrannasauraus Rex.

There are LOTS of creation STORIES out there - if we’re going to teach the Bible, then I want the Hindu version with Brahma and Vishnu taught, as well … and the Inuit myth of Sedna … and the Viking myth with Odin and Ymir … then there’s the Roman version with Gaea …

hrmmmm … sounds a lot more like a literature class than a science class to me, now doesn’t it.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Bruno, I spent hours a couple of years ago speaking to those questions. I just don’t have the time or the energy to go back and reproduce that. If I get time later today, I’ll post some websites that may explain it to you.

You sound more and more like “real Zoologist” and the Catholic priests from the Middle Ages chuck. Oh, I can’t be bothered to show you what I’m talking about so you can decide for yourself, you just have to accept my authority.

I’ve already seen and torn apart your crackpot websites, and will do so any time you want to put more up. Again, I wouldn’t care WHAT you believe except for the fact that you and your ilk try to FORCE your ridiculous beliefs on the public at the point of a gun every chance you get.

By Copyleft

May 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

By the way, Mr. Obama, the epigenome research suggests that environmental factors can effect genes, resulting in a shift in inherited characteristics. That proves an environmental source for some types of mutations, NOT an intelligent one!

If it were “intelligent,” those altered genomes would always produce or revise traits in the direction of enhanced survivability and reproductive capacity… which they do not.

There’s change going on, all right—-but the insistence that it’s INTELLIGENT, DIRECTED change is what’s tripping you up. And the epigenomic data isn’t helping your philosophy one bit.

SO, if any of you out there want to believe that my views are based on religion in some way, believe what you want. My views are based on math and science.

No, your views are based on what concepts you find “unbelievable” vs. “acceptable.” Which is fine, but surely you see that such subjective judgments don’t qualify as science?

Bruno, you seem to be arguing that there’s an “intelligence” behind evolution, but you’re very careful not to say anything about the NATURE of that intelligence. In fact, you at times seem to be suggesting that it’s inherently “unknowable.” That may or may not be true, and it’s a worthwhile subject for philosophical discussion. But tell me: What, exactly, is scientific about such an assertion?

The transcendence from “non”-living to living is an unbridgeable chasm IMO, and can only rightly be described as a miracle. A Biblical miracle?? I don’t think so, but a miracle nonetheless.

And that’s where you part company with legitimate science. Miracles have no place in scientific inquiry, because they amount to throwing up your hands and saying, “I dunno; must be magic.” Science aspires a little higher than that. If IDers want to qualify to participate in the scientific process, they have to offer more than vauge, unfounded assertions that can be neither tested nor falsified. Those are the rules to play in this league, and ID simply ingores them-—or insists that they shouldn’t apply “because evolution sucks!”

ID may be a perfectly valid OPINION, but it ain’t science. I find it unlikely you will either understand or accept that, with your blind stubbornness. So goodbye and good riddance.

By LaughoftheWeek

May 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

You seem tiresomely long-winded and WAY too in love with yourself and your alleged “brilliance.”

and this is News?

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

The MECHANISM that you seek is GOD’S VOICE. He SPOKE these things into being. In my classroom, if I tell a student to sit down, He does so because he recognizes my authority. THAT IS THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT MATTERS.

yep. this is exactly what we need taught in science classrooms all over the country.

how to guarantee scientific research and achievements in the US will will fall behind that of the rest of the developed nations.

preach on, chuck, preach on … and remind me again why I left Atlanta in the first place.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

IMHO you guys are arguing apples and oranges.

One one hand you have science operating by its real definition and the other postulates altering the framework in which we view (currently) unknowable aspects.

The science route is considered a valid one since it does not allow one to infer their opinions or beliefs.

The one you propose, dog, is interesting and may one day become a niche, but even the most renown scientist/philosophers will not call it “science.”

The danger with what you propose, dog, is that you are envisioning people with the same unbiased views as you running the show when it comes to merging science and a spirit into a grey area. Without the hard and absolute rules of testable hypothesis and such, what do you think people like chuck would do with your theories? Where are the checks/balances?

I agree there should be a place in science to come up with these processes, but until it has some legs under it to prop it up, it is only a neat idea.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

ID may be a perfectly valid OPINION, but it ain’t science. I find it unlikely you will either understand or accept that, with your blind stubbornness. So goodbye and good riddance.

This is my last post to you, Copyleft, because you are nothing more than an imbecile who can’t think for himself. You buy into the anti-religious materialistic atheism which is being packaged as Science these days.

If you will go back and reread the “study” which Zoologist posted, you will see that it is FULL of subjective value judgments, specifically the “definition” of fitness. As such, it is no more “scientific” than my OPINION that “random mutations” CAN NOT lead to any type of “increased fitness”, “enhanced ability to survive”, “improvement of a species”, “complexity arising from simplicity”, whatever you want to call it. The only difference between me and neo-Darwinists, the ones who use the force of law to squash any dissenting opinion, is that I KNOW and ADMIT that the process we call “Science” absolutely contains many subjective elements.

BTW, what is your OPINION regarding the mathematics behind DNA strands?? With all of the gazillions upon gazillions upon gazillions of POSSIBLE combinations, why is it that the specific permutations which make life possible are the ones that are all around us??? Where are all the other possibilities?? SO, go ahead and stick to your “theory” that random chance has led to our incredibly specific DNA composition. I’d LOVE to have you play in my poker game.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

UsinUK, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THIS STATEMENT COULD POSSIBLY BE TRUE?

I hate to break the news to you, but he earth is older than 10,000 years old. SCIENCE has PROVEN that.

Proof is dependent upon OBSERVATION, and even that is not 100% (ever observe a magician?). I don’t know of a single scientist who OBSERVED the world coming into being. YOU accept this on FAITH. You have FAITH that they have no agenda. YOU HAVE FAITH that their conclusions are correct. YOU HAVE FAITH that they are honest. YOU HAVE FAITH that they didn’t start out with the conclusion. You are the one making unproveable assumptions here.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

Bruno, I spent hours a couple of years ago speaking to those questions.

Chuck always is stating that he has thought about his faith and made a conscious choice. BS.

People who have actually weight situations and considered alternatives can provide sympathy/empathy to those wrestling with those same issues.

Chuck can provide no understanding of anyone else’s position other than his own. To me this is some of the worst behavior anyone can exhibit, especially a christain.

Sack full of lies.

By lozen

May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Will this never end? This constant obsession to prove how smart he is and how stupid everyone else is ….. It’s just soooooo boring.

By Reality Check May 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this You are all overestimating the extent to which the average American student or anyone else cares about this topic, and underestimating the intelligence and diligence of students who enjoy and pursue scientific studies. Neither group is interested in how intelligent you think you are nor how faithful you claim to be.

Right you are Reality Check!

Mara, great song.

And then there are the people who are so shaky=rigid in their faith they believe a science class can turn a student against the “faith of their fathers”! “Yes, now what was it that convinced you to become an atheist?” “Well, it wasn’t thinking things through for myself, reading the bible and seeing that it just isn’t possible. All those superstitious stories and miracles and threats and things that go against nature itself like a virgin giving birth and a man coming back to life after being killed. It was my 9th grade science class and learning about Darwin that put an end to my religious ideas.”

By chuck

May 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

jokeson, thanks for another incomprehensible post.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

chuck -

Proof is dependent upon OBSERVATION

nope. wrong again. proof is dependent upon TESTING. In the scientific method, observation and data gathering is the FIRST step … followed by developing a hypothesis … then TESTING that hypothesis (and making sure it works in different conditions)

as far as the age of the earth, two words for you: carbon dating. by measuring the half-life of carbon, you can measure the age of an item. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

once you get your mind wrapped around that, then look up fossils … the mesozoic era … paleolithic era, etc …

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—Glad to hear a voice of reason and intelligence in this muddled sea of blind faith in both “science” and “religion”. I think the points you raise are valid objections to my worldview, but I think you have made some misstatements:

One one hand you have science operating by its real definition and the other postulates altering the framework in which we view (currently) unknowable aspects.

I agree that science has created its own, presumably unassailable “definitions”. The problem that I see is that the scope of “knowledge” which is obtainable through these narrow channels is so limited that it’s basically useless.

The science route is considered a valid one since it does not allow one to infer their opinions or beliefs.

Again, not true at all, JokesOn. Every experiment or study done requires INTERPRETATION. Including the study that Zoologist presented for me to critique. Specifically, the definition of “fitness” is defined by the “scientists” doing the experiment. Small wonder to me that their results magically agreed with their foregone assumptions. Put any “study” or “experiment” in the world up to see, and i will show you that there are many assumptions and self-created definitions involved which ultimately only prove the bias of those doing the experiments.

The one you propose, dog, is interesting and may one day become a niche, but even the most renown scientist/philosophers will not call it “science.”

Again, JokesOn, if we stick to the extremely narrow slice of “knowledge” or “discovery” that the scientific method facilitates, we’re not going to get far. The basic premise of the Scientific Method depends upon “controlling” all variables except for one, i.e. the “variable” being investigated. Hopefully you can think a little bit about this ad see the problem contained therein. First of all, it’s nearly impossible to “control” all variables except for one, even when you know what all those variables are. More importantly, because our human imaginations are terribly limited, it’s basically impossible to even KNOW what all the variables are. For example, though I think chuck’s vision of an anthropomorphic, involved Creator is a bunch of bunk, there is no way to prove him wrong. WHAT IF such a being existed. As such, all the “Laws” of physics which we believe to be immutable MIGHT ACTUALLY BE MUTABLE. You can relegate this concern to the area of metaphysics all day long, but it has real-world impact on the discovery of ETERNAL TRUTH. And again, that is the problem of trying to “isolate” science from metaphysics. Ultimately, they are intimately connected in a way that forces us to make ASSUMPTIONS about the nature of reality before we can even begin exploring that reality.

P.S. to chuck: don’t get a hard-on because it seems like I’m agreeing with you. The “probability” of the GOD you believe in existing are FAR beyond 4^4,200,000,000, the number of permutations of human DNA.

By lozen

May 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

Surely USinUK you do not really expect a man who has figured out the dimensions of the Ark to prove it could really hold two of every creature on earth to wrap his mind around the scientific method or carbon dating let alone fossils…..

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Will this never end? This constant obsession to prove how smart he is and how stupid everyone else is ….. It’s just soooooo boring.

So where is your enlightenment, lozen? Once again, you are nothing more than a bitter, sideline sniper who never has anything of value to add to ANY discussion.

If you think my whole point here is to prove how smart I am, you’re missing the point. The bigger point is how dumb we ALL are. I’m big enough to admit that and am NOT claiming I have all the answers. The “sceintists” and the “religionists” are the ones claiming they have all the answers. Which, once again, I wouldn’t care about if they both didn’t try to force their OPINIONS down our collective throats using the force of law. I stand for freedom—the freedom to choose your own opinions, and the freedom to have alternative viewpoints discussed. Isn’t that what you and your liberal friends stand for?? The only difference is that i actually have the intelligence and education to discuss things in a detailed way. Your only ability in life is to use your “good looks” to get jobs you couldn’t have gotten otherwise.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

lozen -

Surely USinUK you do not really expect a man who has figured out the dimensions of the Ark to prove it could really hold two of every creature on earth to wrap his mind around the scientific method or carbon dating let alone fossils…..

I’m torn somewhere between “hope springs eternal” and just the pure joy of shooting fish in a barrel.

By lozen

May 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

And USinUK surely you understand what appeals to Chuck about religion: “The MECHANISM that you seek is GOD’S VOICE. He SPOKE these things into being. In my classroom, if I tell a student to sit down, He does so because he recognizes my authority. THAT IS THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT MATTERS.” Chuck and other fundies don’t love Jesus and what he said. They love the old testament and the AUTHORITY. They want a monarchy (the king and his annointed son) not a democracy - or even a republic. They want politics in this country to reflect their totalitarian beliefs. Anybody see Boston Legal last night and the case about discrimination against women is wrong even when it’s religious?

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

nope. wrong again. proof is dependent upon TESTING. In the scientific method, observation and data gathering is the FIRST step … followed by developing a hypothesis … then TESTING that hypothesis (and making sure it works in different conditions)

Not true, USinUK. The first step is to make a bunch of ASSUMPTIONS about the “problem” being “investigated”. The BEST scientists in the world fully understand this critical step. The “average” scientist, and indeed “average” layperson aren’t self-aware enough to even BEGIN to explore, let alone detail the nearly INFINITE assumptions that lie behind the “Scientific Method”, or in fact “thinking” in general. And no amount of self-created definitions are going to convince me otherwise.

Simply put, before any “scientific” formula, like PV=nRT can be applied, a myriad of assumptions have to be employed first. Here, for example, it has to be ASSUMED that gases behave in a way that is consistent with the Ideal Gas Law. Again, the “average” scientist typically skips over this critical step, which taints any results found using the formula. The bottom line is that our “human” separation from “reality”, and our reliance on “models” forever prevents us from “knowing” ultimate truth. Call this a philosophical point if you will, but it has “real-world” implications.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

USinUK, proof is dependent upon TESTING

Again, you are putting your FAITH into a process that is totally unreliable. For instance, if you look at the website I referenced, you will see that carbon dating has placed at least 5 different dates on a VERY historical Egyptian dynasty. These dates show as much as 500 years difference. If they can’t accurately place the dates of items that are no more than 5000 years old, how can we trust them to place dates on things that are supposedly millions of years old. You are also assuming that GOD is bound by the laws of a physical universe.

Additionally, I am NOT advocating that Biblical Creation be taught in the schools. What makes more sense to me is that we STOP teaching MACROEVOLUTION, since in REALITY, it has no more scientific proof than Biblical Creation. If you go back to the websites I posted earlier, you will see alternative explanations for the geology of the earth. You can also do a search on “Catastropic Geology”. BUT, I don’t really expect you to learn anything from it because your mind is already made up. I don’t have a problem with that, mine is, too.

By lozen

May 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Now what is your real name, boring, boring dog? A number of people know who you are. I’ve forgotten because it just isn’t important. Yeah, you’re so intelligent and educated and you bragged about your assets so much someone on a blog was able to find out who you really are! So smart!

By chuck

May 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

BTW, USinUK,

I. The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Can you tell me about the EXPERIMENT that PROVED the age of the earth? Can you tell me how an experiment can be constructed that will give TEST something that supposedly happened millions of years ago?

It’s okay if EVOLUTION IS YOUR RELIGION. It seems that you should be proud to admit it.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

as far as the age of the earth, two words for you: carbon dating. by measuring the half-life of carbon, you can measure the age of an item. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

Here, for example, your reference to “carbon dating” being “scientific” is not true, USinUK. you have to begin with a lot of ASSUMPTIONS before you can apply the method. Specifically, the environmental concentration of the ratio between carbon12 and carbon14 is ASSUMED to have remained constant throughout history. No one can PROVE that, so it is merely ASSUMED.

I know that you take “comfort” in the “facts” which are “discovered” by “scientists”, but if yo dig deep enough, and learn about the “facts” yourself, you will see that the worldview propagated by atheistic, materialistic “scientists” is, in fact, no more “certain” than the worldview adopted by chuck. It all comes down to probabilities.

Gotta run. Enjoyed the discussion.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

USinUK, in your 11:02, you pasted part of my earlier post. Can you still see that post? It does not appear to still be here. I hate to ask you to do this, but if the post is still there, could you copy it and post it again for me? There were a couple of things that I put in there specifically for Bruno that I really would like for him to respond to. Perhaps he can see it. I don’t know why I can’t.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Remember, Galileo’s heretical observation that the earth revolved around the sun eventually separated science from both philosophy and religion.

One last point, which I find fascinating, which was briefly touched upon by another poster earlier this week: According to Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, no one reference frame can be ASSUMED to be any more “objective” than any other reference frame. As such, it is no more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun than it is to say the Sun revolves around the Earth. It’s all a matter of “perspective”. The only difference comes down to the USEFULNESS of the model adopted, which is, once again, subjective.

Furthermore, since the Universe has no “boundaries”, it therefore has no “center”. According to Einstein’s logic, EVERY point within the Universe can be rightly described as the “center” of the Universe. As such, both the “heliocentric” and “earth-centered” models of planetary motion are EQUALLY VALID FROM A “SCIENTIFIC” STANDPOINT!!!!

Which in the end is my biggest point—“Truth” is an elusive topic. Multiple viewpoints, even seemingly “mutually exclusive” viewpoints can both be simultaneously true!! The proverbial “excluded middle” does not exist in reality. Therefore, NO ONE has the right to force ANY specific viewpoint on our children, whether “scientific” or “religious” in nature. No one.

“I will choose FREE WILL”. Thanks again, Mara. You’re a dear.

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

chuck -

Can you still see that post? It does not appear to still be here. I hate to ask you to do this, but if the post is still there, could you copy it and post it again for me?

looks like you’re “gone with the spam”, as it were - sorry. (which explains why I couldn’t go back and fine the link you referenced)

By BigParty

May 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

So is there a Big Party planned here for June 2?

By USinUK

May 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

okay guys - heading to dinner - hasta del fuego.

btw - has anyone noticed that we’ve actually stayed ON TOPIC (mostly) for just about the entire week? I think that sets some kind of record.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

There were a couple of things that I put in there specifically for Bruno that I really would like for him to respond to. Perhaps he can see it. I don’t know why I can’t.

I was going to respond, chuck, but it looks like they were censored before I could get to your links. Please repost them.

Since it’s raining now, I guess I will delay leaving for the beach.

Looks like lozen is threatening me again. Because she can’t hang with any discussions which require intelligence, and doesn’t like when I throw her insulting, ad hominem attacks right back in her face, she is threatening me again. I thought you were a “compassionate” liberal who “welcomed” multiple viewpoints???? Or, are you just as much of a fascist as chuck????? I’m thinking fascist.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Thanks for checking that for me USinUK.

All the way through Thursday midday is definitely approaching a record.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

I agree that science has created its own, presumably unassailable “definitions”. The problem that I see is that the scope of “knowledge” which is obtainable through these narrow channels is so limited that it’s basically useless.

Your totally disingenuous statement here discredits you. One comprehensive feat is the calibration part of an airliner which compensates for the the variation of time due to speed. This is a device that came out of pure science, moved to practical science, and then was applied to the real world. The “narrow channel” you refer to as useless is what guided scientist after Einstein to its testing and use.

Again, not true at all, JokesOn. Every experiment or study done requires INTERPRETATION. Including the study that Zoologist presented for me to critique.

That seems like a baseline statement that could be used to discredit all things in existence. Any statement that universally damning does not deserves much thought. It can apply to you, chuck, the earth…

Without a means to break through the veil, nothing meaningful can be said about what is behind it; much less tested or proved.

By Monica

May 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I was looking forward to checking out those links as well. Do you think that you could re-post them? Thanks.

UsinUk, the Earth is more than 10,000 years old if you assume that it was created “new.” According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as adults. It stands to reason that He created a mature Earth as well. That’s assming, of course, that the creation in Genesis is the truth, which I know many people don’t believe. :)

BTW - When I taught World Lit, my favorite unit was World Myths and Folktales. I loved to compare the creation myths from various nations. The kids always enjoyed reading those.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Your totally disingenuous statement here discredits you. One comprehensive feat is the calibration part of an airliner which compensates for the the variation of time due to speed. This is a device that came out of pure science, moved to practical science, and then was applied to the real world. The “narrow channel” you refer to as useless is what guided scientist after Einstein to its testing and use.

Well, if you want to argue that the “modern lifestyle” is far superior to “old-fashioned living”, have at it. Certainly you can point to specific technological breakthroughs which make life “easier”, but I can just as easily point to technological breakthroughs like nuclear weapons and biological warfare which have created untold suffering. Personally, I think we are on the verge of some kind of bio-disaster if we don’t stop messing with Mother Nature via cloning, etc. I can imagine viruses and other toxic poisons which far eclipse anything we’ve seen yet. So in the end, the “advancement” of technology is a mixed bag at best. And, in any case, a subjective call.

Without a means to break through the veil, nothing meaningful can be said about what is behind it; much less tested or proved.

Sorry, bro. I didn’t invent the limitations which prevent us from discovering “ultimate truth”. You’ll have to take that one up with the Maker.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

Furthermore, since the Universe has no “boundaries”, it therefore has no “center”. According to Einstein’s logic, EVERY point within the Universe can be rightly described as the “center” of the Universe. As such, both the “heliocentric” and “earth-centered” models of planetary motion are EQUALLY VALID FROM A “SCIENTIFIC” STANDPOINT!!!!

That is IF it has no boundaries, which is not known and cannot currently be tests. Funny that you would put stock in that elusive of a point, yet question carbon dating as a ballpark indicator if not accurate.

Once again, like with your religion, you pick and choose what fits you best; not entirely the best way to make choices.

By real zoologist

May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Bruno,

I was no where near a computer yesterday and could not respond to your posts.

I don’t think we really have an argument…You are right, I assumed you were taking the more religious anti-evolution view. That article was just an example to show evolution occurs. I expected you to critque their conclusions, not whether the things they observed came about as a result of random chance vs intelligence. As far as what drives evolution, random chance or intelligent design…I’m not really interested in that. Who’s to say random events aren’t hidden intelligent design? I don’t see the conflict.

But you did make this statement:

In conclusion, although the authors of this experiment seem convinced that they have somehow bridged the gap between microevolution and macroevolution, they haven’t. All they have shown is that viruses demonstrate genetic changes over time by subjecting them to a new environment.

Why haven’t they demonstrated evolution? (micro and macro aren’t not really useful terms, for me anyway) The genetic change between populations is part of the definition of evolution. The same types of studies have been done in bird populations that show a single genetically defined species diverging into two distinct genetically different species that are not only incapable of reproducing but also show distinct differentiated calls.

Yes, you do have to hypothesize how this relates to obviously different examples such as birds evolving from reptiles, or even man evolving from primitive primates (note I did not say apes), but you have stated yourself that you accept that species evolve from earlier species so I would think you would welcome research that shows, even as a minute example, how evolution can happen. It is almost impossible to demonstrate that at something like the family or order level. You either have to find transitional forms fossilized, which means they have to have been fossilized in the first place and they have to have been found. Or you have to observe it, which would take thousands or millions of years.

All of the species on this earth either evolved (and are still evolving) from earlier species, all the way back to the beginning of life OR all of the species on this earth were put here by some force (God if you believe Genesis, Aliens, who knows..) in their original state, and the only ones that aren’t still here have gone extinct. I assume you don’t believe the latter.

If you believe that all of the species on earth evolved from earlier species and you don’t believe the current theories that scientist mantain, then how did it happen? And if it was intelligently designed then how was that design implemented? If epigenomes are the answer, then how do they drive the originatin of species. For example, how would this appy to the emergence of the common hummingbird? You mention epigenomes…these environmental factors that cause genetic changes that are carried forth, but I don’t see how you relate that to the origin of species.

As to words like “strongly suggest”…all scientific papers read like that…that merely states that the researchers have findings that may be challenged by other scientists, which is what has to be done before the conclusions are generally accepted. Anyone educated in a scientific discipline would know that.

And I don’t make any assumptions about your education except that your are not formally educated in the life sciences.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

UsinUk, the Earth is more than 10,000 years old if you assume that it was created “new.” According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as adults. It stands to reason that He created a mature Earth as well. That’s assming, of course, that the creation in Genesis is the truth, which I know many people don’t believe. :)

Like I keep saying, Monica, don’t underestimate your own intelligence in evaluating Scientific “Truth”. The fact that you recognized that ASSUMPTIONS play an integral part of our “discovery” of knowledge makes you smarter than any other poster this week, IMO. My only beef with you is when you stated “Science teaches us that matter cannot be created or destroyed.” Just why do you need some windbag “scientist” to teach you what your own common sense tells you??

Trust your intuition. It’s almost always right.

By Monica

May 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Sorry, bro. I didn’t invent the limitations which prevent us from discovering “ultimate truth”. You’ll have to take that one up with the Maker.

Would that be the Maker that you don’t believe in? :)

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three electric cars across a huge, huge desert. I know that’s not much of a recommendation but it’s one of the many facts I love about myself. Three-Car-Dog

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

I don’t think we really have an argument…You are right, I assumed you were taking the more religious anti-evolution view. That article was just an example to show evolution occurs. I expected you to critque their conclusions, not whether the things they observed came about as a result of random chance vs intelligence. As far as what drives evolution, random chance or intelligent design…I’m not really interested in that. Who’s to say random events aren’t hidden intelligent design? I don’t see the conflict.

Zoologist, glad to hear from you. I take back any maligning statements I made about you based upon your reasonable admission that you are guilty of making many ASSUMPTIONS. Which is basically my only point. Differently from you, the driving mechanism behind evolution (which is just a fancy word for change over time) IS the most critical difference in deciding between Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinism. I appreciate the fact that you think it ultimately doesn’t matter, and is perhaps indiscernible in the end. Pray tell, then, why is one view allowed to be discussed in the classroom, but the other not?? Are you sure that some agenda isn’t behind it all??

Why haven’t they demonstrated evolution? (micro and macro aren’t not really useful terms, for me anyway) The genetic change between populations is part of the definition of evolution. The same types of studies have been done in bird populations that show a single genetically defined species diverging into two distinct genetically different species that are not only incapable of reproducing but also show distinct differentiated calls.

Again, no one, and I repeat NO ONE is arguing whether changes occur over time, which is the definition of “evolution”. It is the mechanism which is in question.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Well, if you want to argue that the “modern lifestyle” is far superior to “old-fashioned living”,

Why would I want to change the subject. You said The problem that I see is that the scope of “knowledge” which is obtainable through these narrow channels is so limited that it’s basically useless.

And I pointed out that you are absolutely wrong and blanket statements like that discredit you. You brought in the terms “modern lifestyle” vs “old-fashioned living.” I simply pointed out your stance that nothing useful has come out of science is bs. You have an opportunity here to show that you are able to humbly back off a err…

Sorry, bro. I didn’t invent the limitations which prevent us from discovering “ultimate truth”.

But it is you who is asserting that this area of ignorance debunks all of science. You need to provide an alternative if you are removing the standard and I do not see you doing that.

I also believe that this is possible, but am unwilling to throw out a whole system that has worked well so far. I also believe that the answer lie more in the past civilizations like the Mayas and Egyptians than higher science as we normally think of it.

But as I said, I would approach it outside of science and then look to see where/if the two meet. I believe some past civilizations had discovered some of these unintuitive (regarding the normal scientific method) “miracles” including the creator of Coral Castle. Reproducing these feats could be a gateway to testing the hows and whys.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Would that be the Maker that you don’t believe in? :)

I believe in Immanuel, Monica—God With Us. Again, the Bible clearly states that GOD is a Spirit. A Spirit, by definition, has no substance. As such, it is hard to talk about. In my own case, when I think of the omniscient, omnipresent Spirit which is represented by the concept of Gestalt, it all makes sense to me. That is, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s a difficult concept to talk about, let alone appreciate at the atomic level. But it’s definitely “real”. Your liver and spleen are made of of the same atoms, yet they perform very different functions in the body. This is unexplainable at the atomic level. Where does this “purpose originate from”? Not even a “real zoologist” can answer that one, no matter how much more educated he believes he is than me.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

As to words like “strongly suggest”…all scientific papers read like that…that merely states that the researchers have findings that may be challenged by other scientists, which is what has to be done before the conclusions are generally accepted. Anyone educated in a scientific discipline would know that.

Please skip the arrogance, Zoologist. Anyone with common sense should have the the right and ability to challenge the findings of ANY research study, especially those that are fund with taxpayer dollars. “Science” isn’t some exclusive “club” that requires admittance to in order to make intelligent comments about it.

And I don’t make any assumptions about your education except that your are not formally educated in the life sciences.

Of my more than 500 college credit hours, more than half are in the “life sciences”, such as organic chemistry, histology, embryology, pathology, etc. Why do you assume otherwise??

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

And I pointed out that you are absolutely wrong and blanket statements like that discredit you. You brought in the terms “modern lifestyle” vs “old-fashioned living.” I simply pointed out your stance that nothing useful has come out of science is bs. You have an opportunity here to show that you are able to humbly back off a err…

Sorry, JokesOn, you are the one who introduced the subjective term “useful”. I was merely giving examples that ALL technological progress cannot be considered “useful”, especially destructive technologies, or just as bad, unintentionally destructive technologies like the creation of PCBs.

But as I said, I would approach it outside of science and then look to see where/if the two meet. I believe some past civilizations had discovered some of these unintuitive (regarding the normal scientific method) “miracles” including the creator of Coral Castle. Reproducing these feats could be a gateway to testing the hows and whys.

I’m confused, JokesOn. A few minutes ago, you seemed to be arguing that Science and the Scientific Method were the end-all, be-all of discovering truth. Now you are suggesting “stepping outside of Science”, which is exactly what I have been advocating all along.

Look, buddy, we are on the same side here, just using different terminology. Differently from lozen, you are able to take me on straight up. Because she is a pathetic loser, all she can do is publish my name and create fake “bruno” posts. What is your opinion of lozen?

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

“Science” isn’t some exclusive “club” that requires admittance to in order to make intelligent comments about it.

Not if you include those pesky things called degrees.

Of my more than 500 college credit hours, more than half are in the “life sciences”, such as organic chemistry, histology, embryology, pathology, etc. Why do you assume otherwise??

Getting tired of your arrogance dog. No one can know more or different stuff than you. Are you really that damaged that you cannot take even a small hit without feeling beaten down?

For what it is worth, you are losing my support fast.

What I hear from you is a good stoner conversation that is nice warm and fuzzy but cannot be applied anywhere in reality. And without bringing it into reality, with all its faults as well, you will never be able to do more with it than have more ambiguous, but deep, conversations.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three electric cars across a huge, huge desert. I know that’s not much of a recommendation but it’s one of the many facts I love about myself. Three-Car-Dog

Is that your best shot, loser? I’m sorry that you don’t have enough brain power to play with the big boys. Or that no one is interested in your whining references to TV shows like Boston Legal about the “oppression” you face as a woman. Which is the only topic you ever want to discuss. Frankly, I don’t think anyone but you and your bitter-hag buddies care about your whining. If you want some attention, why don’t you think of a positive way to achieve it, instead of the negative, whining methods that you haven’t grown past? I’m serious.

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Getting tired of your arrogance dog. No one can know more or different stuff than you. Are you really that damaged that you cannot take even a small hit without feeling beaten down?

Good point, JokesOn.

I’ll make this my exit point, then. Thanks again for your intelligent insight and excellent commentary. I’m sure I went overboard this week, but the arrogance exhibited by the “science community” is one of my biggest emotional triggers. Possibly is related to being in a profession which is regularly spit upon by the unknowledgeable.

Take it easy.

By chuck

May 15, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

There are several sites that talk about the age of the earth according to the Bible. One addresses the issue of the use of the language in the Bible:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

This next site has a lengthy and very credible description of the chronology of the Bible. It directly addresses your assertion Bruno that the Bible gives no reference as to the time of creation. One of the most fascinating studies I’ve ever been a part of Bruno, is the study of the use of numbers in the Bible. This article explains some of these ideas.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/85

The other point that I addressed in the earlier post Bruno, was your assertion that the:

No where in the Bible is the MECHANISM by which the Universe came into being detailed in a way that is a substitute for scientific inquiry.

In Genesis 1 it says the following:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

I’m not sure I can say it as eloquently as I did earlier today, the gist of this is that IF THERE IS A GOD, (and there is), then He is not bound by the “Laws of Physics” as we understand them. HE CREATED THOSE LAWS. GOD by definition is OMNICIENT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNIPRESENT. As CREATOR, He has authority over His Creation. The reason people fail to understand God is that they try to put Him into a “God Box”, based on their own ideas of His limitations. They fail to realize that as GOD He has no such human limitations.

So, the MECHANISM that you seek is GOD’S VOICE. He SPOKE these things into being. In my classroom, if I tell a student to sit down, He does so because he recognizes my authority. THAT IS THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT MATTERS. His creation RECOGNIZES His voice.

Finally Bruno, while this is a fun intellectual exercise, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t make much difference. God isn’t going to sweat hwether or not we are right or wrong on this particular issue. The only thing that matters in the long-term is whether or not we have accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord. Everything else is a matter of growth and maturity as a believer. They aren’t deal breakers as far as God is concerned.

By ellis

May 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

still no scientific hypothesis for ID. still no proof.

ID is still a fairy tale with no science at all.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Dog,

Sorry, JokesOn, you are the one who introduced the subjective term “useful”.

Your post: “The problem that I see is that the scope of “knowledge” which is obtainable through these narrow channels is so limited that it’s basically useless.”

I’m confused, JokesOn. A few minutes ago, you seemed to be arguing that Science and the Scientific Method were the end-all, be-all of discovering truth. Now you are suggesting “stepping outside of Science”, which is exactly what I have been advocating all along.

You advocate it at the expense of valid science, where I do not. You have tried to discredit modern science from day one, but have nothing to replace it with, and the likes of chuck would love to hijack it if they could. You see the issue here?

I support the ventures into unconventional science. The downside is with no way of connecting it to what we currently know and the systems currently in place it is useless. So the next phase would be to bridge that gap, a TOE if you would. To skip the most important phase, gaining and proving accuracy and validity, is plain lazy - or means there is no route there.

By real zoologist

May 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Don’t you hate it when you type a great post and then lose everything because you forgot to put in your name or email?

Not much time to retype Bruno. I guess we’ll have to agree to have philosophical differences.

Assumptions are part of science, without them we would never discover anything. We do expect those assumptions to be informed. And we do welcome credible challenges to those assumptions, again, that is how new things are discovered.

I don’t think ID meets the credibility criteria and that also there is a religious agenda behind it..that is why I object to it in a scientific program.

No time left…will try to rejoin tomorrow.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

but the arrogance exhibited by the “science community” is one of my biggest emotional triggers. Possibly is related to being in a profession which is regularly spit upon by the unknowledgeable.

They are your buttons, man. Only you can choose to put them away and control them.

What is your opinion of lozen?

Do you really want to invoke that drama on the blog?hehe She has so many buttons that 99% of her being is reaction.

(watching for the “I really dont care what you sexist slur guys think. And then something about a pi$$ing contest…)

By Bruno

May 15, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Not much time to retype Bruno. I guess we’ll have to agree to have philosophical differences.

Thanks for your participation, Zoo. I enjoyed chatting with you. You have a good outlook on things, and a good command of diplomacy.

They are your buttons, man. Only you can choose to put them away and control them.

Excellent point, JokesOn. I appreciate the compassion you exhibit on a regular basis. It has meant a lot to me.

chuck—Don’t have time to nit-pick through your site, but it is based upon arguing over the definition of certain words, and thus ultimately depends on subjective interpretations of mythological statements. Keep your faith, and support it. Please, however, in your self-appointed authoritarian way remember that the Maker gave us all freewill, which includes the right and ability to have our own interpretations of things.

Finally, lozen (and feminist friends): I wish for you the happiness which seems to elude both you and me. I’m sorry we couldn’t “team up” more. Ultimately, we are on the same side in fighting oppression. I hope you can accept that and not harbor bitterness toward me. In two weeks, I am going to return to being a “compassionate healer” and will put aside my own petty bitterness. I am no better than you or anyone else in this world. We all have something to offer. Thank you also for contributing to my “education” here on W2W. Believe it or not, I take what you say very seriously. Take care. Signed, a terminal smart-a*. ; > }

By Copyleft

May 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Scientific arrogance does exist, but it’s at least partially justified. After all, their stuff actually works.

Sure, science isn’t PERFECT… it’s just better than anything else that’s been tried. Kinda like democracy, no?

By Eagle1

May 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Very interesting reading the comments being made by all. One thing that I’ve seen repeated a number of times by some is the epigenetic research being conducted by many labs. Regardless of which ideology those who cite epigenetics believe, I was wondering if someone could explain it to me as they understand it.

Being a biologist I am familiar with epigenetic research and I have a feeling that there are some who are misinformed/misunderstanding the data being published.

If possible, provide some links to articles (peer-reviewed is preferred).

By lozen

May 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

why is one view allowed to be discussed in the classroom, but the other not?? Are you sure that some agenda isn’t behind it all?? Hard to believe this question! Remember 1925? Remember Tennessee, John Scopes, Wm. Jennings Bryan and his fundy (he was called “the Fundamentalist Pope,” self appointed of course) attempt to prevent the teaching of evolution in high schools?

By chuck

May 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Bruno

Please, however, in your self-appointed authoritarian way remember that the Maker gave us all freewill, which includes the right and ability to have our own interpretations of things.

I certainly agree with you that the Father gave us free will. I have never argued that point. As a student of the Word, however, I have to point out, that while you are certainly FREE to interpret things any way you wish to, that doesn’t necessarily make your interpretation CORRECT. You are free to believe anything you want to believe, BUT, some things from God’s perspective are NON-NEGOTIABLE, and NOT OPEN to interpretation. As humans we tend to want to “interpret” the Word to match our preconceived beliefs about the way things SHOULD be (according to us). When you study the Word INDUCTIVELY, you learn that in order to truly understand it, you have to study it as a WHOLE document and NOT its individual parts.

By justsayin'

May 15, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

There’s a cheap debating trick which implies that if, say, science can’t explain something, this must mean that some other discipline can. If scientists suspect that all aspects of the development of human beings have a scientific explanation (evolution) but they can’t actually say exactly how that works yet, then of course it’s open to you to doubt whether the explanation ever will be forthcoming. That’s a perfectly reasonable doubt. But it’s not legitimately open to you to substitute words like “Intelligent Design” as if that constituted an explanation. It is not an explanation, it’s an evasion. It’s just a name for that which we don’t understand. The scientist may agree to use a word (evolution) for that which we don’t understand, but the scientist adds, “But we’re working on it, and one day we hope we shall explain it.” The dishonest trick is to use something like ID as if it constituted an explanation.

By lozen

May 15, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I would think, having studied elementary school science, that 14 would have to come before 3,4, and 5 on this list. If 6 is true, where is the water above the sky? Did the astronauts fly thru any water? They didn’t mention it. If 26 is true how can man be bad when he is made in god’s image or “our image” whoever they were. If god is omnipotent, omnipresent, blah blah how in the world could the devil ever turn against him or challenge him? Why did he create the devil, not to mention the mosquito and the tapeworm? Why did he create creatures that seem to want nothing more than to disobey him - unless he’s a pretty big ole rebel himself?

By Anti-scientist

May 15, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

I think Bruno may have something here. In my religion we worship, bow down to, sing praises to, and obey Bacteria. Hail great, wise, all knowing Bacteria! You who in your wisdom created humans to carry You from one place to another. Our bodies are full of Bacteria and therefore there is intelligent design. Hallelujah! Our bodies are full of Bacteria and therefore god is within each and every one of us. Go in peace my brothers and sisters, beloved children of the great Bacteria.

By JokesOn

May 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Why did he create creatures that seem to want nothing more than to disobey him - unless he’s a pretty big ole rebel himself?

The question that breaks chucks solid theory is How did god not condemn each and every person when he decided to give them free will? Upon providing free will, he would simultaneously know what each person chose; which would be based on his design.

No matter what he tweaked to provide this “free will” no one would actually have it since all would be dictated (god know ALL) the moment he gave it.

Can you imaging? You are at an intersection and you know all the outcomes of other peoples lives whether you go right, straight, etc. You would HAVE to choose who would die because of your actions, who would live and etc base on a simple turn.

By lozen

May 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

BUT, some things from God’s perspective are NON-NEGOTIABLE, and NOT OPEN to interpretation. Excuse me but I believe that what you meant to say is “BUT, some things from MY perspective are NON-NEGOTIABLE and NOT OPEN to interpretation (except for MY interpretation of course).”

By lozen

May 15, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

Uh, anti-scientist is that, like, the opposite of anti-christ? In your religion are there some things from Bacteria’s perspective that are NON-NEGOTIABLE, and NOT OPEN to interpretation?

By Copyleft

May 16, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

Anything expressed in words is subject to interpretation—even by people who think the meaning is “clear and obvious.”

By Mara

May 16, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

I’m still chuckling about “Believe in my noodily appendages…” from three days ago.

noodily appendages…LOL!!!

By Copyleft

May 16, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

Mara: You mean you’d never run across the Flying Spaghetti Monster before now? It’s GREAT fun!

http://www.venganza.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlyingSpaghettiMonster http://www.flyingspaghettimonster.com/

You can even get stickers, mugs, “I’m a Pastafarian” T-Shirts… it’s wacky stuff, perfectly suited to Friday silliness.

By Mara

May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, I have read about the FSM before and I agree, lotsa fun. It’s the phrase “noodily appendages” that’s got me goin’. It just tickles my tongue for some reason. :^P

By Truth

May 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

USinUK

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. that’s sane, totally “hinged” rhetoric there - “your party tells you who to hate” … indeed. I must get my marching orders from Howard Dean via e-mail every morning - just like you guys get yours from Rush and Karl.

I don’t know who you get your orders from, but you all seem to hate the same groups of people and they are always the exact same politically incorrect people that the DNC says is OK to hate. Seems like a pretty obvious link to me.

Maybe it’s in your DNA to hate. I think it is a taught response. Christians are bad as is anyone who wants to have a different opinion than you, especially if that person wants their opinion to become law. You and others have said exactly that. You said that anyone can believe anything they want, but they become evil if they want those ideas to become laws. Apparently only liberal ideas like abortions should become law.

It’s like when Ms. Obama said that she was proud of her country for the first time in her life. She is so indoctrinated that she STILL doesn’t see the problem with what she said. You guys come on here and spout what you spout and never give it a second thought unless Bruno, chuck or myself say something.

Personally, I would like for the conservative three or four posters to stay away for a week or two and just let you guys go with your hate and your attacks on anything not considered PC. Most liberal forums that don’t allow conservatives (like the democratic underground) are just slobbering hate-holes.

By Jack

May 16, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Happy Friday:

A teacher asks her class, ‘If there are 5 birds sitting on a fence and you shoot one of them, how many will be left?’ She calls on little TONY.

He replies, ‘None, they will all fly away with the first gunshot.’

The teacher replies, ‘The correct answer is 4, but I like your thinking.’

Then little TONY says, ‘I have a question for YOU.

There are 3 women sitting on a bench having ice cream:

One is delicately licking the sides of the triple scoop of ice cream . The second is gobbling down the top and sucking the cone. The third is biting off the top of the ice cream. Which one is married?’

The teacher, blushing a great deal, replied, ‘Well, I suppose the one that’s gobbled down the top and sucked the cone.’

To which Little TONY replied, ‘The correct answer is ‘the one with the wedding ring on,’ but I like your thinking.’

By AnotherLaugh

May 16, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Most liberal forums that don’t allow conservatives (like the democratic underground) are just slobbering hate-holes.

says Mr Love, as ugly as Bruno.

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

“I don’t know who you get your orders from, but you all seem to hate the same groups of people and they are always the exact same politically incorrect people that the DNC says is OK to hate. Seems like a pretty obvious link to me.”

pssssst … all you lefties … today, Friday the 16th, we’re all s’posed to hate those pesky Methodists … you know, John Wesley and all those Welsh miners with their hymn singing and all … I heard it straight from Howard Dean, himself …

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

You said that anyone can believe anything they want, but they become evil if they want those ideas to become laws. Apparently only liberal ideas like abortions should become law.

So, what you are saying is, you still do not understand why simple opinions, dem or cons, should not be made into legislation?

We covered this many times, but you seem to still have trouble grasping that laws are based on protecting and balancing freedoms; not simply changing the system to conform with a persons faith or spiritual beliefs. When we do cover it you disengage from the conversation and ignore what was learned in 2-3days time, just to spout it back out. That sounds more like dogma to me.

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

“You said that anyone can believe anything they want, but they become evil if they want those ideas to become laws.”

become evil? no.

what I said was that I have no problem with your belief system until you try to impose it on me.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

pssssst … all you lefties … today, Friday the 16th, we’re all s’posed to hate those pesky Methodists … you know, John Wesley and all those Welsh miners with their hymn singing and all … I heard it straight from Howard Dean, himself …

Thanks USinUK! I changed my email address and no longer get the memos! I will pass on the info…

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Most liberal forums that don’t allow conservatives (like the democratic underground) are just slobbering hate-holes

for all your slobbering hate-hole needs, check out Free Republic. All hate. All the time.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

what I said was that I have no problem with your belief system until you try to impose it on me.

That is what has been reiterated multiple times. I guess if they actually listened and got it, they would not have that angle to demonize us. Dogma.

By Mara

May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Apparently only liberal ideas like abortions should become law

uh…abortion isn’t an “idea”, it’s a medical procedure.

and disagreeing with someone, either philosophically or politically, doesn’t mean you “hate” them. Everything these days is “hate” this and “hate” that. If you disagree with presidential policies it isn’t because you think they’re bad ideas, it’s because you “hate the president”. If you don’t capitulate to the religious right you “hate God”. If you don’t have the yellow-ribbon exhorting everyone to “support our troops” it’s because you “hate the soldiers”. No American flag lapel pin? You must “hate America”. Hate, hate, hate…everything is “hate.

Truth, most people are quite able to oppose ideas or legislations without “hating” anyone. I don’t “hate” you, for example, but I don’t agree with much of anything you say either. It isn’t necessary for someone “hate” a person to be able to believe that they’re ill-informed, that their ideas/legislation are bad for the nation, or that they are incompetent boobs and idiots.

I most vehemently disagree with your ideology and I oppose any attempt to codify your ideals into law, but I don’t “hate” you…

By AnotherLaugh

May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

I guess our Mr Love, as ugly as Bruno, has never read Ann Colter.

By chuck

May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

what I said was that I have no problem with your belief system until you try to impose it on me

Seems to me you are perfectly willing to “impose YOUR belief system” on innocent unborn babies.

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Jokesy -

I guess if they actually listened and got it, they would not have that angle to demonize us.

to paraphrase Pogo: they have seen the enemy and it is freedom.

oh, they like to spout about how much they love freedom. as long as that freedom involves worshipping the way they do, thinking the way they do about birth control and believing that life begins at the exact moment they say it does. THAT’S their kind of freedom.

anything else is tyranny.

you know - “peace through war” - that kind of schtuph.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Seems to me you are perfectly willing to “impose YOUR belief system” on innocent unborn babies.

More proof chuck does not even know what they legal basis for that discussion is.

By chuck

May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Joke…this analogy makes no sense at all. You completely missed the concept of free will and went off into lala land.

Can you imaging? You are at an intersection and you know all the outcomes of other peoples lives whether you go right, straight, etc. You would HAVE to choose who would die because of your actions, who would live and etc base on a simple turn.

God doesn’t work that way at all. This analogy is a much more accurate one.

I am driving along at dusk, approaching a river. As I get closer, I realize in the failing last light of day, that the bridge has collapsed and there is already a car in the water 100 feet below. I park my car and get out to warn the vehicles approaching in the darkness. I scream, wave my arms, stand in the road, all to no avail. They go around me and drive directly into the abyss. Yes I knew what was going to happen, but MY ACTIONS did not CAUSE THEM to make the choice that they made. THAT IS FREE WILL.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

oh, they like to spout about how much they love freedom. as long as that freedom involves worshipping the way they do, thinking the way they do about birth control and believing that life begins at the exact moment they say it does. THAT’S their kind of freedom.

Yep. Providing people with their inherit rights as Americans is considered “crazy talk.”

“living is easy with eyes close…”

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

chuck -

Seems to me you are perfectly willing to “impose YOUR belief system” on innocent unborn babies

yep. I regularly round up pregnant wimmen and ship them off to the clinic for a big group abortion (you know, volume discount and all).

again, I’ll say - the countries with the most liberal laws regarding abortion have the lowest abortion rates. the countries with the most restrictive laws on abortion have the highest abortion rates. (see the Guttmacher Institute if you don’t believe me).

as long as women have been getting pregnant, they’ve been figuring out ways to abort and contracept - laws have nothing to do with it.

don’t like abortion? then work your patooties off to make sure kids are well educated and that contracteption is effective and accessible.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Poor chuck,

Joke…this analogy makes no sense at all. You completely missed the concept of free will and went off into lala land.

No. You just cannot understand the words that are coming out of my mouth (keyboard).

God, in your words is *OMNICIENT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNIPRESENT” which means there are NO variables to him. He dictates all that occurs because when he makes choices and has full understanding of how those choices will ripple out all actions spring from his initial action.

It is your box that you are putting a creator in: a man made box. Probably the worst thing a man of faith can do.

By Mara

May 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

I am driving along at dusk, approaching a river. As I get closer, I realize in the failing last light of day, that the bridge has collapsed and there is already a car in the water 100 feet below. I park my car and get out to warn the vehicles approaching in the darkness. I scream, wave my arms, stand in the road, all to no avail. They go around me and drive directly into the abyss. Yes I knew what was going to happen, but MY ACTIONS did not CAUSE THEM to make the choice that they made. THAT IS FREE WILL.

you forgot the part where you bought them the car knowing that they’d go around you at that exact moment, taught them to drive even though you knew that they would drive into the abyss, and even warned them to be wary of nutjobs standing in the middle of the road on rainy nights waving their arms and screaming like a maniac. Had YOU not bought the car, taught them to drive, and scared the bejeezus outta them…they wouldn’t have been driving that car around you and falling into the abyss…so you DID facilitate their fall.

See, it’s one thing to say that “You” (or God) don’t control other people’s actions, but your GOD, the ominpotent all-knowing God, certainly KNOWS every decision, every action, every thought, and the ultimate ending to every creature He creates. To create something that you KNOW is going to end up being tortured and tormented for all eternity is sadistic.

Whether or not the creature could have made different choices is immaterial since HE knew for a fact that they wouldn’t and He ensoulded them anyway.

By Mara

May 16, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

ensoulded? sheesh, having a tough time with the spelling today…

I meant “ensouled”, of course.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Mara,

Whether or not the creature could have made different choices is immaterial since HE knew for a fact that they wouldn’t and He ensoulded them anyway.

Thanks for showing that the concept I was explaining to chuck is attainable.

To further the concept: god, if there is one etc, would either have to be ignorant to some of reality or upon creating us gave us some of his power (power is finite) and therefore has a blind spot; none of which chuck can wrap his head around.

By Theorist

May 16, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Good things = God did them. Bad things = The Devil did them.

simple concept and certainly convenient.

By Mara

May 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Jokes, the “omniscient god” premise was what first led me onto the road of agnosticism. What’s that old dilemma? Can God create a boulder so heavy he can’t lift it, a knot so tangled he can’t unweave it, or a shadow so dark he can’t see through it? So much for “all powerful”.

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Mara -

ensoulded? sheesh, having a tough time with the spelling today…

I dunno … I kinda like “ensoulded” … reminds me of: http://icanhascheezburger.com/

(my contribution to Friday silliness)

oh, and for you dog lovers, check out: http://ihasahotdog.com/

By USinUK

May 16, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Theorist -

Good things = God did them. Bad things = The Devil did them.

simple concept and certainly convenient.

don’t forget its corollary:

Good things = GOP did them. Bad things = Dems did them.

hey, I’m a major league Dem, but even I will acknowledge that Bush has done ONE thing I approve of during his tenure: nominating Ben Bernanke to the Fed.

everythign else has sucked big time, but he did do one thing right.

By chuck

May 16, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

jokeson, I don’t know why I even try with you. You really ave about a 5th grade level ability to reason. The concepts that I spoke of in terms of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT ANALOGY YOU….!!!!

The fact that God knows does not make him culpable. He cannot control our actions and at the same time give us FREE WILL. You must not have any children. I knew when we decided to have children that occasionally, they were going to do stupid things. In your analogy and also yours Mara, ANYBODY who then has children is being “sadistic”, because you know that they are going to break a leg or wreck a car or SOMETHING that causes them pain. That is not sadistic…that’s life. People make choices and those choices have consequences. It’s a very simple concept.

Look at yourself for instance. You know the gist of what it takes to become a Christian. I know that because of things you’ve said in your posts and because you have read many of my posts explaining it. Is it God’s fault that you have chosen to reject His plan of salvation? Ultimately, you are responsible for that choice that you have made. Ultimately, there will be consequences for that choice.

Now of course, you are perfectly free to make that choice. I’m certainly not going to beat you over the head with my Faith. I will continue to promote God’s way as the Right way, as I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO. If I lose that battle, whether it is in the Congress or the Courts, my conscience is clear because I have done what I can do. If I get flamed for it by unbelievers such as yourselves, well, I wear that as a badge of honor. It reminds me every day of the kind of evil we are facing in this world and how glorious the next world will be.

So

Bottom line for me is, if I’m right (and I am), I have eternal life in heaven as my reward. If I’m WRONG, I will still have done everything that I wanted to do and lived a life that has made me happy and fulfilled. WIN/WIN.

By Jack

May 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Strawberry fields….nothing is real.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Is it God’s fault that you have chosen to reject His plan of salvation?

Lets not get yourself confused. I reject YOUR plan of salvation. But since you are unable to be honest and even consider your interpretations are wrong, you have only dogma to lean on.

You really ave about a 5th grade level ability to reason. The concepts that I spoke of in terms of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT ANALOGY YOU….!!!! I am sorry that you feel I ave a 5th grade level of reasoning YOU….!

Really, you have no ability to think in any multi-layered or complex manner and you go spouting off others intellect? One last try with your little brain and big ego: You are writing a program that allows the sims in it to have a certain amount of free will. The problem is that every time you decide on a new randomizer, you already know the total outcom: which sims will agree with you, which ones will not. ALL based on your “randomizer,” which it is not since nothing is random to you or unknown.

You would know about adam and eve and the choices they would make which are a direct result of how much consciousness you provided them, how much free will, how much instinctive drive….etc. The moment you decide on one you know that a guy named chuck will one day be on a blog spreading the exact antithesis of what you want. If there is a flaw in the machine, the flaw came from its creator; not itself.

And so, your dogma makes you live inside non-existent boundaries your whole life to find out that you experienced %50 there was to offer on this planet; and got the message (love) wrong. Not really a win/win situation there.

By chuck

May 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack. Long time no read.

Have a great weekend everybody. I may check back in later today if I get a chance. If not, ya’ll keep it in the road. Stay off of those missing bridges.

Caio

By Mara

May 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

In your analogy and also yours Mara, ANYBODY who then has children is being “sadistic”, because you know that they are going to break a leg or wreck a car or SOMETHING that causes them pain.

So now you’re equating eternal damnation to a broken leg or a wrecked car?! LOL!! Hey, I guess it can’t be that bad then…

But seriously, if you knew, beyond any doubt, that a child you are creating would, after a few short days in the care of another, go into a torture chamber to be subjected to the most horrendous physical and mental agony imaginable every second of every day until the end of time…you wouldn’t consider birthing that child to be a bit sadistic?

By Jack

May 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Some stew and baby wraps would be good about now. :)

By Mara

May 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

JACK!!! <<<big hug>>> Hi ya! It is just about time for lunch isn’t it :^)

By Jack

May 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Hi Mara. I’m being bad today. Have a great one!

By AGF

May 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

I am going to shorten my name from AGFNPR to AGF. It is hard to believe I am that lazy! LOL!

JokesOn:

And so, your dogma makes you live inside non-existent boundaries your whole life to find out that you experienced %50 there was to offer on this planet; and got the message (love) wrong. Not really a win/win situation there.

If Chuck (and I) are wrong, we will cease to exist. We will never know that missed 50% of what the planet had to offer and we will never know that we lived inside non-existent boundaries. Therefore it is still a win/win situation. Of course, that idea was put forth by the great Blaise Pascal (just giving credit where credit is due).

By Copyleft

May 16, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

AGF: And Pascal overlooked a number of other possibilities that skewed the odds against him. For example:

There could be A god, but not the one he believed in. Then he’d spent his afterlife in eternal torment for worshiping a false deity. Arguably, an agnostic would receive a lesser punishment because he hadn’t committed the same level of blasphemy.

Or, a God COULD exist who was insane or evil. Then Pascal would face an afterlife where his devotions were either unimportant or actively punished. And again, there’d be no guarantee his existence would be any better than that of the agnostic or atheist.

Thirdly, a “believer’s” attempt to cynically calculate the odds for maximum personal advantage would certainly be obvious to an all-knowing, all-wise deity. Thus, the very act of reasoning out his argument in the first place condemns Pascal as a cynical opportunist, not a person of true and sincere faith. And again he forfeits his eternal reward, for only sincere faith would actually earn him a place in heaven.

This leads to an expression that I believe makes a great deal of sense: “Pascal’s Wager is a sucker’s bet.”

By Monica

May 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Sice I am a Christian who tries to live within boundaries, do you think that I am missing as much as 50% that the world has to offer? I’d say 10%, maybe, but 50%??

By chuck

May 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Monica, “ot participating in”is not the same as “missing”. Face it, the stuff that they believe you to be “missing” causes nothing but heartache and pain. Sure, you could commit adultery, but it would destroy your family. You could be a drunk, but then you would do all those things that you are supposedly “missing” only you wouldn’t remember them. Same thing with drugs. People who can’t enjoy life without those things are losers. Plain and simple.

How are you by the way? Ready to close down another year?

By Monica

May 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I am counting by the hour. We have finals today and Monday, and grades are due Tuesday. So what to do the last three days, when kids know that grades are in and we are not allowed to show movies? How about you? Any summer plans? We are heading to the beach in two weeks, which must account for at least 30% of what the world has to offer. :)

By AGF

May 16, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Sorry copyleft - if I have to choose between Pascal arguments and yours - then I am sticking with Pascal. But let’s review your specific points:

In Isaiah 1:18 God says: Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Maybe Pascal was a man of faith because he used his superior intellect to reason that it was better to humbly submit his life to God.

And just maybe there are many Christians who aren’t binary, single layered, non-critical thinking people that some on this board believe we are. Maybe we too have reasoned that it is better to submit to God than explore whatever “freedoms” the world says we should.

In any case, I’ll take that sucker bet every time.

By chuck

May 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

Monica, Headed to Romania in a few weeks on a mission trip. We had over 300 kids last year who accepted Christ. We are taking medical supplies and school supplies as well as conducting vacation Bible Schools. The rest of the summer will be spent on my dissertation. I have to finish by December.

AGF, I agree completely with your analysis. The Bible explains it this way:

The preaching of the gospel is to those who perish, foolishness.

By James Kidder

May 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn writes:

Darwin’s theory was published 149 years ago, and has been the primary origin-of-life theory since the 1930’s. Since then, evidence to support macroevolution (one species mutating to a different species) has advanced only marginally, while evidence questioning it has exploded. Advances in genetics, cellular biology, chemistry and many other fields have been seized to map human DNA and create wonder drugs. Yet they also raise questions about Darwinian macroevolution - which no scientist can follow up without being “expelled” from the respect of the scientific community. It’s absolutely absurd.

Wrong. There is quite a bit of evidence of macroevolution as well as for the existence of transitional species. The human fossil record alone is replete with evidence of transitional forms grading from one species to another. There is something absurd about what Ms. Feldhahn writes, all right. This attack has become achingly familiar: a writer argues that scientists cling blindly to evolution despite the fact that there is little evidence for it. The problem is that the writer is completely unaware of the avalanche of evidence that evolution (micro and macro) has in the tank. I have seen this before in the works of Phillip Johnson and anything that comes out of the Institute for Creation Research. Please, If you are going to tackle evolution at least know what you are talking about.

By Garrett

September 25, 2008 11:15 PM | Link to this

-__-

By Carina

September 26, 2008 6:50 AM | Link to this

(-_-“)

By Evan

September 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Link to this

///_’

By Danny

November 8, 2008 2:47 AM | Link to this

(;_;)

By Jorge

November 9, 2008 2:47 AM | Link to this

(;_;)

By yfgeczuj

March 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this

http://www.free-blog.in/chancelamp/ >las vegas flights