Comment #23495

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 03:07 AM (e) (s)

hmm.  while it sounds logical and useful to begin to expound the value of evolutionary theory (and science in general) economically, tieing the horse to the biotech industry’s wagon makes me consider possible negative effects as well, considering the general makeup of ID supporters.  However, the benefits from gaining support from “the market” would probably far outweigh any negatives creationists would associate with the biotech industry.

I would carefully consider the pros and cons of letting “Pfizer” stand in front of any academic science program.  Biotech companies already have great influence on college research programs; not so sure I’d want to see that influence extended even further.

Comment #23503

Posted by Steven Thomas Smith on April 6, 2005 05:33 AM (e) (s)

Intelligent design creationists aren’t simply wrong, they’re dangerous, and this point must be made clearer to the public.

The economic realities and benefits of the biomedical/biotech/pharmaceutical industries are certainly very important.

National defense is even more important—we’ve just seen one (crude) biological attack, and many feel that we are ill prepared for a real attack.

Denying basic facts of science like evolution in our public schools is a poor way to train our citizens to understand and counter this threat.

Comment #23521

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 6, 2005 09:01 AM (e) (s)

Wow,

It is amazing how desperate Darwinian Fundamentalists have become.  When I read this post I didn’t know whether to cry or to laugh.  Universities are places were ideas should be open for debate and discussion.  But Unscientific Unamerican attempted to coerce University presidents to being closed minded bigots.  Now they began a smear campaign listing each president and their “sorry excuses” for not signing the petition.  But the best part is this.  For some idiotic reason Darwinian fundamentalist continue to believe antimicrobial resistence and emergent infectious diseases will destroy this world if people don’t believe our big daddy was an ape.  Neither of those public health problems will ever be fixed by any biotech company, but don’t let that stop your chicken-little fear-mongering.  Your ignorace of the science of infectious disease is astonishing.  But go ahead, don’t wash your hands, live in crowded enviroments with inadequate sanitation, the biotech companies will save you!

Can’t win the science/philosophical debate with the inferior masses?  Sounds like it is time for a manipulative smear campaign.  Has any serious proponent of ID questioned evolution as a mechanism for antimicrobial resistence? NO, but don’t you wish they did!

Comment #23522

Posted by Colin on April 6, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

Ev. Ape. wrote:

if people don’t believe our big daddy was an ape.

Is that a reference to Jack Chick’s famous Big Daddy?

Ev. Ape. wrote:

Neither of those public health problems will ever be fixed by any biotech company

Certainly not if the next generation learns biology from Chick tracts.  I believe that is the point.

Comment #23523

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 11:08 AM (e) (s)

Teaching known error to avoid the administrative headaches caused by the militantly ignorant is open-minded? Orwell would be proud.

Comment #23525

Posted by Russell on April 6, 2005 11:19 AM (e) (s)

Has any serious proponent of ID questioned evolution as a mechanism for antimicrobial resistence [sic]

No, the ID crowd is much smarter than that. They only make assertions that can’t be tested. So they define everything in evolution that can be observed as “microevolution”, and propose that there’s some unseen, undefined barrier between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”. Perhaps you can help us, Apeman. What, exactly, is that barrier? How does it work?

Comment #23529

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)

Universities are places where ideas should be open for debate and discussion.

Sure, Apeman.  But a debate over the scientific utility of a “theory” which proposes that mysterious alien beings “somehow” designed and created all the life forms on earth takes about five minutes if the participants are honest.

Universities are open to discussing ID creationism, Sasquatch, telekinetics, communication with the dead and UFO abductions.  Unfortunately for cranks like you, Apeman, they have better things to discuss.

And time is money.

Comment #23537

Posted by Timothy L. on April 6, 2005 12:18 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

Teaching known error to avoid the administrative headaches caused by the militantly ignorant is open-minded? Orwell would be proud.

One cannot be a true scientist if he cannot challenge his own thinking.

Be honest now if ID is really false, then let it have its two seconds of glory and its fall, and don’t try to silence it like it is some deep dark seceret that you must keep hidden from the public or the world will end.

Comment #23541

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 12:35 PM (e) (s)

Be honest now if ID is really false, then let it have its two seconds of glory and its fall

You blinked, Timothy.  The two seconds passed years ago and now ID creationism is the proverbial old lady lying on the floor “whose fallen and can’t get up.”

The ID peddlers can’t find the light switch so they just keep clapping in the dark.

Unfortunately, a bright spotlight is about to shine down on the peddlers and lo! they will not have enough time to pull their pants up.  Parental guidance suggested.

Comment #23542

Posted by GCT on April 6, 2005 12:37 PM (e) (s)

Timothy L. wrote:

Be honest now if ID is really false, then let it have its two seconds of glory and its fall, and don’t try to silence it like it is some deep dark seceret that you must keep hidden from the public or the world will end.

Unfortunately for your argument, it has had it’s 2 seconds (actually considerably more) and it did fail.  The fact that people can’t let it go now does not mean that it deserves another 2 seconds.

Comment #23547

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 12:51 PM (e) (s)

Timothy L has, I suggest, spoken in code here. He doesn’t mean the idea should be examined; he surely knows it has been dragged over the coals for at least 15 years now, during which time it has been nearly universally rejected by working scientists, and has proved utterly useless in making any scientific contribution. Even rejecting it adds nothing to science.

Instead, what Timothy L is asking is that it be presented as science, forever and ever. This is the P.T.Barnum approach: I don’t care what you write about me, so long as you spell my name right. Timothy doesn’t care what you say about ID, so long as you present the idea in science class.

Comment #23551

Posted by frank schmidt on April 6, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)

One cannot be a true scientist if he cannot challenge his own thinking.

Timothy L. echoes an IDC talking point whereby they claim to be enhancing “critical thinking” in science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Critical thinking does not involve the uncritical debunking of data that do not fit with a predetermined position.

There is another point: Critical thinking does not allow one to claim that a settled issue needs to be reexamined without a reason to do so, and an alternative that is supported by objective evidence. IDC lacks both a reason to re-examine the mechanism of evolution, and the evidence that it is necessary to do so.

Comment #23557

Posted by AndrewR on April 6, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)

On the other hand, if life is designed, that would mean that biotech companies should be able to patent new designs, right?

So maybe this is not such a bad thing after all… ;)

Comment #23585

Posted by Timothy L on April 6, 2005 03:06 PM (e) (s)

I did not miss anything, ID has not been considered yet by most. 

You blinked, Timothy.  The two seconds passed years ago and now ID creationism is the proverbial old lady lying on the floor “whose fallen and can’t get up.”
[/quote=Great White Wonder]

Strange then that it continues to gain support even from those whom are impossible to label as religious fundamentalists.

[quote=Flint] Timothy L has, I suggest, spoken in code here. He doesn’t mean the idea should be examined; he surely knows it has been dragged over the coals for at least 15 years now, during which time it has been nearly universally rejected by working scientists, and has proved utterly useless in making any scientific contribution. Even rejecting it adds nothing to science.

Of course ID should be critically examined.  Every theory should, and this includes Evolution.  Actually I was under the impression that ID while it may have existed somewhat before in some form, was not commonly known till very recently.  I realize that ID is still relatively young as a scientific theory, and I would agree that it should not be taught in any schools yet, but I beleive that it should not be silenced, and students should at least be made aware of it. 

Critical thinking does not involve the uncritical debunking of data that do not fit with a predetermined position.

Well this is true, but it goes both ways for the positive and the negative.  I contend that the evidence for ID is quite strong, and has not been defeated as you seem to think.

Frank wrote:

Timothy doesn’t care what you say about ID, so long as you present the idea in science class.

Its not very nice to put words in people’s mouths.  I never said, that, and I certainly do not think that.

Comment #23591

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 6, 2005 03:21 PM (e) (s)

Is that a reference to Jack Chick’s famous Big Daddy?

That is correct collin.  Thanks for the link.  I need to order more.

So they define everything in evolution that can be observed as “microevolution”, and propose that there’s some unseen, undefined barrier between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”. Perhaps you can help us, Apeman. What, exactly, is that barrier? How does it work?

How well do Newtonian physics work for subatomic particles?  Oh you mean the rules are different at that level?  Perhaps you can help us, Russell.  Is light a particle or a wave?  Why can’t I just extrapolate newtonian physics and ignore this quantum physics mumbo-jumbo. 

Teaching known error to avoid the administrative headaches caused by the militantly ignorant is open-minded? Orwell would be proud.

Orwell would be proud.  After all communism like no other system of government has been most successful in teaching evolution dogma to the masses and doing away with religion. 

Sure, Apeman.  But a debate over the scientific utility of a “theory” which proposes that mysterious alien beings “somehow” designed and created all the life forms on earth takes about five minutes if the participants are honest.

And GWW goes off on his excessively redundant “mysterious alien” tirade.  “Somehow” the universe came into being.  Can you give me a scientific explaination for how? 

It’s one thing to argue that ID doesn’t have a clear message to justify it being taught in high schools.  I think the Discovery institute would agree.  But to try and censor and blacklist college presidents from allowing its discussion on college campuses is abhorent.  But not suprising after reading my Chick tract :)

Comment #23595

Posted by Russell on April 6, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

How well do Newtonian physics work for subatomic particles?  Oh you mean the rules are different at that level?  Perhaps you can help us, Russell.  Is light a particle or a wave?  Why can’t I just extrapolate newtonian physics and ignore this quantum physics mumbo-jumbo. 

That’s exactly right. The rules are different at that level. And quantum theory is all about explaining that apparent discontinuity. Notice, it wasn’t just assumed that the rules would be different at that level: that’s the work of a whole lot of experimental science. Now, back to my question: what evidence is there for a discontinuity between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”?

Comment #23600

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 6, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)

Well Russell,

On what basis do you assume that natural processes that occur over millions of years follow the same rules of natural processes that occur over years?  Just as scientists were incorrect in their a priori assumptions regarding the atomic or subatomic level of matter.  I’m not willing to assume the rules are necessarily the same regarding the mechanism for biologic diversity. Time itself limits what can be determined regarding the past.

Comment #23602

Posted by Michael Rathbun on April 6, 2005 03:50 PM (e) (s)

EvAp wrote:

After all communism like no other system of government has been most successful in teaching evolution dogma to the masses and doing away with religion.

Are you referring to the Communism that declared genetics and the concepts of biological evolution dependent therefrom to be “bourgeois”, “fascist” and “a threat to the State”?

Marxism-Leninism(-Stalinism) was not antireligious; it was a competing religious system in itself.

Comment #23604

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 04:08 PM (e) (s)

Timothy L:

OK, I guess I’d better go through the full charade with you. Worth a try, at any rate. Always worth a try.

Of course ID should be critically examined.

It has been. In detail, at length, by many. It has been exhaustively determined to be utterly without scientific merit. Please don’t keep pretending that you aren’t aware of this. It has been rejected since before Paley.

Every theory should, and this includes Evolution.

This statement would ordinarily be regarded as dishonest, you know. ID is NOT a theory. It is not based on evidence. It makes no testable claims, has no research program, has no suggestions for how a research program might even be approached. It is religious doctrine, not based on real-world evidence. It is not a theory.

Evolution, meanwhile, is exactly like every other scientific theory: not only eminently testable, but continually being tested. It continues to pass every test anyone can think of to throw at it, and these are genuine tests. You know, hypotheses which can be refuted by evidence which can be checked for, stuff like that.

Actually I was under the impression that ID while it may have existed somewhat before in some form, was not commonly known till very recently.

False. It has existed since before Aristotle. In fact, it was the ONLY proposed explanation for anything before science was developed.

I realize that ID is still relatively young as a scientific theory,

Again, this must be regarded as either dishonest or profoundly ignorant. ID is not a scientific theory. Not in any way, shape or form. It is entirely, through-and-through, the exact antithesis of science. Why do you think that no ID proponent has suggested so much as one single real-world test? Science has no way to test for the supernatural. You test evolution by finding evidence. You test ID by prayer. If your prayers are answered, you believe in ID. That’s the only avenue yet followed.

and I would agree that it should not be taught in any schools yet, but I beleive that it should not be silenced, and students should at least be made aware of it.

But not in science class! ID is a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it otherwise. And it’s at best disingenuous to pretend students aren’t made aware of it. They’re made aware at home, at church, in Sunday school, by politicians, and in hundreds of little ways that permeate our entire society.

ID is, plain and simple, a transparent attempt to get “goddidit” re-sloganed so as to circumvent existing court decisions intended to prevent the government from playing favorites with any particular religion. “Gee, let’s pretend it’s science. Maybe the courts won’t notice.”

I never said, that, and I certainly do not think that.

Come on now! You said it before, and you just said it again. You wrote “students should be made aware of it.” The goal of the ID folks is exactly this, BUT they wish this “awareness” to take place in science class, rather than where it belongs in a class on comparative religion. If you are saying that comparative religion classes should examine ID, then please make this clear. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re denying your own words.

Comment #23605

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 04:09 PM (e) (s)

“And GWW goes off on his excessively redundant “mysterious alien” tirade.  “Somehow” the universe came into being.  Can you give me a scientific explaination for how? “

The universe was pooped out by Ploink Ploink, an invisible undetectable gigantic space bat who existed since before time began.

Does that explanation leave you unsatisfied, Apeman?

Please be aware that it’s more of an explanation of “how” the universe came to be than any of the well-known ID peddlers has ever offered.  You tell me if it’s more or less “scientific” and why.

And Ploink Ploink would be much more interesting to junior high and high school students, I think.  Those students will enjoy “thinking critically” about Ploink Ploink.  In the Bible Belt, especially, I recommend an exercise where the students are asked to prove — scientifically — that an undetectable space bat did not poop out the universe.

Comment #23607

Posted by Russell on April 6, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

I’m not willing to assume the rules are necessarily the same regarding the mechanism for biologic diversity.

Nor am I. I’m also not willing to assume that the rules are necessarily different, in the absence of evidence to that effect. That evidence would be…?

Time itself limits what can be determined regarding the past

Yes, well I’m sure that’s true, whatever it means.

Comment #23610

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

The universe was pooped out by Ploink Ploink, an invisible undetectable gigantic space bat who existed since before time began.

Either that, or it was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure. But Apeman will dismiss either of these proposals as beneath his notice, while embracing his even-more-poorly-supported faith as real. Why? Because he “knows” that our proposals are silly while his are Truth. And how does he know? He can’t remember, but it doesn’t matter. When you have Truth, knowledge is superfluous anyway.

Comment #23615

Posted by Timothy L. on April 6, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

Please don’t keep pretending that you aren’t aware of this. It has been rejected since before Paley.

The ID theory did not exist before Paley. 

ID is NOT a theory. It is not based on evidence. It makes no testable claims, has no research program, has no suggestions for how a research program might even be approached. It is religious doctrine, not based on real-world evidence. It is not a theory.

Testable Claims: IC, Rapid infusions of Genetic information into the Biosphere, non-existence of Junk DNA…etc.

False. It has existed since before Aristotle. In fact, it was the ONLY proposed explanation for anything before science was developed.

That was not the theory of ID, that was everyone assuming that “God” or “the Gods” created everything in its present form.

Why do you think that no ID proponent has suggested so much as one single real-world test? Science has no way to test for the supernatural. You test evolution by finding evidence.

That very question was misleading, and so was the following statement.  ID is not essentially supernatural.  You test anything by finding evidence.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000473…. html
as I said quite misleading.

But not in science class! ID is a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.

That is false.  If it were a religious doctrine, then athiests could not support it, nor could certain people of other faiths, but they do.  ID is religion neutral, so it CANNOT be a religious doctrine.

ID is, plain and simple, a transparent attempt to get “goddidit”

again incorrect ID makes no mention of any God, and/or gods or goddesses.

Come on now! You said it before, and you just said it again. You wrote “students should be made aware of it.” The goal of the ID folks is exactly this, BUT they wish this “awareness” to take place in science class, rather than where it belongs in a class on comparative religion. If you are saying that comparative religion classes should examine ID, then please make this clear. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re denying your own words.

  I believe they SHOULD be made aware of it but that does not mean it has to be taught… I beleive it should be taught but not yet, and not in comparative religion classes, because as I said it is religion-neutral.

Comment #23619

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 6, 2005 04:45 PM (e) (s)

Apeman wrote:

But to try and censor and blacklist college presidents from allowing its discussion on college campuses is abhorent. 

It certainly is.  Luckily, it has absolutely nothing to do with what Rennie was talking about.

I think I’m going to apply for a research grant to see if there’s some law of nature that requires creationist brains to misrepresent even the simplest of situations.

Comment #23624

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 6, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

The low point of the evening may have been when Larry Faulkner of the University of Texas—who I believe also boasted of being a working scientist—said that evolution was only a theory, at which point Ira Flatow of Science Friday blurted out that it was nonsense to suggest that evolution, like gravity, was a theory one could honestly represent as being unproved. The “evolution is just a theory” canard is one of the hoariest in the anti-evolutionist handbook. Maybe Faulkner misspoke and forgot that the National Academy of Sciences has affirmed that evolution is a fact.

What do you call that Steve? 

Did he “mispoke and forget”?  Boy he better have!  After all he “boasted fo being a working scientist” and used the hoariest canard in the “anti-evolution handbook” that contributed to the “low point of the evening”.

I wouldn’t be surprised if his job was on the line now that the Darwinian Inquisition is after him.

Comment #23626

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 04:57 PM (e) (s)

Timothy L:

OK, here we go again,

The ID theory did not exist before Paley.

A matter of semantics, perhaps. ID refers to an intelligent designer, AKA “God”. This idea existed before Paley.

Testable Claims: IC

Not so. IC as presented holds that if we can find a life form (or structure) which is non-redundant, this “proves” design. But of course, non-redundency is pretty much the norm in life: where it happens, one copy is adapted for some new purpose. So biologists agree that irreducible complexity is both normal and entirely predictable. Not in any way even suggestive of design. And so with the rest of your claims.

That was not the theory of ID, that was everyone assuming that “God” or “the Gods” created everything in its present form.

Sigh. The “intelligent designer” is the Christian God. Nobody else. Please be honest. Please. I explained that the “scientific creation” proponents, having been repeatedly trounced in courts, decided to rename “god” to “intelligent designer” but keep their interpretation of literal Biblical reading intact. You decided to ignore this. Please be honest.

ID is not essentially supernatural.

Yes it is. Otherwise, why even bother confecting such a notion? After all, the theory of evolution explains life fully sufficiently using no magical invisible designers. ID says “No, life didn’t evolve, it was designed by God.” That’s supernatural.

You test anything by finding evidence.

But you can’t find evidence of design, which can possibly be distinguished from evidence for some natural process. You can SAY “that there was designed” and you may be right. Nobody can prove you right, nobody can prove you wrong. No possible amount of evidence will support either position. That’s because ID is not based on evidence. It is a religious doctrine.

That is false.  If it were a religious doctrine, then athiests could not support it, nor could certain people of other faiths, but they do.  ID is religion neutral, so it CANNOT be a religious doctrine.

ID is a religious doctrine. It is not religion neutral. I have a suggestion for you: Visit this site, follow the link at the bottom, and read the brief. If you repeat the claim that ID is not religious doctrine, you either ignored the material or you are lying. Deal?

again incorrect ID makes no mention of any God, and/or gods or goddesses.

Are you kidding, or just dumber than sand? Who do YOU think the “intelligent designer” is intended to be? WHY do you think the proponents of ID are all fundamentalists? Why is the DI funded by a Christian Reconstructionist fanatic? Why is Dembski teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? Why does Philip Johnson say ID properly depends on fear of the Lord? Are these all amazing coincidences, or do you just FEEL like ignoring them?

I believe they SHOULD be made aware of it but that does not mean it has to be taught

This kind of doublethink gets discouraging. What is presented in classrooms by teachers is being “taught”. There is no way to “present” material in class without teaching it. Saying “here is something worth thinking about” TEACHES that something is worth thinking about, within the context of the class subject. You know this, I know this, why do you pretend otherwise?

Comment #23629

Posted by Henry J on April 6, 2005 05:09 PM (e) (s)

Re “So they define everything in evolution that can be observed as “microevolution”, and propose that there’s some unseen, undefined barrier between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”.”

Maybe they see the barrier that exists between already diverged species, and make the mistake of thinking this barrier somehow acts within a species so as to create itself before said species speciates? (Try saying that three times fast.)

Henry

Comment #23630

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 05:09 PM (e) (s)

“The universe was pooped out by Ploink Ploink, an invisible undetectable gigantic space bat who existed since before time began.”

Damnit!! who told you? it was supposed to be a secret!  Ploink believers have been slowly gaining ground undetected for years…

now that the proverbial “cat” (bat?) is out of the bag, I guess we will have to kill all the non-believers.

sorry.

Comment #23631

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 05:12 PM (e) (s)

“The universe was pooped out by Ploink Ploink, an invisible undetectable gigantic space bat who existed since before time began.”

Damnit!! who told you? it was supposed to be a secret!  Ploink believers have been slowly gaining ground undetected for years…

now that the proverbial “cat” (bat?) is out of the bag, I guess we will have to kill all the non-believers.

sorry.

Comment #23632

Posted by Michael Rathbun on April 6, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)

Timothy L. wrote:

ID is not essentially supernatural.

ID is necessarily and inescapably supernatural.

If there are irreducibly complex elements to life on Earth that require some Intelligent Designer, then he/she/it/they is/are necessarily, also, made up of at least one irreducibly complex element.  Consequently, the Designers themselves must have been designed by something even more irreducibly complex.  The Ultimate Designers then must, to escape this endless ontological chain, be embedded in some reality exterior to this one.

How does this differ from the usual traditional gods?

Comment #23637

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 05:28 PM (e) (s)

Apeman

I wouldn’t be surprised if (Larry Faulkner’s) job was on the line now that the Darwinian Inquisition is after him.

Call Larry and ask him about the “inquisition”, Apeman.

That’s what an honest person would do instead of smearing biologists, as you just did.

Comment #23643

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 6, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

Spare me the self-righteous indignation GWW.  I simply quoted the biologist and gave a reasonable interpretation.

When you have a serious answer to my question regarding origin of the universe let me know or is the only source of knowledge for you scientific naturalism?  If so, how did you scientificaly come to that conclusion?  Or since we are just matter and energy, evolving apemen, biologic robots: there is no right or wrong and honesty is just matter of perspective?  In that case what basis do you have to classify me as dishonest and yourself as honest?  My genes and environment make me do everything I do?

Comment #23652

Posted by Russell on April 6, 2005 07:23 PM (e) (s)

Apeman wrote:

When you have a serious answer to my question regarding origin of the universe let me know

Having scanned this thread, I can’t find your question, whatever it was, about the origin of the universe. Perhaps that’s a separate conversation you’re having with GWW. In the meantime, there’s my as yet unanswered question to you:

What evidence is there for any discontinuity between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”? Or, to put it another way: we know mutation/selection can effect measurable genetic changes on human time scales. What mechanism limits those genetic changes over geological time scales? What evidence is there that there is any such mechanism?

Comment #23656

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 07:44 PM (e) (s)

When you have a serious answer to my question regarding origin of the universe let me know

As I predicted, Apeman dismisses an answer even more plausible than his own as not serious. And how does he know his is “serious”? Once again, he probably can’t remember, but that doesn’t matter because his answer is Truth, and when you have truth, knowledge is superfluous.

Creationists are so predictable. We TELL them what they are going to say, and why, and they say it anyway. And don’t even realize it.

Comment #23659

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 6, 2005 07:59 PM (e) (s)

Comment #23600

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 6, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s)

Well Russell,

On what basis do you assume that natural processes that occur over millions of years follow the same rules of natural processes that occur over years?  Just as scientists were incorrect in their a priori assumptions regarding the atomic or subatomic level of matter.  I’m not willing to assume the rules are necessarily the same regarding the mechanism for biologic diversity. Time itself limits what can be determined regarding the past.

Well then, get yourself a science degree pertinent to the subject and do the work necessary to come up with a brilliant reason why you’re right.  But don’t expect scientists to change the way they work just because you are “not willing”

Insincerely,

Comment #23660

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 6, 2005 08:09 PM (e) (s)

Comment #23610

Posted by Flint on April 6, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

But Apeman will dismiss either of these proposals as beneath his notice, while embracing his even-more-poorly-supported faith as real. Why? Because he “knows” that our proposals are silly while his are Truth. And how does he know? He can’t remember, but it doesn’t matter. When you have Truth, knowledge is superfluous anyway.

Flint, you don’t know how true you are.

Comment #23635

Posted by Colin on April 6, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s)

Steve, knowledge has no bearing on truth - this can be empirically proven.  Knowledge, of course, is power, which is also energy.  And Einstein showed that energy is matter, which has mass.  This demonstrates two things - that increasing knowledge increases the knower’s mass, and that knowledge is a concrete, physical thing.  (It also demonstrates, according to the classic proof, that libraries are dangerous places, due to the enormous weight of accumulated knowledge, but that is neither here nor there.)

Truth, on the other hand, is beauty.  And beauty, being an abstract concept, is both unburdened by mass and an essentially subjective quality.  After all, beauty, and therefore Truth, is in the eye of the beholder.

Increasing knowledge increases mass, but does not increase the unrelated value of Truth.  The addition of mass does weigh down the knowledgable observer, however, who also experiences a faster flow of time and thus aging due to the increased time-space dilation of his own gravitational field.

This is why knowledgable men and women seem more mature, and often feel old, weighed down, and tired when confronted with those who are burdened only by their own subjective Truth.

Comment #23661

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 08:11 PM (e) (s)

Or since we are just matter and energy, evolving apemen, biologic robots: there is no right or wrong and honesty is just matter of perspective?

Geebus, Apeman.  You’re scrolling through all the talking points in your script way too fast for me.  Did you skip the part about the secular humanist conspiracy or is that tied up in your “Darwinian inquisition” slogan?

When you have a serious answer to my question regarding origin of the universe

My answer was serious.  If you don’t like it, then prove the enterocraftic theory for the orgin of the universe wrong, Apeman.  Go ahead.  Prove that the universe and all of earth’s life forms didn’t fall out of Ploink Ploink’s hindquarters.  I’m waiting, Apeman.

Comment #23662

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 08:14 PM (e) (s)

@russel:

you are correct-
apeman’s original question, from comment 23591:

“And GWW goes off on his excessively redundant “mysterious alien” tirade.  “Somehow” the universe came into being.  Can you give me a scientific explaination for how?”

so it was directed at GWW, but I’m just as sure he would “entertain” any related theories from any of us (read entertain=ignore and/or distort)

cheers

Comment #23668

Posted by Garrett on April 6, 2005 09:30 PM (e) (s)

This is probably one of the least intelligent posts I’ve seen on here in a while. Good job Panda’s Thumb! This also includes those who have made comments. For example:

“WHY do you think the proponents of ID are all fundamentalists?”

-WOW. What blatantly amazing ignorance :)

These arguments about how many in ID are “fundamentalists” or “Christians” makes you PT people look like fools. I’m glad the DI doesn’t resort to this 5th grade name calling. I hope the day never comes when the DI, or any other ID organization lowers itself to this level:

“…but we know that most of those who contribute to Panda’s Thumb are athiest. This must of course mean that they are all highly biased and unscientific; they have hidden metaphysical agendas”

Comment #23673

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 09:48 PM (e) (s)

uh, that’s pretty lame, even for a snipe, Garrett.

you know i just came over from the DI website.  perhaps you can point me to where their forum for commentary is located?  I couldn’t find it.

DI doesn’t resort to name calling?  that’s funny.

BTW, since you decided to call the assumption of ID being supported by primarily fundies “amazing ignorance” please enlighten us.

exactly what is the percentage of ID subscribers that wouldn’t normally be called fundamentalist christians, as extracted from a general description, like that found on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christian…

please extract a specific definition of what you would term a fundamentalist, then differ yourself and the majority of ID supporters from that, if you would be so kind.

you see, I hold up the very reasonable assumption, based on the core beliefs at the center of the ID arguments presented here and elsewhere, that most ID supporters are fundamentalists.

Please, feel free to prove me wrong, but show me numbers.

If you are just a sniper, as i suspect, you won’t bother.  In which case your statement of “blatantly amazing ignorance” (whatever that means) can only be attributed to yourself, and descriptive of your own knowledge of that which you profess to support.

cheers

Comment #23675

Posted by frank schmidt on April 6, 2005 10:13 PM (e) (s)

The ID theory did not exist before Paley.

This is fatuous; ID is simply a (badly thought out) form of the Argument from Design. Timothy, Apeman et al. are simply denying inconvenient facts.  This may sway the true believers, but is an insult to anyone who thinks at all about this issue.

Just to remind you, there is a commandment against this activity. You know, the one about bearing false witness.

Comment #23676

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 10:17 PM (e) (s)

“Just to remind you, there is a commandment against this activity. You know, the one about bearing false witness.”

hmm. maybe their reluctance to admit this supports Garrets claim that ID supporters aren’t fundies after all?

;)

cheers

Comment #23679

Posted by Garrett on April 6, 2005 10:36 PM (e) (s)

Sometimes it’s fun to let people bask in their own ignorance, but for old time’s sake I will reply to yours and be a fun-lovin’ replying snipe.

I will now quote you:

“WHY do you think the proponents of ID are all fundamentalists?”

I think the keyword there is ALL.

Speaking from personal knowledge: I happen to know several agnostics/Bishop Spong style Christians who support ID in some form or another. David Berlinski is certainly not any sort of fundamentalist, and neither is Michael Behe. All of that aside anyways. What exactly makes a ‘fundamentalist’ Christian anti-science? The burden of proof is on you. Also, if you can liken such a group of people in that way, I see no problem in likening athiests in that manner also. Fun.

“you see, I hold up the very reasonable assumption, based on the core beliefs at the center of the ID arguments presented here and elsewhere, that most ID supporters are fundamentalists.”

-WHAT ON EARTH! How do you get from the ‘core beliefs’ of ‘ID arguments’ that those people who support ID are fundamentalist Christians?

I don’t need to show you any numbers whatsoever. You made a patently false and sweeping statement that you should either retract or just walk away in shame. Thanks :)

Comment #23681

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 11:11 PM (e) (s)

er, assuming you are addressing myself…
Well, you have me on a technicality.  true, i can’t claim ALL ID supporters are fundamentalist, christian or otherwise, as by sheer probability i could probably find a few who support ID as being of the mind that the intelligence is that of alien origin, rather than any homespun idea of god or what have you.  but then, you have misquoted me as i personally never claimed to have said they ALL were to begin with.

““WHY do you think the proponents of ID are all fundamentalists?””

as you can see from my post, I never said this.  I said most.  and i based it on what i have seen posted here.  please feel free to go through several weeks worth of posts and see for yourself.

However, YOU were the one who implied ignorance of the entire body of posters at PT:

“makes you PT people look like fools”

I’d say your statement was far more sweeping than mine.

please show me the numbers by percentages of those who claim to support ID who are not also christian, or fundamentalists.  use your own definition if you wish, but spell it out for us.

as to the core beliefs; please show us how ID can stand on it’s own, in your own terms, without using reference to a divine being. by it’s very name INTELLIGENT and DESIGN, it implies the use of a creator to support any explanation it tries to make.  I am curious to see this myself.  whether you claim the core belief at the creamy center is based on god or not would depend on your definition, of course, and please do provide us with your definition of what holds up the core of an explanation of speciation based on Intelligent design without there being any intelligence.

the folks you listed ARE christians, and use god as the basis for their belief structure and as the primary source of the force behind the “intelligence” part of ID whether they choose to obfuscate this or not.  I would argue that to be able to do this, one must accept certain fundamentalist principles.  However, before i go into any unecessary typing to lend evidence to my position, I asked you first to explain yours.

Moreover, i never said a christian had to be anti-science, fundamentalist or otherwise.  However, just to clarify the way i do think about it, I merely maintain god is simply unnecesary to explain observable events, and faith is best left to its own support, rather than trying to extrapolate it into unrealistic and illogical scenarios that can’t even be tested for the validitiy of the basic assumptions, let alone have any predictive value.

again, please explain why and how you support the whole concept of ID, if you have no religious beliefs behind it.  if you do have religious beliefs that you find better fit with your support of ID, then please define how these are not fundamental in nature.

as to name calling, seems you drop as many names as any other PT poster.

btw, glad to see i could draw you into the “…arguments about how many in ID are “fundamentalists” or “Christians”” so you could join us “PT people [that] look like fools”

don’t want to be like us fools here?  prove it.

:)

Comment #23682

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 11:19 PM (e) (s)

oh, almost forgot.  i was serious… can garret or anyone here show me where the forums for public comment are on the DI site?

I spent a lot of time looking, but i couldn’t find any.

Comment #23683

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 11:22 PM (e) (s)

or on this site, for that matter:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/people.htm…

one would almost think they can’t suffer fools like us.

that can’t be right, can it?

Comment #23705

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 07:14 AM (e) (s)

I see we have a new ID enthusiast, Garrett. And for Garrett,

This is probably one of the least intelligent posts I’ve seen on here in a while.

Evidently Garrett’s mind operates on a much higher level. Which is good, because our previous ID defender, “Evolving Apeman”, neglected to address this question:

What evidence is there for any discontinuity between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”? Or, to put it another way: we know mutation/selection can effect measurable genetic changes on human time scales. What mechanism limits those genetic changes over geological time scales? What evidence is there that there is any such mechanism?

Garrett, could you explain this, because it seems to me the whole ID case collapses like a house of cards if this basic question is not addressed.

Comment #23713

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 7, 2005 08:39 AM (e) (s)

our previous ID defender, “Evolving Apeman”, neglected to address this question: What evidence is there for any discontinuity between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”? Or, to put it another way: we know mutation/selection can effect measurable genetic changes on human time scales. What mechanism limits those genetic changes over geological time scales? What evidence is there that there is any such mechanism?

Gees Russy-boy do I have to reply to all your posts around the clock or am I allowed to go home for the evening.

Before I provide a brilliant answer to your question.  Let’s make sure we under stand the proper context for this thread:

A biologist at Unscientific Unamerican expressed frustration at univesity presidents refusal to sign a petition against ID.  The best part of her rant was when she stated:

The low point of the evening may have been when Larry Faulkner of the University of Texas—who I believe also boasted of being a working scientist—said that evolution was only a theory, at which point Ira Flatow of Science Friday blurted out that it was nonsense to suggest that evolution, like gravity, was a theory one could honestly represent as being unproved. The “evolution is just a theory” canard is one of the hoariest in the anti-evolutionist handbook. Maybe Faulkner misspoke and forgot that the National Academy of Sciences has affirmed that evolution is a fact.

We then get to hear a conspiracy theory regarding pressure from Creatioists to excuse these poor university presidents.  We also are informed that BIOTECH companys are the answer because students who don’t believe in evolution will not do good research to prevent the next epidemic or terrorist.

My points are as follows:

1. Terminology is an issue with “evolution” because competant educated apemen such as myself can distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  Anything that can be observed and reproduced in the laboratory to date has fallen under the category of micro-evolution.  You may disagree with this distinction.  But let’s not accuse University presidents of mispeaking and forgetting because they do make this distinction. 

2. Macroevolution has nada, nilch, zero technological implications.  It has many philosophical, methaphysical, and theological implications despite what Franky the apostate says. 

3. The type of evidence supporting micro-evolution and macro-evolution are very different.  I don’t have to rely on the largely absent fossil record to show that Staph Aureus is resistant to penicillin.  You guys see everything in black and white.  For us real scientists, we recognize not all theories have equal data supporting them.  The real problem is that many of you can’t accept uncertainty in questions where there is a paucity of data. 

4. Finally, the notion that BIOTECH companies are going to save humanity from infectious disease is silly.  You want to stop bioterrorism, take out legitimate threats (Go Bush!).  You want to stop AIDS, support changes in a moral culture that promotes promiscuity, infidelity, homosexuality, IV drug use, etc.  Of course since we train are students to believe they are nothing more than evolving apemen with morality in the eye of the beholder we are going to resort to the BIOTECH companies to save us. 

5. I have a better understanding of evolution than Unscientific Unamerican because I realize that any known dangerous microbial pathogen (HIV, TB, Staph Aureus, Malaria) has eventually evolved resistence.  So I don’t put my faith in the BIOTECH company to save me, they are simply a temporary band-aid!

Comment #23718

Posted by Flint on April 7, 2005 10:06 AM (e) (s)

What mechanism limits those genetic changes over geological time scales? What evidence is there that there is any such mechanism?

Apparently Apeman thinks if he calls John Rennie a “she”, calls Russell “Russy-boy”, refers (twice) to “Unscientific Unamerican”, and redirects his answer toward what was not asked, nobody will notice that he failed to provide any answer.

However, the notions that scientists (as opposed to Believers) see things in black and white and that Apeman is a “real scientist” at least provide comic relief. There is a distinction between micro and macro evolution because he SAYS so. The distinguishing mechanism is that Apeman KNOWS this difference exists. He knows this because he’s smarter, more open-minded, and more of a real scientist. So there!

Comment #23720

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 10:15 AM (e) (s)

Well, Garrett, as you see, the Apeman is unwilling to address my question. What about you?

Comment #23728

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 7, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman

So I don’t put my faith in the BIOTECH company to save me, they are simply a temporary band-aid

Band-aids are a great product.  That’s why everyone has some in their house.

Of course, you can always just pray that dirt or microbes don’t get into your sores.  What does the scientific data say about the effect of prayer on wound cleanliness, Apeman?

Comment #23729

Posted by John A. Davison on April 7, 2005 11:35 AM (e) (s)

The main difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that the former is still happening and the latter stopped happening long ago. They are in no way related as the former is purely Mendelian in character and the latter resulted (past tense) from the restructuring of existing internal information, a process in which allelic mutation never played any role whatsoever. Get used to it but of course you can’t. Your genes won’t permit it.

John A. Davison

Comment #23732

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 11:45 AM (e) (s)

[microevolution] is purely Mendelian in character

Interesting. I’ve never heard the term “Mendelian” applied to bacteria, as in antibiotic resistance evolution.

You learn something new every day! Or not.

Comment #23744

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 01:08 PM (e) (s)

JAD is an alien, I’m absolutely sure of it!  see my analysis under “send in the clowns” here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000939.html#c23620…

:p

cheers

Comment #23745

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 7, 2005 01:17 PM (e) (s)

I apologize for John Rennie a “she”.  Thank you Flint.  Never let it be said Evolving Apeman can’t admit a mistake.

My point GWW, which you clearly missed, is that the long term war with infectious microbes will never be won by the BIOTECH companies because of micro-evolution.  Understanding the mechanism by which infectious diseases are transmitted with a rational public health approach is needed.  BIOTECH companies do make a lot of money off of micro-evolution.  The patent usually runs out by the time the organism becomes resistant.

Go ahead and mock prayer for the sick, GWW.  After all the only truth you accept is science, metaphysical questions have no bearing in your meaningless existence.

Comment #23749

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 7, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)

Excuse me, I mean I apologize for calling John Rennie a “she”.  Honest mistake.

Comment #23752

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 01:49 PM (e) (s)

Honest mistake.

No problem. Happens to the best of us. And on avoiding my question:

What evidence is there for any discontinuity between “microevolution”  and “macroevolution”? Or, to put it another way: we know mutation/selection can effect measurable genetic changes on human time scales. What mechanism limits those genetic changes over geological time scales? What evidence is there that there is any such mechanism?

Don’t sweat that, either. I’ve waited several years for an answer to that; I expect to wait several more. At least.

Comment #23757

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)

actually, EA, it is the pathetic attempt to extrapolate faith into areas where it does work that is meaningless.

why can’t those who believe in god simply derive meaning from their faith?  or don’t you have any real faith?

also, while i can’t speak for the person your comment is directed at, i can say that there are plenty of scientists who also have faith, but it doesn’t interfere with them being real scientists.

there are also a great many scientists that spend time discussing the philosophy of science, which often gets into metaphysical debate, without it affecting their ability to do science.

why is it that you are so convinced that GWW life is without meaning?  rather gross assumption, on your part.

cheers

Comment #23759

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 02:22 PM (e) (s)

as to the prayer issue, i believe GWW might be referring to a series of posts on another thread where someone pointed out several studies that had been done on whether prayer was effective or not in the healing process (iirc).  I’m sure GWW could provide you the links to that, if I am correct.

cheers

Comment #23760

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 02:25 PM (e) (s)

crap, i hate not being able to edit my posts.  obviously, in:

” extrapolate faith into areas where it does work that is meaningless”

change does to doesn’t.

gees.

Comment #23766

Posted by HPLC_Sean on April 7, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)

Pleased to meet you, Dr. Davison. I’ve read some of your work and I’ve read about your work. It is a pleasure to debate you today.

You state:
“The main difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that the former is still happening and the latter stopped happening long ago.”
Correct me if I’m wrong; are you admiting that macroevolution happened (and stopped happening)? Why did it stop happening?

You further state:
“[macroevolution] resulted (past tense) from the restructuring of existing internal information, a process in which allelic mutation never played any role whatsoever.”
If allelic mutation had nothing to do with it, then you surely have some body of evidence to support this. Could you please point to a reference?

The more I read ID literature and the statements brought forth in discussion by ID proponents, the more I am convinced that ID would not exist without modern Evolutionary Theory! Please understand that I am not trying to be witty or underhanded. I’m just trying to understand why you cannot talk about ID without talking about Evolution. If ID stood as a legitimate theory on its own, would it not have its own body of work to draw upon?

Comment #23769

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 7, 2005 03:29 PM (e) (s)

After all the only truth you accept is science, metaphysical questions have no bearing in your meaningless existence.

What are you driving at, Apeman?  You seem to be implying that your existence has meaning because you are unable to understand the difference between a scientific theory and bogus religious wankery like “ID”.

That’s a strange belief, Apeman.  Then again, you’ve made many strange statements here.  Your statement about putting “faith” in biotech companies is among the stranger statements.

Now you speak of a “long-term war”.  Where should human beings put their “faith” in the “long term war” against microbes, if not in biotechnology Apeman?

Are you advocating that rather than think about solutions to problems such as microbial resistance to antibiotics, we should simply pray for the microbes to stop evolving?  Who should we pray to?  And do you have any evidence that suggests these sorts of prayers would be effective?  If so, a Nobel Prize in medicine awaits you, Apeman.

In my opinion, Apeman, you’re an arrogant tool for bragging about your “meaningful” existence and disparaging mine.  But if you can demonstrate that you possess facts which prove and explain the role that prayer plays in evolution, your arrogance will be excused (by me, at least).

Comment #23778

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 7, 2005 04:45 PM (e) (s)

Is it the reality of the objects of our belief or merely our belief in those objects that makes life meaningful to us?

If it is the former, religious folks are most likely out of luck since the universe is probably not  haunted, at least in the somewhat science-fiction-like style of the traditional mythologies. 

If it is the later, secularists who believe that their lives are meaningful without religious faith are at least as well off as religionists who believe that their lives are meaningful. On this basis, after all, meaningfulness is just a matter of opinion and facts don’t matter.

Comment #23784

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)

maybe it would help if any secularist explained how they find their lives meaningful without religion?  perhaps folks like the apeman just can’t envision how this would work, so they feel threatened by it?

just a thought.

Comment #23786

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 7, 2005 05:39 PM (e) (s)

Is it the reality of the objects of our belief or merely our belief in those objects that makes life meaningful to us?

If it is the former, religious folks are most likely out of luck since the universe is probably not  haunted, at least in the somewhat science-fiction-like style of the traditional mythologies.

If it is the later, secularists who believe that their lives are meaningful without religious faith are at least as well off as religionists who believe that their lives are meaningful. On this basis, after all, meaningfulness is just a matter of opinion and facts don’t matter.

The latter is the utter foolishness that defines schizophrenic post-modern man. After all, its all a cognitive illusion.  Morality is in the eye of the beholder.  If Hitler found killing Jews meaningful, let’s not be too critical as “its just a matter of opinion”. 

The former is real question, though I think you meant “Is the reality of the object our belief.”  The problem is when scientist attempt to answer metaphysical questions with science they end up with circular reasoning.  If you start with the presumption of philosphical naturalism regarding origins you conclude what you assumed, “the universe is probably not haunted”. 

So no Russel I can’t answer your question with scientific evidence because it is pilosophical in nature.  There is no way to study macroevolution and speciation as an event on a geological time scale.  But, we can use punctuated equilibrium to fill in the gaps in the fossil record.  I do not see a strong scientific case that chance mutations and natural selection causally led to my existence from a single celled organism.

And GWW I was not implying your life was any more meaningless than mine.  Since you only seem to accept science as the basis for truth you should also accept the logical conclusion of nihilism.  Are we just two biologic robots exchanging meaningless ideas back in forth that in some way attempts to increase the propogation of our genetic material?

Comment #23788

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)

Apeman:

I do not see a strong scientific case that chance mutations and natural selection causally led to my existence from a single celled organism.

Do you see a strong scientific case that something else did?

Comment #23789

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 7, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

I wrote “the reality of the objects of our belief” on purpose. Why discriminate against polytheists?

I expect Hitler did find killing Jews meaningful. To recognize this fact is not to think that killing Jews is moral. Last time I looked, “Meaningful” just doesn’t mean “good.” It’s a pretty wimpy adjective in general.

The notion that meaningfulness is an especially meaningful category is not one I share. Relgious folks are the ones who perpetually harp on the purported meaninglessness of life without God. I prefer to employ less subjective categories. I guess I’m not postmodern enough.

By the way, E.A. assumes that doubt about the reality of the gods has to be based on scientific grounds. But science is only one of the many ways to search the phone booth for the bull elephant that’s supposed to be hiding there.

Comment #23790

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)

“schizophrenic post-modern man”

I think you will find that a critical examination of that statement is more telling of your own state of mind, methinks.

schizophrenic implies a split in consciousness.  IMO, you would not be here posting unless you yourself were dealing with some form of philosphical duality in your thought processes. 

This is common among many folks who cannot resolve perceptual reality with their religious belief structures.

I have no problems with it, ergo I don’t consider myself schizophrenic.  do you?

“If Hitler found killing Jews meaningful”

can you argue he didn’t?

“The problem is when scientist attempt to answer metaphysical questions with science they end up with circular reasoning”

exactly so.  you hit the nail right on the head.  *DING*

that is why SCIENCE does NOT attempt to address issues that are untestable and/or metaphysical in nature.  that is the realm of philosophy.

Please show me where SCIENCE has tried to disprove the existence of god, for example?

I’m sure as you analyze any “examples” of this you think exist, you will find that no SCIENTISTS were involved.. just the media and extremeists trying to make a point totally unrelated to science.

“I can’t answer your question with scientific evidence because it is pilosophical in nature”

I congratulate you on your progress in understanding what we are trying to get at.

“philosphical naturalism “

by definition, is philosophy, not science.  No one here will use philosophy to “scientifically” prove anything, or vice versa.  the constant and incorrect imposition of the term “philisophical naturalists” to attempt to describe those who utilize and study evolutionary theory is simply a mechanism on the part of those who wish to do an end run around what you yourself now realize:

philosophy is not science. 

hasn’t been for quite some time now (at least since the scientific method was adopted).

it is simply an attempt to make a false legal argument that somehow science is philosophy, and religion is science, in order to put the two on a more equal legal footing, nothing more.  Now that you know, you need to move beyond it.

“I do not see a strong scientific case that chance mutations and natural selection causally led to my existence from a single celled organism”

Are you being honest with yourself?  have you examined all the evidence presented?  have you actually attempted experiments yourself?

You could easily say “I emotionally am not satisfied that evolutionary theory correctly addresses my belief structure”  but can you honestly say there is no “strong scientific case”??  Please don’t paint yourself as that ignorant.

I for one, would be happy to discuss the philosophical implications of attempting to extrapolate a belief structure onto the world around us in order to make it better fit our emotional perceptions.  However, I would not dare make the argument that evolutionary theory does not make a good fit for directly observable reality.  it simply is too impractical.  Of what value would it be to society at large to adopt a philosophy that rejects the scientific method?

Comment #23791

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 7, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)

Jim,

I was referring to the second “of” in your statement.  Dropping the “s” from objects was a type-o on my part.

You admit the real agenda in teaching macroevolution:

But science is only one of the many ways to search the phone booth for the bull elephant that’s supposed to be hiding there.

I don’t believe science is ever a way to disprove the existence of God.  But Darwinian Fundamentalists sure do.

Oh by the way, how does an educated godless man as yourself decide what is and isn’t moral and on what basis (scientific or philosophical)

Comment #23793

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 06:20 PM (e) (s)

“Darwinian Fundamentalists”

by show of hands:

anyone here on PT a darwinian fundamentalist?

nevermind, i already know the answer.

Comment #23794

Posted by steve on April 7, 2005 06:23 PM (e) (s)

I am. I believe in the Word of Darwin. Every word is the literal truth.

;-)

Comment #23795

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 06:23 PM (e) (s)

BTW, I’d have to disagree with Jim if his intention was to suggest that science could even begin to address the question of whether non-detectable entities exist or not.  EA might be correct in jumping on you for that comment.  perhaps you should clarify?

Comment #23796

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s)

[rant]
do you all see how EA clamped onto the one statement made by Jim that could possibly be construed as a direct attack on his belief system by “science”?

this is why we need to make it clear that science is NOT attacking his faith.  It is not the realm of science to try to prove or disprove the existence of something that you can’t even use the scientific method on.

While Jim may or may not believe in a divine being, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion of the value of evolutionary theory in explaining the observable universe.

I hate to criticize, but it is my firm “belief” (pardon the pun) that most of the war between creationists and scientists revolves around a simple fear of attack, nothing more.

If we actively encourange the view that science is NOT attacking faith, because it is not in the purvue of science to do so, maybe a lot of the arm waving and irrational behavior would go away.

[end rant]

Comment #23797

Posted by Scott Davidson on April 7, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s)

Evolving Apeman wrote:
how does an educated godless man as yourself decide what is and isn’t moral and on what basis (scientific or philosophical)

Science is amoral.  It doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong.  I’m not really sure why anyone would expect it to either.

So like everybody else, these godless types around us draw our ethics from elsewhere.
Personally I like what has been called the golden rule, Simply treating others as I would have them treat me.  I believe that it is wrong to deliberately harm other people.  To arrive at this hasn’t required any divine revelation or some giant sky fairy standing over our shoulders threatening to smite us should we stray from the righteous path.

Comment #23798

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 06:55 PM (e) (s)

I don’t believe science is ever a way to disprove the existence of God.  But Darwinian Fundamentalists sure do.

Please cite an example of this. First, of course, you’re going to have to identify some Darwinian Fundamentalists. In the course of doing that, I guess you’re going to have to define “Darwinian Fundamentalist”. Should be interesting.

Comment #23799

Posted by Stan Gosnell on April 7, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

I resent the contention that it is impossible for me to act morally unless a god is standing over me threatening me with eternal damnation.  That is a gross insult.  Fundamentalist christians have no monopoly on morality, and in fact I would argue the opposite.  Claiming to be christians, yet not following what Jesus called ‘the great commandment’ is not acting morally.  Claiming that god is all-powerful but unable to create the universe differently from the way they want to believe does god no great service.

Comment #23807

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 7, 2005 07:40 PM (e) (s)

BTW, since you decided to call the assumption of ID being supported by primarily fundies “amazing ignorance” please enlighten us.

Shall I mention yet again who provides nearly all of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture’s funding, and why … . . ?

Google “Howard Ahmanson Reconstructionist”.  It’ll scare the living crap out of you.

Comment #23808

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 7, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)

It isn’t the business of the sciences to pronounce on theological questions, but scientific results certainly have implications for non-scientific issues. Suppose, for example, microbiologists had found serial numbers on mitochondria or the Genesis version of Middle East history had held up under scholarly examination? Christians and Jews would have certainly made a great deal of such discoveries. Religious folks only decided that science was irrelevant when they noticed that its conclusions were not favorable to their view of things. Before that, they had a very different philosophy of science. You also didn’t read very much about how God was hiding in order to test the faithful before it became so hard to find hide or hair of him in either nature or history.

About morality: I confess that I don’t understand why believers want to make people think that the normal rules of right and wrong are so occult that only revelation can inform us what they are and so arbitrary that only divine sanction can give them force. No doubt, we sometimes have to make morally difficult decisions and have trouble figuring out the right thing to do; but it seems to me that there are a host of excellent reasons not to murder people or lie unnecessarily, none of which involve a God. Thinking that an act is only good because God says it is good is like buying a shampoo because a glamorous movie star endorses it. And what happens when the faithful lose their faith? Are they going to murder us in our beds because the only thing keeping them from plunging a knife in our bellies is the fear of the Lord? (For the record, I tend to agree with a lot of what Kant had to say about morality.)

Comment #23809

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 07:55 PM (e) (s)

^ ^
  o o
  O

actually, it doesn’t really surprise me.  You are talking about high up movers-and-shakers who are really just taking advantage of the ingnorant for the own aims, which usually amount to making more money, in the end.  I can make a good case for all of GW’s current policies directly relating to putting more money in his and his close friends pockets, nothing more.  everything else is lies and rationalizations.

the crux of the ID grass-roots power base is more related to the folks that post here:

http://christianexodus.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphp…

as you agree in another thread, this is where the battle must be fought; to convince these folks that science is not “evil” and does not threaten their faith.

cheers

Comment #23810

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 07:57 PM (e) (s)

er, the thing at the top is supposed to look like a shocked face.  didn’t come out to well in the wash

:P

Comment #23836

Posted by Michael Rathbun on April 7, 2005 10:32 PM (e) (s)

Jim Har