Sunday, July 12, 2009

Evolutionists: The Vast Majority is not so Vast.

From Rob


For those who've had discussions of evolution with me, I frequently run into the demonstrably false claim that there are no scientists who doubt evolution. That's when I demonstrate to the contrary by linking to the DiscoverY Institute's Petition of Dissent from Darwinianism which has the signatures of almost 800 scientists who are skeptical of the adequacy of fully natural evolution (and other naturalistic explanations) to explain where life comes from and it's diversity.

Some people have pointed out what a very small percentage of scientists that is (like 1 percent or less). Well, the problem with this is the assumption that all of the skeptics of naturalism actually signed. I've always said that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Evidently, I was right.

It turns out that Pew research has found that the percentage of scientists in a sample of more than 25 hundred who don't believe in evolution is actually much larger. According to Popsci, Pew research has found that "87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time." Leaving 13 percent (about 330) who wouldn't commit to that claim. Now, that's just of people who don't believe in evolution. Just think, that number wouldn't count all the ID theorists (Like Behe and Dembski) who do believe that life evolved over time even though they don't buy that it did so in a completely naturalistic way.

Yes, 13 percent is small, but it's not that small and if the number were to hold for for all scientstists, that still represents a huge community of not simply scientifically knowledgeable people, but people who are trained and functional in the sciences, people who have an intimate knowledge of how science works and probably some idea of it's limits.

source

74 comments:

Christian Apologist said...

The source doesnt cite what kind of "scientists" were polled. Were all the scientist polled biologists or did the poll include scientists whose specialty has nothing to do with evolutionary theory?

Barb said...

CA, would it really make a difference among educated scientists as to which branch was their specialty? Aren't all the "scientists" grounded in the basic sciences--as are the molecular and genetic biologists? Do we think chemists, MD's, astronomers and geologists don't count and couldn't possibly be credible on the subject?

So far, all the evidence of "gazillions of years over time for the evolution of all the diversity of life on earth," is NOT that evident--not that irrefutable --not replicated now --no transitional occurences that would lend credence to Darwin's leap of faith. Creatures with common features even in the DNA, do not NECESSARILY, INEVITABLY spell common ancestry any more than "designer in common" and "common design."

Barb said...

I don't pin my faith on evolution being false --if it can be proven that common DNA among mammals means they all had common ancestry, so be it. It's highly speculative and no one explains well why we don't see any gradual transitions today that cross over to create really different species--all the creatures stay in their "family" despite great diversity within the family.

Rob R said...

I agree that this is a good question.

If the Dissent from Darwin petition is any indicator, on one page of it, I counted a third that were in some sort of biological science.

I suspect that the Discovery institute got everyone to sign that they could, and if that is true, and that they didn't pursue just biologists, then it is some sort of indicator.

I think that's reasonable, but I know it isn't certain.



One thing is for certain though. We don't want to belittle the significance of the skepticism that extends outside of the biological sciences and we really don't want to do so for the skepticism that extends outside the very small number of evolutionary biologists. All of the sciences are interconnected and are not independent from one another. And the moment we deny that other scientists are to some degree qualifed to agree or disagree with evolution, we only make it even more pointless for us laymen to think anything of it to begin with.

AndThenSome said...

Rob,

Actually, the results were the following: 97% of those surveyed said (or agreed with the statement) that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." 87% indicated evolution occured "due to natural processes," and another 8% believe it was "guided by a supreme being." Only 2% believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
(Yes, I know these figures don't quite add up--you'll have to take it up with Pew, not me.)
http://people-press.org/report/? pageid=1550

Also, quoting anything from the Discovery Institute does little to help your case. It is the laughing stock of the legitimate scientific community. Its stated goals are:

"1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Further, through promoting "design theory," they hope to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/wedge-document

It's also worth noting that evolution doesn't claim to explain where life comes from, but how it has developed since it's beginning.

If you and Barb have questions, there are libraries full of resources for you--even better, you could take a class or two and educate yourselves on the subject.

Rob R said...

I quoted word for word the article that both pew research and popsci put out which said ""87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time."

My conclusions were reasonable based on that, but apparently, both the author of the Pew research article and popsci didn't care for nuances on the issue and made this misleading statement.

nevertheless, 13 percent of scientists (by the numbers you posted) do not subscribe to naturalism and that is good enough for me for my purposes. which involves a small axe to grind against evolution, and a medium sized axe to grind against naturalism (as I don't know that the position that God used fully naturalistic means to bring about life is absolutely false (though I think it is)).


It's also worth noting that evolution doesn't claim to explain where life comes from, but how it has developed since it's beginning.



Which is why I added the phrase in parentheses "(and other naturalistic explanations)"


"1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."




Noble goals, though it's enough for me to demonstrate that naturalism (and possibly evolution, specifically common descent) have not been proven beyond a reasonable (even scientific) doubt and that there are reasons to think otherwise.



If you and Barb have questions, there are libraries full of resources for you--even better, you could take a class or two and educate yourselves on the subject.



This is really a tired old accusation that the only reason to be skeptical of evolution or naturalism is due to ignorance. Actually, it is true and false, but little to nothing that you can say at the level of the layman can support this given the complexity of the current arguments. the fact is, as demonstrated by both the pew article and the petition of dissent from Darwinism, education doesn't convince 100's to thousands (and quite possibly 10's of thousands) of competent researchers that the question is settled.

I know that they are in the minority, but that doesn't settle things for two reasons. Number one, minorities have overturned majorities in the scientific disciplines to this day. Secondly, even though science shows a tremendous ability to correct itself, it is questionable that it can easily when possible corrections go against deep seated philosophical biases. And considering the bad arguments that I've seen against intelligent design on a level that even the laymen can understand (or at least someone who's had some formal training in the philosophy of science), it is very easy for me to conclude that the dominant scientific establishment is philosophically biased (but it's not like that makes them special. Everyone has biases).

I have had both more training than average, at the college level in both science and philosophy the philosophy of science. More will not help me in terms of weighing the scientific evidence short of getting a BS in the biological sciences.

I'm aware that evolution has been promoted on valid scientific grounds and I am aware that it has had much success in organizing and explaining the data. But while these are epistemically positive features, they do not guarantee truth.

AndThenSome said...

Rob R.,

You wrote:

I quoted word for word the article that both pew research and popsci put out which said ""87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time."

My conclusions were reasonable based on that, but apparently, both the author of the Pew research article and popsci didn't care for nuances on the issue and made this misleading statement.


My response:

Sorry, that's incorrect. You quoted a popsci article about the Pew report--Pew had no direct connection to the article you quoted. I went to the orginal report on the Pew website to review it myself, and no where does it have the statement "87 percent of scientists polled said life evolved over time." Your conclusion wasn't reasonable because you didn't take the time to consult the report itself and allowed yourself, and potentially your readers, to be misled.

nevertheless, 13 percent of scientists (by the numbers you posted) do not subscribe to naturalism and that is good enough for me for my purposes.

If you say so. I think, however, that 87% is a significant majority considering the report included scientists outside of the life sciences. If there were a similar poll restricted to those in the life sciences, I'd expect that percentage to be a least 10 points higher.

Which is why I added the phrase in parentheses "(and other naturalistic explanations)"

Point taken. I stand corrected.

Noble goals, though it's enough for me to demonstrate that naturalism (and possibly evolution, specifically common descent) have not been proven beyond a reasonable (even scientific) doubt and that there are reasons to think otherwise.

Noble goals? Twisting science to comform to Christian theology? There is nothing noble about you or your heroes at the Discovery Institute. Until the DI can come up with scientifically credible data, instead of trying to bypass real science by forcing their nonsense into public schools with such drivel as "teach the controversy," they will continue to be dismissed, criticized, and ridiculed.

Number one, minorities have overturned majorities in the scientific disciplines to this day.

True.

Secondly, even though science shows a tremendous ability to correct itself, it is questionable that it can easily when possible corrections go against deep seated philosophical biases.

By "philosophical biases," I assume you mean naturalism, and you'd be correct. Science doesn't accept so-called supernatural evidence, explanations, or theories. If it did, it wouldn't be science any more, it would be fairy tales.

I have had both more training than average, at the college level in both science and philosophy the philosophy of science. More will not help me in terms of weighing the scientific evidence short of getting a BS in the biological sciences.

Well, to put it bluntly, many of the details of evolutionary theory are complicated. Have you had any classes in evolutionary theory? Have you spoken to any evolutionary scientists or professors? I know someone who is qualified to answer many of your questions if you're interested.

Rob R said...

post 1 of 2

Sorry, that's incorrect. You quoted a popsci article about the Pew report--Pew had no direct connection to the article you quoted.

It is verbatim on this page that popsci quoted:



http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey

though they did add "and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection." But technically, that is still ambiguous. Any ID theorist can admit this. The naturalism that they object to is the idea the evolution is only the result of natural processes.


Your conclusion wasn't reasonable because you didn't take the time to consult the report itself and allowed yourself, and potentially your readers, to be misled.

I'm not a journalist. The popsci writers are. But I'd still trust them because everyone (including trustworthy people) makes mistakes and this was a small one. Not insignificant, but small and still good news.


If you say so. I think, however, that 87% is a significant majority


I know it's a significant majority. I also know that that does not guarantee truth. I also know that significant majorities can be driven by philosophical biases.


If there were a similar poll restricted to those in the life sciences, I'd expect that percentage to be a least 10 points higher.


You can speculate that but the sizable petition of Dissent from Darwinism implies otherwise. Again, this demontrated that what the petition on Dissent from Darwinism is the tip of the iceberg.


Until the DI can come up with scientifically credible data,


The data is already there. Scientists already understand the roles that so many pieces of systems within biological organisms play. For them to conclude that there is irreducible complexity on research that was aimed towards that goal is reasonable. They understand the chemistry. It's true that there are almost no peer reviewed papers on the matter. But it's not clear that this is the case because of the dominant biases of the scientific community.

That's not to say that much more work needs to be done.


Noble goals? Twisting science to comform to Christian theology?


What choir do you think you're preaching to?


By "philosophical biases," I assume you mean naturalism, and you'd be correct. Science doesn't accept so-called supernatural evidence, explanations, or theories. If it did, it wouldn't be science any more, it would be fairy tales.


That explains nothing. Why would the acceptance of the limits of nature to explain itself and to scientifically note features of intelligent design (which is a basic every day experience just from what we see humans doing) yeild to fairy tails?

Science isn't clearly at odds with the supernatural when it has to the potential to define the boundary of the supernatural.

Rob R said...

post 2 of 2


Naturalism isn't the only philosophical bias though. There is also the bias that everything in nature must or will yield to scientific explanation. Over at Masoni's blog (see link on the our blog role) he has a video on a psychiatrist who notes that evolution is the only workable theory on the developement of all of life. He's right. Intelligent design allows for the possibility that we don't have access to means by which life was designed (accept to the degree that evolution may be true, which many ID theorists accept, though they hold that that degree isn't thorough). I'll bite this bullet and there's nothing in science nor in reason or experience that suggests that science will always reveal every step of every process, even if it's the biggest and most important one. And that still leaves a vast world of knowledge with which science grants us. To highlight this, one of those really bad evolutionary arguments I run into is the idea that evolution is the heart of biology, as if we wouldn't have it without evolution. This couldn't be more demonstrably false and contrary to common sense. The heart of biology is anatomy, physiology and taxonomy and there is a mountain of fruitful information there already and there is a mountain of work to be done in that area regardless of what evolution can tell us and regardless of the connections of those topics that evolution may highlight (true or false).


Well, to put it bluntly, many of the details of evolutionary theory are complicated.


I know. I've already implied as much.


Have you had any classes in evolutionary theory?


no, not specifically. There is that matter of time and money. I am nevertheless formally educated on evolution.


Have you spoken to any evolutionary scientists or professors?


Plenty and philosophers to boot. You could scroll and perhaps go to Barb's last post (I think it's her last post) on the topic of evolution where an evolutionary biologist discussed the issue with us. Do note that my mom and I do not advance the same arguments.


I know someone who is qualified to answer many of your questions if you're interested.

I don't have questions at the moment. I know where I stand. I know my limits. I have some grasp of their limits. Really whatever a naturalist can tell me in favor of their claims, chances are, there is an ID theorist who is just as qualified who could bring up other considerations, but given the complexity of some of the technical arguments, I wouldn't be qualified to judge between the two. But again, I've seen naturalists and evolutionists say things from their own mouths that don't require scientific training to evaluate.

Rob R said...

.



Correction


When I said this:

For them to conclude that there is irreducible complexity on research that was aimed towards that goal is reasonable.


I meant it was reasonable to make their conclusions on the basis of research that was aimed towards other goals. (those goals which are simply to understand how the biological system works and how all it's pieces function).

AndThenSome said...

It is verbatim on this page that popsci quoted:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey


I am unable to find the link you provided above anywhere in the original popsci article. If you could direct me to it, I would be grateful.

The naturalism that they object to is the idea the evolution is only the result of natural processes.

Please desribe naturalism that would allow evidence and theories that were unnatural or supernatural.

For them to conclude that there is irreducible complexity on research that was aimed towards that goal is reasonable.

Irreducible complexity has been easily and soundly refuted by legitimate scientists, a profound embarassment.

But it's not clear that this is the case because of the dominant biases of the scientific community.

Ah, yes. It couldn't possibly be that intelligent design is lacking; it must be a conspiracy by those evil Darwinistas to keep the truth from humanity.

Why would the acceptance of the limits of nature to explain itself and to scientifically note features of intelligent design (which is a basic every day experience just from what we see humans doing) yeild to fairy tails?

Because Intelligent Design (Creation Science) proponents assert that some unknown intelligence (God) actively designed life in an unknown process (miracles) with unknown intentions (to glorify Him). This is why creation scientists have failed and will continue to fail, and what why what they do has all the scientific credibility of Alice in Wonderland.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb - You should learn a little about evolution ... before you try and comment on it. If you paid attention in class, you could grasp why there is not a body piled and numbered for every gene mutation. How many dead critters are in your yard, for your examination? Over time, millions have died in your yard. Your home is a death camp for critters, and yet no critter bodies. Why is that? Where are your fossil records for all these deaths? Are you denying the deaths?

In short. Your an Idiot! @:-D)

Barb said...

No Guy --"The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

That statement goes back thousands of years. The argument is not new, is it? you see it debated in every century.

I believe that all of existance can be explained by scientific principles --all of which are known to our Maker, a Supreme intelligence behind all of existance and the universe. We have discovered the tip of the ice berg. Miracles, I believe, are governed by scientific principles beyond our capacities. It's not "magic" but all God's science --the supernatural and the natural. We think of the spiritual and the supernatural as "magic." I do think there is power in the Word of God --that He can speak life and light into being --as at Creation, as in Resurrection--but we speak things into occuring on a computer ourselves. The Logos has power. God's MInd and capacity are just way ahead of ours --because of Who He is --and because we are HIs creation and not on the same plane.

As for mutations-- bacteria and viruses seem to do them best -- for their benefit and our detriment. Hubby, the MD, says mutations seem to be always bad in result for us. Of course, change through natural selection, is not the same as change by mutation --though the two can both produce change together. But in natural selection, the info is already in the species --and the process merely enables some traits to predominate over others through the survival of the fittest.

I was directed to a Harvard study on lizards this century --to prove evolution. All it demonstrated was natural selection. The lizards were still lizards --and their predominant features varied generation to generation depending on the presence of the predator advancing the longer legged lizards and the following adaptation to the tree environment where the shorter legged prevailed.
It did not prove that the lizards were on their way in a million years or more to being anything other than lizards --just as originally designed to be.

all of the examples used to "prove" Darwin's theories are examples of micro-evolution and do not demonstrate common descent. The premise remains theoretical. Everything keeps producing "after its own kind," just as the Bible says.

Granted, Darwin's contribution in seeing MICRO-evolution --which is genetically explainable. Creationists and ID scientists agree that there is natural selection, there is survival of the fittest affecting the gene pool, there are mutations (bad in results), there is the factor of adaptation whereby natural selection by survival of the fittest occurs. And this is all part of Darwin's theory.

But the atheistic conclusions are not necessary nor proven --the idea that there IS intelligence beyond our own, behind our existance, that we may have been created as we are from the beginning of life ---these things have NOT been DISproven.

Behe saw the intricacy and irreducible complexity, the interdependence of all components of the basic DNA of life as evidence for a theory of intelligent design behind life.

I agree with him. And don't feel at all ignorant or sheepish in the process.

I believe more scientists would admit their skepticism of Darwin if it hadn't become a litmus test for employment and academic advancement.

Christian Apologist said...

CA, would it really make a difference among educated scientists as to which branch was their specialty? Aren't all the "scientists" grounded in the basic sciences--as are the molecular and genetic biologists? Do we think chemists, MD's, astronomers and geologists don't count and couldn't possibly be credible on the subject?


evolutionary theory is not basic science. to truly understand it I'm pretty sure one would have to understand topics like bio-chemistry, advanced biology, genome mapping, anthropology, and radiometric dating methodology. I have no idea what else might be needed. I'm no biologist.

Barb said...

Ca --I think most defenders of Darwin think Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology.

And some of it is useful, for sure, but the atheistic conclusion that most people take from it, is not proven --nor is common descent.

AndThenSome said...

Barb is correct in the sense that evolutionary theory hasn't proven God doesn't exist. It doesn't claim to. What is does is provide a naturalistic explanation for the development and diversity of life. As far as it and science in general are concerned, God is unnecessary and irrelevant.

Rob R said...

I am unable to find the link you provided above anywhere in the original popsci article. If you could direct me to it, I would be grateful.


It wasn't in the popsci article as far as I know. I found it myself. But at this point, I don't know what it matters. we all know what was said where.


Please desribe naturalism that would allow evidence and theories that were unnatural or supernatural.


What I intended to say didn't come out right. What I meant to write is that the evolution guided by natural processes that most ID theorists object to is the one that is only guided by natural processes. Granted, even that is not strictly true. I don't think Behe for instance objects to a theistic naturalism (which he at one point subscribed to) so much as he believes that the evidence just doesn't work for a consistent naturalism.


Irreducible complexity has been easily and soundly refuted by legitimate scientists, a profound embarassment.

Oh have they now? You are able to judge this? perhaps you are. i don't know what your training is. And it remains the case that I am not and I observe that others with the highest scientific training in the life sciences still disagree. Of course people in other relevant sciences such as chemistry and people involved in science or mathematics are still skeptical of the statistical plausibility of naturalism and that sort of thing is not out of their scope. It is ironic that we think nothing about the assertions (implicit or otherwise) of mathematical plausibility by biologists for evolution, but if a scientists who's is very concerned with mathematics, or a mathematician himself raises a fuss on the basis of his own expertise, then we think that he's going out of his bounds. That is a double standard.



Ah, yes. It couldn't possibly be that intelligent design is lacking; it must be a conspiracy by those evil Darwinistas to keep the truth from humanity.


How do you go from philosophical bias to conspiracy? Those are two very different things.

Of course Intelligent design could be wrong because of their philosophical leanings. If they are, lets see the reasoning towards this end. But the science isn't enough to deal with this question.


Because Intelligent Design (Creation Science) proponents assert that some unknown intelligence (God) actively designed life in an unknown process (miracles) with unknown intentions (to glorify Him).


This just seems to be another categorical error. Since when does mystery equate to fairy tails? If it does, then all knowledge which is hedged in by the unknown is fictitious.

There is also the error here of presuming that intelligent design means that the intelligence of life is due to miricles. Intelligent design does not rule out the possibility that life evolved somewhere else to an advanced civilization. Intelligent design does not lead to a complete theology. Theology can clearly benefit from Intelligent design, and it may be the best option. But it honestly isn't the only one.

And again, you are asserting what I have identified as a philosophical bias, the idea that science has the power to reveal all mysteries even about the physical world. It is perfectly reasonable and possible that some things even within physical reality cannot be revealed by science. What's more, those limits may be revealable by science itself, (which is is one thing that Intelligent design has the potential to demonstrate).

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb - While I am not in the mood to go through every stupid thing you say. You did not understand what I was getting at. So I will explain better.

There are no fossils of anything in your yard, because other critters ate the dead critters. Critters/critter parts being exposed to the elements breakdown, into something other than a FOSSIL. Are you starting to see where I am heading? So why arent there fossils? To have fossils created you need very special(like you) circumstances. So when you add up all the creatures you are looking for(miss gap) you do not find them because .... They didnt die in a special circumstance area with no other critters around to scavenge the body.

So we are lucky to find fossils. Lucky when we see the transitional fossils. They are in museums. Transitional fossils would be any ancestor that was fossilized from the same line. ID dummys see them and say oh so where is the one in between those. Which is lame. Completely stupid. Like again, if you are now smart enough to understand why there are not bones piled to the sky all over the earth. Then you should now be smart enough to understand why there is not a fossil for every fucking mutation. Simple. Huh? I seriously doubt you will get it.

"God's MInd and capacity are just way ahead of ours --because of Who He is --and because we are HIs creation and not on the same plane."

Barb seriously, did you read the bible? If you think for one second that rubbish was divinely inspired. Well I will not drop another name. I will say I am 100 times more intelligent than the authors of the bible, and any God that thought he was omniscient enough to inspire such trash. He got nothing right. How is it an omniscient God fucked up the whole bible?

I.D. was soundly trounced in the court of law. Soundly is an understatement. Pulverized is better. The guy that buried I.D., buried that irreducibly complex BS.

He has videos out too. I think his name is Ken miller. It shows how it all works. Look him up on youtube. If you need me to find it, I will look.

FYI - Evolution is tried and true. Other scientist verifying others work. If any, and I mean any scientist could bury evolution. They would in one second. There would be fame and fortune heading his way. There is no conspiracy to withhold contrary evidence. Evolution is not a one line statement, it is literally thousands of theories. Evolution is true. I am sorry, Macro Evolution is true. Micro Evolution is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies&feature=player_embedded

Barb said...

Well, No Guy --Did I say anything about fossils in this thread? No.
So, why is it your issue?

Nevertheless, fossils are not proof --only evidence of a theory. They just as much are evidence of another theory -the theory that God created all things from the beginning in their present form --and while mating causes variety --and while we intelligent beings can engineer new breeds within a kind of creature -YOU have no proof that a so-called trans fossil really demonstrates transition more than it demonstrates a unique creature that may or may not be extinct now. Just because a fossil has features of two different modern creatures does not prove it to be the fossil of a common ancestor. That's your theory--and that's your evidence --but it's not your proof.

I say the extinct creatures were created unique --and just as apes and humans share features --and all mammals share features --and all creatures share features -- and they all share LIFE --that mysterious entity that we cannot create from inert matter ourselves -- so it is that all of life MAY truly share a common intelligent designer. And the fossil may be the fossil of a unique creature --not a common ancestor. It might be a form of horse, or bird or lizard --and it could be some combo of the two--like a horse-like dog or a dog-like horse --but created that way from the beginning. You can't prove otherwise. You weren't there.

Barb said...

And Then Some, As far as it and science in general are concerned, God is unnecessary and irrelevant.

And therein is the problem with the theory of evolution as currently taught to students--it attempts a naturalistic explanation and RULES OUT GOD for how we got here by accident in all our complexity --with our marvelous brains and bodies --in our marvelous universe --on our uniquely life-sustaining planet. I can't stand in awe of naturalism --as much as of the intelligence and the beautiful mind behind it. Schools have no business "ruling God out" in the process of our existance. As they have no proof.

We are being unscientific to rule out the possibility of intelligent design behind the naturalism --instead of looking for evidence of it. Instead of inspiring awe for the intricacies of DNA, e.g.

NO Guy, You may be interested to know that Ken Miller sent me a packet of his stuff and we have talked on the phone. He is impressive as a theistic evolutionist but I remain unconvinced. Whale fossils with leg-like or foot-like appendages do not prove the claim of common ancestry. So God created some creatures that did not survive --which had features of other surviving creatures --still doesn't prove descent. It may prove some trial and error attempts on earth as God's celestial laboratory.

Micro-evolution is true. We can observe it. Where is your evidence of macro? You have "evidence" interpreted as macro, but you don't have proof ---nothing observeable that can't be explained by creation/design theory better --or at least as well.

I love that BC comic by Johnny Hart --where he shows the worship of an idol, an apparently evolved creature with features of several creatures --implication: the worship of evolution --which he depicts as ridiculous.

When I read the Bible, I am always amazed at the brilliance of the NT writers --of the Psalmist. The profundity and beauty therein--the wisdom that transcends the ages. Yes, there are things in the OT especially that are incomprehensible to me personally --but the Bible as a whole is an amazing historical treasure.

So are you a published author selling as many books as the annual sale of the Bible?

Barb said...

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became as fools."

Rob R said...

I.D. was soundly trounced in the court of law. Soundly is an understatement. Pulverized is better. The guy that buried I.D., buried that irreducibly complex BS.


This guy doesn't think that was the case.

By the way, what does it matter that it happened in a court of law? Since when are technical matters of science determined by a judge?

He has videos out too. I think his name is Ken miller. It shows how it all works. Look him up on youtube. If you need me to find it, I will look.


I've seen a couple of his videos and it's quite pathetic to think that watching a video for the layman makes one a sufficient judge on the matter.

But good greif. I started watching that video you provided and when it started to claim that you'd have to abandon logic, human reason, the scientific method and so on if you abandon evolution, well, I just started laughing because that is really silly. All of these processes are relevent to thinking through and leading to evolution, but they were also at work with other theories of nature that are now defunct or have been compromised. Human reasoning, logic, an examination of the evidence have lead to the ptolemaic universe (includes geocentrism and the "epi-cycles" of the planets), and add the scientific method and you have theories such as phlogiston, and more importantly, Newtonian physics which is composed of formulas that result in false data if your numbers are too big, too small, or too precise. This person who made the video has no concept of the history and philosophy of science.

course he starts out with all that objection to evolution on the grounds that it's a theory, (not a fact). Well, that's all well and good, but evolution is not a theory. It's too complex to make a discretely testable theory. It is more like a maxitheory that organizes many theories and hypothesis.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - I looked at link. I saw your expert was idiot from Lehigh, and he is not worth reading. He is one of the dummys in a bible school with a PHONY SCIENCE DEGREE that got trounced! Your an idiot for linking him.

Barb - I will be right back. lol

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb -
"Well, No Guy --Did I say anything about fossils in this thread? No.
So, why is it your issue?"

Fossils are where you see transitional species. :)

You seem to be of the impression that every fossil is of an entirely new separate species. That is an ignorant theory. If it was a separate species that God created special. Then why is it that one species is in a specific time period for fossil records(geologic time)? Which happens to be in between two other species that one is older, the other younger. Both are obviously related but different. They are transitions. So with your faulty/crappy logic. There never will be a transitional species. Transitional species are not shark dog mixes. They are not all going to be as smart as humans.(like your lizard example) That lizard described was a transitional species. They were better adapted. The longer legged versions is not likely to be a dead end. The shorter legged lizard now has opportunity to evolve more. The next thing that is added, makes that one a transitional species. So on and ... This is very complicated. If you can not follow that, then you clearly are a lower rung human. A dead end.

To help.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm
Here is a link to transitional diagram of horses. What is nice it shows you branches and layers in geological time it was found. They are not each a new species. They are transitions.

DNA shows it. We all have common DNA ancestry. zzzz

Humans and dinosaurs did not exist together. We know this from fossil records. By geology. By many different dating methods used.

"Aren't all the "scientists" grounded in the basic sciences"

No they are not. Take Robs great example of an Ignoranus. No that is not a new dinosaur. Dr. Michael J. Behe is a prime example. So not only is he dumb enough to go to court for I.D. Apparently he isn't smart enough to learn/comprehend I.D. is pure bible fantasy. Creationism with a new name. How is that for a highly respected professor at a BIBLE college got his ass handed to him? He did not know his stuff. If he could prove his unsupported bullshit, he would have won. lmao There are many dummys out there proclaiming to be a scientist. Christian and scientist is an oxymoron.
"So God created some creatures that did not survive --which had features of other surviving creatures --still doesn't prove descent. It may prove some trial and error attempts on earth as God's celestial laboratory."

So Barb, you are saying ...lol That your God. An omniscient omnipotent being makes errors? If he makes errors, then he can not be a God. Stack that next to the thousands of errors in the bible. He case is closed. He is really a bunch of ignorant desert dudes, pretending to telling a poorly written and horribly edited tale. That was made up and plagiarized.

Lastly. I find it funny how many Christians call evolution, Darwinism and like you Naturalistic. The last I checked. I did not find a theory of darwinism or naturalism. Is there a problem with the word, evolution?

Rob R said...

No guy,

Michael J. Behe is a prime example. So not only is he dumb enough to go to court for I.D. Apparently he isn't smart enough to learn/comprehend I.D. is pure bible fantasy. Creationism with a new name. How is that for a highly respected professor at a BIBLE college got his ass handed to him? He did not know his stuff.

Lehigh is not a bible college. It is not a Christian college. Their religious studies program is like one you'd find at any other secular private or state school with an emphasis on providing training in several different religious traditions.

If they are a christian college at all, it is kept well hidden and completely deemphasized.

Behe also has an official disclaimer on his site noting that his views do not represent the university's position and most of his collegues strongly disagree with them.

However, they sure are proud that US News and World Report cited them as one of the top tier research facilities.

Barb said...

I think you want to sound so smart as to be intimidating, but it ain't workin'!

Take the lizard illustration --http://thebarbwire.blogspot.com/2009/03/laymans-thoughts-on-evolution.html

In this Harvard study, the lizards without the introduction of a certain predator were mostly short-legged --after the predator was introduced, the long-legged survived to become dominant --then they took to the trees and the short ones became predominant again as tree life favored them. All in a short time period this 21st century. The family had the genes for long or short legs and whichever variety was favored environmentally survived and thrived and became dominant --until the environmental factors shifted again.

All this demonstrates is micro-evolution --natural selection, adapation, survival of the fittest --but no new info in the gene pool. No improvements and "upward mobility" by mutation either. And no transitions out of their lizard class.

Give it a million years and they will still be short-legged, or long-legged lizards with whatever other variants may occur with mating and whatever lizard features lurk in the gene pool of this lizard family. It isn't going to start to fly. If a mutation occurs, it will be crippling, not helpful.

Find me a fossil of a flying lizard and it will have been a flying lizard --from its creation onward.

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it!! until we start to see human beings transitioning into a new category of creature. SOMEBODY ought to be in transition now if the process ever occured in the past.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb - Thats your position. lol Thats your faith. You cant quite grasp something a child can. I can not explain it any better.

Rob - I stand corrected. Lehigh is not Liberty. That is who I confused it with. I am busy with stuff this weekend. I will look into him better later. You pretty much framed him as "fringe lunatic scientist"

Rob R said...

You pretty much framed him as "fringe lunatic scientist"

I didn't frame him with anything.

He was the witness at the Dover trial on behalf of ID theory and what I posted was his response to the whole issue.

Here's what you are missing. I'm not qualified to judge the technical matters in these things. You aren't qualified either. But Behe who is a tenured published scientist is and he thinks irreducible complexity has merit. I'm perfectly aware that the other scientists who are also qualified don't buy it, but have they been successful to convince all other qualified members of the scientific community? No. So for you to post unusupported claim after claim that it is all junk just doesn't advance the discussion anywhere. If you can't explain why it is junk, then there's no point in claiming it and noting that other scientists think it is junk doesn't advance the argument. Now you've posted plenty of links but quite honestly, what little I have time for didn't amount to much news and if you can't explain it yourself here, then so much for your argument. But here's the problem. If you were to get into the actual examples of irreducible complexity and explain how specifically they are reducible showing a plausible evolutionary path, you'd be over my head. The most technical parts of the debate are beyond the laymen. If you want to go into the principle, there we can deal with the issue, but if you're going to do that, why reinvent the wheel? Andthensome and I have hashed out the principles of the issue. So if there is anything there that either of us haven't gotten into, then you have an opportunity to advance the discussion.

Barb said...

NO Guy, you can't explain it so anyone will understand you, because you don't understand it yourself. Nor do you understand me. Or you wouldn't take the approach you do.

e.g. you wrote You seem to be of the impression that every fossil is of an entirely new separate species.

Where did I suggest that? There are millions of fossils --some of present day creatures, some of extinct creatures. Just because a creature is extinct, doesn't mean or prove it was transitional, now, does it???? Where is the proof of transition???

I AM saying that a fossilized extinct creature with traits of 2 or more modern day creatures may have been created in his fossilized form from the beginning of the creation process --and may not be a genetic transition at all. Likewise, we share traits with apes --and DNA code --but that it not proof of descent any more than it is proof of a common design/designer. The latter explanation is as good as the former.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - I just got back. Still busy. Irreducibly complex is false. They have not show ONE that is. IF they could, then they could win the argument. They do not and therefore lost. All that is pretty simple for your laymans terms. We are not experts. He is not either. All of what Ken Miller showed, plus the other scientists information is verifiable. So I am not stretching any knowledge here, when I say "He Got His Ass Handed to Him!" It has been years and still no credible I.D. scientific papers. I.D. is a dead end, except for ignorant people hoping and prayer there is a happy ending in heaven.

I will look at more commented in a bit.

Rob R said...

IF they could, then they could win the argument. They do not and therefore lost.


Judging who won an argument is not without subjectivity. I've just got done reading a couple of atheist blogs where the atheists mentioned that in the Hitchens-Craig debate was won by the Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig and that atheist Christopher Hitchens did terribly, and yet another one (which shut down shortly after I commented there-don't know if it had anything to do with me though) insisted that Hitchens did alright and the debate ultimately didn't matter. Of course they were debating about God.

But more directly related to ID, ID theorists are far more willing to debate the issue than naturalists. Interesting.


He is not [an expert] either.

The University of Pennsylvania, the National Institutes of Health, Queens College, and Lehigh University all disagree with you as well as any journal that has published some of his papers.

So who should I believe? Anonymous blogger who is not a scientist or accredited institutions that train scientific experts and hire them to teach and journals that publish the research of experts?


All of what Ken Miller showed, plus the other scientists information is verifiable.


that's great that you've verified it all personally yourself. But I'm just not going to take your word for it. I can't really take the word of the multitude of experts either who disagree with him since there are thousands of other experts who do agree with him in important ways.


It has been years and still no credible I.D. scientific papers.


So no papers on ID published by the philsophically biased scientific journals. to bad that proves nothing.


I will look at more commented in a bit.

So you don't risk repeating what was discussed, you could read the exchange between me and Andthensome.

Rob R said...

By the way, the idea that there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID is actually inaccurate.

See here.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob -

OK Clearly those were published. Not only do I question the validity of the scientific worthiness of the articles. I am in serious doubt most were in ACTUAL scientific journals. They might have been in there OWN pseudo science journals. I can pay to have my shit published. Put that all aside. What did the critics say? Admit they were laughed at. Disrespected and intellectually disregarded.

So maybe you misunderstand my point. Being printed in a respected scientific journal, with evidence that hold up to scientific scrutiny. Any? None! I can print my theory that all Christians(especially Barb) have their heads up their asses. I can put "Scientific Journal of Excellence" right on the cover. I can make bold statements. Showing things Barb has said. Along with countless testimony from other bloggers who also think so. I seriously doubt that I would then have my theory of Christianusupisitis as a new psychological dis-order. We would need proof. Other than my feelings. Pictures...that are not photoshopped.

That is the problem here. They did not print them in respectable scientific journals. They are laughed at by all, except fringe Christian Pseudo scientists.

OK so your beloved respected scientist writes a book. "The Edge of Evolution" It was read and reviewed by a real scientist.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/behes_edge_of_evolution_part_i.php

From review "All he seemed to be saying was that evolution has limits, limits, limits, and those limits are so restrictive that you can't get from there to here, and he was repeating it over and over, in this tediously chipper narrative voice."

"It's true. Nowhere in the entire book does he offer a mechanism to resolve this disconnect."

"There isn't so much as a forlorn whiff of a hypothesis, not one experimental test, not even a suggestion about what Behe's colleagues could do in their labs or in the field to use or evaluate his claims—just this unrelentingly negative assessment of most of biology, and this weirdly cocky confidence that he has discovered new mathematical principles that disprove evolution."

"As I've already mentioned, he's not going to offer any descriptions or evidence for this amazingly persistent and industrious Designer, so the entire argument is going to rest on his assertion of barriers to variation that cannot be overcome without intelligent aid."

"Behe isn't just a crackpot who thinks he has a novel explanation for an evolutionary mechanism—he's a radical anti-evolutionist extremist who rejects the entire notion of the transformation of species by natural processes."

So also linked reviewers and another real scientist.

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/05/good-virus-bad-creationist.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of-cilia-and-si.html

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/05/behes_dreadful_new_book_a_revi_1.php

Funny thing is I thought University of Pennsylvania taught math. Heh - Maybe behe did take that to his his (honorary) degree.

Behe is not respected. Is not honest and a disgrace to all real scientists. Like all Christian God wanna believers, he does not care if he lies, to make a buck and promote the God virus.

I think that should remove Behe from your wave an idiot scientist from your list. Do you have any others? See if you write stupid made up pseudo scientific crap, you get beat over the head with book/journal. Scientists would shout out loud to all news agencies if any I.D. break through occurred. I.D. is a dead horse.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb - Sweetie. Don't think. God did it. If ya can't grasp something, do not fake it. Admit it. I fully comprehend what I type.

One last shot for you to redeem yourself.

To get from one transitional species to another. It works like this. You have the parents produce an offspring. Their offspring can have a genetic mutation(good or bad)They also can be affected by micro evolution(you said you believe in that). These offspring repeat process. say 100,000 times or more. If you pick out any set of parent/child generations they look physically usually exactly alike. Sometimes minor differences. But for all intensive purposes, they look alike. It does not matter which Father/son or Mother daughter combo you pick out. They look the same.

Now look at the first and the latest, they look different. They are different. You could easily have a new species. That is how evolution works.That is how transitional species happen.

If you still are confused, ask Rob to explain it. Or ... lol ...pray to God and ask him. If he speaks to you. Get help. @:-D)

Barb said...

I understand you, No Guy. I just think it is preposterous--and certainly unnecessary to have such a sloooooooowww and random process for the God who resurrects instantly! who heals instantly!

Super Intelligence is more efficient than Darwin's god of naturalism.

Barb said...

BTW, No Guy, what do you say to the claim that mutations are almost never good --never upwardly mobile for creatures? How do we get enough postively mutated genes to advance from an ape-like ancestor to today's modern man? Gazillions of years? O puh-leeze!!!

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb - That was your last chance. You failed. Mutations in combination with micro evolution gets there.

Rob - I keep forgetting this.

Due to Behe's views on evolution, Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:
“ While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.[12] ”

This shows his own University thinks he is a fringe lunatic scientist. When you told me of his disclaimer, that is why I said you framed him as such. :)

If you wiki him. It looks like he had a normal scientific background and like a lot of men. Went insane from a religious bug soon after he was married. Women have been known to cause that. :) Right Barb? :))

Rob R said...

Not only do I question the validity of the scientific worthiness of the articles. I am in serious doubt most were in ACTUAL scientific journals.

This is called the no true Scotsman fallacy.

An atheist coined the fallacy you know.

Yeah, anything that Michigan University puts out is going to be fringe.

But no, they weren't all published in scientific journals. There are also books published by respected trade publishers as well as papers delivered at scientific conferences.

I'll tell you waht though. It is a very small number of publishings which is a miricle considered what I already told you.

They are laughed at by all, except fringe Christian Pseudo scientists.

we've already established that you aren't the most qualified in determining who's a scientific expert.

"It's true. Nowhere in the entire book does he offer a mechanism to resolve this disconnect."

I've already covered the philosophical basis of this criticism in my discussion with Andthensome.


"There isn't so much as a forlorn whiff of a hypothesis, not one experimental test, not even a suggestion about what Behe's colleagues could do in their labs or in the field to use or evaluate his claims


Again, I'm not an expert, but these are just one of those statements that anyone can understand for the poor thinking they represent. There is tons of experimental data out there that has been accumulating for decades. Irreducible complexity is based upon understood principles of how biological systems work. It is drawing out the implications of what has already been done and understood. Were the ID theorists right in drawing out those implications? That is where it begins to be one scientists word against anothers (in the eyes of the laymen).


"As I've already mentioned, he's not going to offer any descriptions or evidence for this amazingly persistent and industrious Designer,

He doesn't have to. Scientific paradigms are permitted scientifically unverifiable assumptions.

Guy, do you know that science itself rests upon scientifically unverifiable assumptions?

"Behe isn't just a crackpot who thinks he has a novel explanation for an evolutionary mechanism—he's a radical anti-evolutionist extremist who rejects the entire notion of the transformation of species by natural processes."

So this is the expert you decide to quote? Some guy who is barely familiar with Behe to the point that he doesn't even know that Behe IS an evolutionist who BELIEVES in common descent FROM microbes to humans?

Again, we see that you are not qualified to determine who is an expert and who is not.


I think that should remove Behe from your wave an idiot scientist from your list. Do you have any others?

It doesn't disqualify Behe in the least. You do not know the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and a non-fallacious appeal to authority. When the authorities disagree (and we've seen twice now that you aren't qualified to judge who's an authority) you can't rest your argument on the claim of one authority over the other. Without going into the technical details, all you can do is observe that the authorities disagree. And that's what I do.

As for other scientists, don't you know? Didn't you read the blog topic?

Besides the findings of Pew research, These people have put their names to supporting the skepticism of naturalism.


This shows his own University thinks he is a fringe lunatic scientist. When you told me of his disclaimer, that is why I said you framed him as such.


it shows that the department that choose him as an expert, as they are qualified to do, have their own philosophical biases.

It just shows that you just can't help yourself with the fallacious appeals to authority.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - You are a crack pot. I understand this shit. You are in your own world. My work deals directly with the University of Wisconsins printing department. They print jobs for the University AND any other person off the street. Including Crackpot scientists.

So the first book he is in(Darwinism, Design, & Public Education) with other scientists. His unsupported theory has been reviewed. By scientists and the Law and found ludicrous. If you put forth theories that are supported, then you are not laughed at.

His second book, again has no theories. I am assuming is HIS OWN BOOK on the flagellum. Not available at amazon. Has been scientifically reviewed. They found unsupported theories of a CRACKPOT!

PZ Myers says "Sean Carroll was writing a review of the book for Science, and I expected he'd go gunning for chapter 9, too—but no, he didn't. I guess he felt as I do, that since Behe's fatally flawed premise was exposed in the first few chapters, there was little point to addressing his incompetent nit-picks later in the book."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/behes_the_edge_of_evolution_pa.php

Sean Carrol is a scientist that wrote a book too. Behe read it. So did Myers. Behe doesn't grasp math. zzzz Sean Carrol reviewed his BS unsupported theory. Lots did. Behe is a waste of air. Myers is a real scientist. Crackpot get a few headlines. Then gets backed by every idiot Christian still hoping and praying for the rapture. Please be true they pray. That is why he is still around. If it was for the 80% of Americans that believe in pure child fantasy. He would be a true social outcast. Instead every idiot with the title philosopher in front of a scientific term is his buddy. Philosopher of Biology,Science, Astronomy. What a bunch of Hooey. Those are not scientist. They are crack pots in epistemology. Which is not the study of knowledge by any means. It is the Thinking to the point you are stupid means.

I can see your faith is deeply rooted like the plague. There is no reasoning with you. We can end it here. But I won. :)

Barb said...

Won what, No Guy?

O and PZ Myers is unbiased, of course!!! His blog is filled with so much vitriol, it blows up his credibility as a scholar.

Rob R said...

They print jobs for the University AND any other person off the street. Including Crackpot scientists.

be that as it may, it doesn't cover all of the published material. Furthermore I have granted that ID is very underrepresented in peer review journals. Continuing to harp on this does not advance the discussion as I explained why there is reason not to take this as decisive.



I can see your faith is deeply rooted like the plague. There is no reasoning with you.

This is true on both accounts. I'm aware of my faith and the faith that all knowledge requires, where you are oblivious of yours insisting we take things for granted (per your comment on epistemology).

And you did not reason with me very far except to advance fallacious appeals to authority over and over again and the resorts to insult make a handsome companion to much of that.



We can end it here. But I won. :)

Yes, you repeatedly won the failure to advance the discussion prize. You also won the communication in an antisocial way award hands down.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb - You are wrong. He is credible. And ... Yes I won the argument. Debate and a prize. :)

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - Being less than willing to accept anything that might infringe on your faith, means it is hard to have a discussion with you. Yes I can be an ass to the religious. I find the willing ignorance intolerable. I would rather bash them between the eyes with words, than speak soft and kind. So they know just how stupid the rest of the thinking world views them. Christians are more than willing to vote the bible way, which makes them fair game for ridicule. I never feel sorry for an 80% ignorant majority. So yep ... I am an ass. I am also right.

I also am disappointed you did not at least state to poor hopeless Barb, that I understand evolution and transitional species and she has no fucking clue. I suppose looking to the heavens all the time for an answer put a kink in your neck. Making it difficult to see straight.

Mixter said...

Barb - Since when does vitriol (a word you're using loosely in Myers' case, by the way) make someone lose credibility? Just because I think you sound like you'd be kind of a bitch, does that mean I shouldn't consider what you have to say? BTW: I've considered it. You're still wrong. ;-)

Rob - Here's something interesting for ya: Creationists had to create their own peer-reviewed journals! You'll note that the link is from Answers in Genesis, a joke in and of itself.

Could that be because REAL science journals wouldn't print their garbage? Nah, it's because mean old science persecutes the poor Christians, right? Give me a break.

Mixter

Rob R said...

Rob - Being less than willing to accept anything that might infringe on your faith, means it is hard to have a discussion with you.

Just what do you think you have said that would contradict my faith (besides any insult to God or scripture though which was never the topic of discussion).

As you've refused to read (or comprehend) what had been written before you got here (not something that I insist on that generally, except when someone's rude and hasn't made much dialog with them desirable), as I said to andthensome, I have a small axe to grind against evolution and a medium sized axe to grind against naturalism (if by that, we mean that every natural phenomenon we see can be explained in natural terms but not so much as to deny that God may be behind it nevertheless).

I recognize both the evolutionary position of behe and the more naturalistic (but still theistic) position of Francis collins (perhaps even Ken Miller if I correctly understand that he is a Christian) as viable options for Christians. The advantage of ID to theism is obvious, but it isn't necessary. Christianity is much richer and more relevant to human life than this topic can reveal. And it has much more epistemically going for it.

The reason I say as much as I do on the topic is because so much of the way of going about the issue is just flatly fallacious and wrong. At the end of the day, whether or not the naturalists have won the technical discussion, it still remains the case that many of the explanations to that effect to the laymen are just fallacious and/or their word against those who disagree with them who are also qualified on the technical issues.


I find the willing ignorance intolerable.


I can sympathize with that. For example some people just plow on with fallacious appeals to authority without even bothering to explain why they aren't doing such.

A further example is this sort of attitude:

They are crack pots in epistemology. Which is not the study of knowledge by any means. It is the Thinking to the point you are stupid means.


There is no worse example of willful ignorance than the insistence on taking the nature of knowledge for granted.


Christians are more than willing to vote the bible way, which makes them fair game for ridicule.


Good heavens, you can't even keep the topic straight.


I also am disappointed you did not at least state to poor hopeless Barb, that I understand evolution and transitional species and she has no fucking clue.


She knows that I don't agree with her on all her approaches to this topic.

But what profit it a man if he understands evolution but fails to act like a descent human in discussion?


Yes I won the argument. Debate and a prize.


and your reward is that you get to keep reminding yourself in front of people who see no reason to conclude it is so and know that you've added nothing to the discussion and nothing of the type that they hadn't heard before.

Mixter said...

Rob: The advantage of ID to theism is obvious, but it isn't necessary. Wrong. Absolutely incorrect, it IS necessary, as ID = theism (Christianity in particular) was proven in a court of law.

Mixter

Rob R said...

Mixter,

Rob - Here's something interesting for ya: Creationists had to create their own peer-reviewed journals!

I used to get their journal. While I'm not confident in their science anymore, I know that I am not qualified to judge that for certain. Most likely, you aren't either. The philosophy of science that the creationists were promoting when I was watching them though left something to be desired. They are mistaken to think for example that common descent isn't science just because it isn't scientifically testable or observable.

Rob R said...

2nd post of 2


Rob: The advantage of ID to theism is obvious, but it isn't necessary. Wrong. Absolutely incorrect, it IS necessary, as ID = theism (Christianity in particular) was proven in a court of law.


We've discussed this already and I addressed it in my July 17, 2009 12:34 PM post and perhaps further down.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - Not many will see this obscure blog, written by an anti social Christian. My Yellow Lab has ... ooops. I will play nice.

Epistemologically speaking, every blogger/commenter that has taken philosophy knows so much about the denial of knowledge, they admit they and everyone know shit. They are not even qualified to make that statement of themselves, or me. They would think I am also not qualified to make that statement of myself or Barb. Since neither one of us is qualified to talk on any subject, even us. Maybe I am right and we just do not know it, you know, because we are not qualified.

"So there you have it! The Ultimate Proof, I am Right!"

I did go back and read. zzzz

Rob - "Good heavens, you can't even keep the topic straight."

Good heavens you can not follow conversation because you are to busy trying to prove you do not know how to respond.

I said"Yes I can be an ass to the religious. I find the willing ignorance intolerable. I would rather bash them between the eyes with words, than speak soft and kind. So they know just how stupid the rest of the thinking world views them. Christians are more than willing to vote the bible way, which makes them fair game for ridicule." in response to you saying "You also won the communication in an antisocial way award hands down."

Can you follow that? You still stuck on you and me not qualified to have a discussion? Philosophically, just when will you be qualified to talk to anyone, about anything?

FYI - I am qualified. I think, therefore I am. You on the other hand .... are still stuck in not qualified lala land.

Rob R said...

Epistemologically speaking, every blogger/commenter that has taken philosophy knows so much about the denial of knowledge, they admit they and everyone know shit.

So you know nothing of how knowledge knowledge can be affirmed. So you take it for granted that you know things. This is not news.

Good heavens you can not follow conversation because you are to busy trying to prove you do not know how to respond.

I followed it. It had nothing to do with the topic of evolution. It was an absurd justification of indefensible behavior on the basis of something you know little about such as how I would vote... which remains completely irrelevent to this discussion.


You still stuck on you and me not qualified to have a discussion?

never was. I'm fine with you discussing. You just aren't qualified to make certain judgements such as whether the ID theorists have been defeated on technical grounds. All you can do is make appeals to authority and when you pick your favority authority and declare them the winner, your appeal becomes fallacious.

I don't do that. All I do is note that qualified researchers have objections to naturalistic evolution. That is a non-falacious appeal to authority.


Philosophically, just when will you be qualified to talk to anyone, about anything?

All the time. Discussion is just a basic trait of personhood after all.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - I am not just picking some guy out of a hat. They are respected. Your is not. I do know that. You might not be smart enough to know that. I am. You can think we are not qualified to judge. lol I ask, just what would we be judging. Behes poor math skills. His stating of proof of something, with nothing to back it up. Just explain, how are we not qualified to comment on your experts book written about ... nothing. He makes wild statements, and back them up with nothing. Even you captain of the Epistemologic order should bury a hatchet in his thick skull. You do not. Why Rob? If I write a fantastic proof of Thor. Then not show any evidence, any theory, just say Christian God has limits dozens of times. Will you defend me too? This is what you are doing.

Good night :)

Mixter said...

Rob, I'll hit your second comment first: Did you happen to watch the video to which I linked? "Of Pandas and People?" Original draft? Creationism. Intelligent Creator. Then, the CREATIONISTS were sloppy when they did their cut and paste in "Of Pandas and People" using "intelligent design" to replace "creationism." Cdesign proponentists? Hahahahaha!

In response to your first comment: NOTHING in this life is certain. That said, I am qualified to have more than an passing opinion on the subject. And no, I won't post my CV for you. :-D

Common descent not scientifically testable? Um, what about genetic code? The universal nature of genetic code is generally regarded (among actual scientists, anyway) as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of common descent. Even more interesting, in my opinion, is that analysis of the small differences in the genetic code also provides support to the theory of common descent. Here's an peer-reviewed article from a REAL scientific journal for you. :)

Mixter

Barb said...

What is REALLY behind the rabid defense of Darwin and this loathing of people who don't agree with his atheistic implications?

What is it you want to do or be that makes you so hot against the idea of a Creator --to whom we might actually be accountable?

You can't disprove intelligence behind our existance. Perhaps I can't prove it either --but as the Bible says, "The Heavens declare His handiwork." and what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Rob R said...

post 1 of 2


No guy

Rob - I am not just picking some guy out of a hat. They are respected. Your is not.


I fully understand that emotion and subjectivity (such as is part of respect) is involved in their assesment.

You can think we are not qualified to judge. lol I ask, just what would we be judging.

Was I not clear? The examples of irreducible complexity are technically complex. Whether they are legit on the technical grounds (whether there are sufficient feasible transitional forms of those systems) is over the layman's head.


Behes poor math skills.


Did you work out the formulas? Did you read Behe's work to make sure that he was interpreted correctly?


His stating of proof of something, with nothing to back it up.

I haven't read the edge and I don't know what that criticism applies to. But I've already discussed with you the nature of the evidence for IC in this post

But anyone who suggests that the examples weren't made isn't doing you any justice. Behe's black box does speak of the examples. But its not like IC rests upon the claims of one scientist or one example. From the beginning of this thread, I've been defending a movement. Behe is not a one man show.


any theory


There are many hypothesis (or theories depending upon how well the nature of the structures and functions of the biological systems are understood) of ID. they constitute the individual examples of IC.

However, there is no theory of how, IC systems were put together, but only that intelligence was involved. I bit that bullet and discussed it here

Rob R said...

post 2 of 2




Mixter,

Did you happen to watch the video to which I linked?

I'm not going to look at every link that is posted here as I have less time to work on this than I have already devoted. I expect the bulk of the discussion to be here. I made links but they go back to this discussion or they were for making points that did not require a long examination of the linked material.

But I did look at this clip.

It's pretty shallow and they didn't prove what the lady claimed they proved. Just because ID and creationism have common ground and can be swapped in some contexts is not enough to establish that they are one in the same. There is a sense in which creationism can be viewed as a subset of intellegint design. Of course the creationists (progressive or young earth) who believe that Genesis describes accurately the sequence of God's creation will fit the mold of Intelligent design which merely notes that naturalistic unpurposeful processes cannot explain life (leaving purposeful intelligent explanations). But ID does not require a stand on scripture.


The universal nature of genetic code is generally regarded (among actual scientists, anyway) as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of common descent.

common descent from germs to man is not observable or testable. The universal code of genetics does not make for a direct observation of that common descent. there is no way for us to feasibly test that claim such that we can start with germs and get humans.

Just so we don't lose track of the aim of the discussion, I have said that this lack of direct observation and testability does not mean it is not science. (but that it is science does not gaurantee truth, and we have many examples that prove exactly that point in physics for example where the principles are far easier to establish than evolution).

Even more interesting, in my opinion, is that analysis of the small differences in the genetic code also provides support to the theory of common descent.

The paradigm of evolution relates these kinds of observations to common descent, but it is not a direct test or observation of common descent.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - You state you do not have time to ... but you type a lot. You are willing to defend your position. BUTTTT! Your line of defense is, any who do not agree must work out every single math problem? Read every line of dribble? Even the top scientists do not do that. You do know that? I do. Heh. The top scientists wait for real science to be sifted. Things that show merit, because they have stood the test of other scientists(young up and coming or those interested). Then they give those their attention. I.D. attracts a lot of attention. It does not have to be Behe. It could be any of the other scientists that need medication(for their delusions). Scientists look at this stuff, and make determinations. If the math was good(it was not) he would have only completed 10% of his scientific paper. The rest is the theory proof, he left out, because he knows this is all made up. He, like all Christians just want it to be true.

Behes math was clearly worked out by 5 qualified scientists. (Those 5 were found in under 5 minutes.) It was found faulty. Unworthy. Not worth the paper it was printed on. And so goes your argument.

Frankly I.D. can have one or a thousand crack pots who believe in God. Unless they put forth a legitimate theory with verifiable proofs. They are nothing more than a jackass with faith. Faith is for the ignorant. So please pick out theories from other idiots of Christian Pseudo Science. They do not hold up either.

Did you read any of Mixters link? You know, the real scientific paper. With formulas, foot notes blah blah blah. While philosophically pondering this. Why is it that I.D. scientists fail to complete the work? Maybe God or the faith in God doesn't give them enough faith. God and or the faith in God doesn't give them enough nerons to complete the job. OR ... maybe they just are fucking crazy faith pushing wackadoos! I am for the latter.

I love it when I see some Christian scientist who argues just like a faith religious person. I do not understand something, therefore it must be God. I can not comprehend something therefore God did it. Those are shallow weak people. Epistemologically that should be blasphemy. Yet here you are defending them. Really you are silly.

How is it that an epistemological guru like yourself, justifies this? This is where I say "Epistemology on the surface is probably a good thing. The problem lies with the numerous nuts that take everything to far." and my favorite. "Epistemology is the study of knowledge, in which the participant thinks so much about knowledge, he/she becomes stupid. They can no longer relate to the rest of the world."

An epistemologist goes home to his wife, and gives her a kiss. She says "Oh, I love you dear!" He replies with,"But, how do I know?"

Mixter said...

Barb: I can only speak for myself, but it is not a rabid defense of Darwin. Darwin didn't know about DNA. I am a proponent of science and against superstition. In other words, I can only stand so much stupid.

Rob: The clip itself is just a tidbit. I could ask you to go read the court transcripts -- that wouldn't take long :) -- or watch a show PBS had on the subject -- two hours there -- so I used the clip in order to be brief. Trust me, I'm not making this stuff up. ID is creationism (theism) wrapped up in a pretty pseudo-scientific package.

I disagree with your conclusion of common descent not being testable or observable. I won't ask if you read it, I'm sure you didn't, but it sure looked like there was a whole lotta testin' and observin' going on there in that one little article. That's kinda how these theories become theories, Rob. You could Google the definition of scientific theory, but I'll do it for ya: "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing." Repeated testing.

Both: Since you really don't have a leg to stand on, and you're beginning to bore me, I shall bid you adieu. Keep thinking those deluded thoughts if that what keeps you going. :) I live in the real world.

No Guy: That second epistemology quote is quite good. I'll have to borrow that!

Mixter

No Guy in the Sky said...

Barb -
"You can't disprove intelligence behind our existence. Perhaps I can't prove it either --but as the Bible says," 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Barb - @:-D This is your intelligence behind your design. Dumbass in the sky who thinks dry dirt is earth. Hmmm God the flatearthist. You might have been designed by him. lol I will take the genes I received from my ancestors all the way back to the primordial muck. I am way ahead of an omniscient being that thinks the world is flat. You I am not so sure.

Rob R said...

post 1 of 3



No guy,


Rob - You state you do not have time to ... but you type a lot. You are willing to defend your position.


Yes, I am willing to prioritize my time and spend it how I see best. If you can't argue your position without a requirement for someone to spend a great deal on time on links, those are your self imposed limits. I make no apologies.


BUTTTT! Your line of defense is, any who do not agree must work out every single math problem? Read every line of dribble?


Sorry but if you don't intend to make fallacious appeals to authorities, then that's what's required, and the result is something that not everyone can understand. I accept that I cannot evaluate these things. I accept that ultimately, the laymen are dependent and cannot judge between the experts on the technical matters. But so much of this is not scientifically technical.


Even the top scientists do not do that. You do know that?

THat's right. Because no one can do everything, work out every scientific detail, directly observe every detail for himself, science is one huge web of appeals to authority. So it's important to understand how to make good ones and bad ones and realize that the authorities you depend upon may have their claims turned upside down and disproven as has often happened.


The top scientists wait for real science to be sifted. Things that show merit, because they have stood the test of other scientists(young up and coming or those interested). Then they give those their attention. I.D. attracts a lot of attention.


Or as Harvard physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn pointed out, sometimes scientific advancement happens when the old scientists die and the younger ones with the new ideas take their places in the universities.


It does not have to be Behe... Behes math was clearly worked out by 5 qualified scientists... It was found faulty.


Right, and I don't depend on Behe. I said and you ignored, I'm defending a movement on those grounds of which I am qualified. The movement does not depend upon Behe to be flawless on every single argument he's advanced. If perfection was necessary, we should have abandoned evolution a long time ago.


And so goes your argument.

My argument remains because unlike you, I do not rely on fallacious appeals to authority.


Frankly I.D. can have one or a thousand crack pots who believe in God. Unless they put forth a legitimate theory with verifiable proofs.


That God exists is not scientifically provable and is not the only outcome of intelligent design. Science is not fully qualified to fully assess the issue. Intelligent design is relevent and it is a bonus for theism, but it is not the foundation and if Intelligent design were to dissappear, there'd still be good reason to go on following Jesus, God incarnate.

It is a very paltry and anemic understanding of the theistic issue to reduce it to what science can or cannot say when science itself rests upon assumptions that are no more provable than the existence of God. Science after all cannot justify itself on it's own terms. Among other things, there is no way to scientifically prove that science gives us truth. You can't even objectively prove that science is useful since what is useful is a fairly subjective matter.


Faith is for the ignorant.


It is for the ignorant such as yourself as you are ignorant of your own faith commitments. It is also for the knowledgeable since faith, that is the embrace of epistemic risk is a necessary requirement of knowledge. That means that there is nothing we can claim to know without the admission that it cannot be absolutely proven or it is concievable on some level that it is possibly wrong.

Rob R said...

2 of 3


Did you read any of Mixters link? You know, the real scientific paper.


Yes, I read some and I'm sure it may be of decent quality, but it was over my head. I really don't know what the point was of posting it.


Why is it that I.D. scientists fail to complete the work?


Probably for the same reason that absolutely everyone else fails to complete their work. Not that I buy that they fail to complete their work more than anyone one else.


I love it when I see some Christian scientist who argues just like a faith religious person. I do not understand something, therefore it must be God.

This is just one of the many bad arguments that the laymen are qualified to comment on.

This is a weak and shallow assesment of what ID is. ID is based on our understanding of natural processes, the function and structure of living systems, and the conclusion from the understanding of both that the natural processes cannot lead to all of the structures and functions that we see. Now whether or no ID has succeeded yet or at all, that is where we are very limited.


Epistemologically that should be blasphemy. Yet here you are defending them. Really you are silly.

You do know that there is no one epistemology don't you? You have one after all though you are oblivious about it.


How is it that an epistemological guru like yourself, justifies this? This is where I say "Epistemology on the surface is probably a good thing. The problem lies with the numerous nuts that take everything to far.

I'm still waiting for you to take it someone at all.


"Epistemology is the study of knowledge, in which the participant thinks so much about knowledge, he/she becomes stupid. They can no longer relate to the rest of the world."


So you've never seen a descent epistemology. This doesn't surprise me.


An epistemologist goes home to his wife, and gives her a kiss. She says "Oh, I love you dear!" He replies with,"But, how do I know?"

He can reject the requirement of infallibility and absolute certainty for knowledge and embrace subjective personalistic knowledge such as required for love (and as required for many other important items of knowledge such as intrinsic human worth, morality and God... and our reliance and identification of objective truths).

Rob R said...

3 of 3


Mixter,

I can only speak for myself, but it is not a rabid defense of Darwin


No this isn't rabid at all:

"I can only stand so much stupid."



The clip itself is just a tidbit. I could ask you to go read the court transcripts -- that wouldn't take long :) -- or watch a show PBS had on the subject -- two hours there -- so I used the clip in order to be brief.


The tidbit was completely dismantled. That there are other things out there is no defense. Yes, there is much more to consider and if you can't argue it here, then there really isn't much point in bringing it up. If the other things are as bad as your tidbit, then I can't see why anyone should bother with them.


Trust me, I'm not making this stuff up. ID is creationism (theism) wrapped up in a pretty pseudo-scientific package.


I explained why this is not so and if you can't deal with that then you are unable to move the discussion forward as you have not done with your last comment.

I'm sure you didn't, but it sure looked like there was a whole lotta testin' and observin' going on there in that one little article.

of course there was. not of common descent. it was relevant, yes, but how DNA or amino acids gets shuffled around is a long far cry from demonstrating the common descent from microbes to man.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob -
Me - Why is it that I.D. scientists fail to complete the work?


You - Probably for the same reason that absolutely everyone else fails to complete their work. Not that I buy that they fail to complete their work more than anyone one else.

Me - Look ya fucking idiot. Behe wrote two fucking books. The whole point of writing the books was to prove his bullshit theories. Both books he did not show shit. We are not talking about him blowing off his class(that any intelligent student would not sign up for). This is his scientific theory. Oh that he did not do! Twice! What part of that don't you understand you epistemological abortion.

Your an idiot of the highest order. Congrats!

Rob R said...

Have you read Behe's book?

Rob R said...

guy, its very ironic that you celebrated your victory in this discussion and now you are throwing a hissy fit because you can't get people to trust your judgement.

What part of that don't you understand you epistemological abortion.

There's nothing that better demonstrates the inability to think the issue through than to fail to understand the difference between a failure to understand and disagreement.

AndThenSome said...

Let it be known henceforth that I have no association with either Mixter or, especially, No Guy in the Sky.

I may share their worldview, but I can't endorse their tactics, which are completely unwarranted and counter-productive.

Heated debate is one thing, but when it turns to name-calling and other personal attacks, it isn't interesting anymore--it's just disturbing.

Barb said...

No Guy, the scripture you quoted is poetic in its description of God's formation of land from out of the water. I don't see any problem with it. It doesn't imply a flat earth. Even the 4 corners of the earth is metaphorical to those who wrote it. We still use it --to refer to the "far reaches of the earth." No one says the Bible is a book of technology and science --but it is a book of Truth --and that includes truth about creation.

Now, what's the real reason that you want there to be no Guy in the Sky? I am thrilled to regard the beauties of nature and life and see a Hand of love behind it. A God of Love established our orbit around the sun such that we have night and day, activity and rest, daylight and moonlight, beauty in abundance, and nature's bounty for our food and shelter. I love to look at the stars and ponder the intelligence behind the beauty and wonder of it all.

Why would you rather see the universe as impersonal --with no loving Creator-God --with no possibility of eternal life?

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - Why would I spend the money on Behes book, when he did not say anything other than evolution has limits. Oh, I forget. I can not comment on anything I have not read. Forget the fact Behe has been shredded by real scientists(they would be peers if he was a scientist). Forget the fact he was laugh at in court. Forget the fact he couldn't get a judge in bible usa to rule in his favor. Forget it all. Because you will never be smart enough to know anything.

You are not even qualified to know if I am throwing a hissy fit. Dumbass, I am tired of your poor poor poor arguments. Captain nonsense.

You epitomize what I said."Epistemology is the study of knowledge, in which the participant thinks so much about knowledge, he/she becomes stupid."

Rob R said...

Andthensome,

I appreciate your civility and intellectual integrity.

God bless.

Rob R said...

No guy, there is nothing that you have said the type of which hasn't been addressed. There is nothing that you have said that deals with the criticisms that were leveled against your kind of points you have just raised.

The only thing that I'll bother to mention twice is that it really doesn't matter what you think of evolution if you can't act like a decent human.

AndThenSome said...

Rob R.,

Did you actually say "God bless" to an atheist? Tsk, tsk. I SUPPOSE I can overlook it this ONE time as long as it never happens AGAIN. ;)

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - There is nothing decent about a human that is deliberately deceptive and/or ignorant. Deliberately. If you want to act like a non thinking cream puff, be prepared to take a name or two.

I went back and watched this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&NR=1

I think you will like this. Behe is quoted in a court of law, as saying astrology is a science. Under oath. Think of that. Your Hero of ID says Astrology is a science. lol Then for Barb, transitional species shown. Information from Nature. You can get and read it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

This last one is just special.

Deliberately being ignorant, discussing with fingers in your ears(while blabbing Nah Nah nah Nah), being such a devils advocate that you will not accept any logical reasonable answer means, you are not a decent human either.

At least I am real, you are fake. To yourself, the world and your imaginary God. You are letting yourself down to your potential.

Rob R said...

Deliberately. If you want to act like a non thinking cream puff, be prepared to take a name or two.


I have discussed everything that you have brought up with the possible exception of some links. You on the other hand have ignored criticisms of your own point of view and have resorted to insult. I'm sorry, but method of yours doesn't demonstrate that you have intellectual integrity.


I'm not going to sit through an hour and a half of what you aren't capable of demonstrating and what is probably, again, one or several experts word against others of which I and you are not qualified to judge. Actually I would, but I'm just not interested right now and it isn't a priority. After all, I'm not emotionally attached to this subject as you are. I certainly don't depend on it like you do.


This last one is just special.

Why do you deliberately put your fingurs in your ears when I have happily conceded that evolution has succesfully interpreted much of the data such as this?


Why do you put your fingers in your ears when I've already mentioned that Behe is an evolutionist who embraces common descent and wouldn't have a problem at all with what this guy demonstrates?

And why the hypocrisy and double standard against the other skeptics of evolution insisting that they can't say "I don't know" and only extending this courtesy to naturalists and evolutionists?


At least I am real, you are fake.


This is one of those things that you'll have to constantly remind yourself of like the idea that you've won, since you're the only one who can see it. But if you have to constantly keep telling yourself that (since it isn't for my benefit as there is no point in telling me because if it's true, I'll just remain in denial and if it's false, which it is, it is just one more thing that constantly debases your whole presence here) it must be because you are trying to convince yourself when you really know on some level that it is your own lie.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Rob - You are fake.

Your criticisms ...Gee have you read that? Did you do the math? How do you know they are right? Just a bunch of experts that do not agree?

Wow you are so intellectually lost. Those are not arguments, they are cop outs. Behe is not a true evolutionist. He says that to push his ID. Oh but we are not smart enough to evaluate that.

You are not honest. You do not try to understand. I have stated everything clearly. You chose to ignore and hide in philosophy. Coward.

Rob R said...

Behe is not a true evolutionist.

This is the no true scottsman fallacy.

Those are not arguments, they are cop outs.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that instead of making unsupported claims.

Oh but we are not smart enough to evaluate that.

Why not? Why is the definition of a "true evolutionist" beyond our understanding? Seems a simple thing to me.

You are not honest.

where have I lied? Or is this something for which we should just have faith in your judgement?


You do not try to understand.

Is it not you who has completely dismissed the nature of knowledge and the nature of science as an important thing to consider? Lets check. You said, "Epistemology is the study of knowledge, in which the participant thinks so much about knowledge, he/she becomes stupid." What is the epitome of ambivalence toward understanding if it is not the ambivalence towards understanding the nature of understanding?

So who refuses understanding? Your words speak for themselves on that. But I can't imagine why one would change their views if they don't try to understand anything. My views are always growing and developing and some things I used to believe, even in this subject, I either no longer believe or I don't see that it as important as I used to think.

But you wouldn't care about that. That's relevent only for someone who values understanding.


You chose to ignore and hide in philosophy.


How do you do that?