thecountryshrink
dwilli58And then, things cooled off. Matter coalesced into suns and planets. And then was there a nearby supernova. Squeezing the clouds of dust. The squeezing made the clouds of dust coalesce, and gravity pulled the clouds together. The clouds began to spin as it began to collapse. Eventually, this cloud grew heavier and denser in the center as it began to collapse, and also did it grow hotter. Matter did begin to clump together. And the clumps eventually began to form planets or moons. Only rocky matter could stand the heat near the center of the clumping and so planets like the Earth formed. The center eventually became so hot, that it formed a star, the sun. The sun blew most of the stellar gas and dust of the solar system with a strong stellar wind. And so it was, that by studying meteorites that the truly intelligent beings on Earth did discover that the solar system was 4.6 billion years old. By the facts of the rocks, they turned over generations of delusion, and finally found the truth. (1) And thus, the tale continues in Part IV.
Filed under: Intelligent Design, cosmology, evolution, science | Tagged: cosmology, evolutions, fairy tale, Intelligent Design, naturalism, science
After I became a believer, I thought that I could fit evolution, and all, into my beliefs, but as time went by, I realized that they didn’t mix at all. I had to make a choice, and I chose what made sense to me.
This whole issue with the birth of the universe puzzles me. The bible says that God spoke everything into existence. Science will believe the absurdity of what you have described here, but they won’t believe that God spoke us into existence, and yet, this whole big bang, dark matter theory, or whatever, could be likened, in many ways, to an intelligent designer speaking, or bringing forth, creation suddenly and seemingly from nothingness. To me, this is more plausible than the contrived, at best, scenario above!
That’s why I call it a fairy tale. In my opinion, we have to go with the best knowledge we have available. And that is that things of a certain level of specific or functional complexity are designed. We know that to be true. We also know there is intelligence in the universe (us). So, the most reasonable position is that there is a designer. Although, Dick Dawkins makes the exact opposite argument. Their belief is based on faith, as is that of a believer. On occasion, atheists are actually able to admit this, although not very often.
Oh believe me, I understand your title! I don’t remember his name, but he’s a biggy in evolution circles, and he admitted that he didn’t have proof of what he believed, “but the alternative was unacceptable.” That isn’t faith or even lack of faith, that, as you so well know, is “denial.”
Shrink says: “In my opinion, we have to go with the best knowledge we have available. And that is that things of a certain level of specific or functional complexity are designed. We know that to be true.”
Perhaps you know it to be true. Science, however, needs evidence, not just your opinion of “best knowledge.” And, as Michael Behe testified at the Dover trail, there is no scientific evidence for ID.
I’ve found it helpful, in thinking about this issue, to distinguish between “internal cause” and “external cause.”
From our perspective as finite beings, able to make a certain range of observations, we can extrapolate in various directions, construct models of cosmological phenomena, and in this way approach what might be called “the cause” of the universe. But this cause is conceptualized from within a tiny fraction of that universe — our part. — and it’s of course quite limited in a variety of different and fascinating ways.
This is quite different from the theological tradition which speaks about what I’d call an “external cause” — something outside of the universe as a whole and which causes the totality itself.
In the case of cosmology, we begin with a limited epistemological situation and construct models based on those limitations. But what else is there to do, throw up our hands?
In the case of theology, we begin with a different set of assumptions, based in part on Greek philosophy and in part on the teachings of Scripture.
In order to proceed from cosmological evidence to cosmogonic speculation — from talking about the internal cause, based on science, to talking about the external cause — one must take a leap from knowledge to faith, regardless of whether one is a believer of any kind or an atheist of any kind.
Unless one is an agnostic — if being an agnostic means that one restricts his or her faith-commitments to the realm of testable knowledge. But agnosticism demands that one relinquish one’s desire to transcend the realm of knowledge, and that desire is a legitimate and very human desire. There may be something deeply “inhuman” about agnosticism, taken in that sense.
Orolin, is that what Behe said? I’m not sure we read the same transcript.
(1; page 33; lines 5-7)
Please point me to where he said what you read.
Agreed. What is your evidence of molecules to man naturalistic evolution? On the side of ID, the evidence is that humans can identify things that are designed on the basis of specific or functional complexity. Yet, you assert, with little to no evidence, that one thing has the most specific and functional complexity (e.g., life), is not designed.
(1) http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf
Carl said,
You could say, “We don’t know. We have no evidence. Science doesn’t speak to those issues.”
Agreed. But it would be nice if more cosmologists acknowledged their position as such.
Agreed. I don’t think humans do well with ‘agnosticism.’ I’ve heard it said that, “knowledge forces an opinion.” Agnosticism is necessarily a state of conflict for human beings. And conflict or inconsistency between thoughts causes emotional distress for most humans (see Cognitive Dissonance Theory). Generally, it will result in a motivation to seek out greater knowledge so that a resolution may occur.
Carl said,
“But this cause is conceptualized from within a tiny fraction of that universe — our part. — and it’s of course quite limited in a variety of different and fascinating ways. ”
Yes, we’re all limited, because we’re such a “tiny” part of such a huge thing. “Fascinating ways,” or the “beauty of the mysterious,” which is why we continue to seek truth. Where we fail, is in the same way religion fails, we divide up and hold to our better “fascinating ways” of reasoning and seeking.
ID is as fascinating to those who believe as science is to those who don’t. But the difference is, of course, one sees a divine creator and the other a divine human being.
Shrink: “Orolin, is that what Behe said? I’m not sure we read the same transcript.”
I paraphrased for brevity. From the transcript (Trial Day 11, Oct. 15, 2008, PM session): “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
Shrink: “What is your evidence of molecules to man naturalistic evolution?”
First, let’s talk about microbes to man. Fossil evidence. Morphological progressions. Homology. And the best & most recent, molecular genetics: If you ever serve on a jury, you might be asked to consider genetic evidence that the defendant is the father or grandfather or cousin twice removed from the plaintiff. The evidence that shows this is exactly the evidence that relates humans and chimpanzees, whales and hippopotamuses, teleosts and hagfishes, jellyfish and mushrooms, yeast and E. Coli. Namely, genetic markers that entered the genome at a certain point, but have no function for the organism, such as SINES, LINES, and ERVs. Genes that have broken, such as the final step of the citric-acid cycle, which is functional in apes, but mutated into non-functionality in humans.
As to abiogenesis, it is very difficult to reconstruct what happened 3.8Bya under very different conditions. There are several hypotheses. It is possible to build vesicles (like cell walls) without a replicator; autocatalytic organic reactions (metabolism) are known. I think the difference from ID is this: evolutionary scientists are conducting experiments and proposing mechanisms that are reviewed, criticized, and built upon by their peers. Meanwhile, ID merely sits on its kiester smirking that such-and-such a “gap” will never never never be filled in. (This is why we call ID a science-stopper.)
Shrink: “ On the side of ID, the evidence is that humans can identify things that are designed on the basis of specific or functional complexity.”
Exactly. I’d like to see any evidence you may have that humans can in fact identify design in the abstract based upon functional complexity. You see, your statement merely _assumes_ that complexity is an indicium of design.. I’ll offer a counterexample, where something functionally complex was not designed: living organisms. Now it’s up to you to adduce evidence that they were designed—that is, to fashion a “theory” of intelligent design and to provide evidence for that theory.
A scientific theory proposes a mechanism or model into which evidence can be fitted, phenomena can be understood and predicted. Evolution was around for a long time before Darwin; a number of scientists thought, because of the paleontological evidence and breeding experiments, that evolution occurred. Darwin made evolution a theory by offering a mechanism: heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection. ID has not offered any model as to how, where, when, or why design occurred, or what we might be able to say about designs or about the designer. That’s why it’s not a “theory.”[1] Not only does ID not propose any kind of model, but William Dembski is on record several times as saying that ID refuses to speculate on a model, and all ID proponents categorically refuse to investigate its designer. ID can’t even get through the gate..
And the elements of Darwin’s model are precisely the reasons that we cannot say that all functionally complex entities are not necessarily designed. Man-made functionally complex entities do not reproduce themselves, and have no heritable variations.[2] So, yes, you must demonstrate evidence that living organisms were designed. Analogy may be a valid argument in theology, but not in science. Common sense may be a guide in politics, but it is not evidence for science. A sense of rightness may inspire faith, but not science.
There is no evidence, no observations, experiments, or calculations, to support intelligent design. There is no mechanism or model to turn any evidence into a theory of intelligent design. There are no peas under any of the shells of intelligent design. Meanwhile, we have a growing model of evolution that gains support by more than 1,570 journal papers per year.[3]
=============
[1] Continental drift was not a theory until plate tectonics provided a mechanism for it, despite the evidence of similar coastlines, flora, and fauna. Gravitation was not a theory until Newton provided a model, F=Gm1m2/r^2, despite many observations that things fall to the ground..
[2] In addition, the reason we can identify human artifacts is that we know the abilities, the limitations, the needs, the desires, the characteristics of human beings. As noted above, ID refuses to identify or to characterize in any way the designer of living organisms.
[3] Before you allege discrimination as to ID papers, you may wish to verify how many papers offering positive evidence for ID were submitted to scientific journals. You will find that the number is the same as what Michael Behe admitted for published papers: zero.
We don’t have any good evidence for the external cause of the universe as a totality. But we do have good evidential support for the Big Bang theory as a theory of the internal cause of the universe.
For what it’s worth, I think that the multiverse hypothesis is popular because it functions as cosmogonic speculation for atheists.
There might be very good reasons that physicists can provide for the multiverse hypothesis — but then again, there are very good reasons that theologians can provide for the existence of God. So far as I can tell, both theism and atheism can be either a rational faith or an irrational faith.
Shrink, evidence for evolution does not cease to exist merely because you choose ignore it. Two papers in the last week caught my eye. Vonk FJ, et al. “Evolutionary origin and development of snake fangs,” Nature 454:630-633. (There are two evolutionary mechanisms for moving teeth around, not just one.) Transitional fossils for flatfish have been found, where one eye has only partially migrated to the same side of ther head as the other eye. (Nature News Online, 9 July 2008, doi:10.1038/news.2008.946).
(Evidence does “evolve,” however, as it passes from primary scientific journals to popularized versions, whence it mutates into mainstream media, from which the Discovery Institute picks iu and modifies it to suit their own purposes. Often the material in the original source is hard to recognize by that time.)
Carl (August 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm) repeats a common misconception. The Big Bang does not describe the origin of the universe. It refers to a period of hyperinflation that occurred shortly thereafter and served to flatten spacetime from an original unknown state.
What happened before the Big Bang is the subject of hypotheses such as multiverses, M-branes, cyclic universes, bidirectional time flow, and so forth.
Further it may turn out to be unnecessary to “explain” the creation of unimaginable amounts of mass in the universe. as far as cosmologists can determine, the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is very close to zero. One of the origin theories predicts an initial mass of less than 10kg (about 20 pounds) in the entire universe.
Orolin,
A vast majority of the the peer reviewed research on “evolution” would be consistent with ID. Just because the researchers apply (or misapply) microevolutionary concepts to infer macroevoluationary principles, doesn’t mean that those 1570 articles support naturalistic evolution are are against intelligent design.
Ah, good ‘ole junk DNA eh? That’s not holding up very well of late.
I’ve addressed ERV elsewhere. No you state that the same methods of determining “that the defendant is the father or grandfather or cousin twice removed from the plaintiff.” I’d be interested in hearing you support this.
Of course you would offer that. That goes along with my simple perceptual test for naturalistic evolution. You add several orders of magnitude of function and specific complexity, and all the sudden it must not be designed.
I’d also be interested in your own reasoning and not just talking points that you pick up on other favorite pro-naturalistic evolution/anti-ID sites.
Olorin,
As to snake fangs and flat fish eyes please describe how the research designs used in these studies allow for causal inferences. How are these studies more than “just so” stories? I assume you may have an understanding of the type of research design that allows for causal inferences…
I’d like to see any evidence you may have that humans can in fact identify design in the abstract based upon functional complexity.
It seems to me that if people are claiming to refute the notion of irreducible complexity scientifically then they are already admitting that evidence of design can be found because they claim to be citing evidence that something was not. I suspect this is like the “Panda’s thumb” arguments where it is possible to engage in theology in presumably “scientific” texts just long enough to come to atheistic conclusions but if such theological arguments about what God would or wouldn’t do (whether God would “tinker” and how God should or should make things and so on) are answered in a way that doesn’t support atheism then suddenly theology must be separated. It never really was separated in the first place. Similarly ideas like irreducible complexity and ID are never really separated from science in the first place, drawing theistic conclusions from them is. Given this consistent form of hypocrisy Darwin’s arguments having to do with irreducible complexity and theology are scientific and he’s treated as a great scientist, yet when Behe answers Darwinian arguments then he’s not being scientific and he’s hardly even a scientist.
You see, your statement merely _assumes_ that complexity is an indicium of design.
That’s exactly what those who engage in Darwinian arguments assume as well, mainly because we already know based on evidence drawn from our own experience that certain forms of complexity are exactly that.
Darwin made evolution a theory by offering a mechanism: heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection.
…. the elements of Darwin’s model are precisely the reasons that we cannot say that all functionally complex entities are not necessarily designed.
Again it seems that you are arguing that it is possible to have a scientific model which shows that absence of design but then when proponents of ID use the same model in order to detect design then suddenly things like theology, design and so on can have nothing to do with science. If Darwinian reasoning is falsifiable and testable science and does away with design and God then there is the possibility that science doesn’t do away with design and God as well.
There are too many “panda’s thumb” type of theological arguments which show the hypocrisy of those who argue that Darwinism is purely a scientific enterprise and therefore ID must be as well. If you’re going to make theological arguments then don’t snivel about a separation between science and theology when they are answered.
So, yes, you must demonstrate evidence that living organisms were designed.
Does Darwinian reasoning or “evolution” supposedly demonstrate that they were not? If things like homology, morphological progression and so on are your evidence for evolution then it seems that your standards with respect to evidence are remarkably low. If it is even possible to reform Darwinian reasoning in order to put it on an epistemic par with scientia/knowledge which is actually testable and falsifiable then what trajectory of adaptation has been predicted in a group of organisms based on Darwin’s “theory” and then verified empirically? Has the essence of Darwin’s “theory” been encoded in the language of mathematics so that predictions can be derived from it?
It seems to me that the “theory” of evolution is actually a collection of hypotheses which seldom have general application. Where there is application or observation then what can be observed doesn’t support the grand myths of Progress often rooted in evolution such as the Darwinian creation myth.
Even at its most specified, (Darwinism) the theory of evolution still rests on hypothetical goo.
mynym wrote:
If there’s nothing to ID, then why are so many naturalistic scientists interested in it? What have they to fear? I agree with what you wrote here. There is often an unstated philosophical assumption in a lot of this research, “there is no designer.” It is a philosophical assumption and not a scientific assumption.
Precisely, I’ve made a similar point a number of times in a slightly different way. They claim as evidence all of the microevolutionary evidence which is counter to neither ID nor to a theological creationist perspective. They claim great achievements when the discover that there are cave fish that lost their eyes. See we proved it!! There is no designer. So, implicitly, I think they are making predictions based on ID, or else they wouldn’t be saying things like this.
So, implicitly, I think they are making predictions based on ID, or else they wouldn’t be saying things like this.
If a leading proponent of “the theory”* of evolution argues that the theory refutes the appearance of evidence of design then certainly counter arguments that the appearance of design is actually evidence of design ought to be allowed. Yet the proponents of the theory of evolution simply don’t allow answers to their arguments, supposedly by rule. They’ll argue that God wouldn’t make a panda’s thumb in a certain way, yet those who might argue that God would make the panda’s thumb like it is supposedly aren’t allowed to answer. The double standard that allows proponents of evolution to treat imagining things about the past as the equivalent of empirical evidence or “science” is evidenced at a wider level when proponents of the theory of evolution demand peer review literature while simultaneously denying that any aspect of ID could ever be “scientific.” The irony of all the lectures about what science is or isn’t is that those with the Darwinian urge to merge have a history of pseudo-science because Darwinian reasoning is like an acid that dissolves sound scientia/knowledge. All it takes to illustrate that point is a comparison between actual science based on Newtonian reasoning and the forms of pseudo-science typically based on Darwinian reasoning.
* (The collection of hypotheses and odd modern mythologies based on nothing more than imagining naturalistic narratives about the past which are often included in the term evolution aren’t really specified enough to be called a specific theory and such hypothetical goo has no general application because it isn’t a testable scientific model. The only way to salvage the collection is to focus on small and generally deleterious changes brought about by natural selection while imagining things about the past and playing pretend again so that actual empirical evidence and the possibility of falsification/verification isn’t necessary.)
It’s funny how proponents of hypotheses of evolution treat something as vague as morphological progression as “overwhelming” evidence for evolution yet seek to deny irreducible complexity. What can generally be observed empirically is typically a form of irreducible complexity where if a part is taken away then a lack of function results. By various philosophical and theological rules many scientists are trained to explain away what can be generally observed as if it is not evidence. Many instead focus on proposing “feasible evolutionary” routes in line with Darwinian reasoning: “If an organism could be found which I could not imagine coming about in a gradual sequence of events then my theory would absolutely break down.” For some reason those who are the first to assert: “There is no evidence. None at all, and never could be!” also seem to be those most willing to cite their own imaginations as the epistemic equivalent of empirical evidence.
Irreducible complexity isn’t an “argument” similar to Darwinian reasoning and doesn’t rely on imagining things about the past, it’s generally an empirical observation which can be observed in the form and function of organisms. If one does not go the Darwinian route of imagining your own imagination to be the equivalent of empirical evidence you quickly see that the capacity to imagine things doesn’t change empirical facts or explain the history of all biological specification, form and species.
Morphological progression can be roughly summarized as “Hey, this looks a little like that!” from which a conclusion can supposedly be derived: “Well, it must’ve come from that then because I know that no designer would do things any way but the way that I would do them!” The minority of biologists that make that arrogant and pretentious argument (e.g. PZ Myers) couldn’t even design one part of the organism that they’re studying, yet they can supposedly render judgment about how it ought to be designed. Don’t the brain events which allow them to render such judgments have more to do with the mating habits of ancient populations of worm like creatures than with a rational mind which can comprehend notions like progress and perfection in form and design anyway? Yet by their brain events God is supposedly condemned and done away with. Note the irony typical to the claims of charlatans like PZ Myers and others, although we don’t really know what is responsible for the self-organization and development of an embryo based on current empirical observations, (A morphogenetic “field”? What’s that, and where does it reside?) he knows as a scientific fact what happened millions of years ago and can “explain” virtually every single organ that unfolds in the development of every single mammalian embryo on the basis of such knowledge. Not only does the little fellow with a brain derived from ancient worm-like creatures supposedly know what happened millions of years ago but it’s the sort of scientific fact that cannot be questioned lest all of science crumble away and civilization collapse.
The exact opposite is true, the symbols and signs of design typical to civilization/language are dissolved by the pseudo-science typical to Darwinism and history shows that when people generally believe the Darwinian creation myth to be true civilization declines.
I am way out of my league here, and believe me I know it, but what the shrink and mynym have pointed out here is a great portion of the reason that I, the common Joe, have stopped believing that evolution is a viable explanation for man’s existence. I once held to this theory, even after becoming a believer, because I had gone out of my way, in college, to take some courses in anthro and even archeology. I know that doesn’t make me an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I was actively seeking to disprove god then, and I turned to science to aid me in that desire. Evolution failed me, I had no choice but to turn to the only evidence that I could make any sense out of, God and ID.
Maybe science isn’t concerned with us common folk, even though one of their claims is to serve humanity, and therefore, what I just said doesn’t mean much. Remember though, it’s us common folk, in the end, who really decide what is true and what isn’t, especially when it comes to wasted tax dollars! Although, you evolutionists have a pretty tight hold on our government and education system, so perhaps, you’ll be able to continue professing your unsubstantiated theories to us and our school-age children?
Shrink (Aug 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm) said: “A vast majority of the the [sic] peer reviewed research on ‘evolution’ would be consistent with ID.”
Absolutely true. The vast majority of evolutionary research would also be consistent with invisible purple turtles, the universe as a vast computer game played at our expense by alien rappers, and, more seriously, morphogenetic fields.[1]
More important is the reason why evolutionary research is consistent with ID. It is consistent because everything is consistent with ID. ID is, in Oliver Wendell Holmes’ words, “a nose of wax” that can be bent in any desired direction.[2] A real scientific theory has a model that can be measured against observations. The mechanism of evolution, for example, entails common descent. As Richard Lewontin once noted, finding a rabbit in a Precambrian bed would sorely test this claim. ID’s lack of any testable content makes any ID-based hypothesis impossible to verify or refute[3].
Shrink: “Just because the researchers apply (or misapply) microevolutionary concepts to infer macroevoluationary principles, doesn’t mean that those 1570 articles support naturalistic evolution are are [sic] against intelligent design.”
Gresham’s law says that bad money drives out good. In this case, ID definitions seem to swamp scientific ones. In real biology, “macroevolution” refers to embryonic processes where a number of developmental events change together to redirect development.[4] ID has hijacked this term to mean “anything that Darwinian evolution can’t do.”[5] Under the ID definition, of course it is wrong to apply Darwin’s theory to this area. However, you have not established that such an area even exists. Again, this requires evidence. The boundary seems to be rather fluid. First, microevolution was confined to intraspeciaes change. More recently, “related” species are permitted. Are snakes with front and rear fangs within the purview of the micro form, or not? Flatfish were once touted as designed, but since the transitional fossils were discovered, Casey Luskin has moved the goal-posts, and flatfish now seem to be micro as well. If you have in mind some kind of criteria for establishing the boundary,[6} please let me know.
Another aspect of intelligent design is significant. An ancient ahorism says “By their fruits shall you know them.” What are the fruits of ID? The most loudly touted “prediction” is that junk DNA will be found to have a function after all.[7] So of course they all rushed to the laboratory to conduct experiments to test their prediction, and to advance the state of knowledge, and to show their bona fides as real scientists. Ha! What a laugh! No one rushed to any lab. No one suggested any investigations. No one so much as lifted a finger. Meanwhile, evolutionary scientists wrote dozens of journal articles speculating on junk-DNA functions.[8] And they found some; although, of course, contrary to the ID prediction most junk DNA not only has no function, but represents useless broken shards of DNA that once did have function.[9]
While we’re at it, ID did make one attempt to propose something that might be actually useful: treating drug-resistant bacteria with multiple drugs to decrease their resistance. Never mind that others had also proposed this. The hilarious part is that the IDiots got it wrong. The type of multi-drug treatment they proposed would be ineffective or even dangerous.[10]
This response is already delayed too long, and other projects intrude. So I’ll skip the section on evidence for evolution. My experience is that those who wish to deny it can always find a reason for doing so. Scientific theories are not a popularity contest. However, suppose your doctor said you have a gall-bladder problem, and surgery will cure it. Dissatisfied with this news, you go to 484,000 other doctors who tell you the same thing. Along the way, you encounter six doctors who disagree. They are certain that your pain is a result of possession by demons. They offer to hold an exorcism for you. This is an attractive option, because you are a religious person, and you know that the Bible supports their view. So…. what to do, what to do. Which choice do you really think you would make if your life is at risk? Of course, as to science, you can merely sit back and enjoy your beliefs; real scientists will develop antibiotics for mutated viruses, and they will offer them to you, even though you disbelieve the theory under which they were constructed.[11]
Darwinian evolution, with all its warts, modifications to embrace new data, extensions to fit new data, has persisted for 150 years, and weathered a number of crises along the way,, and spawned entire new fields of investigation. Evo-devo, for example, has burgeoned from nothing in less than two decades. Meanwhile, its detractors have changed their name several times—from creationism to creation science to intelligent design to teach the controversy—but have not found any significant new arguments.[12]. And have certainly not conducted any research, much less published it. Intelligent design is, in the words of physicist Paul Dirac, “not even wrong.”
==============
[1] Rupert Sheldrake, “A New Science of Life” (J.P. Tarcher, Inc. 1981) proposes a new type of physical field that communicates “pattern” information. This field is the reason why, for example, as soon as one person becomes able to solve Rubik’s Cube puzzles, others find it much easier. And why, once a fish has evolved a wrist, other fish are better able to climb up the slippery slope toward tetrapodhood. Why not? There is as much evidence for morphogenetic fields as there is for intelligent design.
[2] It can even be consistent with mutually inconsistent positions. Creationists frequently argue that “junk DNA” has a purpose because good Designers would not waste all th effort to include useless DNA. Creationists frequently argue that cave fish that develop embryonic eyes and then lose them before birth are consistent with ID, because Designers need not be good.
[3] ID may make testable claims. Such as “some vertebrates will have jaws that develop from the third pharyngeal arch.” However, these claims are not grounded in any aspect of the “theory” itself. The preceding claim could just as easily have been “some vertebrates will have jaws that develop from the fourth pharyngeal arch.”
[4] Cf., e.g., Gilbert, et al., “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and developmental Biology,” Developmental Biology 173:357-372 (1996)
[5] Sub nom. “Robert Crowther,” I recently submitted the concepts of “microgravity” (that which makes objects fall to the ground) and “macrogravity” (the unobserved force that persuades planets to “fall” in their orbits) See http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/07/10/discovery-institute-takes-on-gravity-myth/#comment-789
Obviously, we must not apply the limited principles of microgravity beyond their observed range.
[6] Something other than “just outside the reach of current scientific findings as misunderstood by the wilfully perverse.”
[7] Of course, evolutionary researcher never said it didn’t.
[8] A brief summary may be found at “Function, non-function, some function: a brief history of junk DNA,” at http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/function-non-function-some-function.html
[9] More information and examples than you’ll ever understand at http://www.pseudogene.org. Of course, pseudogenes can occasionally mutate into functional genes for entirely different functions that did not exist before. But you don’t want to hear that either.
[10] Read all about it at Respectful Insolence, Dec. 2007, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/why_a_little_knowledge_is_a_dangerous_th.php
[11] Although they will provbably be developed in Asia, not in the U.S., so you may have to wait in line. As a prominent Indian drug developer said recently, “You can’t expect India to supply the U.S. with scientists forever.”
[12] Arguments about the impossibility of creating “new information” are no more than the second law of thermodynamics in drag.
Olorin, if you want to have a discussion we can do that. If you want to spread your disdain, you’d be better doing that back at Panda’s Thumb–with like minded atheists who like to complain about “IDiots.”
Me thinks Orolin doth protest too much!
mynym wrote:
Precisely. Whatever the characteristic is, they say, “We can explain that.” They consult their imaginations for a solution, and then provide it. If pushed on falsifiability, they say that finding a bunny fossil in pre-cambrian strata would falsify their theory. If they found a bunny fossil in that layer, it would be discarded, because the strata layer was “obviously” contaminated.
Orolin, said, in the twelfth “point?” of his arrogant, paranoid and self defensive diatribe,
This quote, in particular, shows the self absorbed ignorance of some folks! India? Yes sir, now there’s a country that has it all together. Perhaps, instead of their scientists coming to the US, they should stay home and figure out how to care for their own people: most of which live in horrible poverty, because of their religion and ignorance.
I must ask something, “Where do these pocket-protecting, megalomaniacal, God hating book-worms come from, and how did they get control of the asylum?”
Sorry, I guess, this time, I couldn’t resist the “troll’s” allure;-)
Agreed! He’s such a good troll, that I couldn’t help approving his post. He’ll probably be back since we’ve fed him, but I guess that’s the way it goes.
Interesting isn’t it?!
I find it fascinating how easily you’ve leaped to the conclusion that Olorin is “God-hating” — something I know to be flat-out false from my personal communications with him, and which in any event cannot be inferred from anything he’s said above.
It doesn’t follow, that is, unless criticism of intelligent design is sufficient to indicate hatred of religion, in which case intelligent design really is creationism in disguise, just like us “pocket-protecting, megalomaniacal, God hating book-worms” have been saying all along!
God loving??? Humble???
Carl,
Ditto the two questions, from Shrink. “Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble, when I’m perfect in every way.” “You’ll know the tree by the fruit it bears…”
Yes, they will and for thirty times what they’re worth, and with a list as long as my arm of side-affects. “Real scientists,” is that like “real men,” and all that macho stuff?
Carl,
You scientists seem to be a little bit thin-skinned. “Idiot,” as a description for Shrink is Okay, but “pocket-protecting, megalomaniacal, God hating book-worms” isn’t? Sounds like a double standard to me! What do you think?
Hmm. Well, I’m not going to say anything more on Olorin’s behalf. He’s perfectly competent to provide his own defense, should he chose to do so.
Your local pocket-protecting, megalomaniacal, God hating book-worm,
Carl
Carl,
I apologize for lumping everyone into that category, in fact, I apologize for taking that immature route in the first place. Sometimes, I allow my emotions to speak for me, which, I should have learned by now, is almost always a mistake!
DB
DB,
Oh, no hard feelings on my end. In fact, I thought it was rather funny!
It’s not that it’s a mistake to let your emotions speak for you — but in Internet communication, there are special problems. It’s very tempting to react immediately to what someone says without waiting and reflecting. And in face-to-face communication this is normal, but in face-to-face there are subtle cues of gesture and voice and eye contact which soften the blows of disagreement.
It’s exceedingly hard to remember that there are other living breathing human being on the other side of the screen, so to speak.
Carl
Carl,
Agreed!
Interesting read and I thank all the contributors.
Now I may just be a dweeb here, way out of my range…afterall I eat Cheetoes and watch cable TV…..but after reading the opening story here “A Naturalistic Fairy Tale”, I tried to think deeply upon the subject at hand and as my wood burning mind began to warm up I thought…..1) Who or what is responsible for the matter which was in place to get things rolling? 2) Was it mere chance + time that was the spark to ignite the matter to do what it’s proposed to have done?
If the answer from the atheist camp is: “Nothing is responsible for the matter which was present” My simple mind must ask, “How do they know this to be so?” Also, just what is “Nothing”? Can anyone define “nothing” without using “something” to describe it? To even claim, “Nothing is blank or without anything” is actually “something”…..sorry, I am off on a rabbit trail now.
Also if these items of matter came into their collective mass by mere “chance plus time” then my simple mind must ask when has “chance” ever been the actuator of anything? If I buy a lottery ticket is it “chance” that actuates me to scratch off the ticket? Is not “chance” the RESULT of something being set into motion by an outside force? Say for example me rolling die…..chance is the result of me picking up the die and rolling or throwing them, correct?
So just what is “chance’s” role in evolution?
Lastly, as I read the “fairy tale” I couldn’t help but ponder….”What IF that very fairy tale WAS set into motion by an intelligent designer and this whole time evolutionists are arguing against their own “big bang-chance-actuator”?
Sorry, last lastly. I find it odd that evolutionists ridicule others, both Believers and ID proponents, about how no rabbit fossils have been found in a certain rock strata (thus proving evolution) yet when a Believer says there should be thousands of transitional fossils if evolution were true are replied back with…..”We have not exhausted all possibilities in our search. We shall find one one day”
Is it not then also possible for a rabbit to be found in a certain rock strata also? Perhaps not all possibilities have been exhausted in the search. I shall now return to TV and snacks.