John Rennie on Universities on ID

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow,

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

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

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

— Ev. Ape.

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

— Ev. Ape.

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

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

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

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

— Flint

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

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

— Timothy L.

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

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

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

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

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

You blinked, Timothy. The two seconds passed years ago and now ID creationism is the proverbial old lady lying on the floor "whose fallen and can't get up." [/quote=Great White Wonder] Strange then that it continues to gain support even from those whom are impossible to label as religious fundamentalists.

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

— Flint

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

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

— Frank

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well Russell,

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

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

— EvAp

Of course ID should be critically examined.

Every theory should, and this includes Evolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that explanation leave you unsatisfied, Apeman?

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

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

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

Time itself limits what can be determined regarding the past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Apeman

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

The ID theory did not exist before Paley.

Testable Claims: IC

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

ID is not essentially supernatural.

You test anything by finding evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

Henry

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

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

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

sorry.

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

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

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

sorry.

ID is not essentially supernatural.

— Timothy L.

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

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

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

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

— Apeman

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

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

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

Steve, knowledge has no bearing on truth - this can be empirically proven. Knowledge, of course, is power, which is also energy. And Einstein showed that energy is matter, which has mass. This demonstrates two things - that increasing knowledge increases the knower's mass, and that knowledge is a concrete, physical thing. (It also demonstrates, according to the classic proof, that libraries are dangerous places, due to the enormous weight of accumulated knowledge, but that is neither here nor there.) Truth, on the other hand, is beauty. And beauty, being an abstract concept, is both unburdened by mass and an essentially subjective quality. After all, beauty, and therefore Truth, is in the eye of the beholder. Increasing knowledge increases mass, but does not increase the unrelated value of Truth. The addition of mass does weigh down the knowledgable observer, however, who also experiences a faster flow of time and thus aging due to the increased time-space dilation of his own gravitational field. This is why knowledgable men and women seem more mature, and often feel old, weighed down, and tired when confronted with those who are burdened only by their own subjective Truth.

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

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

@russel:

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

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

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

cheers

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

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

-WOW. What blatantly amazing ignorance :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers

The ID theory did not exist before Paley.

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

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

;)

cheers

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

I will now quote you:

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

I think the keyword there is ALL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"makes you PT people look like fools"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:)

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

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

or on this site, for that matter:

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

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

that can't be right, can it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John A. Davison

[microevolution] is purely Mendelian in character

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

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

:p

cheers

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

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

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

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

Honest mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers

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

cheers

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

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

change does to doesn't.

gees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just a thought.

Is it the reality of the objects of our belief or merely our belief in those objects that makes life meaningful to us? If it is the former, religious folks are most likely out of luck since the universe is probably not haunted, at least in the somewhat science-fiction-like style of the traditional mythologies. If it is the later, secularists who believe that their lives are meaningful without religious faith are at least as well off as religionists who believe that their lives are meaningful. On this basis, after all, meaningfulness is just a matter of opinion and facts don't matter.

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

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

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

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

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

"schizophrenic post-modern man"

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

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

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

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

"If Hitler found killing Jews meaningful"

can you argue he didn't?

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

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

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

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

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

"I can't answer your question with scientific evidence because it is pilosophical in nature"

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

"philosphical naturalism "

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

philosophy is not science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Darwinian Fundamentalists"

by show of hands:

anyone here on PT a darwinian fundamentalist?

nevermind, i already know the answer.

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

;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[end rant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ ^
o o
O

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

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

http://christianexodus.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=index

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

cheers

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

:P

It isn’t the business of the sciences to pronounce on theological questions, but scientific results certainly have implications for non-scientific issues.

— Jim Harrison

...I don’t understand why believers want to make people think that the normal rules of right and wrong are so occult that only revelation can inform us what they are and so arbitrary that only divine sanction can give them force.

Again circular reasoning shows up in the discussion of origins. Quite shameful for any of you who call yourselves scientists.

Presume atheism/phony agnosticism, then the fossil record will re-affirm your belief that you are simply the result of a chance-driven natural process

Presume theism/genuine agnosticism, then the paucity of data in the fossil record, absence of experimental evidence (unless you consider a computer simulation evidence) and lack of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis will allow you to consider more options than macro-evolution.

Thus, it is really a philosophical and not scientific question.

Some of you atheist fools believe morality is real (meaning of equal validity as anything we can know from science), others believe it is largely an evolved social construct. I actually have more respect for the latter. At least you are more intellectually consistent in your nihilistic philosophy.

Typical. Start with a belief. Interpret the evidence to fit. How else could anything possibly work? Since the evidence fails to fit Apeman's belief, it is of course inadequate every which way. As it must be, since the belief is correct a priori. The notion that conclusions should be drawn from evidence rather than vice versa is so incomprehensible it can't even be misrepresented coherently.

Presume atheism/phony agnosticism, then the fossil record will re-affirm your belief that you are simply the result of a chance-driven natural process

Presume theism/genuine agnosticism, then the paucity of data in the fossil record, absence of experimental evidence (unless you consider a computer simulation evidence) and lack of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis will allow you to consider more options than macro-evolution.

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

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

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

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

But you can't find evidence of design, which can possibly be distinguished from evidence for some natural process. You can SAY "that there was designed" and you may be right. Nobody can prove you right, nobody can prove you wrong.

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

Who do YOU think the "intelligent designer" is intended to be? WHY do you think the proponents of ID are all fundamentalists?

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

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

What upsets the apemen around here is not that the hostility but the indifference of the sciences to religion. Hence the postulation of evil atheist scientists who can provide a more convenient object for fear and hatred than the very mixed bag of actual scientists who have all sorts of attitudes about traditional religions but whose professional activities have nothing whatsover to do with God.

Over and beyond the emotional satisfactions, this sort of thinking in crayola saves ever so much effort. At the modest cost of never being right about anything, you avoid the mental strain of dealing with the conceptual complexity of serious theorizing. Not a bad trade off.

By the way, I am not now nor have I ever been a scientist.

"Over and beyond the emotional satisfactions, this sort of thinking in crayola saves ever so much effort. At the modest cost of never being right about anything, you avoid the mental strain of dealing with the conceptual complexity of serious theorizing. Not a bad trade off"

ah yes, ignorance is bliss.

It doesn't even matter to folks like the apeman if you try to reach out to them, they are just hateful, spiteful, ignorant and choose to stay that way out of their own free will.

why do they even bother? they certainly have lost any legitimate interest in learning, and since philiosophy isn't science, we find their arguments slightly less than amusing.

at least tim attempts at some form of rational discussion, and attempts to look at what is offered, even if it is with 2" thick coke bottle glasses on.

what is their motivation, I keep wondering? why do they post here? do they think they will somehow save our souls? convince anyone that illogic is logic?

one reason for posting in forums like this is to polish one's thinking on an issue. I see very little of their thinking being polished, while their constant repetition of the same drivel over and over again has at least done those of us who actually do science the opportunity to learn firsthand exactly how limited the ID philosophy really is.

not that I wish them to leave, but again i must ask myself, what do these folks get out of posting here?

@tim:

"Couldn't they Just say "there is another very controversial theory called intelligent design, that you can look into if you so chose."?"

yes, tim, they could legitimately do that with no complaints from me...

if they did it in a philosophy class, and not a science class.

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

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

How can IC or SC NOT suggest design?

Or are they afraid the God they find won't be the one they were hoping to find?

Or put another way, if evidence of some form of ID were found, what are the odds that it would satisfy the expectations of ID advocates?

Henry

No the designer of ID is unspecified this does not necessitate either natural or supernatural.

How can IC or SC NOT suggest design? To refute it as evidence for design one must fulfill Dembski's challenge, which has not been done.

Now I get to hear you tell me what I must believe.

I also find it insulting that you refer to ID advocates as creationists. Creationism is nothing but religious apologetics you said it yourself it defends a literal interpretation of Genesis ID does not seek to do that.

Why bother making any scientific theory at all when we could all just explain it by saying a Magical God did it?

By your logic there is no reason for science at all.

ID is not supernatural, and does not necessitate the existence of any God

I have already shown that Atheists believe this theory, so that negates your point right there.

Sure evolution can explain some things, but I contend that the evidence shows very little support for evolution, so a better theory and a better explanation is needed.

Why not?

No deal. I think it is very arrogant to assume that if someone understands you they must agree with you. I read the abstract, but I still have a will to disagree.

The "Intelligent Designer" does not have to be God though some people believe him to be.

Most of the biggest proponents of ID are NOT fundamentalists.

Couldn't they Just say "there is another very controversial theory called intelligent design, that you can look into if you so chose."?

Ask the ralieans this is not a question for me.

is this thread dead, fred?

is this thread dead, fred?

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

eh, it's the weekend. perhaps give him till eod monday?

The "Intelligent Designer" does not have to be God

Since the various versions of the argument from design all rely on an analogy, the point needs to be reiterated from time to time that the only kinds of design with which we have experience are utterly natural. People don't create something from nothing or violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when they build refrigerators or ATMs. We have zero experience of magical processes that work.

Gee guys, thanks for giving me the weekend off!

Darwinian Fundamentalist (Strict defintion):

1. Except perhaps for the origin of the universe, everything can be explained by a naturalistic process.

2. Science is the only source of knowledge. Even when there is inadequate data, a naturalistic process should be assumed.

3. Thus, accepts as fact instead of as theory: abiogenesis, common origin, big bang and other unreproducible and unobservable phenomena.

4. If intellectually honest, will admit that ALL human behavior can be explained in terms of the evolutionary process.

5. If intellectually honest, will admit to being a nihilist.

6. Have the nasty habit of persecuting infidils who question the above (particularily #2-3).

Perhaps you can explain to me what natural selection pressures have driven some of us Homo Sapiens to question macro-evolution?

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

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

I think "Evolving Strawman" would be a way more appropriate nickname...

Disagree Russell? This doesn't fit you? Hmmm.... The jury may not be out on you yet.

Which one of points 1-3 do you disagree with?

1. Give me an example of something that can't be explained by a naturalistic process?
2. Give me a source of knowledge other than science?
3. Do you accept classifying common descent as a theory? or is it a fact?

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

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

Sorry Russell, I'm no more on the witness stand than you. Considering I just scored a 3-pointer, the ball is now in your court.

I defined Darwinian Fundamentalism, and I've suggested that you are an example.

I hope you found it interesting!

Russell:

I claim that Dregovian Originalists believe that modern chemistry disproves the Hindu gods.

I define "Dregovian Originalists" as those misguided souls who:

a) claim that 2+2 is 5;
b) insist that the Solar System revolves around Pluto;
c) if intellectually honest, admit that they do not exist.

Now, I've never personally met any Dregovian Originalist; but as long as no Dregovian originalist out there shows up in person to defend from these accusations, I'll assume I'm correct.

Should any Dregovian Originalists show up, of course, I would immediately point out that they are intellectually dishonest (see item c above).

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

6. Have the nasty habit of persecuting infidels who question "macroevolution"

Evolving Strawman:

Sorry, pal, my parody of your silliness was spot on. The fact that you fail to recognize that your strawman description of "Darwinian Fundamentalists" fits exactly nobody is only icing on the cake.

Unhappy with my answer to his question... He asks the questions and we infidels answer, and if we don't answer correctly we are insulted.

— Apeman

Let me know if you want to have a dialogue, not a one sided inquisiton.

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

— Apeman

Please cite an example of this...

Unhappy with my answer to his question... He asks the questions and we infidels answer, and if we don't answer correctly we are insulted.

— Apeman

Let me know if you want to have a dialogue, not a one sided inquisiton.

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

— Apeman

Please cite an example of this...

Unhappy with my answer to his question... He asks the questions and we infidels answer, and if we don't answer correctly we are insulted.

— Apeman

Let me know if you want to have a dialogue, not a one sided inquisiton.

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

— Apeman

Please cite an example of this...

Statement has no result columns to bind (perhaps you need to successfully call execute first) at /usr/local/www/data/pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/lib/MT/ObjectDriver/DBI.pm line 79.

EA = totally worthless abject idiocy at its finest. nothing new said since his first statement. unresponsive, combative, uncreative.

What is the point of even bothering?

hmm. are we sure it isn't just a psuedonym for John Davison?

Is there even a remote possiblity we could address the issues raised by the original thread topic (you remember, way back when it was argued that evolution makes sense from a purely economic standpoint)?

I swear, all these trolls do a great job of wasting our time and energy that would be better spent addressing more interesting questions, don't you agree?

I hate to be raising the obvious issue, but any moderators of this forum should at some point, curb the trolls. let them have their say, then once it is obvious that they didn't come here to discuss the issue at hand, curb them.

cheers

Sir TJ raises an excellent point, of course. (I blame it on "adult ADD".) Originally, my thought was that by forcing the troll's feet to the fire, relentlessly asking him to back up absurd charges and highlighting non-answers, maybe that would be a way of shutting him up. Apparently not.

well, I am a relatively new poster here on PT, but i can already sense that there is little point in trying to get folks like JAD or EA on topic. in their minds, this whole forum is fair game for them to post their continuous mindless drivel.

enough!

russel, even in the last two posts you and i have just made, we are still feeding the trolls.

Please tell me you have something to comment on the original topic?

Please tell me you have something to comment on the original topic?

seems to me, even if an irrelevant distinction is made between micro and macro, you are still talking about selection and evolution, not creationism.

the point being that creationism, regardless of how it is packaged, makes no useful predctions, and thus provides no useful mechanism for the development of new technologies.

if we all suddenly accepted "goddidit", and rejected the scientific method, society as we know it would simply grind to a halt.

What i am hoping is that someone with more economic background that i can provide a nice list of examples of economic and technological benefits that have arisen as a result of the study of evolutionary theory. It seems likely this already exists, somewhere. anyone know where? is it time to put a list together?

cheers

...examples of economic and technological benefits that have arisen as a result of the study of evolutionary theory

Re "and thus provides no useful mechanism for the development of new technologies."

while I suppose generating new technology is perhaps a more dramatic validation, I don't see why providing direction for research isn't also a validation, even if less dramatic.

Anyway, one thought: in the use of mice (or other animals) more or less related to us for medical type research, the level of confidence that the results apply to humans is higher with macroevolution thoery than with "common design" as a hypothesis.

Henry

"while I suppose generating new technology is perhaps a more dramatic validation, I don't see why providing direction for research isn't also a validation, even if less dramatic"

of course you are correct, but the gist of the thread as i read it was to provide for the economic argument in support of evolutionary theory's usefullness.

medical research certainly is replete with examples of how the study of evolution has aided mankind.

cheers

3. Do you accept classifying common descent as a theory? or is it a fact?

Gee guys, thanks for giving me the weekend off! Darwinian Fundamentalist (Strict defintion): 1. Except perhaps for the origin of the universe, everything can be explained by a naturalistic process. 2. Science is the only source of knowledge. Even when there is inadequate data, a naturalistic process should be assumed. 3. Thus, accepts as fact instead of as theory: abiogenesis, common origin, big bang and other unreproducible and unobservable phenomena. 4. If intellectually honest, will admit that ALL human behavior can be explained in terms of the evolutionary process. 5. If intellectually honest, will admit to being a nihilist. 6. Have the nasty habit of persecuting infidils who question the above (particularily #2-3). Perhaps you can explain to me what natural selection pressures have driven some of us Homo Sapiens to question macro-evolution?