My grandpappy was et by a fire-breathin' T-Rex!

I'd love to read the "Fun Facts", but I can't make them out on the posted scans. If someone has access to a legible version, it would be great if you could transcribe them!

Oh, God... is this what creationists want to be taught in schools?

Hm, I don't have a problem reading them. (They're hilarious, so you don't want to miss them.)

The image that's linked to is the original high-resolution scan, and it's not going to get any better. (Although I could make them worse if you'd like.)

You may be having an issue with your browser -- I know that WinXP will automatically thumbnail a large pic and you have to click on it to get the full size. Something like that must be going on.

I’d love to read the “Fun Facts”, but I can’t make them out on the posted scans.

Incredible.

Most kids' menus only provide junk for the body.

This one has junk for the mind, too.

Yippee.

Did any of the adults complain to the restaurant management?

transcription:

FRONT:

shows a picture of a triceratops

in the text window we read:

dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing!

The largers dinosaur egg ever found was smaller than a football.

Dinosaur footprints and people footprints were found together in Glenrose, Texas.

The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man. There are still some around today.

BACK:

We see pictures of a T-rex and Pterodactyl and one other i can't make out.

in the various text windows under the T-rex we read:

The brain of a T-rex is only the size of a walnut.

If you could get near him, you could very easily [something] off the arm of the T-rex. He would die because he would bleed to death.

Scientists have theorized that the T-rex could probably breathe fire.

under the Ptery we read:

Missionaries have reported that the natives are scared of Pterodactyl's still living in Kenya, Africa. The natives call them Kongamato.

Many scientists believe that there are still a few dinosaurs alive today. Other numerous sitings include Amazon and Lake Okanagan!

Scientists have determined that the Loch Ness monster is probably a dinosaur. Over 11,000 people have reported seeing Loch Ness, and there are over 50 pictures taken of him.

There have been recent expeditions into the Congo swamp where Apatosaurs still live! The Congo swamp is the size of Arkansas, and still largely un-explorable. What else might be there??

at the bottom we read:

For more great information on dinosaurs visit www.drdino.com. This information was taken from video #3 available from Dr. Dino's website!!

Fix for people with "automatic resize" enabled in Windoze:

1.) Hover the cursor over the picture.
2.) Wait until the four-arrows-outward glyph appears in the bottom RH corner.
3.) Click it.

i didn't put any of my own comments along with the transcription, as i didn't really see any point in doing so.

sad.

Missionaries have reported that the natives are scared of the Pterodactyl's still living in Kenya, Africa.

"If you could get near him, you could very easily tear off the arm of the T-rex. He would die because he would bleed to death."

This is pure Kent Hovind.

The apostrophe was in the original.

Over 11,000 people have reported seeing Loch Ness

there was one typo i made:

change siting to sighting.

other than that, i think i got it all verbatim, including the punctuation.

Maybe the resturant patron should ask the waitress if it is a good idea to have materials being distrubted to children from a person on the watchlist of Anti-Hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. Meaning this guy is being looked at like groups like the KKK are and info on him is being shared with police agencies. Not to mention the IRS and other law enforcement groups are also investigating Dr. Dinodroppings. Should also mention his criminal record and that his family also have records of criminal misdeeds and so do some of his church elders.

Also ask if they are aware of what other Christian groups have to say about Dr. Dino namely that he is a disgrace to them.

Incidentally, Dunlap Tennessee is a truly beautiful place. It is nestled in the Sequatchie valley, a long narrow fold in the southern Appalachians, with steep escarpments perhaps 800 feet high on both sides. There is noplace without a spectacular view anywhere near town. But all this makes Dunlap hard to get to from any large city, so the culture is insular.

I don't know that you would call it a formal complaint, but I did ask the waitress about the placemats and she seemed a bit flabbergasted that anyone would find them offensive. I honestly think she had no clue that this was a young-earth tract. She said that the owner orders everything for the restaraunt. I remember looking at Hovinds schedule a while back and noticed Dunlap on the agenda. The only reason I took notice of his trip there is because we take our field methods class there every year to look at the rocks in the area. I suspect the only thing a more formal complaint would have gotten us was kicked out of the restaraunt. Instead, I showed it to all the students (many asked for souvenier copies) and we had a good laugh. I was also able to teach my son about why some people are willing to lie to convince others of their viewpoint. To his credit he did know that T-rex's brain was larger than a walnut and that the Loch Ness monster was a myth. Now he knows a lot more about life and lies.

Cheers

Joe Meert

In a great coincidence, I happened to catch a few minutes of the good Dr. Dino on TV this evening. There's a local Christian station that seems very fond of him. He was talking about--dinosaurs! Actually, he was talking about how fire-breathing dragons were real and were just dinosaurs. He described T-Rex as having a head about the size of a Volkswagen (no model mentioned) but a brain about the same size as a kitten's. I swear I'm not making this next part up. He said that a lot of that unused cranial capacity was probably just empty and could have been used to "store chemicals." And the empty chamber(s) were connected to the "nasal passages." (...and the knee bone's connected to the...)"If you mix the right chemicals," he said, "you get combustion, and T-Rex might have been able to blow that fire right out its nostrils."
I want a degree from Patriot University.

"If you could get near him, you could very easily [something] off the arm of the T-rex. He would die because he would bleed to death."

Guess T-Rex didn't have that Intelligently Designed blood-clotting mechanism.

Maybe T-Rex is extinct because one of Noah's sons was goofing around and pulled the arms off the two T-Rexes in the Ark.

Maybe Dr. Hovind is right - if an animal that big had a brain the size of a walnut, it would be too stupid to use its enormous jaws and huge teeth to prevent people from getting up on a ladder to reach its arms to pull them off.

I want his dissertation. He, of course, refuses to release anything but the "latest version", which makes him look dumber than if he just refused.

Now he knows a lot more about life and lies.

(Hovind) said that a lot of that unused cranial capacity was probably just empty and could have been used to "store chemicals."

maybe he can shoot fire out of his nose? so he naturally assumed other things could too.

If ID is not creationism, certainly the Discovery Institute will have no difficulty issuing a press release disavowing Hovind's insanity. If ID is science and not creationism, surely Dembski and Behe will make that clear to the court in Dover with a categorical denial of Hovind's materials.

Should I bate my breath?

Ed, you'd suffocate first.
Paul

Oh, certainly not. The ability to breathe fire undoubtedly requires an intelligent designer (it's far too complex to have evolved), and it's already obvious that Kent Honvid wasn't intelligently designed.

Here's my conjecture:
Honvid's brain is actually the size of an ordinary human's, but he utilizes far less of it than others. The brain matter which he does not use (junk brain matter) still exists not necessarily because it benefits him, but because it benefits itself--it's parasital--much like selfish junk DNA (for anyone who's read Dawkins The Selfish Gene). Honvid's brain, because it does not function at the capacity that his anscestors' did, is a vestigal organ, which is predicted by evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory can also explain why: in a society where you don't have to use your brain, genes which would make the brain less functional would become more common in a population (at the very least, a population comprised of non-brain-users) as there is no selection pressure favoring genes which make the brain more functional, nor which 'punish' genes which make the brain less functional. Politicians and creationists, for instance, don't have to use their brains because a good deal of people will believe outright lies, mischaracterisations, and half-truths made up by such people, and can make their living without ever having to think critically about anything. Actually, because people prefer to believe certain things, they're more likely to listen to someone who appeals to what they wish to believe, and lies/mischaracterizes in order to do so than to someone who says things like they are, so there is actually selection pressure for the brains of groups such as politicians and creationists (and other demagogues) to become vestigal.

Kent Honvid happens to be further evolved than other demagogues.

"If you could get near him, you could very easily [something] off the arm of the T-rex. He would die because he would bleed to death."

For the record, I consider that last sentence "Clever beyond fathomability"

ah yes, very witty, Wilde.

"His majesty is like a stream of bat's piss."

...

"Here's my conjecture:"

hmm. seems reasonable. how would we test it? please show for us how your theory would fit all the steps of scientific analysis posted by Dr. Lenny.

:)

"An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head."
-- Eric Hoffer

Re Hovind, "maybe he can shoot fire out of his nose? so he naturally assumed other things could too."

Actually, I will wager that gud ol' Kent was playing with matches in the bathtub again.

Opps and it was "pull" and not "tear."

"Scientists have determined that the Loch Ness monster is probably a dinosaur. Over 11,000 people have reported seeing Loch Ness, and there are over 50 pictures taken of him."

Whoever wrote it seems to have forgotten the likelihood of female Loch Ness monsters. And the typo just makes them look like idiots. I'd like to know which scientists, last I knew there were maybe 2 that thought it was a plesiosaur, and thousands who thought it lookedl ike a pleisosaur in the half dozen photos we have, but also know that there is no evidence that such a beastie exists in Loch Ness.

The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man. There are still some around today.

ID is not young earth creationism, and Hovind and his kind are a disaster.

However, I will point out once again that when I blog about cosmological ID or talk about it at civic clubs/schools/colleges I get attacked from two sides: PT types and Hovind types.

Hovind hates cosmological ID because it makes no sense for a young earth. To Hovind, I am as much a heretic as Darwin.

So I sort of view you (PT types) and Hovind as being a common enemy.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hovind conjecture that the source of the gas used to breathe fire was the critter's bowels?

Sure, Mr. Heddle.

Except that Hovind-types are your enemies because your opinions on cosmological ID threaten their faith, and PT-types are your enemies because their opinions on cosmological ID threaten your faith.

So, if anything else, it is you who share a most important trait with Hovind: the absolute need to protect one's faith from "heretic" opinions and "inconvenient" facts.

ID is not young earth creationism, and Hovind and his kind are a disaster.

— David Heddle

This is extremely funny and terribly sad at the same time.

Hovind is such a joke.

hmm. seems reasonable. how would we test it? please show for us how your theory would fit all the steps of scientific analysis posted by Dr. Lenny.

— sir_toejam

About the first claim . . . Please name one thing in "intelligent design" that is not also present in young-earth creationism. Re-labelling of contents does not change those contents.

The place is very unexpensive. The dino facts are fun and instructive. At least the placemat is not anti-science. On the contrary, the statements are based (so it says) on solid scientific opinion.

The place is very unexpensive. The dino facts are fun and instructive. The placemat is not anti-science. On the contrary, the statements are based (so it says) on solid scientific opinion. Should we refute a placemat?

And I am not argueing with ... a placemat!

We kid, but I think we have here an explanation for the fact that only a very few of the T-rex fossils so far uncovered come with arms attached.

All we need to do is to combine this fact, "If you could get near him, you could very easily pull off the arm of the T-rex. He would die because he would bleed to death.", with this one "The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man.".

And voila, that's why we find so few arm bones. They've all been pulled off by the cavemen.

Wesley: About the first claim . . . Please name one thing in "intelligent design" that is not also present in young-earth creationism. Re-labelling of contents does not change those contents. David Heddle: The idea that the heavy element constituents of rocky planets like the earth were created in the interior of stars and then seeded via super novae.

Care to provide a reference from the ID literature stating this as the general consensus among ID advocates? I must have missed that.

To be fair, Kent Hovind isn't universally accepted in the anti-evolution movement. True, holding your breath waiting for a press release from the Discovery Institute might be a bad idea (can't show dissension in the ranks - it might break up the Wedge and leave us vulnerable to those atheist scientists saying of us, like we do of them, that all this infighting means our theory is in crisi), but he has been publicly denounced by Answers in Genesis.

It all started when AiG posted a list of arguments that were bad strategic moves for creationists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

This included some of Hovind's favorites, so he took it personally, responding with an attack on AiG.

Aig responded by taking his response apart point-by-point, and this time, it *was* directed at him:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

I'm not sure if it's an actual case of sanity prevailing so much as the lesser of two insanities, but it's something.

Speaking of Loch Ness, when I was stationed in England with an AF recon squadron, we would often have to fly to Scotland to find weather good enough to take pictures. If practical, we would fly over Loch Ness as the place where we would clear/test our cameras before heading to the first assigned target.

All those pictues, not one monster. Drats!

Remember when you bash Ross that you'll be in bed with Hovind, who has labelled Ross a heretic.

— David Heddle

The idea that the heavy element constituents of rocky planets like the earth were created in the interior of stars and then seeded via super novae.

It is surprising that you missed it. Cosmological IDers support an old earth and the big bang model, and the normal accepted theories of stellar evolution and nuclear chemistry. It must be you have read nothing on cosmological ID, which would explain your ignorance. A good place to start would be Ross's site.

The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily even related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of religions, including Christianity. For this reason, IDEA finds no reasons from its mission statement to make any statements about the age of the earth. This is an important question, however, and if you are struggling with it or are interested in learning more about this issue, we suggest you contact various authorities from various sides of the question, and come to your own conclusions.

Doesn't standard theory of the solar system's origins state that the planets formed from an accretion disc orbiting a protostar early in the solar system's history, and not from supernovae? Or is that idea no longer popular?

The Southern Crypto Conference will be held Saturday June 18 in Conroe, TX. It will feature seminars and clincs on Bigfoot creature research, the search for giant catfish and other intriguing natural mysteries subjects. ... Dr. Kent Hovind (Living Dinosaurs/Dinosaurs in the Bible): He will present information presented concerning dinosaurs in the Bible reflecting his extensive study in the field of cryptozoology and that there may still be some living dinosaurs in remote corners of the world. ...

It probably would have been better for you to leave that part of the post out.

Are you saying that element synthesis in stars is evidence of intelligent design?

Mr Heddle,

Your point on stellar synthesis is poorly chosen for several reasons.

Apparently you are talking about fundamental constants and not stellar synthesis per se. After all, nuclear energy levels emerge from quantum mechanics which in turn is tied to the fundamental structure of the universe. Thus, stellar synthesis is a derivative point.

The main problem with your example, in context, is that it is not a basic difference between ID and YEC. Stellar synthesis is not a basic proof-of-concept point in ID. No does it point to ID in the usual sense that ID-ers use - at least no more than does any other physical phenomenon which exists - after all, muck around with the fundamental constants and things are different. It's like pointing to the ability to fry an egg as being specific evidence of design. Or saying that ice floating in your gin and tonic is a result of the coincidences which conspire to produce hydrogen bonds in water but not in H2S (to any great extent). This sort of poor logic carries over in many posts, e.g,, the protein difference.

I read the abstract and it's perfectly clear what is meant. That is, after all, the point of an abstract. As for asking an innocent question as a "curious scientist", well, be that as it may. When Russell stated that you were wrong you certainly took him to task and re-confirmed your misunderstanding explicitly. So it didn't look like a simple miswording but a fundamental misunderstanding of plain English. Of course we all make mistakes but that sort of mistake is rather elementary and one which a "scientist" would not make in public. You see, some level of critical thinking would cause him or her to question a bit more deeply what was being said. So, it's interesting how the ID-er so uncritically gloms on to any evidence that seems to back their preconceived view. Even if this entails enthusiastically misreading the evidence. That's a key differenec between the curious scientist and the uncurious ID enthusiast. One's dirty linen usually shows itself.

I am raising this issue to make a more general point which is the following - Fuzzy thinking is a hallmark - in fact a necessary ingredient - of ID "logic." Because ID-ers "know" the answer ahead of time they are quite simply incapable of objective discussion or clear thinking on issues which impact their beliefs. It really is as simple as that. Essentially it's like being part of a cult - and if one is part of a cult how would one know it?

It has always struck me how it was essentially religious people who denied and killed Jesus. If Jesus were to return today and perform such miracles such as resurrecting the dead and preachinh equality, then I wonder who would believe him and who would kill him - that is between the Darwinians and the Fundamentalists?

What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different? What is the explanation from evolution?

However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species.

[...] there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstances we would attribute to intelligence.

— William Dembski

I have no idea how to answer a "consensus" question, since I can only speak for myself. I am only sure of one thing: that belief that the universe was designed to support life, on the basis of the apparent fine-tuning is, is inconsistent with a young earth. After all, if no stars have actually exploded, then there is no significance to the fine-tuning that makes that explosion possible. ID is broader than Dembski (of whom I know nothing) and Behe (of whom I know only of his irreducible complexity arguments.)

[Glazko et al:] "However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species... " [David Heddle:] "That doesn't seem to agree with your statement that 'it's not true'"

D: What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different? R: They're not. What are you talking about? D: Yes they are, I have read that the proteins are 80% different

In spite of what you imply, I had no creationist aganda. I did sense that this abstract addressed an issue right of the crux of the evolution/anti-evolution debate. That's what made it interesting. If asking a question on something in that realm is considered bad form, then so be it.

Why is it important where I got it?

If you like, assume that Jerry Falwell sent it to me with a note to "see what those PT heathens have to say about this!"

And, if the answer remains that the result is trivial, I'd still like to know why it deserved to be published.

It all started when AiG posted a list of arguments that were bad strategic moves for creationists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp . . . This included some of Hovind's favorites, so he took it personally, responding with an attack on AiG. Aig responded by taking his response apart point-by-point, and this time, it *was* directed at him: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp . . . I'm not sure if it's an actual case of sanity prevailing so much as the lesser of two insanities, but it's something.

Mr Heddle,

But a single example of so-called "fine-tuning" doesn't imply a designer, does it? What you surely mean is that multiple different examples of "fine-tuning" imply a creator. If the latter is the case then fine-tuning in itself is not a good discriminator between ID and YEC in that many YECs believe, for example, that the amazing properties of the water molecule are an example of the Divine Hand, i.e., a case of fine-tuning. So the difference is in choice of example rather than being a fundamental difference between the two.

As far as I'm aware it's a matter of debate how "finely-tuned" the carbon resonance actually is. But that's a different topic.

I wish to thank the posters here for some wonderful belly-laughs.  Since brevity is the soul of wit, I think the prize goes to the word "phallocephalic".

How would one test or falsify fine tuning?

"And I am not argueing with . . . a placemat!"

are you sure about that?

:)

[Glazko et al:] "However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species . . . "

N.Wells has a good brief explanation of the meaning of the protein findings on ARN.

RBH

"You could make genaologies of several prominent demagogues and find information relevant to their intelligence (or lack thereof), to see if a gradual deterioration of the brain occurs over time. It would be preferable to look at geneaologies of families which don't mix with non-demagogic/non-political families---ie, families that have been seperated from the rest of society by social reproductive barriers."

not a bad start...

would that be ontogenetic deterioration, or generational deterioriation?

both?

does the non-mixing imply you are looking for relative geographic seperation acting to potentiate a new species? or is this more sexual selection?

Geez. I rarely check into ARN, and that thread is a perfect reminder of why. There's a lot of pretty dim bulbs over there. My hat's off to the brave souls that wade through that crap on a regular basis.

Also, now I know where Heddle picked up the whole Glazko thing. Apparently it's being hyped by Hugh Ross on his "Reasons to Believe" site. Kinda sad, if that's a typical "reason to believe".

just chalk it up to one more absurdity in the litany of absurdities.

not a bad start . . . would that be ontogenetic deterioration, or generational deterioriation? both? does the non-mixing imply you are looking for relative geographic seperation acting to potentiate a new species? or is this more sexual selection?

— sir_toejam

Speciation doesn't require any particular new adaptation. If a group of people were determined enough to cut off gene flow from the rest of humanity, I assume they would eventually speciate even if the results were about as interesting as the difference between the 7-spotted dung beetle and the 9-spotted dung beetle.

Comment #24113 Posted by ~DS~ on April 9, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s) How would one test or falsify fine tuning?

Re "1 We have no idea what any odds are, but
2 We imagine they could be really really small, so
3 God exists!"

I wonder why they want to limit God to only those areas that we don't understand. That strikes me as a bit selfish.

Henry

http://www.drdino.com:8080/jsp

I checked this out pretty thoroughly.

folks, they are way ahead of us on the "home school" front.

several books recommended to "train up" youngsters and keep them from becoming evil evolutionary biologists.

I found this extremely scary. Even rational friends of mine who live in Florida believe in private school over public school, regardless of any ideological or differences in science teach these schools use.

The voucher system that so many states are pushing for will only make this worse, as far as i can tell.

Elite private schools brag that they offer instruction that is more critical, scholarly, and scientific than that offered in public highschools. It's ironic that people want to send their kids to religion-based private schools or subject them to home schooling so they can be indoctrinated instead of educated.

Let's hope Jack Chick doesn't see the placemat...

It's ironic that people want to send their kids to religion-based private schools or subject them to home schooling so they can be indoctrinated instead of educated.

I don't know why you guys are laughing so hard at the good Dr. Ken. Could it be that you all are jealous that you didn't get the biology book deal for the Dover School District: Of Pandas and Placemats?

I hear that Behe is working on a set of placemats, too. Talk about stealth creationism! It's right under your noses, er, plates.

"Could it be that you all are jealous..."

damn straight! Why should he get all the placemat grants? I applied to NSF for a placemat grant for the last 3 years with no success.

I wanted to do a placemat that would examine the history of sexual selection, and how everyone could do their own tests of sexual selection theory.

Imagine my shock when they responded with, "While we applaud your ingenuity, we don't think your proposal would be appropriate at this time.

bastards.

If 80% of the protiens are different, doesn't that mean that 20% of them are absolutely and completely identical?

"Remember when you bash Ross that you'll be in bed with Hovind, who has labelled Ross a heretic."

I know of creationists who think AiG are heretics. At least one of them does so because they hold to an 'un-Biblical' heliocentic view of the Solar System.

As for Hovind, I have, from time to time, asked creationists to speculate on whether he may be an 'evolutionist' masquerading as one of them in order to discredit creationism. If such a person existed, I asked, in what way would they differ from Kent Hovind? I never get an answer.

If 80% of the protiens are different, doesn't that mean that 20% of them are absolutely and completely identical?

"As for Hovind, I have, from time to time, asked creationists to speculate on whether he may be an 'evolutionist' masquerading as one of them in order to discredit creationism. If such a person existed, I asked, in what way would they differ from Kent Hovind? I never get an answer"

here's your answer:

John A. Davison

:)

>Bob King: ID arguments are a subset of YEC arguments. ID advocates >simply don't argue *all* of the YEC arguments.

And the reason they do that is legal. In the Maclean decision, the defining characteristics of creation "science" were listed in the bill and cited by the judge. They were:

1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4) Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

Since these were defined, by creation 'scientists' themsleves, as the characteristics of creation "science", and since this creation "science" was ruled illegal by the judge (a decision that was later upheld and repeated by the Supreme Court), the ID movement has NO CHOICE but to distance itself from all of these characteristics, lest a judge point out that, by asserting them, ID is simply equating itself with creation "science", which has already been rejected by the courts.

Hence, IDers fall all over themselves to refuse to talk about things like whether humans and apes are related, or how old the earth is.

Of course, the IDers cannot spearate themselves COMPLETELY from creation "science", since ID itself is nothing more than creationism that has been stripped of any potential Constitutional offenses.

But notice that one of the defining characteristics of creation "science" is "the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism". Which is, of course, ID "theory" in a nutshell.

It'll be interesting to see if the Dover judge makes that observation.

I have no idea how to answer a "consensus" question, since I can only speak for myself.

"If a group of people were determined enough to cut off gene flow from the rest of humanity, I assume they would eventually speciate even if the results were about as interesting as the difference between the 7-spotted dung beetle and the 9-spotted dung beetle"

so would that be a post-hoc hypothesis to explain a sub-species of human with such consistently irrational thought processes as the IDers?

could you make any new predictions from this hypothesis?

oh, btw, wasn't there a recent article published on the search for a gene that contributed to religious thought patterns? I know i ran across it just a little while ago....

ah yes, posted by pvm, in fact:

"Genes contribute to religious inclination"
Posted by PvM on March 17, 2005 | Comments (36) | TrackBack (1)

New Scientist reports on the findings of a study on the impact of genes on religious inclinations

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.

The study can be found in Journal of Personality (vol 73, p 471)

That is such a great thing. I want to become a geologist, and I am only 14 years old. To young to be thinking about a big career.

I love pandas they are just the cutest little things in the whole wide world. I want to go to China just to see it and take millions of pictures. I would like to create a zoo all of pandas. Nothing else just PANDAS.

"I want to become a geologist, and I am only 14 years old. To young to be thinking about a big career"

perhaps, but just to compare; i was just like you. I wanted to be a marine biologist since i was 5 years old.

I wouldn't rule anything out, but I'd recommend that you at some point get other interests to make ends meet when geology isn't doing it for ya (not saying it won't, mind you, but better safe than sorry).

good luck to you.

cheers

p.s. "I would like to create a zoo all of pandas. Nothing else just PANDAS"

er, wouldn't you rather see them in the wild?

If a group of people were determined enough to cut off gene flow from the rest of humanity, I assume they would eventually speciate even if the results were about as interesting as the difference between the 7-spotted dung beetle and the 9-spotted dung beetle.

"So cutting off gene flow can only be part of the story."

indeed. If there were no quantitative or qualitative differences in selection pressure between isolated populations, the only mechanism for speciation would be genetic drift. The rate of genetic drift would depend on the rate of mutation and repair mechanisms within the genome, etc.

so, if isolated populations of cabbages were not subject to radically different selection pressures, I would in fact NOT expect to see speciation occur.

There might also be something about plants which limits the effect of genetic drift as well, though i never got that far as a botanist (I'm a fish guy).

cheers

actually there are several other mechanisms other than genetic drift i'm probably leaving out, tho most would be less likely.

for example one might also consider viral mutation (oncogenes) as a source of variability (and local gene flow, for that matter), tho that might be a stretch in this case.

anything else i am leaving out?

Re "2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; "

They forgot to mention genetic drift. Also founder effect (though I suppose that could be considered a special case of drift?)

Henry

" founder effect (though I suppose that could be considered a special case of drift?)"

yup:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html

although in the hypothetical experiment in breeding we were speaking of, the founder effect could play a significant role, as outlined in the link provided.

cheers

Were the placemats given to the diner or sold to them? The later might be legally actionable. If KH said to them: "I have a doctorate and am an expert on dinosaurs and these cheap placemats have some facts about dinosaurs on them" then he would presumably have committed fraud.

An old universe or a young earth is just peachy with ID advocates who can't be bothered to take a stand or show how such a stand follows in any logical way from the fundamental statement of ID:

But a single example of so-called "fine-tuning" doesn't imply a designer, does it?

How would one test or falsify fine tuning?

David Heddle suggests that this is a body blow to our understanding of Darwinian evolution.

I hope you cut and paste that question, I'd hate to think you retype it so often.

I used to look down on Dr. Dino myself, but then I saw this fascinating documentary called, "Godzilla," and I realized that this guy is for real!

OK David, you did not suggest it was a body blow. Feeling better?

Wesley's argument...is as ill-formed as most of his comments and easily refuted, given that I can name IDers, myself included, who take definite stands in support of an old earth.

— Heddle

~DS~ How would one test or falsify fine tuning? Heddle: Fine-tuning is evidence, not a theory. As evidence it can potentially be discredited.

RBH: Thanks for the link, that's the kind of info I was looking for and foolishly thought I could obtain on PT.

I believe the first word of the question - yes, there it is! - was how

— Russell

Why the constant insults to PT? You keep coming back.

if every five-card hand from a 52 card deck represented a universe, but only the hand with 3C,6S,7H, 8H, and 8D was a hospitable universe, and we are in that universe, then (a) if we are also the only universe I claim ID (b) if all universes exist somewhere, I concede that we only here because it's the only place where life could exist. Then, I claim ID is false.

Steve: Give up your tired arguments. The cosmological fine tuning, as one example, is independent of your Weslyan chain of illogic. i.e., it has nothing to do with probability distributions.

"Comment #24253
Posted by David Heddle on April 11, 2005 06:42 AM (e) (s)
~DS~

How would one test or falsify fine tuning?

Fine-tuning is evidence, not a theory. As evidence it can potentially be discredited."

The way you creationists dodge and jink around answering a direct question you'd think there were Jap Zeroes on yer tail. David Heddle, do you want us to think you're that obtuse? Just answer the frag'ging question. We'll even give it to you in your words.

How would you either credit or discredit the evidence of fine-tuning?

wwii vet

Mr. Red the Terror Cat:

Oh yes! Let's go down the falsification road again! I enjoy when I state that would falsify ID for me only to be told no that wouldn't falsify ID for you. That is so productive. OTOH, it would give Wesley a chance to mention Popper instead of Dembski.

Mr. Red the Terror Cat:

Don't worry, sir, Mr. Heddle seems to think that "falsifying ID" is equivalent to "slapping David Heddle so hard he wakes up from his pipe dream and remembers what science is supposed to be".

Mr. Heddle: nobody can falsify something which is so undefined that it can accommodate YEC and OEC, David Heddle and Dr. Dino, and many more mutually incompatible varieties. "Your opinions" and "ID" are two very different things, as has been pointed out to you again and again, and it is intellectually dishonest not to admit it. But of course you already know that.

David, once again I see your point. You have told us what would "falsify ID for you". Now, do you see mine? That if there is no coherent core to Intelligent Design "theory", no meaningful common ground upon which all the "personal variants" of ID are based, that there's just no "there" there? No "theory" worthy of the name?

We "evolutionists" have all kinds of favorite hypotheses about what happened when, the relative contributions of neutral drift vs. natural selection, the relative contributions of classic "Darwinian" accumulation of mutations vs. fusion of endosymbionts and lateral gene transfer, the proper role of cladistics, etc. etc. etc. But we're not all over the map on really basic things like age of the earth, whether chimps and humans share common ancestry, whether genetic complexity has increased or decreased since life arose.

Now, I appreciate the fact that you have never claimed ID should be presented as science. But I'm still waiting for your acknowledgment that current evolutionary theory is on much, much, much firmer ground. Sort of like the comparison between Crystal Power and the theory of relativity.

Wesley's argument is as ill-formed  as most of his comments and easily refuted, given that I can name IDers, myself included, who take definite stands in support of an old earth.

— David Heddle

Oh yes! Let's go down the falsification road again! I enjoy when I state that would falsify ID for me only to be told no that wouldn't falsify ID for you.

— David Heddle

And I can name IDers who take definite stands in support of a young Earth. Isn't it weird how young-Earthers and old-Earthers can both call themselves IDists? If I didn't know any better, that would lead me to believe that ID theory is content free!

But I'm still waiting for your acknowledgment that current evolutionary theory is on much, much, much firmer ground.

I don't know how to make such a comparison.

Perhaps you'd like to comapare the firmness of the ground upon which QM rests to that of evolution?

Behe is a biologist who supports the notion of Irreducible Complexity, while Steve Reuland is a biologist who does not. If I didn't know any better, that would lead me to believe that biology is content free!

— David Heddle

Your fine-tuning example is flawed. I have not claimed the existence of carbon based life as evidence of design, but the existence of galaxies, stars, and planets. That fine-tuning still exists in your scenario (unless you are saying it doesn't, in which case I agree that an imaginary universe without fine tuning has no fine tuning.)

oops. Premature "post" button push.

Meant to say: "...remarks way back when you wrote[let me know if you need...],

then, WRTO firmness of evolution vs. QM: "If you like, but you'll still have to justify the evolution - ID religious equivalence.

Sorry about that.

Being a reptile owner there are a few things I know.

1) The Loch Ness monster could not be a reptile. The waters of Loch Ness would be way too cold for an aquatic reptile. The marine Iguana must bask in the sun for hours in order to live in the much milder waters. How would "Nessie" regulate his/her body temperature in such cold waters?

2) My lizard cannot breath fire. I would say this ability has been lost due to evolution, but that wouldn't work in this case.

3) It would be very difficult to pull my lizard's arms off.

There are some true statements on this mat.

1) "Many scientists today believe that there are still dinosaurs alive today" - Most credible scientists call them birds.

2) "Reptiles never stop growing." - My Iguana Hank is nearly 13 years old and is still growing.

3) "Cheese or Pepperoni Pizza & Drink $3.99" - Again true!

The rest is on shaky ground.

Maybe you don't think that living things constitute evidence of "design", but most IDists do, and in my scenario, ID writ large is true even if fine-tuning arguments are false. Hence, the failure of fine-tuning arguments cannot falsify ID.

2) "Reptiles never stop growing."  - My Iguana Hank is nearly 13 years old and is still growing.

— Douglas

Being a reptile owner there are a few things I know. 1) The Loch Ness monster could not be a reptile. The waters of Loch Ness would be way too cold for an aquatic reptile. The marine Iguana must bask in the sun for hours in order to live in the much milder waters. How would "Nessie" regulate his/her body temperature in such cold waters?

— Douglas

True, if you conveniently and arbitrarily declare that those who see ID in the fine tuning of the cosmos are not "real" IDers, even if they call themselves IDers, and ID, henceforth and forevermore, is only what can be found on the DI website or in the writings of Dembski and/or  Behe.

— David Heddle

I don't recall the evolution as a religion comment, but I don't deny it either.

— Heddle

When people argue that a pre-Cambrian human fossil will falsify evolution or, in arguing against Behe's IRC, that "this coulda happened and then this mighta happened," well then I would say that evolution is more like ID than it is like a hard science theory, like QM.

I would suggest that it is in fact trivially easy to "discredit" cosmological fine-tuning.

Cosmological fine-tuning is the notion that the universe was designed to be conducive to the origin and/or evolution of life.

Irreducible complexity is the notion that the universe is structured in such a way that the origin and/or evolution of life is physically impossible.

Therefore, IC refutes ID.

QED

Russell,

The pre-Cambrian human fossil would falsify evolution. I don't deny that. Just like Al Sharpton rising on his own from the streets of New York and floating into space would falsify gravity.

Now if I proposed falsifying Newtonian gravity by:

(a) Following Rev. Al around to see if he ever levitates, or

(b) Measure the precession of Mercury's orbit

which do you suppose is the scientific proposal?

The pre-Cambrian human fossil is the equivalent of (a). Any serious test of evolution should look more like (b).

Hiero5ant,

Thank you, we can all go home now.

Good point, Hiero5ant. Is the universe so "tuned" for life that god was required, or is life so unlikely that god was required? ID can't say, because it can't say anything solid. It is written in jello.

Well, David, fortunately there is no shortage of scientific tests that evolution has been subjected to. The "precambrian modern fossils" (though note, I specifically referred to out-of-sequence fossils, which you found convenient to morph into a more particular instance) is simply a sort of prototypical, easy to convey example of how "descent with modification" could be falsified. And, having done the test over and over and over... now it appears about as likely as a levitating preacher. (Why do I get the feeling we've covered this before?)

So, that point having been dealt with, how about the rest of my last post?

"Comment #24283
Posted by David Heddle on April 11, 2005 12:00 PM (e) (s)

I don't know how to make such a comparison. Perhaps you'd like to comapare the firmness of the ground upon which QM rests to that of evolution?"

There he goes again dodging and jinking. Boy I'm surprised you ain't smashed up your spine yet what with all the twisting and squirming you do but boy oh boy do you ever make an old man's day.

wwii vet

It's worth hammering home.

If ID Creationism were a real scientific research program, the Bio-IDers and the Cosmo-IDers would be at each others' throats in the published literature, at conferences, etc. with such an intensity that it would make the Dawkins/Gould PE wars look like a tea party.

However, if ID were strictly an exercise in symbolic politics, whose sole proposition is "something, somewhere, somehow for some reason is wrong with some part of something in some science", then we would expect them to gloss over this contradiction without acknowledging it.

And what we actually see is...

Amazing. I'm reminded of 'Tom the Dancing Bug's deliciously airheaded 'Fun Facts' bits... Seeing only the mats themselves, I'd have absolutely assumed it was just a weird and only vaguely amusing parody of some kind... To think these actually exist? Someone actually prints these? Someone actually believes this?

Wow. Just wow.

Steve, I stand corrected. Just because one reptile species grows its entire life doesn't make it a species wide phenomenon. However, I know my Iguana hasn't grown a lot, but just a bit. I also have heard that they also have the ability to shrink in times when food is scarce. Again, I cannot say if this is a reptile wide thing, but apparently an Iguana thing.

Russell, the place mats are using 40 year old science. All reptiles are cold blooded. Thus, using the "science" of the placemat creator, dinosaurs would have to be cold blooded. This was the original theory. Of course, much of this early theory didn't fit with the gathering evidence. Thus, "Terrible Lizard" is an unfortunate name for a creature much more bird like than reptile like.

The Loch Ness monster has several problems. First it is too cold to be a place for a cold blooded reptile to survive. Second there isn't enough food to have a warm blooded animal feed and raise a monster family. Thus, if a strange creature prowls Loch Ness, it is only on a transient basis. 11,000 people or not.

@douglas:

"1) The Loch Ness monster could not be a reptile. The waters of Loch Ness would be way too cold for an aquatic reptile. The marine Iguana must bask in the sun for hours in order to live in the much milder waters. How would "Nessie" regulate his/her body temperature in such cold waters?"

at the risk of getting my ass kicked, let me play devil's advocate here.

It has been proposed that at least some dinos were warm blooded, hence they may have been able to regulate their body temperature to a greater or lesser degree.

There are many species of fish that can also thermoregulate to a greater or lesser degree; tuna and some species of sharks come to mind.

You can find Carcharodon carcharias, for example, in waters ranging from southern oregon all the way to hawaii. It is quite possible that their extended range is possible because of their ability to thermoregulate.

I guess what i am saying is that, bottom line, the argument against nessy's existence from a purely thermoregulatory standpoint might not be a good one.

However, if a paleontologist could intervene, please, and indicate for us whether or not there is any evidence of potential thermoregulation in aquatic "dinos" like pleisosaurs or mosasaurs, that might go a long way to either closing or opening the door on this idea.

I actually prefer arguments ecologists have made about the non-existence of something of nessy's proposed size in Loch Ness, because it is an extremely oligatrophic system. Therefore, there simply wouldn't be enough food to support a population of large carnivores.

damn, i watch too much discovery channel.

cheers

I guess what i am saying is that, bottom line, the argument against nessy's existence from a purely thermoregulatory standpoint might not be a good one.

of course, there are dozens of reasons why something nessy's proposed size couldn't exist in a loch, but the question still interests me:

were any of the aquatic dinos potentially thermoregulatory? I have seen the spongiform bone studies on several dinos that suggest thermoregulation, but haven't caught any similar for the aquatic versions.

It wouldn't suprise me tho, ichthyosaurs, for example, "wasn't no lizards" the number of adaptations for aquatic living were remarkable; they seem homologous to dolphins, more than your average reptile.

Oh sure, too cold and/or not enough food. assuming purely naturalistic processes. But there you go again, begging the question! How do we know that Nessie's metabolism doesn't feed on souls? Quite simply, we don't! Furthermore, there's no way to prove it doesn't! Are we sure all of the scottish souls are accounted for? I don't think so.

The pre-Cambrian human fossil would falsify evolution. I don't deny that. Just like Al Sharpton rising on his own from the streets of New York and floating into space would falsify gravity. Now if I proposed falsifying Newtonian gravity by: (a) Following Rev. Al around to see if he ever levitates, or (b) Measure the precession of Mercury's orbit which do you suppose is the scientific proposal? The pre-Cambrian human fossil is the equivalent of (a). Any serious test of evolution should look more like (b).

Cosmological fine-tuning is the notion that the universe was designed to be conducive to the origin and/or evolution of life.

The fine tuning that permitted the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.

and, in addition, the fine tuning necessary to create a habitable planet.

and, in addition, the fine tuning required to create not only a habitable environment but also one that permits science due to its amazing observational advantages

hmm. any evidence to indicate that feeding on souls can provide the percentage daily requirements for energy intake recommended by the FDA?

would it be worth bottling souls for sale in health outlets? I think you may have stumbled on the next big craze in the health food industry there, Russel!

Your fine-tuning example is flawed. I have not claimed the existence of carbon based life as evidence of design, but the existence of galaxies, stars, and planets. That fine-tuning still exists in your scenario (unless you are saying it doesn't, in which case I agree that an imaginary universe without fine tuning has no fine tuning.)

Amazing. I'm reminded of 'Tom the Dancing Bug's deliciously airheaded 'Fun Facts' bits . . .

The great cosmic entitity (wink wink) seems to have an inordinate fondness for beatles, for instance.

Re "The Loch Ness monster could not be a reptile. The waters of Loch Ness would be way too cold for an aquatic reptile."

This is probably a minor point, but dinosaurs (or perhaps just some of them, and their relatives plesiosaurs) may have been warm blooded.

Re "statement that out-of-sequence fossils wouldn't falsify evolution"

Wouldn't that depend on how far out of sequence (i.e., earlier than the presumed origin of the type), and how many of them were found?

(I figure that later than presumed extinction wouldn't contradict theory, since a type might have lived longer than scientists thought.)

Re "It is written in jello."

Well, we all know there's room for that. :)

Henry

In fact, cosmological ID is compatible with either evolution or biological ID

@henry:

you should try backtracking a bit. the thermoregulation point was already covered.

Re "and Nessie couldn't have had cellular phone service until recently."
ROFL

Re "John and George might not see it that way. Oh! perhaps you meant "beetles"."
Rats; somebody beat me to it. :)

Henry

Wouldn't that depend on how far out of sequence (i.e., earlier than the presumed origin of the type), and how many of them were found?

Re "you should try backtracking a bit."

I'd already written that part before I read the later notes that covered it, and didn't bother to undo it.

Henry

On the question of fire-breathing T. rex, our friends have got the wrong end of the story. I can reveal that Tyrannosaurs once had normal length arms and that young T's used to amuse themselves, as one does, by lighting farts. However this activity became increasingly hazardous as the creatures grew larger and gassier. The number of noxious explosions soared and there were many humiliating deaths. It became insufferable, and there were complaints. Eventually a new version - T. rex - was designed with arms too short to allow this (or any other) form of abuse.

When planned obsolescence saw off most of the dinosaurs, a few T. rex's continued along this micro-evolutionary trajectory, lost their arms altogether and became wyvernes. These are a sub-species of T. rex, not a different kind of animal. There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for these creatures in Europe, and reports of sightings up until a few hundred years ago.

Speaking of probabilities -- I have a question for David Heddle and the Priveleged Planet Peddlers.

I read Paul Davies' essay in the New York Times yesterday and was disappointed to see that he did not cite me (or anyone else) for the theory that life is arising on earth "all the time" (and has been) but is extremely difficult to detect, given the size of the earth, the relatively small number of favorable locations, the even smaller number of biologists interested in doing the field work, and the conceptual problems with identifying the novel life forms before they "go instinct". Hence the absence of any "discoveries" to date.

My question for the DH and the PPPs: assuming one life form has already originated and evolved on the planet (e.g., a ribonucleotide-based life form), what are the odds of approximately equal (= 10,000:1 ratio or less) individuals of a second life form evolving from a separate/unique originating event and surviving long enough for a species of the first life form to recognize that the second life form evolved from a unique speciation event?

Thanks.

rofl!

fart lighting t-rex's! man, someone should make that into a comic. the images evoked are even more amusing that the text!

better yet! make it into a placemat!

Superheddle:

"If no life have ever appeared on earth, from whatever source, then (in a metaphysical sense) cosmological ID would still claim that the universe was designed."

And science (in a metaphysical sense) would still say that cosmological ID is religion in a junk science jumpsuit.

what are the odds of approximately equal (= 10,000:1 ratio or less) individuals of a second life form evolving from a separate/unique originating event and surviving long enough for a species of the first life form to recognize that the second life form evolved from a unique speciation event?

Cosmological IDers support an old earth and the big bang model, and the normal accepted theories of stellar evolution and nuclear chemistry. It must be you have read nothing on cosmological ID, which would explain your ignorance.

That 20% of proteins between ape and man are identical is remarkable. In contrast between a mouse and a man, with about 75% DNA similarity, almost none of the proteins are identical. The average number of amino acid differences for non-identity is also greater.

A few proteins however are identical. Examples are histones, tubulin, actins. These proteins do not vary much even when you compare humans and jellyfish. The DNA, on the other hand, coding for these similar genes, is about as divergent as it can be and still encode the same protein. The synonymous nucleotide differences for histone H4 between distant species is high even though the proteins are identical.

This certainly goes along with the concept that selection is on protein function and not on DNA sequence. The DNA acts like a clock, the longer the time since a common ancestor, the larger the accumulation of differences. All the while, the proteins may change very little if alterations impact function.

Re "(I'm sure someone must have pointed out that this is the likely basis for the otherwise arbitrary-seeming chirality monopolies)."

Aren't there laws against monopolies nowadays? Somebody should sue!

Re "a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, who rails against the Big Bang?"

Well, as it's based on partial observation of only one example of a space-time continuum*, I suppose it would have less certainty than a theory of evolution based on data from millions of species. Why rail against the Big Bang though; that theory doesn't imply biological evolution, it's merely consistant with it. But so is steady state.

(*continuum - a set of points continuous over a specified set of dimensions.)

Henry

"O", you should know that when David Heddle says Cosmological ID, you can not use against him anything any other ID advocate has ever said. He picks and chooses what he believes in, makes sure it's not falsifiable, calls things unlikely while asserting no need for any probability estimates, etc etc etc. This is easy for him to do, because there is no theory of ID, therefore nothing he must accomodate. There's nothing there.

I can't remember if it was at PT or somewhere else I noted the striking resemblance between Tom The Dancing Bug's Charley the Australopithecine and Ken Ham.

"Fine-tuning is evidence, not a theory."

Something is evidence only if it helps distinguish between hypotheses. Nothing about cosmological measurements is incompatible with or contrary to the natural origin of the universe. Therefore, these measurements are not evidence for or against a designer.

PS--the term "fine-tuning" begs the question.

"O", you should know that when David Heddle says Cosmological ID, you can not use against him anything any other ID advocate has ever said. He picks and chooses what he believes in, makes sure it's not falsifiable, calls things unlikely while asserting no need for any probability estimates, etc etc etc. This is easy for him to do, because there is no theory of ID, therefore nothing he must accomodate. There's nothing there.

"O", you should know that when David Heddle says Cosmological ID, you can not use against him anything any other ID advocate has ever said. He picks and chooses what he believes in, makes sure it's not falsifiable, calls things unlikely while asserting no need for any probability estimates, etc etc etc.

— steve

(just find any old alternate universe)

I'm going to be sorry I asked this question, but...
Isn't any actual, physical, evidence for "another universe", by definition, out of reach? It seems that the best, the only, "evidence" for other universes can only be theoretical - i.e. that they are required by some theory that is overwhelmingly proved by evidence that is available to us - i.e. in "our" universe. And this is going to more practicable than finding out-of-sequence fossils???

Yes, please don't ask that question. Heddle assures us that people are studying it right now, even as we speak, and that all they have to do is find one of these universes (although I don't know how) and the whole ID house of cards comes crashing down.

GCT,

Are you suggesting that all the string theorists, and alternative cosmologists-- are NOT engaging in science?

Not at all, David. I'm saying that I don't know what they are doing or how they are doing it (beyond your say so, which I always find highly suspect,) but I am concerned that we all might be subjected to another one of your inane ramblings about falsifiability.

Uh, David, couldn't an Intelligent Designer design alternative, non-fine-tuned, Universes? Of course, this multitool designer wouldn't have to be G*d, because we all know that "ID is not a theological theory."

The point that we are trying to hammer into your besotted persona is that ID isn't science. There is no way whatsoever to observe a Universe that couldn't have been designed. You and many on this forum may believe that the fine-tuning of the Universe is a consequence of design, but it's a belief system, not a scientific theory. You are welcome to that belief system which is shared by, among others, the physicists John Polkingthorne and Freeman Dyson, although neither is a friend of creationism.

OK, you say, does my belief system deserve equal time with methodological naturalism? In a word, no. It has nothing to bring to the table, precisely because we can't test it. Methodological naturalism works. If it didn't we would discard it.

I will grant that the Design argument deserves equal time with some of the more militant atheistic philosophical naturalism of Weinberg, Dawkins, etc., but if these are given pride of place in Biology textbooks, I sure don't know about it. I really doubt they are being used widely as assigned reading, given that a large fraction of public school teachers are frightened of broaching evolution at all.

Uh, David, couldn't an Intelligent Designer design alternative, non-fine-tuned, Universes? Of course, this multitool designer wouldn't have to be G*d, because we all know that "ID is not a theological theory." The point that we are trying to hammer into your besotted persona is that ID isn't science.

David Heddle says ID is not science, but he routinely talks about falsifiability (as if that matters for a philosophical idea) and talks about the "scientific evidence for design". He also doesn't advocate teaching ID in schools, but he did as a professor and has advocated setting aside 2 weeks to discuss the criticisms of evolution (just a front for teaching ID.) Then, he wonders why we don't believe him.

GCT,

I did state that a possible compromise is to present what biological ID states are the problems of evolution and then show how evolution addresses them. I don't think that is a bad approach, and I stated that in the context of swaying those on the fence. That is hardly the same as advocating teaching ID as part of the science curriculum. By what should I expect you to be anything but disingenuous?

Who says a philosophy cannot be falsified? Why, if any fool still believes that communism is a viable philosophy and a good idea for mankind, then a quick reading of the Black Book of Communism should provide enough evidence to falsify that belief.

Likewise, if I believe that God's handiwork is evidenced by fine tuning (clearly not science) and that fine-tuning is discredited, then the premise is falsified.

Hypothetical Phys. Rev. abstract: Fine tuning explained! Parallel Universes detected!
DH: Because of that, I renounce ID. I was wrong, utterly wrong. Cosmological ID is garbage. It has been falsified.
PT: No it hasn't! I demand that you defend the position which you used to hold and are now scurrilously denying based on the result of scientific experimentation! You still believe it, I know it!

David Heddle says ID is not science, but he routinely talks about falsifiability (as if that matters for a philosophical idea) and talks about the "scientific evidence for design".

Who says a philosophy cannot be falsified? Why, if any fool still believes that communism is a viable philosophy and a good idea for mankind, then a quick reading of the Black Book of Communism should provide enough evidence to falsify that belief.

— Heddle

Who says a philosophy cannot be falsified? Why, if any fool still believes that communism is a viable philosophy and a good idea for mankind, then a quick reading of the Black Book of Communism should provide enough evidence to falsify that belief

Well said, Bob King

What it boils down to is that, putting the car before the horses, you believe in God not because of fine-tuning; rather, you believe that fine-tuning is a sign of ID because you believe in God. If fine-tuning were somehow discredited you'd still believe in God and so would look for other examples of "God's hand." It's the ultimate circular argument.

I've never understood why people who believe in God based on faith are so anxious to look for proof that God exists. It may be a handy political or conversion tool but if people believe in God because you convince them of fine-tuning (or some other aspect of ID) then their conversion is pointless since it is no longer a matter of faith.

You don't seem to understand what falsifiable means. It means that something can actually be shown to be false,

Communist China is doing rather well? The per captia income of the US in 2004 was $37610. For China it was $1100. You might want to google "human rights abuses in China". After reading some of that, if you can still claim "Communist China is doing rather well" then you must have ice water for blood.

— Heddle

I would still believe in God. Falsifying ID is not falsifying God---it is falsifying the hypothesis that he left us evidence for his design.

— Heddle

I would still believe in God. Falsifying ID is not falsifying God---it is falsifying the hypothesis that he left us evidence for his design.

— Heddle

at least according to one person on here, I think it was Russell, common descent isn't falsifiable.

However, what I could no longer claim was that our standard theories of cosmology provide evidence for design. That, and it is that which I call cosmological ID, would be dead.

But why should one deny or ignore the evidence (fine tuning) just because it isn't "faith?"in

We had a long discussion where (correct me if I am wrong) he agreed than if evidence started to mount against common descent, that biologists would have different thresholds. Some would say it (common descent) was shot down before others.

— David Heddle

I did state that a possible compromise is to present what biological ID states are the problems of evolution and then show how evolution addresses them. I don't think that is a bad approach, and I stated that in the context of swaying those on the fence. That is hardly the same as advocating teaching ID as part of the science curriculum. By what should I expect you to be anything but disingenuous?

— David Heddle

"I've never understood why people who believe in God based on faith are so anxious to look for proof that God exists. It may be a handy political or conversion tool but if people believe in God because you convince them of fine-tuning (or some other aspect of ID) then their conversion is pointless since it is no longer a matter of faith"

exactly the same conclusion I came to. especially among "scientists" who have a stong religious background, this desperation to find god in the works can be so profound as to cause a form of psychological dissonance that can actually leak to a true pyschic break. As evidence, I give our own John Davison. You can easily trace his history and at least see what the results of such a schism have on publication quality.

The more interesting question in my mind is, how is it that some can resolve this apparent dichotomy in their minds (most scientists who have faith - check out the most recent thread on PT) while others cannot? Is it a simple genetic difference that leads to different processing methods, or is it simply environmental (too much indoctrination and brain washing)?

There is evidence of a gene that may relate to religious beliefs (PvM posted a link to the study last month).

So what is the opinion here? Is dissonance caused by the apparent dichotomy between "faith" and science more related to genetics, or environment?

cheers

Those who claim per capita income is meaningless, in my experience, are frauds who live in the wealthy west.

Bob King,

Once again you miss the point, either from fear or perhaps stupidity. I hope it's the former. The fear being that if cosmological ID is falsifiable, then you've lost some precious plank in your argument (true enough.)

But once again, an inconvenient set of hard facts stands in the way. Namely that ongoing scientific research has the potential to falsify ID. That, no matter how you spin it, will not go away.

Today I believe in ID. Tomorrow, depending the outcome of certain investigations, I may not.

All that's left to you is to whine like a child and claim "that's not falsification!"

David Heddle, please enlighten us on what scientific studies were done that falsified Communism. What were the conditions? What were the assumptions? What were the controls? What exactly were the results. Is it reproducible? Was it submitted to peer review and accepted to publication? I must have missed the article somewhere.

Either way, you can stamp your feet all you like and bury your head in the sand, even though has been shown to you numerous times that ID is not falsifiable and that finding an alternate universe would do nothing to the ID movement. Just because you say it is falsifiable, does not make it so. To borrow a page from the Rev. Dr.'s book, what makes your say so any more authoritative than anyone else's say so?

"Those who claim per capita income is meaningless, in my experience, are frauds who live in the wealthy west"

uh, hate to tell you, but per capita income IS meaningless, especially in the wealthy west.

But I'm still puzzled. Why do we even care about the "falsifiability" of ID if no one here considers it science? And, if ID is falsifiable, what are the other requirements it lacks to be science? And, referring to my previous question , do we all agree that evolution is science?

GCT It has never been shown that cosmological ID is not falsifiable, only petulantly asserted.

As for communism, you can easily find the promises and predictions made by its proponents, and then compare those promises and predictions to reality.

Of course, if you'd like to examine some controlled experiments on communism, at least as controlled as can be made, examine:

East Germany vs. West Germany
North Korea vs. South Korea
China vs. Taiwan

And if you have any glorious fantasies about life in Communist China, and how peachy it is, and how per capita income doesn't matter, and how glorious its healthcare system is, I'll get my wife, who is Chinese, to set you straight.

Congratulations Heddle, you get in the last word. Since the conversation has moved far afield of the original topic, I'm going to close this thread. If you guys want to continue, take it to email.