Double-Take

[cue standing ovation]

Bravo!

Well done. Odd enough that the penny should have dropped, delivered with a straight enough face that it didn't.

Well, that's nice...but do we get an answer on the open question of Steve Meyer's alleged comment? Was it real, or the second April Fool's prank?

In any case, that Egnor almost immediately paraphrased your post on Meyer makes it likely that Meyer did indeed utter what can only be described as "Mass Stupidity"! Where do these people get their "information", anyway?

And, I guess you all get the clap for an interesting April Fools performance piece (although I wasn't fooled for a second).

Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy).

If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

[BOW]

We thought most of you guys would see right through it ...

It was a good one, guys, but please don't do it again. I'm only reading PT very lightly these days, I don't have the time I had months ago. A casual reader, who only drops by once in a great while, could easily be misled for a long time.

This whole Egnor business, even before the joke, has just been more confusing than enlightening. I'm starting to ignore all Egnor posts because they're mostly retreads of old, bad arguments that were debunked when I first got interested in this debate. The only big mystery is how could someone in his position believe such obviously crazy things.

Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

OK, I'll bite
What critical observation skills would have told me that neither all of Egnor's posts were a joke, nor that the "April fools post" was not an Egnor joke (other than noticing the URL).
Well, the claim of some that they felt embarrassed to fall for it and the lack of critical analysis perhaps, but in the post itself?

Amazing how much, with just an added eyepatch, the icon looks like Maddox.

many of our readers need to work on their critical observation skills

Re "Where do these people get their "information", anyway?"

From non-materialistic sources, obviously. ;)

Henry

What critical observation skills would have told me that neither all of Egnor's posts were a joke, nor that the "April fools post" was not an Egnor joke (other than noticing the URL).

What did it for me was the fact that I could not believe that the guys at the DI would be capable of pulling off such humor and subtle self-parody. I almost fell for it, but something in me knew that it had to be you guys! Sad but true!

If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

Well, then, it also can't be false then, right? Right? (I mean, really...that and the peanut butter...can a woman get a hernia from laughing?)

I'm sorry, normdoering, but I already can't wait until next year!

"Seriously, how can you beat these guys?"

With a stick?

imagine having a guy who denies the obvious homology of our neural system to that of other vertebrates in charge of slicing off chunks of it in an operating room! Or someone who doesn't believe bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics

If there's anything worse than a liar, it's a whiny liar like realpc, whose latest poof of brown fog is:

...When you know very well he believes in evolution, and that his skepticism only applies to the chance-and-selection extreme neo-Darwinist position.

Be honest, Skippy -- did you even read ANY of the material? If you actually read Egnor's rubbish before pretending to be his gallant -- and unasked-for -- defender, you would know that that is not what Egnor was going on about. In fact, you're not even close: Egnor was not questioning any particular tenet of "Neo-Darwinism;" he was alleging that doctors such as himself did not use evolution at all. And yes, he used the word "evolution," not "Neo-Darwinism" (not that you've ever told us the exact difference).

OK, I'll bite What critical observation skills would have told me that neither all of Egnor's posts were a joke, nor that the "April fools post" was not an Egnor joke (other than noticing the URL). Well, the claim of some that they felt embarrassed to fall for it and the lack of critical analysis perhaps, but in the post itself?

Disclaimer at the bottom of the fake site: The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution Views & News presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers misinformation about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution. Click here to read more.

The fake post could easily have been real: it wouldn't be the first time that crowd have said, in effect, "just kidding" after being conclusively proven wrong. Ann Coulter's pathetically insecure fans do it all the time.

Egnor: Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

From Wikipedia In Platonic realism, universals do not exist in the way that ordinary physical objects exist, but were originally thought to have a sort of ghostly or heavenly mode of existence. However, more modern versions of the theory do not apply such potentially misleading descriptions to universals. Instead, such versions maintain that it is meaningless (or a category mistake) to apply the categories of space and time to universals. Regardless of their description, Platonic realism holds that universals do exist in a broad, abstract sense, although not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with universals, but in order to conceive of universals, one must be able to conceive of these abstract forms. Most modern Platonists avoid the possible ambiguity by never claiming that universals exist, but "merely" that they are.

Egnor was not questioning any particular tenet of "Neo-Darwinism;" he was alleging that doctors such as himself did not use evolution at all. And yes, he used the word "evolution," not "Neo-Darwinism"

But it's ridiculous to pretend you don't know what he meant.

Coming from someone who misrepresents the substance of Egnor's writings, and our criticisms thereof, as badly and blatantly as you have, that statement is a stunning bit of hypocricy. You're talking out of more ends of your ass than most asses are known to have. And you needn't make such an effort, since the "substance" -- and the smell -- of what's coming out are the same.

But no sensible non-extremist is going to fall for your silly accusations.

Oh dear, this style sounds familiar even if the moniker isn't. April Fools Day is over, love! Move on, trolly! Shouldn't you be preparing for the War on Christmas?

But it's ridiculous to pretend you don't know what he meant.

.net versus .org was the giveaway, beyond the fact that it seemed a bit far fetched.

He obviously means extreme dogmatic neo-Darwinism when he, unfortunately, uses the word "evolution."

"Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true."

This is not entirely a nonsense argument. Truth, beauty, virtue, morality are value judgments. As such it is difficult to see any of them as absolutes. From a secular viewpoint (I consider myself a pretty secular Xn Humanist)we really end up with at best (and its a 'pretty good' at best) argument that truth is what coheres in human experience. From that point of view you can construct an ethic, and aesthetics, and a true view of the world.

Those using the quoted argument against secularists are not willing to acknowledge the provisional nature of their own truth.

From a scientific point of view with causation, time (read Einstein and Godel, A World without Time), consciousness (innumerable top rate scientists), the universe as we know it (what is it, 4-6% of the world is matter, the rest dark matter and even more dark energy, the world is profoundly unknown, and perhaps unknowable.

Humbleness before the mystery is much in order.

The PT prank was outstanding!!! We desperately wanted to believe that a real clinician had a basic understanding of evolution, which is needed to truly understand biology. When I read the post, I sighed "sanity". I really wanted to believe it was true.
The prank also pointed out the illogic and inconsistency of the 'Big Tent' cause that is ID. How can Michael Behe believe in common descent and still be accepted by the rest of the ID crowd. The SUCKERED post still looks like the real thing even after the confession.

Realpc dissembled thusly: Neo-Darwinism is the currently popular --- but certainly not the only --- brand of evolution theory.

... no sensible non-extremist is going to fall for your silly accusations.

No one is going to believe that Egnor doesn't understand the basics of biology. Only an extreme materialist/atheist whose mind is utterly closed to criticisms of neo-Darwinism could believe there are successful brain surgeons who deny the most obvious truths of biology.

He obviously understands biology. He obviously means extreme dogmatic neo-Darwinism when he, unfortunately, uses the word "evolution."

I have no problem with evolution, understood as change in living things over time. I have no problem with the view that some of the changes were caused by random events.

Those who claim that randomness can generate biological complexity seem to lack an understanding of the vastness of what statisticians call "combinatorial space."

Well, that's nice...but do we get an answer on the open question of Steve Meyer's alleged comment? Was it real, or the second April Fool's prank?

So realpc, back again? Maybe this time you will answer my questions. Have you read the Genetics paper I recommended yet? Can you refute it's findings? Do you have any evidence for "nonrandom" mutations yet? Do you have any plausible mechanism for "nonrandom" mutations yet. Perhsps you can explain your "Law of Complexity" to us and provide some evidence for that. (Remember to explain why bacteria don't seem to know about it). You and Egnor can choose not to believe anything you want but you won't convince anyone without evidence. Exactly what is it you think than "random" mutations cannot produce given enough time?

Comment #167980 Posted by Robin Luethe on April 2, 2007 5:38 PM Those using the quoted argument against secularists are not willing to acknowledge the provisional nature of their own truth.

As far as DI everyday is April fools days.

OK, I'll bite What critical observation skills would have told me that neither all of Egnor's posts were a joke,

"Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true." Dude, that's like, so deep.---Seriously, how can you beat these guys?

Well, maybe. But the obvious response to "no one could be that stupid"

ID is already a parody of science, so how can you satirize it? Who can blame anyone for taking the April Fool's prank as a completely genuine statement by the Disco Institute types?

"Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true." This is not entirely a nonsense argument.

Posted by Popper's Ghost on April 3, 2007 2:05 AM (e) Well, maybe. But the obvious response to "no one could be that stupid"

I like this little gem:
What if intelligent design were shown to be right, by scientific evidence? Most atheists would feel their faith in materialism greatly endangered, if not untenable. I suspect that is the cause for all their vitriol. Is Darwinism true? I'll believe it if I see it. Is intelligent design true? Atheists won't see it, because they won't believe it.

- First, if ID were shown to be right then I want to know something about the designer.
- Materialists don't have "faith" (belief in things 'unseen') so the word "faith" is a misapplication.
- My vitriol (and others I trust) comes from the total lack of explanation for the material world coming out of the ID camp. Where are the predictions? Where is the explanation for the design of whatever the choice mechanism is? Where is there anything that isn't a mere "God did it" explanation? It's just so empty.
- Whether ID is true or not, we know that the Darwinian explanation is true (insofar as it hasn't been reasonably falsified) to a large extent. If something can hop onto that, then great. Have at it. It's fine if that is the case. But they've put the cart about a thousand miles in front of the horse here.

What if intelligent design were shown to be right, by scientific evidence? Most atheists would feel their faith in materialism greatly endangered, if not untenable. I suspect that is the cause for all their vitriol. Is Darwinism true? I'll believe it if I see it. Is intelligent design true? Atheists won't see it, because they won't believe it.

As strongly non-religious individual and a scientist let me say that I would consider ID if I was showed sufficient evidence to support it.

Please note that I did not say "I would believe ID if you showed it was true."

Wait, just a few typos in that. I really have to be more careful next time.

What if evolution were shown to be right, by scientific evidence? Most fundamentalists would feel their faith greatly endangered, if not untenable. I suspect that is the cause for all their vitriol. Is intelligent design true? I don't believe it because there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Is evolution true? Fundamentalists won't see it, because they won't believe it, despite all the evidence avaliable.

There, all fixed now.

Why do you have so much trouble understanding his point?

Why do YOU have so much trouble admitting that that was NOT his point, when both his own writings and several respondents here have pointed this out to you?

If you lack the guts to answer any of the other questions put to you here, than try this one: if you're simply unwilling to talk to us, why should we talk to you?

Egnor is not promoting religion; he is promoting common sense and mathematical reasoning.

First, he's a neurosurgeon, not a mathematician, and he never even mentioned any of these things. Once again, you blatantly misrepresent what he said. Second, Is he actually using mathematical reasoning to prove anything? Or is he, like too many other creationist hucksters before him, pretending he has some sort of conclusive proof that he repeatedly hints at but never actually uses or demonstrates?

Thanks Raging Bee, and you are correct. Egnor never mentioned anything about the "Law of Complexity" or any of the other nonsense that realpc has been pushing. He simply wanted us to know that he doesn't think that evolution is important for modern medicine. Of course, if realpc is right and Egnor really does believe in "random" mutations, natural selection and descent with modification, it becomes even more difficult to take his claim seriously since all of these are obviously very impoortant to medicine.

Interesting clue in this (rhetorical?) question noted above:

"What if intelligent design were shown to be right, by scientific evidence?"

Note the use of the subjunctive form of the verb "be."

"the subjunctive mood, which is used chiefly to express the speaker's attitude about the likelihood or factuality of a given situation....According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact...."
(from http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html)

Looks like the writer is admitting that it is highly unlikely that ID will ever be shown to be right -- by scientific evidence or any other means.

"He simply wanted us to know that he doesn't think that evolution is important for modern medicine. "

Ok, I'll repeat it again. Egnor used the word "evolution" to mean evolution caused ONLY by chance and selection. He knows that evolution theory, in general, is central to our understanding of biology, anatomy and physiology. If he didn't understand that, he would not be doing brain surgery.

So you're all being really silly, pretending to think Egnor doesn't know the basics of modern medicine. Because he was careless with his use of the word "evolution." No one is perfect, not even the PT gang. So please get past Egnor's little mistake. Read where he states very plainly that he believes in evolution, but does not think chance and selection alone can explain it.

But even if materialism isn't true, immaterialism isn't much more than vapor, imaginary . . .

Look, before you guys pull a hoax like this again, please do some study on H. L. Mencken and his story about Millard Fillmore putting the first running-water bathtub in the White House. Too close to true -- serious historians can't separate truth from fiction on the case anymore.

You've confused an entire generation of creationist huxsters.

Ok, I'll repeat it again. Egnor used the word "evolution" to mean evolution caused ONLY by chance and selection. He knows that evolution theory, in general, is central to our understanding of biology, anatomy and physiology. If he didn't understand that, he would not be doing brain surgery.

Thanks for answering my questions realpc. I already basically said that, for the sake of argument, I would accept your interpretation of Egnor's comments, (all evidence to the contrary). That still doesn't explain why he would think evoultionary biology was not important to medicine. It also doesn't address the real issue here. If evolution is not caused ONLY by chance and selection, do tell, what else is involved? Any evidence for it except "I don't want to buy evolution"? I have asked three times now. This is your last chance to show everyone your evidence. Don't be shy. We all know you wouldn't just make up stuff when it is this important to medicine. You could get the Nobel Prize for this.

If evolution is not caused ONLY by chance and selection, do tell, what else is involved?

"onomatopoeia"
look it up.

I want to add that we don't have to choose between only two alternatives. Here at PT if someone criticizes neo-Darwinism they must be a Christian Creationist. But there is no logical reason why we should be forced to choose between two extremely unlikely theories.

Egnor used the word "evolution" to mean evolution caused ONLY by chance and selection.

Where did Egnor make that qualification? Did Egnor tell you that himself, when he asked you to help him explain himself? And since you're strongly implied earlier that Egnor was careless in his choice of words, why should we believe either him or you?

He knows that evolution theory, in general, is central to our understanding of biology, anatomy and physiology.

If he knows that, and if he told you that (he certainly didn't tell us), then he's admitted he's a fucking liar: his essays make exactly the opposite assertion. Not only that, but he further added that doctors are taught to "see design" in living things everywhere.

I want to add that we don't have to choose between only two alternatives. Here at PT if someone criticizes neo-Darwinism they must be a Christian Creationist.

We've also mentined Scientologists, Raelians and Danikenites. Not to mention the most blatantly evil of the lot, Muslim creationists.

But there is no logical reason why we should be forced to choose between two extremely unlikely theories.

Once again, you've misrepresented the choices: it's not between two theories, it's between one theory with lots of supporting evidence, and lots of thinly disguised religious beliefs and woo-woo pseudoscience with absolutely no supporting evidence.

So what's your "third" alternative hypothesis?

it's between one theory with lots of supporting evidence, and lots of thinly disguised religious beliefs and woo-woo pseudoscience with absolutely no supporting evidence.

So what's your "third" alternative hypothesis?

realpc: You can't even talk about Dr. Egnor's words without misrepresenting them; you refuse to address the numerous misrepresentations of yours that have been pointed out to you here; and now you expect us to think you understand 150-odd years of scientific advancement well enough to criticize it? You're a joke, and the joke is getting old.

...some kind of universal law of complexity.

...or something. You can't even state exactly what this "law" dictates, therefore you have nothing to offer but woo-woo metaphysics. And having been a Pagan for 26 years, and open to all sorts of "alternative" ideas for even longer, I can honestly say that, even by the standards of woo-woo metaphysics, your "some kind of universal law of complexity," or something, just doesn't cut it.

Go back to bed, Skippy; you're out of your league here.

"Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true."

This is exactly the sort of thing my high-school buddies used to say at parties when stoned out of their minds on pot, though everybody usually responded with a "wow, man" rather than an "amen" afterwards.

We're not sure whether this is a success or a failure on our part.

But right now, no one can prove they have the answer. Neo-Darwinism is the currently accepted theory and is loved by materialists. But we have no reason to think chance and selection alone can actually explain the origin of life and of new species. The standard argument is that since materialism must be true, the theory that supports materialism must be true. And that anything is possible, given enough time. But that is NOT scientific reasoning. It is merely a statement of what materialists would like to believe.

I just explained it, again. Creative evolution, some kind of universal law of complexity. But I do not claim that this has been proven. No theory of evolution has yet been proven. Neo-Darwinism was accepted without evidence, because it supports materialist philosophy, and biologists did not look further.

Raging Bee,
I really appreciate you taking this one (and several others) for the team.
Thanks.

Realpc,

Once again I asked you for evidence. Once again you responded with "I think" and I believe". Not one shread of evidence was offered. Instead you criticized us for believing something just because of our preconcieved notions. How hypocritical of you. There is no "Law of Complexity" and there is no "Theory of Creative Evolution". It is you who have ignored all the evidence. Once again, for your benefit, "random" mutation and natural selection is the null hypothesis until anyone has any evidence to the contrary. You apparently do not. As a wise man once said: "Reality doesn't care what you think". Neither do I.

Peter: no problem, I do it for love of the game (and hatred of the liars)...

"random" mutation and natural selection is the null hypothesis

So now, realpc, when your ignorance is exposed for all to see, you cover for it by insisting that "no one really knows" anything about anything? Sorry, boy, but someone as ignorant as you is not in any position to talk about what others may or may not know.

If chance plus selection is the null hypothesis for the origin of species, it should be the null hypothesis for many other things we don't understand. But it isn't.

The standard argument is that since materialism must be true, the theory that supports materialism must be true.

realpc said:

"We don't know what causes embryos to develop, for example. So should we assume, as the null hypothesis, that development is caused by a series of accidents, plus some kind of selection mechanism?"

PZ will sure be surprised by this one. After centuries of careful study we still have no idea at all how embryos develop. Man, I guess all the molecular developmental biology I teach is somehow mistaken. So I guess evolutionary development is also not a real field either. Talk about ignoring evidence!

Of course this is really just a straw man argument, since no one ever claimed that "random" mutation and natural selection were responsible for the development of an individual embryo. The developmental pathway however is demonstrably the result of such processes.

By the way, the default hypothesis for all kinds of things, including plagues, lightning, hurricanes and development used to be God or magic. That really didn't work so well, so now yes, natural explanantions are the starting point for most things we don't yet understand. If you don't like it you are always free to use God or magic as your null hypothesis. No one can stop you from doing that. Let me know how that works out for you.

David Stanton,

You may be able to describe in detail how an embryo develops, but you cannot explain it in terms of the known laws of physics. There is nothing to orchestrate the process. The DNA in individual cells can't possibly know the whole picture, so how can it coordinate all the complex spatial relationships?

You teach that the known laws of physics and DNA are adequate to explain the process. How do you know? Well, because that is the only materialist explanation, and we "know" that materialism is true.

Realpc said:

"You teach that the known laws of physics and DNA are adequate to explain the process. How do you know? Well, because that is the only materialist explanation, and we "know" that materialism is true."

I teach nothing of the sort, nor did I claim to. I simply present the experimental evidence we have for our current understanding of the processes that we have so far discovered. If anyone thinks the explanations are not sufficient they are perfectly free to demonstrate any other mechanisms that may exist.

You don't know how an embryo develops. Therefore you reject that natural causes are sufficient. I am perfectly willing to accept any evidence that you have of any other causes but you have provided none. You have not read any of the scientific literature regarding development, yet you claim that DNA could not possibly "orchestrate the process." I will leave it to the impartial observer to decide which one of ous is committed to a preconceived philosophical position.

Comment #167980
Posted by Robin Luethe on April 2, 2007 5:38 PM

Those using the quoted argument against secularists are not willing to acknowledge the provisional nature of their own truth.

Mr. Luethe, Could you expand on that idea please? I am interested in understanding it better.Sincerely,Paul

Taking a pretty skeptical view on the naive view of reality (i.e. time, consciousness, causation, cosmology) I assume we work with models that seems to work. Hence my admiration for Newton, Darwin (high point of London trip was seeing their burial places in Westminster Abbey), and all the rest of the Pantheon - Einstein et al. Through them we have vastly increased our scope of understanding a glimpse of what reality and truth are.

From a anthropological view every tribe and culture have their models for understanding the world as they operate in it. The Amish, for example, have their model of understanding, including their folkways. I find their understanding limited compared to the scientific one. But as a value judgment I do not believe I can say they are worse (or better) than my understandings. The Amish don't go around trashing other peoples' understandings, so it is easier to be tolerant of them than of some other religious groups.

Any group which chooses to come up with an apology of their understanding of the world must begin to apply critical tools to that understanding. Once that is done in any serious and intellectually respectable way the provisional nature of their understanding will be obvious.

This could be a start, offer some comments and I would be interested in continuing the conversation.

"You don't know how an embryo develops. Therefore you reject that natural causes are sufficient."

No, I think the causes are natural. But I do not think they are natural in the sense of being already understood by science. An organism's development cannot be explained in terms of the known laws of physics.

realpc,

I don't understand who this "we" is you keep referring to.

Clearly, you are not part of the "we" who understand science.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting us by referring to "we" when you really mean "you." When you refer to "we" you are referring to the men and women who have established the frontiers of science, and knowledge and what "we" know about the Universe as a species.

You're not part of our "we," realpc. You are an outsider. So, please stop referring to "we" when discussing your childish, barbaric, primitive, mythic notions.

We understand science; you do not.

Thank you for participating. You may go home now.

An organism's development cannot be explained in terms of the known laws of physics.

— realpc

Realpc,

"An organism's development cannot be explained in terms of the known laws of physics."

What process specifically breaks the laws of physics? Which law and how? Come on show the math, or a detailed explanation. For Pete's sake give details supported by observations and evidence. Don't give a weak answer by saying it breaks the second law because it gets more complex. If you think it breaks the second law, describe the specific chemical react that does break it.

If you think that chemical gradates can't cause a differential express of genes, then give the mechanism that does? Do you think it is the hand of God, some supernatural being that has to interfere with every embryo? Think of many arthropod embryos that develop every single day, does the supernatural intelligent designer have to interfere every time.

If you can't give details, then you are just pissing in the wind.

Realpc, you wrote:

This is a quote from Egnor:

I have no problem with evolution, understood as change in living things over time. I have no problem with the view that some of the changes were caused by random events.

Could that be spelled out any more clearly? Why do you have so much trouble understanding his point?

The problem is that Egnor states that, and then proceeds to discuss the exact opposite. He has a problem with evolution. He in effect denies common descent. He claims that evolution isn't at the heart of taxonomy and classification, which describes the change in living things over time. He praises population biology with one breath and then denies it in the next under a different name. It's like saying I love apples but hate the fruit of Malus domestica. That quote doesn't show that he has no problem with evolution; it shows that he is logically inconstant and hasn't a clue.

Re #168063 "FYI, the "standard argument" for evolutionary theory could go something like this: [Items 1 through 8]"

Add #9:

Absence of any serious unrefuted counterarguments.

Henry

Realpc said:

"No, I think the causes are natural. But I do not think they are natural in the sense of being already understood by science."

Time for a summary. Apparently, after all the discussion of medicine, genetics and developmental biology, the argument put forward by realpc comes down to this: you don't know everything. Dude, why didn't you just say so in the first place. You're absolutely right. I totally agree. Guilty as charged.

I guess this was Egnor's point all along as well. If we don't know everything, how can we possibly teach anything of value to medical students?

Those of you who have followed the creationist movement will recognize this tactic. Science is always open to this criticism and always will be. The argument goes like this: you can't explain everything to my satisfaction so I don't have to accept anything you say. It is basically the same argument used by Behe, Dembski, Wells, etc.

Well, only one thing to do. Got to get back in the lab and discover more stuff. I'm sure that everyone will be convinced if I make just one more discovery.

"An organism's development cannot be explained in terms of the known laws of physics." What process specifically breaks the laws of physics?

realpc says: I think ...

I just don't have the detailed knowledge of a specialist

Biology cannot be reduced to physics at this time. Claiming that it will be eventually is simply materialist faith.

More brownish bubbles from the realpc unreality:

Nothing breaks the laws of physics, obviously. I said the "known" laws.

As per your standard evasions (let's call it Complex Unspecified Disinformation, or is that name taken?), you didn't answer the question that was posed directly to you, in plain English: WHICH known laws of physics, specifically, fail to explain WHICH specific life processes?

(Not that your current insistence that "We don't know anything about anything" does anything to prove your General "Theory" of Unspecified Complexity and Stuff.)

Furthermore, I am capable of reading and I have a decent understanding of biology.

No, you clearly do not have ANY understanding of biology -- your own blithering know-nothingism has proven that repeatedly. And while you may be able to read, that talent is wasted on you, because you have proven yourself incapable of discussing what you claim to have read with anything resembling intelligence or honesty.

There's really no point in debating any subject with someone who has proven himself to be as consistently stupid and dishonest as you have. You have completely failed to answer direct questions put to you, and your most recent posts aren't even coherent. Even the loopiest Dionysian would agree with the strictest Apollonian that there's no "there" there.

(And don't even try to appeal to the Gardnerians or Alexandrians -- they've been doing woo-woo metaphysics longer than you've been alive, and they at least know how to make it sound meaningful. And they don't pretend it's science, either.)

I just don't have the detailed knowledge of a specialist --- which may be a disadvantage anyhow. You drown in the details and may lose your perspective.

This is the standard excuse of someone who couldn't handle new knowledge, didn't want to study, flunked the final exam, and then retreats, wounded and resentful, into his own reality, where the stuff he already "knows" constitutes the whole body of useful knowledge. "I didn't wanna graduate from your stinking school anyway...you're all...godless! Yeah, that's it, you're godless! That's my excuse and I'm stickin' to it!"

Ok, Raging, I did not flunk any exams. I have a PhD, just not in biology.

I probably should not have said that about specialized knowledge -- I have it, just not in biology. What I should have said is, I have the advantage of not having been indoctrinated into a particular philosophy, which is what happens in formal biology education.

Biology cannot be reduced to physics at this time. Claiming that it will be eventually is simply materialist faith. ...which is like saying an Excel spreadsheet cannot be reduced to 1s and 0s in computer hardware.

If you've never had a "formal biology education," then you can't possibly know what goes in one. So once again, you pretend to know something you clearly don't, then say it is something we all know it's not.

Not only are you a liar and a fool, but you're such an incompetent liar that you can't even organize your lies to serve any discernable purpose.

What Dizzy said -- get help!

We don't know what causes embryos to develop, for example. So should we assume, as the null hypothesis, that development is caused by a series of accidents, plus some kind of selection mechanism?

And no one has a plausible theory for the origin of life. So should we assume that life was first created by a series of accidents with, again, some kind of selection mechanism?

We don't assume chance plus selection as an explanation for the development of embryos, or for the origin of life. So why is it assumed for the origin of species?

If chance plus selection is the null hypothesis for the origin of species, it should be the null hypothesis for many other things we don't understand. But it isn't.

In other words, if we don't have an explanation for something, we assume it has no cause?

The comments have gone way off topic. Comments are now closed.