Intelligently designed confusion

Posted 4 September 2007 by PvM

On Evolution News, Crowther argues that

The Privileged Planet: Such a Dangerous Idea Its Author Had To Be Stifled

Of course, most who are familiar with the facts will understand that Crowther's assertions are without much merit. First of all, even Hauptman, who spoke out against Gonzalez, was clear to state that it was the scientific vacuity of ID which affected his vote about Gonzalez.

“[But] intelligent design is not even a theory. It has not made its first prediction, nor suffered its first test by measurement. Its proponents can call it anything they like, but it is not science,” added Hauptman. “It is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards.

Of course, the fact that Gonzalez failed to meet the department's requirements for tenure, was also an important factor.

But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise. He has appealed the university's tenure denial and is awaiting word from Iowa State's president, Gregory L. Geoffroy, who will issue a final decision by June 6, according to the university.

Source Geoffroy concluded

On Friday, June 1, I informed Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy, of my decision to deny his tenure appeal. As part of this decision process, I appointed a member of my staff to conduct a careful and exhaustive review of the appeal request and the full tenure dossier, and that analysis was presented to me. In addition, I conducted my own examination of Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal with respect to the evidence of research and scholarship. I independently concluded that he simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy – one of our strongest academic programs. Because the issue of tenure is a personnel matter, I am not able to share the detailed rationale for the decision, although that has been provided to Dr. Gonzalez. But I can outline the areas of focus of my review where I gave special attention to his overall record of scientific accomplishment while an assistant professor at Iowa State, since that gives the best indication of future achievement. I specifically considered refereed publications, his level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised, and most importantly, the overall evidence of future career promise in the field of astronomy.

Source If ID proponents spent only a fraction of the efforts they spend on confusing the facts, on science, we could perhaps expect at least an attempt at science. But ID is not really interested in science, after all, its main purposes are well described in the Wedge and are religious and political in nature.

“I based my review strictly on what he submitted himself as part of his dossier when he requested tenure,” Geoffroy said. “I did not consider any of the issues that have been circulating around about intelligent design.”

The question becomes: Is the obvious rewriting of history really going to serve as a positive factor in Intelligent Design? I have noticed how more and more Christians are turning away from what they see as an obvious violation of St Augustine's fair warning

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

63 Comments

stevaroni · 4 September 2007

On Evolution News, Crowther argues that The Privileged Planet: Such a Dangerous Idea Its Author Had To Be Stifled

Really, I'm very tired of the ID crowd yelling "Help, help I'm being repressed". It's 2007. It is simply no longer possible to hide anything of significant size. All they have to do is sit down in front of a computer, and type out their evidence onto a website. Any website. This website. There's no more need to try to navigate past biased tenure boards, or conflicted peer-review publications, no more censorship, no more stifling. Yes, the pages of "Science" would be better, but you you work with what you have. Nobody can stop them, stop yammering about censorship and speak! Bring forth the evidence for cryin' out loud! Post the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Still, even though they desperately want to get all this long-censored information out into light of truth, they never actually manage it, do they? Methinks that speaks louder than anything they might possibly be kept from saying.

Zarquon · 5 September 2007

You forget the subtlety of their position:

Evo: "What's your evidence?"

IDist: "We accept the same evidence you do, we just have a different interpretation"

Evo: "Well, how does that interpretation follow from the evidence?"

IDist "Persecution!"

Mats · 5 September 2007

First of all, even Hauptman, who spoke out against Gonzalez, was clear to state that it was the scientific vacuity of ID which affected his vote about Gonzalez.

So this confirms the Discovery Institute: Dr Gonzalez, a scientist with peer reviewed articles in major science journals, was persecuted for his ID views, views that he doesn't even teach in the university. The Darwinian Muttawa never sleeps.

Zarquon · 5 September 2007

Gonzales chose to waste his time on non-scientific activities. He wasn't persecuted, he was failing to do his job. Too bad.

Wolfhound · 5 September 2007

Perhaps he should have prayed harder. Not that prayer has been scientifically proven to work but since when has that stopped ID proponents from saying/doing silly things?

Thinker · 5 September 2007

Gonzales is certainly not the first person to be denied tenure. In his statement, Geoffroy mentions that he has "reviewed and passed judgment on close to 1,000 faculty promotion and tenure cases" during his career. It would be interesting to know how often tenure is denied and which of the "indicators of future acheivement" that he outlines are most commonly the issue. I suspect there are many cases, and that the problem is often in the ability to attract funding.

Troll-Mats: the kind of trolling you do, with insinuations but no evidence, isn't particularly effective in this community, except for demonstrating your own ignorance and prejudices. However, I'm not too surprised that you don't like the harsh sunlight of evidence; if you have a Swedish heritage, which your name indicates, you may know that according to Scandinavian folklore, trolls crack and shatter when exposed to sunlight. The evidence for this, of course, is as well established as that for ID - perhaps even better...

[/trollfeeding]

Woody Setzer · 5 September 2007

I love the quote from Augustine. Can you post a citation?

David B. · 5 September 2007

The St. Augustine quote is one of my favourites too. Though I rarely use it without also including another of St. Augustine's gems...

As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.

Nice of him to allow that a spherical Earth might be yet demonstrated (as, in fact, it had been some 700 years earlier).

Aagcobb · 5 September 2007

This assistant professor in astronomy gave up on trying to obtain tenure. he wrote on his blog:

"Most significantly, though, I've been told directly by my Chair that my tenure case, which would have been submitted in Fall 2008 (after just one more year), had less than a 1% chance of succeeding if I didn't have funding at the level of an NSF grant. Funding at that level in astronomy nowadays is very difficult to find anywhere other than the NSF, and they have calls for proposals once a year. 1/5 or 1/6 of the grants that get submitted are getting funded nowadays, and as I've written about before (in multiple places), it's very stochastic and difficult to predict."

So here we have a guy in the same field as Gonzalez, doing excellent work, but who nevertheless gave up on getting tenure because it was such a long shot, not because his work was controversial, but because he was unlikely to secure sufficient research grants to justify tenure. Whatever any particular person says about the significance of ID in the Gonzalez decision, its money that talks, and with his lack of research grants he wasn't getting tenure anyway.

Gerard Harbison · 5 September 2007

As someone who has voted on a fair number of tenure cases, in a hard science department, I have to echo what Aagcobb says. The rule is pretty much 'no money, no tenure'. 'Money' almost always means a major single-investigator research grant. Some of the better schools want two, but I know of no US research university for which one major, single investigator grant is not only the expectation for a tenure award, but the unwritten rule. We simply can't afford to tenure people who don't have a demonstrated record of funding success.

Doc Bill · 5 September 2007

How come Jay Richards isn't being persecuted?

That's not fair!

raven · 5 September 2007

Crowther is an ~~idiot~~ intellectual nonentity. Never heard of him before he joined up with the IDists. A web search turned up some of his other writings. It was really just a lot of pop bafflegab.

The ID seems to attract a weird crowd. Ben Stein, Crowther, Egnor, and on and on. A bunch of kooks banding together. If this keeps up they will have enough for a cult someday! LOL

Glen Davidson · 5 September 2007

On Evolution News, Crowther argues that The Privileged Planet: Such a Dangerous Idea Its Author Had To Be Stifled

As insane as Crowther's formulation of it is, there is some truth behind that statement. There is danger in homeopathy being taught as sound medical practice, in Holocaust denial being taught as "alternative history", and alchemy being taught as if it were merely a (previously) censored view of how chemistry really operates. That is to say, in some sense the educational establishment, along with the courts in specific instances, are in the business of censoring nonsense and settling on small-t truth. Of course it wouldn't be education or science if they didn't do so. Yet the claim is not entirely untrue (say, in Foucault's sense), it just doesn't pay attention to the fact that children ought not to be told lies, the establishment clause ought not to be violated, and gov't must come down on the side of good science when funding research and when adopting scientific practices into the judicial process. The only "alternative" is to teach lies where truth ought to be taught, and to utilize completely inadequate "intelligent design" (magic) into consideration by the court. No, Your Honor, I did not lift those computers from the warehouse, the Intelligent Designer transferred them to my house. Not even an IDist is that stupid, yet they insist that in the distant past similar magic occurred, but without even any evidence for the design that exists in a burglary. IOW, they accept something even more stupid than the burglar telling the judge that an unseen agent has done this thing, for at least the burglary has all of the earmarks of agency and design. But of course ID is as little censored as most "unproven" ideas are. Darwin wasn't censored much in the usual sense, despite the IDist academic and religious opposition to his work. Nor is MOND, string theory, or ID (that is, not in the usual meaning of "censorship"). Wegener was censored in American academia at some point (I've has a prof who'd chafed under a die-hard anti-plate tectonics teacher), however even that academic censorship was leaky, hence the eventual triumph of plate tectonics. Crowther is no more coherent than your average IDiot, of course, because while the DI and UD are crowing about their reach, their various propaganda pieces, and the "fact" that "Darwinism is dead", he and they whine and lie about how they're censored. Well, they really can't be censored in the usual sense of the word, any more than any crackpot idea can be with today's internet, so these claims are as hollow as their claims that life "appears to be designed". Yes, it's pretty much the same response as to all of their previous versions of their various lies, but it's still the true one. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

rossum · 5 September 2007

I love the quote from Augustine. Can you post a citation?
— Woody Setzer

The Augustine quote is from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" 1:19 There is a similar quote from Thomas Aquinas:

In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

Which is from his Summa Theologica rossum

David Stanton · 5 September 2007

"The Privileged Planet: Such a Dangerous Idea Its Author Had To Be Stifled"

Oh really, then how come he got to make the movie in the first place? How is denying tenure based on accepted standards stifiling? Is he prohibited from making more movies? Have his right of freedom of speech been taken away? Does anyone care what his religious views are? If he were really being "stiffled" he would be in a prison somewhere awaiting trial unable to spread his religious opinions to anyone. Oh well, I guess another martyr for the cause is born. Why would he want to study astronomy anyway if God did it and we can never figure out how or why? The fact is that now he will have a lot more free time to make movies like this. Doesn't sound like very effective stifling to me.

raven · 5 September 2007

Crowther: The Privileged Planet: Such a Dangerous Idea Its Author Had To Be Stifled

So who is stifling him? He didn't get tenure at Iowa. So what. There are many other places to go to. If the creos want to walk their talk, it would seem that one of the myriad of Xian colleges and universities would pick him up in a heartbeat. Where else are they going to find a PhD astronomer who is a creationist and IDist? A better fit for sure, and square pegs in square holes.

heddle · 5 September 2007

I have to agree, for the most part, with both Aagcobb and Gerard: it is money that talks at a research university. Although I do think Gerard oversimplified his case when he wrote:

‘Money’ almost always means a major single-investigator research grant.

There is another fairly common route, at least in nuclear physics, at universities with medium or large sized established groups. There what is important is a substantive research proposal (not grant) that is “owned” by the candidate. I know of many cases where a candidate was not the PI of the grant, and in fact was funded for his entire assistant prof career by an umbrella grant—NSF or DoE—for which a senior researcher was the PI and maybe four or five faculty were covered. However, the candidate must be able to say something like: under that grant, I proposed and was the PI on an experiment at such and such a national lab, it made it through the competition of the Program Advisory Committee, the experiment was done, the data were analyzed and published.

Bobby · 5 September 2007

So this confirms the Discovery Institute: Dr Gonzalez, a scientist with peer reviewed articles in major science journals
— Mats

You don't seem to understand the difference between a necessary condition an a sufficient condition.

The Darwinian Muttawa never sleeps.
— Mats

The creationist bullshit never stops.

Mats · 6 September 2007

David,

Why would he want to study astronomy anyway if God did it and we can never figure out how or why?

Why would Christian Galileo wanted to study astronomy? Why would Christian Mendel wanted to study genetics? Why would Faraday (Christian), Maxwell (Christian), Newton(Christian), Pascal (Christian), Pasteur (Christian) ever want to study science if they knew God did it? Your question makes no sense at all.

David Stanton · 6 September 2007

Mats,

Thanks. That was exactly my point. Why not study evolutionary biology and learn the lessons that nature has to teach us? Why fight against it using the argument that God did it and we will never know how? Why don't ID proponents do researach? Why don't they publish, even in their own journals? If you are just trying to figure out God's creation, why reject all the findings of science? And if you already know that you are going to reject anything you find in nature, why pretend to study it in the first place? Why not just accept the findings of evolutionary biology as the way that God works, just like you do in every other field of study?

Mats · 6 September 2007

David,

"Why would Christian Galileo wanted to study astronomy? Why would Christian Mendel wanted to study genetics? Why would Faraday (Christian), Maxwell (Christian), Newton(Christian), Pascal (Christian), Pasteur (Christian) ever want to study science if they knew God did it?
Thanks. That was exactly my point. Why not study evolutionary biology and learn the lessons that nature has to teach us? Why fight against it using the argument that God did it and we will never know how?

Who uses that argument?

Why don’t ID proponents do research?

They do.

Why don’t they publish, even in their own journals?

They do publish. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=1621

If you are just trying to figure out God’s creation, why reject all the findings of science?

We don't reject the findings of science. We reject the belief that impersonal forces have the ability to create the living systems present in Nature.

And if you already know that you are going to reject anything you find in nature, why pretend to study it in the first place? Why not just accept the findings of evolutionary biology as the way that God works, just like you do in every other field of study?

We reject the "findings" of evolutionary "biology" as the way God works for the same reason we reject the "findings" of astrology as a way to determine future events.

George Cauldron · 6 September 2007

Why don’t they publish, even in their own journals?

They do publish. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.ph… You mean THIS journal, Mats? http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php That journal, which as far as I know is the only ID journal in existence, hasn't published anything for 2 years -- basically since Dover. So why would this be, Mats? It's hard for you guys to claim persecution when it's your own ID-friendly journal. If you guys do research, why don't you publish it? As someone pointed out, for a glimpse of a real scientific field finding out real things and doing real research and actually publishing it, try googling the phrase "eye evolution" or "evolution of the immune system". It's okay if your tender religious sensibilities are offended by modern science, Mats. Just don't try to pass this off as science itself, or try and force it into schools.

PvM · 6 September 2007

So this confirms the Discovery Institute: Dr Gonzalez, a scientist with peer reviewed articles in major science journals, was persecuted for his ID views, views that he doesn’t even teach in the university.

Did Gonzalez not present the Privileged planet as one of his scientific contributions? Did he not claim a DI grant for 'research'? Did he not fail to show any major grant ? Seems that ID is a scientific black hole.

David Stanton · 6 September 2007

Mats wrote:

"Who uses that argument?"

ID proponents implicitly use this argumetnt. In general, they don't even want to know how the natural world works. That is why they don't generally get degrees in Biology. They usually show nothing but contempt for the the process of science or the findings of science. They certainly don't live up to the list of Christian scientists that you provided. Thise people were not afraid to study nature and learn the lessons of nature regardless of the implications.

"We don’t reject the findings of science. We reject the belief that impersonal forces have the ability to create the living systems present in Nature."

But that is the finding of science. You are certainly free to disagree, but you can't claim that any other conclusion is supported by the evidence.

"We reject the “findings” of evolutionary “biology” as the way God works for the same reason we reject the “findings” of astrology as a way to determine future events."

No, you reject the findings of science because they disagree with your religious preconceptions. Once again, you are free to do so. But if you do so, you can't then claim that you are doing the same kind of science as Galileo, Mendel and Pasteur. None of them flinched from the religious implications of their findings. None of them threw out all of their results because they were uncomfortable with them. They beleived that the world was understandable in terms of natural laws and did not presume divine intervention in ordinary processes. Astrology is only defined as science by Dr. Behe. If you try to equate evolutionary theory with astrology you will not be taken seriously by any real scientist.

Do you honestly believe that one article in the Journal of Fuzzy Systems constitutes a valid record of publication? Are you aware that there are literally dozens of peer reviewed journals dedicated exclusively to evolutionary biology? Do you realize that there are over a million scientific articles published in the peer reviewed literature regarding evolution? You are of course welcome to ignore all of this literature, but unless you have read it , you are in no position to denigrate it.

PvM · 6 September 2007

The problem with ID is that its proponents lack faith and seek to explain things in terms of a necessary designer outside of nature (wink wink), while ignoring the far better hypothesis that natural processes are sufficient causes and that the designer chose to interact in a manner undetectable by science.

ID proponents thus seek to undermine science because they lack the faith to accept the facts.

As a Christian, I find their position highly objectionable. Luckily I do not seem to be in a minority amongst Christians.

The sad thing is that many a Christian is led astray by the writings by ID 'luminaries' like Wells, or even Behe and Dembski, not realizing how vacuous and void of science the ID position really is.

And yes, ID does not do any science relevant to ID. In fact, ID refuses to make ANY predictions other than negative ones against Darwinian processes

What a sham

Science Avenger · 6 September 2007

Mats asked: Who uses that argument [that God did it and we will never know how]?

It's the First Commandment of ID: thou shalt not inquire as to the nature or the methods of the Designer. It's also the most glaring evidence that ID is not science.

GuyeFaux · 6 September 2007

We don’t reject the findings of science. We reject the belief that impersonal forces have the ability to create the living systems present in Nature.

Funny that you mentioned Newton (a Christian) before, because he wouldn't agree with you. From The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy:

Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Rule II: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. Rule III: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. Rule IV: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

Note especially Rule III: it specifically rejects your contention that physics does not apply to living things. Note that we could refer to equally relevant ideas from Galileo (Christian).

Mats · 6 September 2007

Mats wrote:
“Who uses that argument?”
ID proponents implicitly use this argument.

Name one ID proponent who uses this argument.

In general, they don’t even want to know how the natural world works.

Yes, they do.

That is why they don’t generally get degrees in Biology.

There are scientists who propose the Design Hypothesis (IDists, and YECers) who have degrees in Biology.

They usually show nothing but contempt for the the process of science or the findings of science.

No, they don't. They show contempt for the *assumptions* made in the name of science.

They certainly don’t live up to the list of Christian scientists that you provided. These people were not afraid to study nature and learn the lessons of nature regardless of the implications.

I don't know anyone who is "afraid to study nature and learn the lessons of nature".

“We don’t reject the findings of science. We reject the belief that impersonal forces have the ability to create the living systems present in Nature.”
But that is the finding of science.

No, it isn't. There is noway for anyone to know that the living world owes itself due to an impersonal force unless if they were there then the world started. The belief that the bio-sphere came about as the result of an impersonal force is not a scientific postulate, but a philosophical one.

You are certainly free to disagree, but you can’t claim that any other conclusion is supported by the evidence.

I sure can, given that there isn't any impersonal force able to create living forms out of dead matter.

“We reject the “findings” of evolutionary “biology” as the way God works for the same reason we reject the “findings” of astrology as a way to determine future events.”
No, you reject the findings of science because they disagree with your religious preconceptions.

The findings of testable, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable science do not contradict my religious convictions. The "findings" of evolutionary philosophy do.

But if you do so, you can’t then claim that you are doing the same kind of science as Galileo, Mendel and Pasteur. None of them flinched from the religious implications of their findings.

The implications of their science didn't harm their religious belief one single bit. Au contraire, some of them wrote very theistic-mind sentences due to the discoveries they made. I am thinking, for example, of Galileo.

None of them threw out all of their results because they were uncomfortable with them.

That's probably because they were not uncomfortable with them.

They believed that the world was understandable in terms of natural laws and did not presume divine intervention in ordinary processes.

Except the in origin of the universe, and in the origin of biological forms. After that, they believed God upheld the universe by the natural laws He created.

Astrology is only defined as science by Dr. Behe. If you try to equate evolutionary theory with astrology you will not be taken seriously by any real scientist.

Evolutionism is just as right as astrology.

Do you honestly believe that one article in the Journal of Fuzzy Systems constitutes a valid record of publication?

You said that they don't publish ANYWHERE. I gave you ONE link where there is, at least, one published article.

Are you aware that there are literally dozens of peer reviewed journals dedicated exclusively to evolutionary biology?

Yes. Most biologists endorse evolutionism.

Do you realize that there are over a million scientific articles published in the peer reviewed literature regarding evolution?

Well, I don't know that, but even if it's true, it doesn't change anything I said.

You are of course welcome to ignore all of this literature, but unless you have read it , you are in no position to denigrate it.

In other words, I have to read the "million" scientific papers in order to reject evolutionism?!

George Cauldron · 6 September 2007

You said that they don’t publish ANYWHERE. I gave you ONE link where there is, at least, one published article.

We're dazzled, Mats.

In general, they don’t even want to know how the natural world works.

Yes, they do. 'I know you are but what am I?' doesn't win many arguments.

Evolutionism is just as right as astrology.

But Behe equated *ID* with astrology. Was he confused?

Are you aware that there are literally dozens of peer reviewed journals dedicated exclusively to evolutionary biology?

Yes. Most biologists endorse evolutionism. Why do *you* think that is, Mats? Are they all atheists? All dishonest? All liberals? All less educated than you?

You are of course welcome to ignore all of this literature, but unless you have read it , you are in no position to denigrate it.

In other words, I have to read the “million” scientific papers in order to reject evolutionism?! I think you're missing the larger points here, which are that ID fails all the benchmarks of being science and that being ignorant is not a good thing. So, uh, what's wrong with your ID journal, Mats?

ben · 6 September 2007

Evolutionism is just as right as astrology.

Shouldn't that be "astrologism?"

GuyeFaux · 6 September 2007

In other words, I have to read the “million” scientific papers in order to reject evolutionism?!

Without having read a significant portion of them, how else can you claim that they're all wrong in an intellectually honest way?

Science Avenger · 6 September 2007

Matts asserted: There is noway [sic] for anyone to know that the living world owes itself due [sic] to an impersonal force unless if [sic] they were there then [sic] the world started.

Ah, the old "if you weren't there, you can't talk" argument, right off the grade school playground. Very sophisticated Mats. Just to add injury to sophistry, you are talking about abiogenesis Mats, not evolution. Try to keep the topics straight.

The belief that the bio-sphere came about as the result of an impersonal force is not a scientific postulate, but a philosophical one.

Utter bullshit, but it's nice to know you got the official ID memo on that talking point. The question of the cause of the biosphere is just as much a scientific question as the questions of what causes earthquakes or the moon or solar flares. You don't get to arbitrarily declare a question off-limits to science just because the scientific answer offends your religious sensibilities.

... there isn’t any impersonal force able to create living forms out of dead matter.

So you assert. There is no personal one demonstrably capable of it, so you have no leg to stand on. Now what? Also, again you are shifting the conversation from evolution to abiogenesis.

David Stanton · 6 September 2007

Mats wrote:

"No, it isn’t. There is noway for anyone to know that the living world owes itself due to an impersonal force unless if they were there then the world started."

And there you have it folks. An exact (if gramatically challenged) statement of why creationists refuse to do science and why they won't accept the conclusions of science. Apparently an eyewitness account is the only evidence that matters and by definition none will ever be possible for the origin of life. Gee, no wonder they don't do research or publish any findings (except for one paper in The Journal of Fuzzy Results). They are all just waiting for the invention of the time machine, by real scientists. Man, I hope I never get one of these guys as a defense lawyer for a trial involving forensic data.

"Except the in origin of the universe, and in the origin of biological forms. After that, they believed God upheld the universe by the natural laws He created."

Great, so neither they nor you have any problem whatsoever with modern evolutionary theory or macroevolution. The only problem left would seem to be abiogenesis and that is another topic from evolution altogether.

"Evolutionism is just as right as astrology."

Only in your twisted view of reality. Unless of course you can point to the hundred and fifty years of scientific research that validate astrology. Actually the statement should be that creationism is just as much based on evidence as astrologism. There, that seems right now.

"In other words, I have to read the “million” scientific papers in order to reject evolutionism?!"

Well one would be a good start.

Look Mats, you can disagree with me and everyone else all you want, but you are never going to convince anyone if you have no evidence for your position. Claiming that you don't believe what we say isn't going to work. Claiming that only you know the truth isn't going to convince anyone. How about if we respectfully agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Steviepinhead · 6 September 2007

Mats:

I sure can, given that there isn’t any impersonal force able to create living forms out of dead matter.

I've always found this living/dead dichotomy a bit trickier than Mats appears to. "Dead" may be an understandable and appealing label for once-living organisms that have exceeded their "sell by" dates, but it doesn't seem like a useful or accurate description for the chemical precursors and sub-units of life: certainly the simplistic living/dead dividing line that Mats erects doesn't follow the same contours as organic/inorganic. Many organic-chemistry entities partake in key biochemical and metabolic cycles but are not, in isolation, "alive." Functional units like amino acids, for example, or lipids, or many proteins... For that matter, a good many essential components of "living" beings (insofar as we yet know them) cannot even fairly be termed organic compounds: salt, water, and so forth. Viruses would not fall within many definitions of "alive," since they cannot reproduce on their own (or amongst themselves), but what living entity really can exist or reproduce in isolation from the surrounding ambience of organic and inorganic matter? Likewise, prions. And yet viruses and prions and proteins dynamically interact or make up other living things. If you start casting the net of "life" to wide, you have a hard time excluding entities like stars and volcanoes and propagating crystals and geysers and Gaia. If you define the concept too narrowly, you leave out prions and viruses and perhaps human males, heh heh. I suspect that the dividing line between life and non-life, should we ever come up with a plausible abiogenesis candidate system of replicating chemical cycles, will turn out to be a good deal fuzzier than the sharp line Mats imagines. There's something in Mats's overly-sharp dichotomy that sneaks dualism in by the back door--that good old magical, undetectable "essence" or "soul" which confers aliveness on "dead" matter. Matter just doesn't come neatly divided into "alive" and "dead" compartments, Mats, as much as you might like to sneak the necessity of a "divine spark" into the discussion. There's relatively simple chunks of matter that interact in fairly-predectable ways. And there's increasingly-complicated cycles of increasingly-derived matter interacting in rapidly-fluctuating environments in increasingly-interesting ways. When you strike such a bright line between the world of the living and the dead, you (perhaps unwittingly) start to assume your conclusion: that "life" cannot arise from "death" without the intervention of an ill-defined, undetectable supernatural entity, whose origin would necessarily be far more mysterious and inexplicable than whatever that of abiogenesis turns out to be.

fnxtr · 6 September 2007

Mats:

There is noway for anyone to know that the living world owes itself due to an impersonal force unless if they were there then the world started. The belief that the bio-sphere came about as the result of an impersonal force is not a scientific postulate, but a philosophical one.

I believe that's what's called the 'null hypothesis', Mats. If we don't see evidence of an Intelligent Designer, or a God of Thunder, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, we don't assume there is one. What we do assume is that the nature of matter and energy is largely consistent throughout space and time, because so far that's what we've seen. There is no evidence that says "This could not have happened naturally". None. Zip. Nada. Bupkus. And no, incredulity and ignorance are not the same as evidence. "I don't (yet) understand how this happened" does not inevitably lead to "God must have done it" unless you are an intellectual coward or just plain lazy.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 September 2007

I’ve always found this living/dead dichotomy a bit trickier than Mats appears to.

Indeed. Just as for species vs "kinds" or mind vs "soul", the creationist can fall back to a script where he "knows with certainty" while science has a set of useful descriptions, or better, definitions for a fuzzy, fluid but researchable reality. Eminent science reporter Carl Zimmer has just posted an article on the description of life at Seed magazine. As opposed to philosopher Cleland in that article, I don't think this it is necessarily true that we are observing a single data point for the case and characteristics considered. Viruses and cells from different extant domains could have crossed the Darwinian threshold several times from the progenotic state. This isn't including possible extinct domains. Also, early total extinctions are consistent with early and easy abiogenesis. I get the impression that these crossings are initiated by mechanisms of different selfish elements, a mechanism that is often observed in genes. IANAB but FWIW my conclusion is that evolution, especially past a progenotic state, is a competitive [sic!] and robust process which we should expect to be common elsewhere. Maybe we will meet singular existences, biological or mechanical, that aren't described thusly. But I believe the way to bet is that they are rare and bound for extinction. I generally champion definitions that are inspired by theory since they correlate better with it. Therefore I currently try on for size the following conception of life (to use John Wilkins terminology on species):

An organism is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history.

The model for the definition is an organism as the current slice in a continous process. Thus combining the idea of life as individual and life as process with evolution and an implicit assumption of a hereditary mechanism, and a robust definition of organism. Quite a few birds knocked down with one stone. As I understand it this definition excludes organelles and such replicators as prions because they have entered dependent niches, as they are subsumed into an organism. But viruses are individual organisms under the definition, as they coevolve instead. (Btw, IANAB but I wonder if that definition can't be followed dipping into the "progenotic" state dominated by horizontal transfer. Some lineages of genes can start earlier, perhaps. But maybe I don't get its application yet.)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 September 2007

However, I’m not too surprised that you don’t like the harsh sunlight of evidence; if you have a Swedish heritage, which your name indicates, you may know that according to Scandinavian folklore, trolls crack and shatter when exposed to sunlight. The evidence for this, of course, is as well established as that for ID - perhaps even better…

How suitable a subject, as the post started out with a quote from religious mythology. Actually, the concepts of troll are, fittingly, an unruly and sundry lot. Aesir religion with germanic roots has giants and/or trolls, but so had the original mythology. This is AFAIK: This dichotomy is reminding of tomtar, who later was identified with the christian santa claus combined with the original pagan julbock (yule goat), but originally was scandinavians own little people. What you describe is more the Tolkien adaptation of some folk tales, I think. Indeed in scandinavian fairy tales of the non-aesir kind of troll (vittror or vättar) sometimes trolls are turned to stone by sunlight. (Confusingly, in some parts vittror may stem from the little people. I blame lateral transfer. :-P) Speculations goes to this explaining why they are invisible yet experienced as nocturnal, and also cases of pareidolia on rock formations. [The US Wikipedia seems to have a rather good article, btw.] What was really effective against trolls was steel, which is why you should never find yourself in nature without a knife. (≠_≠)

Sir_Toejam · 6 September 2007

And no, incredulity and ignorance are not the same as evidence. “I don’t (yet) understand how this happened” does not inevitably lead to “God must have done it” unless you are an intellectual coward or just plain lazy.

coincidentally, I recently watched a history channel episode on UFO's that presented a lot of evidence to support the contention that many "observers" of supposed alien aircraft were really just doing the same thing: they don't know what they saw, so they substituted "it must be an alien spacecraft" instead of just saying: "I don't know". I'm sorry for those that think otherwise, but that is not a legitimate interpretation of evidence, that is projection. learn the difference and cure yourselves.

Henry J · 6 September 2007

An organism is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history.

I'm trying to figure out if mitochondria (and maybe chloroplasts) qualify. Also how long will it be until some computer viruses and/or worms fit that definition, if they don't already? Henry

Mats · 7 September 2007

David,

“No, it isn't’t. There is noway for anyone to know that the living world owes itself due to an impersonal force unless if they were there then the world started.”
And there you have it folks. An exact (if grammatically challenged) statement of why creationists refuse to do science and why they won’t accept the conclusions of science.

Many creationists do science, and don't refuse the conclusions of science. What they refuse are the conclusions of evolutionism.

Apparently an eyewitness account is the only evidence that matters and by definition none will ever be possible for the origin of life. Gee, no wonder they don’t do research or publish any findings (except for one paper in The Journal of Fuzzy Results).

Oh, not the "they don't publish" canard...!

They are all just waiting for the invention of the time machine, by real scientists. Man, I hope I never get one of these guys as a defense lawyer for a trial involving forensic data.

Actually, you hit an important point now. Forensic data implies gathering of evidence in favor of a given hypothesis. The Design argument does just that, but since you don't accept that God could have created the universe and the bio-sphere, you deny anything that points away from the magical creative powers of natural selection. Both Creationism and Evolutionism are (if may say) "forensic enterprises", dealing with the unrepeatable past. The problem is that Darwinists give "evidence" of bacteria turning into bacteria, and then extrapolate that bacteria, humans, trees, and everything else is the result of an impersonal force. That's an unwarranted and philosophical extrapolation.

“Except the in origin of the universe, and in the origin of biological forms. After that, they believed God upheld the universe by the natural laws He created.”
Great, so neither they nor you have any problem whatsoever with modern evolutionary theory or macro evolution.

Yes, we do, since the "macro evolutionary theory" proposes that life forms changed in ways we have never seen them changing, and proposes that all the adaptive complexity is the result of a 100% impersonal natural force. Those are totally unproven.

The only problem left would seem to be abiogenesis and that is another topic from evolution altogether.

You wish. Chemical *evolution* goes hand in hand with Darwinian evolution. If natural, impersonal forces of nature couldn't generate the biological complexity we see in Nature, then there is no reason to limit scientific inquiry within the realms of naturalism. Why? Because clearly naturalism is insufficient.

“Evolutionism is just as right as astrology.”
Only in your twisted view of reality. Unless of course you can point to the hundred and fifty years of scientific research that validate astrology.

Are you saying that 150 years of scientific research has confirmed the religious proposition that living forms are the result of an impersonal natural force?

Look Mats, you can disagree with me and everyone else all you want, but you are never going to convince anyone if you have no evidence for your position. Claiming that you don’t believe what we say isn't’t going to work. Claiming that only you know the truth isn't’t going to convince anyone. How about if we respectfully agree to disagree and leave it at that?

The problem is that while people disagree, it is *your* religious belief that is being taught as "fact" at public expenses.

ben · 7 September 2007

The problem is that while people disagree, it is *your* religious belief that is being taught as “fact” at public expenses.

Mats, what would you have public schools teach?

hoary puccoon · 7 September 2007

Mats--
You're quite right that you shouldn't have to read a million articles. Here's a reading list.

1.) Look up the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. When you say evolution, make sure you mean evolution, not abiogenesis. Your confusion between them is muddying the waters.

2.) Read Ken Miller and Francis Collins. They are both theists and evolutionists. If you want to make a defense of ID credible, you can't just take on Myers and Dawkins. You have to explain why you disagree with Miller and Collins.

3.) Learn about pre-adaptations (adaptations for one thing that generations later turn out to be useful for something completely different.) It's the preadaptation for drilling into a cell wall that disproves Behe's "irreducible complexity" of flagellation.

4.) Learn about neutral mutations. They basically mean that the two mutations Behe cites for malarial resistance to chloroquinine could have happened at any time. They didn't have to be simultaneous.

Understand why points 3 and 4 are absolute deal-- breakers for Behe's position. (And please note, pre-adaptations and neutral mutations weren't developed ad hoc to attack Behe. They were discovered by scientists going along minding their own business, without reference to ID.)

If you have time, after reading that, you can cover the scientific objections to the entire ID research output in about a week and a half, even if you have to stop a lot to look up big words.

Read that and come back and discuss it, and you'll no longer be a troll, even if you disagree with everyone here. Otherwise stop complaining that people on PT don't discuss science. YOU don't discuss science. Plenty of other people do.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 September 2007

Henry J:

I’m trying to figure out if mitochondria (and maybe chloroplasts) qualify.

It was raven that pointed out the definition to me:

"An organism is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history." The key words here are UNIT ELEMENT, and INDIVIDUAL: the thing that you see, now, as an organism is merely the current slice in a continuous lineage; the individual evolutionary history denotes the independence of the organism over time. Thus, mitochondria and chloroplasts and nuclei and chromosomes are not organisms, in that together they constitute a continuous lineage, but separately have no possibility of survival, despite their independence before they entered initially symbiotic, and then dependent associations. [His bold removed, my added.]

This would possibly cover prions, which while AFAIU in some cases are able to jump the species barrier are very limited in this independence - they are virtually as niched as regular organelles. Rybicki notes that virus aren't similarly limited in hosts, i.e. they are independent.

Also how long will it be until some computer viruses and/or worms fit that definition, if they don’t already?

Yes, I think it also covers non-biological (non-chemical) systems nicely, as long as they contain all their (implicitly demanded) "genetic" material. While memes lack this hereditary material. If that is bad or good depends on your purpose of using it. Astrobiologists and futurists may like it. I like it precisely because it describes this "part" of evolution (past the darwinian threshold) as process, it is substrate independent.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 September 2007

Mats:

Many creationists do science,

You wouldn't find any scientist agreeing on this. You see, scientists have this funny notion of looking at results. If you don't produce science, and creationists don't per the established general criteria (like genuine observations and verified predictions), you are no scientist according to the scientific community.

Chemical *evolution* goes hand in hand with Darwinian evolution.

Another fundamental ignorance of how science works and theories means. Evolution as a theory is not dependent on how the populations it describes arose. It predicts how they behave, and that is what defines its consistent coverage. An analogy among many similar: General relativity predicts how masses and spacetime behave, and is an established theory. It doesn't describe how our universe arose, and thus how masses and spacetime arose. Describing those initial conditions will be the task for another theory, probably quantum gravity, exciting and consistent on its own. By analogy, evolution is like general relativity, while abiogenesis is like quantum gravity. Both evolution and general relativity are established, but evolution is older, have been much more tested, and is more precise. (CI in phylogenetic trees vs gravimetric measurements.) Neither abiogenesis nor quantum gravity are established. But in both cases observations and working hypotheses or minor results (RNA preceding DNA vs AdS/CFT) are more and more reaching back towards the initial conditions. And in both cases everyone are excited by the prospects. As hoary puccoon says, you aren't discussing science. But you are erecting an army of strawmen.

Mats · 7 September 2007

Many creationists do science,

You wouldn't’t find any scientist agreeing on this.

oh, I am sure I could, as anyone would. The ICR, CMI are literally filed with Ph.D scientists, with accredited degrees from recognized institutions. Therefore, there is no reason to think of them as less of scientists only because they don't believe in the magical creative powers of impersonal forces.

You see, scientists have this funny notion of looking at results. If you don’t produce science, and creationists don’t per the established general criteria (like genuine observations and verified predictions), you are no scientist according to the scientific community.

You are forgetting another "criteria" used by the majority of scientists: Naturalism. It doesn't matter how many "genuine observations" and "verified predictions" you have. If those don't agree with naturalism, then you are dismissed as "religious".

SLC · 7 September 2007

Re Mats

People like Mats provide a certain amusement in their ignorance. Consider his claim that Issac Newton was a Christian. This claim is totally erroneous as it has since been established that Newton totally rejected the concept of the trinity. Had this fact been discovered in his lifetime, he not only could have lost his job but could have been confined to the Tower of London for heresy.

David Stanton · 7 September 2007

Mats wrote:

"Actually, you hit an important point now. Forensic data implies gathering of evidence in favor of a given hypothesis. The Design argument does just that, but since you don’t accept that God could have created the universe and the bio-sphere, you deny anything that points away from the magical creative powers of natural selection. Both Creationism and Evolutionism are (if may say) “forensic enterprises”, dealing with the unrepeatable past. The problem is that Darwinists give “evidence” of bacteria turning into bacteria, and then extrapolate that bacteria, humans, trees, and everything else is the result of an impersonal force. That’s an unwarranted and philosophical extrapolation."

This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

First, forensic data is gathered in order to test hypothses. Forensic scientists never presume that they already know the answer and then try to fit the evidence to their idea. That is characteistic of creationists not scientists, so I agree that the "design argument does just that". Watch CSI some time and see what happens if forensic technicians allow preconceptions to cloud their judgement.

Second, why do you assume that I "don’t accept that God could have created the universe and the bio-sphere"? My religious beliefs are none of your buisness and you don't have any way of possibly knowing what I believe. Once again, unfounded assumptions can get you in lots of trouble.

Third, I don't "deny anything that points away from the magical creative powers of natural selection". I am simply aware of the evidence concerning what natural selection can and cannot accomplish. There are many other things that can result in evolution. I am willing to consider any processes for which there is evidence. Once again you don't have any and projection is hardly a substitute.

Fourth, there is a vast literature documenting macroevolutionary change. As I pointed out previously, unless you are intimately familiar with this literature you are in no position to presume to know what science claims or whether those claims are valid or not. Either show some evidence or go away. No one is interested in reading your preconceptions over and over again unless you can back it up with evidence. You are the one who is committed to a philosophical position. Your refusal to present any evidence betrays your true motivations. Accusing others of that which you are obviously guilty will not work here.

George Cauldron · 7 September 2007

Note how Mats doesn't even try to back up this statement:

Oh, not the “they don’t publish” canard…!

'Canard', Mats? Mats hopes if he laughs it off as a 'canard' we'll change the subject. So can you tell me why you guys can't float an ID journal? Cuz Mats, IDers DON'T publish anything except non-peer-reviewed books. Just like, say, astrology. Oh, Mats, I did want to hear your answer to this:

Yes. Most biologists endorse evolutionism.

Why do *you* think that is? Are they all atheists? All dishonest? All liberals? All less educated than you?

PvM · 7 September 2007

Mats: You are forgetting another “criteria” used by the majority of scientists: Naturalism. It doesn’t matter how many “genuine observations” and “verified predictions” you have. If those don’t agree with naturalism, then you are dismissed as “religious”.

You seem to be somewhat confused about the concept of science, methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Since you are a creationist, I am not too surprised because many creationist sources can be quite confusing or even misleading on this topic. First of all, there are no observations that support intelligent design, there are at best observations which cannot be explained yet. Remember that ID is not in the business of providing explanations and that a design inference is nothing more than the 'set theoretic complement of regularity and chance'. In fact, as Dembski admits, a design inference is but the first step to link to a designer. However, ID has failed to take the 'next step' and instead focuses on gaps in our understanding. Science uses a concept called methodological naturalism to infer design, an approach which has worked remarkably well in such areas as archaeology, criminology and so on. It uses such concepts as means, motives, opportunities, etc to infer design. ID however rejects such scientific approaches so that it can sneak in a supernatural designer, to replace our ignorance. In other words, what science considers areas of our ignorance, ID sees these areas as relevant to hide its designer(s). Of course, as is with any such gaps approach, the gaps become smaller over time. Sure, IDers can be good scientists, however they fail miserably when applying science to Intelligent Design because ID is not based on scientific approaches. In fact, ID cannot even compete with the null hypothesis of 'we don't know'

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”
— Dembski

Nuff said there. In other words, ID fails to present any positive hypotheses or predictions relevant to ID beyond the negative "darwinism cannot explain it", thus many scientists and Christians have come to accept ID as scientifically vacuous. Given its problematic theological positions, many Christians also consider ID to be theologically risky since it violates St Augustine's warning as quoted earlier (“The Literal Meaning of Genesis” 1:19). Does it not worry you that ID is based on misrepresentations, misdirections, misunderstandings and misinformation?

PvM · 7 September 2007

Many creationists do science, and don’t refuse the conclusions of science. What they refuse are the conclusions of evolutionism.

No, they do far more, they reject evolutionary theory, they reject geology, astrophysics and much more. Don't underestimate the power of denial.

Glen Davidson · 7 September 2007

Actually, you hit an important point now. Forensic data implies gathering of evidence in favor of a given hypothesis.

Unfortunately, you know nothing. Forensic data are what give rise to a hypothesis, preferably without preconceptions (preconceptions don't automatically void a hypothesis, but are generally a hindrance). Only once a hypothesis, or preferably several hypotheses, has been formulated in a relatively unbiased manner do people start interpreting the data as fitting one or more hypotheses (generally in forensics, having only one hypothesis near the starting point is considered to be bad form, and having more than one at the end is an equally bad conclusion).

The Design argument does just that, but since you don’t accept that God could have created the universe and the bio-sphere, you deny anything that points away from the magical creative powers of natural selection.

The design "argument" is like looking at the evidence, failing to come up with a hypothesis that fits the data (and denying the one that does), and saying that evil spirits did it. Can't you get anything right?

Both Creationism and Evolutionism are (if may say) “forensic enterprises”, dealing with the unrepeatable past.

ID has ancient preconceptions. Evolutionary theory does not, rather it relies upon the methods and physics of modern science. That is to say, you're right about evolution being forensics (sort of), while "design" is more like Freud turning Greek myths about Oedipus into crappy psychology. Freud and you have preconceptions, hence neither of you do science.

The problem is that Darwinists give “evidence” of bacteria turning into bacteria, and then extrapolate that bacteria, humans, trees, and everything else is the result of an impersonal force. That’s an unwarranted and philosophical extrapolation.

Why yes it is, and it's entirely your lying idiocy that has come up with it. First of all, evolution is not due to "an impersonal force". Clearly you're mistaking science for religion, something not uncommon with IDists and creationists. Secondly, evolutionary theory didn't come out of the evidence of bacterial evolution at all, it came out of trying to understand how finches in the Galapagos could all be related yet have such different lifestyles (as is typical in organisms, many of the adaptations were far from optimal, hence "design" tells us nothing about Darwin's finches), among other things. So you're stupid, with this statement not different in its lack of intelligence from any of your other appallingly stupid posts. Beyond that, evolutionary theory finally took the bull by the horns, and admitted that all known life was related, just as Linnaeus's taxonomy implies, and even explicitly states in some of its terms (the terms were supposed to be metaphorical earlier, however). That it explains the succession of life is another feather in its cap, nothing that ID can do (it can accommodate it, but not explain it). I don't suppose that you're learned or intelligent enough to actually know the history of evolutionary theory, let alone its evidences, but you're about as wrong about it as anybody can be. I halfway apologize for troll-feeding, but we don't have much else to do here presently, and it is an opportunity to try to teach potential observers, who might have "learned" from as poor sources as Mats has. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

CJO · 7 September 2007

Forensic data implies gathering of evidence in favor of a given hypothesis. The Design argument does just that, but since you don’t accept that God could have created the universe and the bio-sphere, you deny anything that points away from the magical creative powers of natural selection.

Actually, we never really "gather evidence in favor of" anything. We try to rule out our hypothesis. If we cannot, it gains support. If a whole host of inter-related hypotheses are not ruled out by decades of empirical study, we have a theory. So, my questions for Mats: Your post implies that you are in possession of information that "points away from [bluster redacted] natural selection." Please share. And, can you think of a way to rule out the proposition that "God ... created the universe and the bio-sphere"?

Glen Davidson · 7 September 2007

Mats needs this course:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~aclove/courses/PHIL3602Fall07.htm

It's not much of a tie-in, I know. I just wanted to bring in an interesting development. Judging by the course outline, it's going to be a deconstruction of ID.

I only hope Love doesn't try as hard to accommodate the IDists and their flim-flam as it seems that McNeill did.

Glen D

Gerard Harbison · 7 September 2007

An organism is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history.

Hate that definition. Do hummingbirds and flowering plants have individual evolutionary histories? Ants and antlions? Legumes and Rhizobia? IMO what makes mitochondria and chloroplasts more than just symbionts is the fact that they've lost most of their genomes, and therefore rely on nuclear DNA to make most of their proteins.

Glen Davidson · 7 September 2007

Forensic data implies gathering of evidence in favor of a given hypothesis.

Aside from Mats' ignorance of what a hypothesis is and how it plays into the process of science, it should be most notable that any forensics expert who mistook a spider, a human, or a stalk of corn as the identifiable work of an agent would be immediately fired for incompetence (if said expert claimed it was "God's doing", that would be winked at, simply because it means nothing to science or forensics). 'Your Honor, I know that the black widow killed him, but it was made by Fred (or the aliens, or whatever your preferred agent), to do just that. Forensics actually distinguishes between designed objects and living objects. The fact that IDists and creationists can't grasp and work through that fact is the fundamental problem with that pseudoscience. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

George Cauldron · 7 September 2007

Mats said:

Many creationists do science, and don’t refuse the conclusions of science. What they refuse are the conclusions of evolutionism.

Mats, how old do Creationists think the earth is?

fnxtr · 7 September 2007

Glen: I especially like the juxtaposition of these two questions:

(3) What is the design argument? (4) What is best way to characterize the relation between science and religion?

Pretty much says it all.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 September 2007

Mats:

The ICR, CMI are literally filed [sic] with Ph.D scientists, with accredited degrees from recognized institutions.

Oh, the occasional kook that rejects heterodoxy. Well yes, then let me say "not many scientists" or "virtually no biologists". For example, none of the above is a biologist. "Literally filled" is also wrong, most people on such lists are either engineers or PhD's who no longer do research.

You are forgetting another “criteria” used by the majority of scientists: Naturalism.

"Naturalism" is a philosophy and/or part of a philosophical description of science as it is observed to work. The reason supernatural explanations becomes excluded is because it turns out they don't give robust (i.e. uniquely specified) predictions. "Godsdidit" is great for descriptions after the fact, but you can't make any specific prediction. For example, why is gravity attractive and why is it different on different planets? Creationist: Oh, it is? Guess [insert preferred gods here] willed it. One gravity strength for Earth, another one for the Moon, another ... All [insert preferred gods here] choice. Scientist: Oh, it is? Well, it turns out that general relativity predicts that and its universal strength to distance relationship. It also predicts Mercury precession, which is why we accepted it as the current theory of gravitation. Do you see the difference between your claim of a priori assumption and the actual a posteriori observation? And the curious inversion that it is creationists that have an a priori assumption to fit observations aposteriori, while scientists have a posteriori theories to a priori fit new predictions? Or are you again going to skirt my questions, to blow up details in wording of claims or throw up other non sequiturs?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 September 2007

Mats:

the occasional kook that rejects heterodoxy.

Gah! I meant the occasional heterodox kook.

Sir_Toejam · 9 September 2007

The ICR, CMI are literally filed with Ph.D scientists

bwahahahahahhaha! yes, let's just see the list of PhD's doing published research for ICR... hmm. can't seem to find any published research they have done for ICR. wonder why that is? idiot.

Dave · 9 September 2007

I've read most of the comments and I see many people falling into the same trap time and time again.... ie when dealing with a Mats..... There is no need to defend evolution. There is no need to attack his beliefs. In defending evolution or reason in science you give him miles of rope that of course he hangs himself with. But in giving him that rope he feels because he hung in there for a few posts that he has something going on. In attacking ID using reason he just goes "Oh Yeah?" and figures that has left him with a foot to stand on. Quite simply all one has to do is ask him for the evidence he found that led him to believe in Intelligent Design, and then watch him flounder in an embarrassing exercise in futility.

Sir_Toejam · 9 September 2007

There is no need to attack his beliefs.

I vehemently disagree with that statement. there are numerous reasons why attacking his beliefs and position, as he stated by him, is not only worthwhile but necessary. willful ignorance and the spreading of misinformation should be attacked, ruthlessly, and no special circumstances should be made simply because somebody labels such as "beliefs".

Thumpalumpacus · 10 September 2007

Mats: "The ICR, CMI are literally filed with Ph.D scientists, with accredited degrees from recognized institutions. Therefore, there is no reason to think of them as less of scientists only because they don’t believe in the magical creative powers of impersonal forces."

Firstly, degrees do not make one a scientist. The sine qua non of science, what is required of every scientist, is the abjuration of an a priori approach. Quite obviously the "scientists" at ICR (who are required before employment to assert their agreement with biblical creation) fail in this fundamental qualification.

Secondly, as Torbjörn Larsson alluded to, the degrees you apparently consider so valuable are often irrelevant to their field of study (f'rinstance, Morris's degree being [drum roll please] hydrology).

Thirdly, as CJO implied, ID and Creationism cannot be scientific by definition. You see, one prime quality of a theory is that it must be falsifiable; that is, one must be able to conceive of an irrefutable disproof of it. ID / Creationism are non-falsifiable. Any contrary evidence need only be answered with "God works in mysterious ways" (sadly, this is often the case).

Gosh, I love watching IDers wriggle when they learn that the scientific language they've adopted as a subterfuge doesn't have any word for "God".