[quote]Newton famously remarked “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.” Ross and other “scientific” YECs have chosen far lesser shoulders. [/quote]Considering how much time and effort creationists spend actually doing research, as compared with how much time and effort they spend attacking science, launching breathtakingly inane lawsuits, etc., one internet wag* quipped that, in contrast to Newton, these guys are "biting the ankles of giants"

*(hat tip: Calilasseia, on the Dawkins forum)

Seeing as Baumgardner hails from New Mexico, he's got his own page on NMSR's C-Files.

I've encountered him at legislative hearings up in Santa Fe. He basically dismisses anyone who thinks there is evidence of evolution as a "militant atheist."

Nowadays, the head of IDnet-NM refers to us as the "Darwinist SWAT team."

Things haven't really changed very much at all, eh?

Dave

The 'Darwin swat team' is preposterous. After all, Darwin was a peaceable man.

I suppose I'm in the minority here.

Darwin swat team? Well, YECs do deserve a good spanking.

The last few days have been entertaining as Baumgardner's bogus critique of C14 dating for the Institute of Creation Research, RATE Group has been demolished by Dr. Kirk Bertsche.

Perhaps Dr. Bertsche could be persuaded to offer a summary to PT as a guest post.

I had my fill of Baumgardner over his false claims regarding fossil osteocalcin, and young earth fantasy, in Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths.

Doesn't the rise of the Internet deserve much of the blame for the relative health of Young Earth Creationism these days? I doubt there are more people who believe in a literal Genesis today that there were fifty years ago, we just get to here a lot more from them because of the huge reach of the World Wide Web.

Until we were all hooked up online, creationists had to rely on books, pamphlets, and radio broadcasts to spread their message, all of which remained mostly limited to a network of fundamentalist churches which few scientists and secular folk ever ventured into. All the rest of us ever got to see where those occasional 60 Minutes pieces on what those wacky fundamentalists were up to now.

The Web has brought about a revolution in communications, but not just in science or news or politics. Religious beliefs have benefited from the same revolution, and master propagandists like Ken Ham have not been slow at taking full advantage. As with most new technology, the Web is a double-edged sword. It has been invaluable in disseminating scientific information and knowledge to the masses, but the forces of anti-science have proven no less adept at getting their message across. And one thing that the Internet cannot change how that information is processed in the human brain. People will continue to believe what they want to believe, and the Ken Hams of this world are all too happy to continue feeding those beliefs.

The ‘Darwin swat team’ is preposterous. After all, Darwin was a peaceable man. I suppose I’m in the minority here.

— Young Earth, Short Earth

I have consistently said that I take no position on the age of the earth, and that I regard the issue as not ripe for debate yet.

From "Game Over in Rio Rancho, NM: Science 1, Wedge 0" by Marshall Berman, Kim Johnson and Dave Thomas: Among those arguing that the board should retain the policy were ... the executive director of IDnet-NM, Joe Renick, [who] read a lengthy statement defending the policy’s “honorable intentions and clear language.” Renick said the policy simply promoted neutrality through objective science education, and blamed the speakers against the policy for being the ones who got things so entangled with religion. He also called them the Darwinist SWAT team!

It's time to be clear. Anyone who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old is, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, either insane,ingnorant, or evil.

There is no doubt on age of the earth. The evidence is overwhelming.

For me, there is no point in trying to make intellectual arguments with YEC adherents. They are stupid. Period. They are beyond rational argument, and therefore not worthy of same. They should be mocked, laughed at, and made to look like the fools that they are.

Newton famously remarked “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.” Ross and other “scientific” YECs have chosen far lesser shoulders.

and the Ken Hams of this world are all too happy to continue feeding those beliefs.

waldteufel's comment echoes that of Kurt Vonnegut's in his intro to "Scientists Confront Creationists". Paraphrasing (it was, after all, a long time ago that I read it): "One cannot reason with someone for whom reason does not count."

Has anyone noted the irony that Marcus Ross shares the last name with who may be the world's most prominent OEC, Hugh Ross?

I didn't read the linked article yet, so there's a chance I could be pleasantly surprised. But by now I know not to expect much in terms of exploiting the differences between YEC, OEC and ID. Really, 2 years after ID's embarrassing defeat at Dover did anyone not expect a YEC resurgence in the PR world? And did anyone truly think that YECs would come up with any scientific argument that has not been both thoroughly refuted by science and quietly abandoned by the OEC and ID community?

I'll say it again. For the ~50% of the public that is (1) not hopelessly fundamentalist and (2) still sympathetic to "teach the controversy" and other misleading anti-evolution sound bites, our best approach may be to show how anti-evolution groups cannot agree on even the basics, and how some groups (IDers) are far more interested in covering up the failures and contradictions than developing a theory that they themselves sometimes admit is not ready for prime time. I know that many readers can fill in the blanks, but most get "amnesia" when the arguments are constructed as "one particular brand of creationism" vs. evolution. And that's just the way anti-evolution activists want it.

It’s time to be clear. Anyone who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old is, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, either insane,ingnorant, or evil.

Russell: [quote]Newton famously remarked “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.” Ross and other “scientific” YECs have chosen far lesser shoulders. [/quote]Considering how much time and effort creationists spend actually doing research, as compared with how much time and effort they spend attacking science, launching breathtakingly inane lawsuits, etc., one internet wag* quipped that, in contrast to Newton, these guys are "biting the ankles of giants" *(hat tip: Calilasseia, on the Dawkins forum)

Waldteufel’s comment echoes that of Kurt Vonnegut’s in his intro to “Scientists Confront Creationists”.

Mr. VONNEGUT: Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally. Mr. INSKEEP: How are the scientists behaving tribally? Mr. VONNEGUT: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines. Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/kurt_vonnegut_on_darwinism_and.html

"But it seems that the man was far more sensible, and far more open-minded, than a lot of folks around here."

Open-minded doesn't mean embracing all ideas equally regardless of merit. Serious open-minded people open their minds to the active collection and critical evaluation of data. Vonnegut shows his ignorance of science when he says "Scientists are pretending they have the answer as [to] how we got this way . . . ". How we got this way is the subject of great interest and research--sometimes called "evo-devo." Vonnegut compounds his error when he says "natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines." Modern science has already shown how natural selection *could* have produced such machines.

This shows the perils of relying on science fiction novelists to speak for science. If you can't do the hard work of actually, you know, reading and understanding the factual scientific literature, at least do folks around here the service of keeping your uninformed opinions to yourself.

FL wrote:

"Now Kurt Vonnegut was not a creationist, not at all. But it seems that the man was far more sensible, and far more open-minded, than a lot of folks around here."

No he wasn't. In fact, he was displaying exactly the same loathsome behavior he was attempting to criticize. He stated that scientists had answers based on evidence. OK, then what? Did he deal with that evidence honestly? Did he have a better explanation than the experts? Was he even aware of what the evidence was? If not, then he was just spouting the party line of every creationist in the last two hundred years. "Regardless of the evidence, they're wrong and I'm right, I just know it." That isn't being open-minded, that's being ignorant, stubborn and arrogant. Open-minded means being open to the evidence. It doesn't mean ignoring evidence. It doesn't mean dismissing evidence without having the slightest idea of what that evidence is. That is the definition of closed-minded. As one PT contributor once stated: "You shouldn't be so open-minded that all reason falls out."

Quote mining again, from January 2006....

Actual Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165342

Of course this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Looks straightforwared to me. Vonnegut says "I refuse to accept the evidence, therefore my preferences are correct." FL, who shares the same preferences and refusal to accept the evidence, deems Vonnegut "sensible." As Larry Niven wrote, nothing is more reasonable than a shared prejudice.

I can picture both of them saying "I refuse to believe heavier objects fall at the same rate as lighter objects. Just LOOK, they have different weights. It's obvious." And, uh, about the actual observations? Well, see, we're not looking at them, we're looking at "sensible".

The University of Chicago later accepted his novel Cat's Cradle as his thesis, citing its anthropological content and awarded him the M.A. degree in 1971.

Most of them [YECs], I'd like to believe, are simply ignorant, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

Jim, you misquoted me. The quote you attribute to me was made by wolfwalker. Easy mistake to make because of the way comments are formatted here.

I agree with you, though.

Wikipedia: Vonnegut was a Humanist. He served as Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having replaced Isaac Asimov in what Vonnegut called "that totally functionless capacity". He was deeply influenced by early socialist...

Wikipedia: IHEU's Minimum Statement on Humanism All member organisations of the IHEU are required by IHEU bylaw 5.1 to accept [5] the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism: "Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

And speaking of the late Kurt Vonnegut….let’s listen to this little ditty from National Public Radio Morning Edition (“The Long View”):

Mr. VONNEGUT: Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally. Mr. INSKEEP: How are the scientists behaving tribally? Mr. VONNEGUT: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.

— FL

Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/kurt_vonnegut… Now Kurt Vonnegut was not a creationist, not at all. But it seems that the man was far more sensible, and far more open-minded, than a lot of folks around here.

[Vonnegut said]:

It is sweet and noble — sweet and honourable I guess it is — to die for what you believe in

— Raven

One of few things Dawkins has said recently with which I can wholeheartedly agree. Most of them, I’d like to believe, are simply ignorant, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

Re Richard Dawkins

What Prof. Dawkins actually said was, "an individual who rejects the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but he didn't want to consider the last). This was in an article about David Berlinski who he said was neither stupid, ignorant, or insane.

It would depend primarily on the reason for the ignorance and the attitude of the individual.

It’s usually the leaders who know what they are doing, and it is they who are irresponsible, and/or insane, and/or malicious.

"It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally... They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.

FL:

I know I'm coming in late here, but how does an endorsement of ID by a science FICTION writer somehow constitute a triumph for ID?

"I know I’m coming in late here, but how does an endorsement of ID by a science FICTION writer somehow constitute a triumph for ID?"

of course it does, it clearly shows that ID is science fiction!

FL: I know I’m coming in late here, but how does an endorsement of ID by a science FICTION writer somehow constitute a triumph for ID?

The people claiming Vonnegut as pro-ID have clearly never heard of irony, a talent in which Vonnegut excelled. Read "Galapagos".

mplavcan: I know I'm coming in late here, but how does an endorsement of ID by a science FICTION writer somehow constitute a triumph for ID?

According to L. Ron Hubbard, another science fiction writer, the Bible was incorrect and humanity was occupied by the disembodied spirits of aliens blasted out of their corporeal existence by evil emperor Xenu.

As FL puts so much stock in the musings of science fiction authors, we can safely assume that he has by now lent equal weight to Hubbard's ideas and embraced the One True Faith of Scientology.

Of course, FL's assertion conveniently ignores the fact that Vonnegut was a staunch atheist who also wrote a book called Galapagos in which he relied heavily on basic evolutionary principles like random mutation and natural selection to create his vision of the future of humanity.

It's not surprising that before the comments went off track the general view was something like "I can't believe they're serious about this make believe geology." But some people are serious, or at least serious about selling it. Have any readers had personal encounters with YE geology or seen evidence of its prevalence?

As in, people teaching it in schools, or people believing it in general?

It seems to me that when it comes to geology, there is SO much that the creation geologists cannot even begin to explain, that's so well interwoven with the rest of science, much easier to understand and harder to misrepresent than the details of evolution, that a single focussed well-written essay could do sterling work in illustrating just how vast the gulf is between their thinking and reality. Another, that takes their best theories seriously and shows their implications, would back that up.

It's not even as if there's any sort of 'ID theory' (ho ho) for creation geology. People can understand "This is so complicated, it couldn't have evolved", and quickly decide it's right long before they make the investment in understanding complexity and evolutionary mechanics. There's nothing like that in creation geology - "this is so big, it couldn't possibly have taken a long time to happen" won't fly for anybody. The intuitive confirmation that works for ID works against CG.

Has anyone written these? A bit of work now could pay off handsomely, before Texas and Florida decide that it's time to 'teach the controversy'...

R

"As in, people teaching it in schools, or people believing it in general?"

Sure, all of the above plus any YEG arguments you have run across.

Guys, there's a whole fistful of essays here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Some of them really get into the detail of the science, so they're quite interesting. Others critique the YEC "arguments" and the fantasies associated with denial of an old Earth.

Still, I liked Vonnegut and his work, and it pains me to hear him say something so blazingly ignorant as…

" . . . his cultural influence could potentially work *against* you and your marketing of evolution-belief, just as it previously worked for you."

Evolution science is not science because it is successfully "marketed" by culturally influential personalities. It is science because it has survived countless tests that were capable of falsifying its predictions. ID, on the other hand, makes no predictions, and thus is not capable of being falsified and is not science. While I certainly welcome culturally influential people who embrace the science, I don't rely on their endorsement to decide the merits of evolution science.

FL, your notion of the evolution-creation debate seems to be based on taste, not science. That's your choice. Just don't try to pass it off as science.

Kurt Vonnegut has no scientific authority, FL, nor does the title of honorary president of the American Humanist Association confer any sort of special status that would allow anyone to wave away what parts of reality that displeases him.

Furthermore, FL, Intelligent Design will never succeed as it is without any scientific merit whatsoever, and its cultural merits are equally lacking, too, given as how it conflates faith with ignorance, and smothers scientific inquiry. That you have been here on this blog for who knows how many years, and yet to have demonstrate the scientific merits of Intelligent Design, even when asked repeatedly, is quite telling of Intelligent Design's failures.

Quoting Kurt Vonnegut as an "expert" is as appropriate as consulting a French chocolatier for a heart-transplant.

So FL, what you basically have is those of us who do science daily who look at the propositions of ID and recognize it immediately as complete crap, and folks like you, sitting in the bleachers waving flags and chanting "Rah Team" as a measure of the validity of ID. You seem fundamentally unable to accept the distinction between "belief" and "acceptance of fact". So let's get back on track. Leaving aside ID as largely irrelevant to geology, you assert that we aren't open minded. Well, here I am in my lab chugging away at work, perfectly willing to consider any evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis that the Earth is young. Fire away big guy. Present the evidence. Believe it or not, I've actually studied the claims of the YE geologists in some depth. So far I've been unimpressed. But if you have something special that allows you to back up your assertion that my mind is closed, please, let me know. (Of course, if your mind is so open, why don't we engage in a thoughtful consideration of the evidence on your own part? It's funny, but every time I invite a creationist to actually sit down and look at the evidence, be it biological or geological, they never show up. Then they accuse me of being closed minded.)

mplavcan said (#137537): "I know I’m coming in late here, but how does an endorsement of ID by a science FICTION writer somehow constitute a triumph for ID?"

Probably the most durable example of using science fiction as support for ID is William Dembski's continued use of the SF movie "Contact" as evidence for detecting design.

mplavcan: So... Fire away big guy. Present the evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, Young Earth creationists do absolutely no research at all in order to support their theories with evidence. All they do is distort the research of mainstream scientists in order to make it fit with their interpretation of the bible.

Take plate tectonics for example. I remember learning about this in geology class around 1971. The geology teacher explained that the lighter rocks, mainly composed of the elements Silicon and Aluminium (SIAL) floated on the heavier rocks composed of mainly silicon and Magnesium. He also explained that the continents were moving apart by a few centimetres every year. In those days plate tectonics was really in its infancy and it has been refined and developed ever since (the theory had been around for a number of years prior to 1971). What do the YEC's do then. First of all they deny the theory "plate tectonics is only a theory with no supporting evidence" according to Ham before 1997. In the face of insurmountable evidence they then come up with John Baumgardner’s theory of catastrophic plate tectonics which has no evidence and is completely ridiculous. YEC's have done the same to other valid scientific discoveries. Can the YEC's on this forum name one discovery that YEC's have made that supports a young Earth (i.e something that is not a distortion of mainstream science)?

As far as I'm concerned, Young Earth creationists do absolutely no research at all in order to support their theories with evidence. All they do is distort the research of mainstream scientists in order to make it fit with their interpretation of the bible.

Take plate tectonics for example. I remember learning about this in geology class around 1971. The geology teacher explained that the lighter rocks, mainly composed of the elements Silicon and Aluminium (SIAL) floated on the heavier rocks composed of mainly silicon and Magnesium. He also explained that the continents were moving apart by a few centimetres every year. In those days plate tectonics was really in its infancy and it has been refined and developed ever since (the theory had been around for a number of years prior to 1971). What do the YEC's do then. First of all they deny the theory "plate tectonics is only a theory with no supporting evidence" according to Ham before 1997. In the face of insurmountable evidence they then come up with John Baumgardner’s theory of catastrophic plate tectonics which has no evidence and is completely ridiculous. YEC's have done the same to other valid scientific discoveries. Can the YEC's on this forum name one discovery that YEC's have made that supports a young Earth (i.e something that is not a distortion of mainstream science)?

Quote mining Kurt Vonnegut was lame.

This is regarding Vonnegut who I love to read.

Especially in his interviews and such, I take whatever I hear or read with a grain of salt. He demonstrated time and again , at least to me, that his primary goal was to get his audience to think. By whatever means necessary - shock was especially utilized along with outrageous statements.

Towards the end of his life I feel that he was having more and more difficulty with the boundary between some version of truth and statements to shock.

In summary, I wonder if taking some of his statements as evidence of what he believed might be misguided. He helped me to think for myself and not rely on others -- including him!

or somebody like of his level of cultural influence to finally come around and be willing to publicly ascribe a measure of merit to design as opposed to natural selection regarding the human body, is no small thing.

It’s not that his comments “prove” ID to be true

it’s that now his cultural influence could potentially work *against* you and your marketing of evolution-belief, just as it previously worked for you.

Quote mining Kurt Vonnegut was lame.

It’s also telling that FL brings up ID in a thread that’s supposed to be about YEC. What’s the connection between YEC and ID, big guy?

Then in the nineties creationism in general got a major public relations boost under the rubric of intelligent design, an attempt to unite both old and young earth creationists against science. IDC has been an effective social legitimizer and political door opener for creationism, which in 21st century America is increasingly of the young earth variety.

Sorry I ever brought up Vonnegut...

FL said: "People are still making up their own minds about ID."

(1) Some people are making up their minds, while others are just making up pseudoscience to justify millenia-old creation myths.

(2) The demagogues who are afraid someone will actually "make up their minds" and realize that intelligent design creationism is pure crap are fighting like demons to keep their "believers" ignorant. See what's happening in Florida or Texas for examples.

Sorry I ever brought up Vonnegut…

People didn’t accept evolution because of Vonnegut, and they won’t reject it because of Vonnegut, you fool.

He helped me to think for myself and not rely on others – including him!

FL isn’t the one who first invoked Vonnegut here.

But his very words that you quoted, “natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines” displays the opposite of that.

I have read much of the ID stuff, yet I don't know of their theory nor am I aware of any scietific value they may have. so FL, enlighten me or buzz off!

FL said: “People are still making up their own minds about ID.”

Yeah, many YECs can't seem to decide whether to jump on its "don't ask, don't tell" bandwagon, or criticize it for not identifying the designer or saying what He did when. But IDers seem to have all made up their minds about YEC - either they'll admit in so many words that it's nonsense, or just weasel out of a comment with a vague "ID is not creationism."

How might I check on the tax exempt status of the "First Church of Darwin" so I can write off my donations?

(Now watch somebody come up with something for the Northern Territory in Australia...)

"I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That’s why we’ve got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap."

Vonnegut on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, on The Daily Show (September 2005)

Human Ancestor Preserved in Stone
By Ann Gibbons
ScienceNOW Daily News
7 December 2007

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1207/2

Cool stuff.

FL, do you have anything other than sophistry and arguments from your own personal ignorance to offer?

I suggest that you get at least a junior high school level of science education. That would be a good start for you.

FL:

Sorry I ever brought up Vonnegut…

Very understandable! It's hard to find good poster boys these days, you know... ****** Meanwhile, Popper says:

People didn’t accept evolution because of Vonnegut, and they won’t reject it because of Vonnegut, you fool.

Well, certainly not all at once, Popper. Nobody does. However, Jeff McKenna summarized the potential impact of Vonnegut quite well:

He helped me to think for myself and not rely on others – including him!

That's precisely the kind of long-term impact Vonnegut's quoted doubts about evolution might just have on people. That's all that's needed, really. Just a little tiny seed of doubt planted, here and there, a person at a time. Just a little tiny seed of acceptance of design, here and there, a person at a time, here and there. The NCSE, and yourself, and Judge Jones, and Mplavcan, do not have any defense against such things. ******** However, you also displayed a bit of fairness there, Popper, (and in this forum that's Pure Heresy), so I credit you for that much.

FL isn’t the one who first invoked Vonnegut here.

******** To continue:

But his very words that you quoted, “natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines” displays the opposite of that.

Not at all. Exactly how did natural selection produce your immaterial mind, for example? You'll never find an answer to that one. Humans are beyond the ability of natural selection to create. That's just a matter of open-minded observation. ****** But a question remains. Why are these world famous secularists like Kurt Vonnegut and Antony Flew, who have never given you guys any trouble, publicly doubting evolution and publicly acknowledging design in key areas, instead of just singing along with the evo-choir that they've sang with for decades? After all, I didn't cause them to backslide from the First Church of Darwin. Neither did the Discovery Institute, nor ARN or ISCID, or anybody else. Maybe the problem lies with....the First Church of Darwin itself!! Are there OTHERS out there who have been privately entertaining doubts about evolution but don't want to risk getting kicked outta the choir prior to retirement age? I believe so. Don't you? FL :)

FL: Maybe the problem lies with....the First Church of Darwin itself!! FL :)

So if Vonnegut said something that FL agrees with--then Vonnegut must be "far more sensible, and far more open-minded, than a lot of folks around here."

But if Vonnegut (or Flew) said something that does not not agree with FL's fundamentalist dogma--then he must also be a fool? You don't have to look far to find such statements.

This is exactly the kind of "proof texting" technique that most fundamentalists rest their theology upon. Pick quotes that agree with your pre-existing belief, and ignore all those that do not.

In reading the drivel posted here by Mr. FL, one is reminded of Prof Dawkins statement, "one who rejects the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but he didn't want to consider that). Mr. FL is all of the above.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, FL. You've now said in so many words that my mind is closed. Really? My mind is open (as always, that's what I was trained to do, even when it comes to rejecting my own hypotheses). Present some evidence. I'm a scientist. Hypothesis: the earth is young. Since "young" is a relative term, let's take the YEC position and make the hypothesis conservative..."the Earth is less than 10,000 years old." There ya go big guy. Now, where's the evidence? Any, please. Why not a specific hypothesis about geological or paleontological observations. Maybe something about radioisotopes, or biogeographic distribution of rodents? Rates of change in brachiopods? First appearance of taxa in the fossil record? I'm waiting. Tap, tap, tap. Hm de dum de dum dum dum....waiting. Please, anything. Convince me. You always have a chance!

Still waiting FL....

one who rejects the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked

FL? I'm waiting....
You seem so confident, so I assume that you have something pretty good to present. Perhaps you are at dinner, though, or out shopping.

FL said: “People are still making up their own minds about ID.”

FL: That’s precisely the kind of long-term impact Vonnegut’s quoted doubts about evolution might just have on people. That’s all that’s needed, really. Just a little tiny seed of doubt planted, here and there, a person at a time. Just a little tiny seed of acceptance of design, here and there, a person at a time, here and there.

(Now watch somebody come up with something for the Northern Territory in Australia…)

"Exactly how did natural selection produce your immaterial mind, for example? You’ll never find an answer to that one."

You ID clowns said the same thing about the eye. You were wrong. You said the same thing about the Krebs cycle. You were wrong. You said the same thing about bacterial flagella. You were wrong. Based on this track record, I'd say that your current assertion pretty much guarantees you'll be wrong about this.

"Humans are beyond the ability of natural selection to create."

And yet here we are, a product of natural selection! That’s just a matter of open-minded observation.

FL. Still waiting....

mplavcan: FL. Still waiting....

FL acused me of being closed-minded. I am not. I am perfectly open to any evidence that he/she has. The track record for creationists is pretty poor so far, but I want to underscore that this "debate" is about evidence. FL paints it as a cheerleading competition. As a scientist, I am perfectly willing to consider his/her evidence, right here for all to see.

Still waiting FL. Please, hypothesis, data, anything. Bring it on.

Stanton (in re: the Church Of Darwin) writes... Please identify the priesthood, prayer-rituals, holy books, messiah(s), and, most importantly, focus of prayers for this alleged church.

stevaroni:

Stanton (in re: the Church Of Darwin) writes... Please identify the priesthood, prayer-rituals, holy books, messiah(s), and, most importantly, focus of prayers for this alleged church.

1.1 Here is thine shovel and thine microscope. Thou shall diggeth and squinteth and testeth untill ye findeth solid evidence. Then shall thou diggeth and squinteth and testeth some more, just to make sure. Then shalt thou do it again. And again. And again. The book of Steves', chapter one, verse one.

…Which essentially answers Mplavcan’s question. You see, Vonnegut wasn’t just a influential sci-fi writer. He was an honorary president of the American Humanist Association. For somebody like of his level of cultural influence to finally come around and be willing to publicly ascribe a measure of merit to design as opposed to natural selection regarding the human body, is no small thing.

— FL

It’s not that his comments “prove” ID to be true;

it’s that now his cultural influence could potentially work *against* you and your marketing of evolution-belief,

just as it previously worked for you.

Hence that little “pain” you guys feel. (btw, Better keep some pain pills handy! Refills may be needed in the future!)

The Dover decision, it seems, is not the end of the story after all. People are still making up their own minds about ID.

Meanwhile, Popper says:

People didn’t accept evolution because of Vonnegut, and they won’t reject it because of Vonnegut, you fool.

— FL

Well, certainly not all at once, Popper. Nobody does.

However, Jeff McKenna summarized the potential impact of Vonnegut quite well: He helped me to think for myself and not rely on others – including him!

That’s all that’s needed, really.

Just a little tiny seed of doubt planted, here and there, a person at a time.

Just a little tiny seed of acceptance of design, here and there, a person at a time, here and there.

The NCSE, and yourself, and Judge Jones, and Mplavcan, do not have any defense against such things.

Not at all. Exactly how did natural selection produce your immaterial mind, for example?

— FL

You’ll never find an answer to that one.

Humans are beyond the ability of natural selection to create.

That’s just a matter of open-minded observation.

We have a set of himinid fossils ...

Exactly how did natural selection produce your immaterial mind

Based on this track record, I’d say that your current assertion pretty much guarantees you’ll be wrong about this.

Why is the human "immaterial mind" any more beyond the reach of evolution than the cheetah's "immaterial speed"? I guarantee you you won't find a single atom of speed in a cheetah, however finely dissected!

cf Darwin: Why is thought being a secretion of brain any more remarkable than gravity being a secretion of matter?

Also please note that multiple repeats of a claim ("natural selection can't produce a mind") is not actually the same thing as supporting the claim with reason or evidence. And saying "Forget it, Bub" and stopping enquiry is a good way to remain completely ignorant.

Anyway, yawn. Human thoughts are processes carried out by the human brain, which is material.

Why is the human "immaterial mind" any more beyond the reach of evolution than the cheetah's "immaterial speed"? I guarantee you you won't find a single atom of speed in a cheetah, however finely dissected!

cf Darwin: Why is thought being a secretion of brain any more remarkable than gravity being a secretion of matter?

Also please note that multiple repeats of a claim ("natural selection can't produce a mind") is not actually the same thing as supporting the claim with reason or evidence. And saying "Forget it, Bub" and stopping enquiry is a good way to remain completely ignorant.

Anyway, yawn. Human thoughts are processes carried out by the human brain, which is material.

Exactly how did natural selection produce your immaterial mind, for example? You’ll never find an answer to that one. Humans are beyond the ability of natural selection to create.

FL: Asking me for geological evidence of a young earth won't change THAT situation at all, Mplavcan. The age of the earth is not relevant to the above comparison. Old earth or Young Earth, it doesn't change a thing. So you'll forgive me if I pass on your request to "provide the evidence" for a young earth, and leave that to the YEC advocacy groups (whose views you reject already, as they do yours.) I have nothing new to offer on that front anyway, and the fact remains, the age of the earth is just not even relevant to what Vonnegut said. FL

FL. I'm still waiting here.

The topic of this thread was geology, so I asked for evidence about geology. My apologies for trying to stick to the subject.

An assertion that the mind is immaterial is nothing but an assertion on your part that seems to be based on a poor understanding of neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and cognitive psychology. In point of fact, the mind seems to be pretty obviously a function of the brain, which is clearly a material organ comprised of elaborate wiring of neurons whose structure and interaction is demonstrably associated with higher cognitive functions. This is easily demonstrated by studying the mind's function, alteration, and dysfunction due to altered sensory input, damage, and chemical treatment. There is a copious literature dealing with this. Perhaps the most famous for the lay public is "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat." Perhaps you should read it -- very informative and entertaining, if poignant in many places. Comparative anatomy as well as behavioral ecology and psychology demonstrate not only strong links between the environment and both cognitive and neuroanatomical structure, but also a continuum of cognitive function. The human fossil record (which is part of my specialty) demonstrates a clear gradient of increasing brain size coupled with progressive sophistication in manipulation of the material environment, and finally development of artistic and symbolic capacity, including, presumably, concepts of spirituality, theory of mind, and religion. All of this suggests very strongly that the "mind" represents the terminal product of a continuum of development, and in fact is strongly inconsistent with the idea that the human "mind" is a specially created unique entity with no basis in the natural, biological world. As for the selective pressures that impact the neural and mental evolution, there is a copious literature dealing with the topic that Vonnegut was clearly not familiar with. I suggest that you start with work by Dunbar, Semendiferi, Barton or Alexander, though there are many, many excellent papers, books and other sources out there. The only way that you can assert that "...you and I have an immaterial mind that material-based natural selection has never and cannot possibly come up with. I don’t think you can refute that" is that you are completely and totally unaware of current science. I suggest that before we take this particular argument any further, you do some reading so that we can discuss the actual issues and not have to spend so much time filling in the gaps in your knowledge.

Vonnegut's statement about the miracle of the body's design is little more than assertion of ignorance. Having cut up a couple of thousand bodies myself, I am unimpressed with the "miracle of design." In point of fact, the body is riddled with absurdities, ranging from boring our testicles through the anterior body wall leaving it susceptible to herniations, to lumbar lordosis, to the fact that the autonomic nervous system has a bizarre and nonsensical distribution in that parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves originate from separate spinal levels, necessitating a separate sympathetic trunk to redistribute the nerves throughout the body.

Most statements about the miracle of the body's design and, as a corollary that NS could not have produced such machines, are based on ignorance of anatomy, comparative anatomy, biomechanics, the paleontological record and so on. Inevitably these arguments boil down to "it's complicated and it works therefore I can't see how it could evolve", without considering the actual evidence. My favorite example is the transition of the reptilian jaw joint, comprising the dentary and quadrate, into the mammalian middle ear bones -- the incus and malleus. We know this transformation happened because of powerful evidence from developmental and comparative anatomy and the fossil record, and we have an excellent understanding of how the transition happened biomechanically. But there are many, many such examples. I suggest that you start with a basic comparative anatomy text book such as that by Fedducia or Carrol so that we can reasonably discuss the strengths and shortcomings of these arguments on the basis of what is known.

Given this, Vonnegut's statement is hardly open-minded. It is simply ignorant.

You seem to define "open-minded" as agreeing with you. No, open-minded is willing to consider evidence, propositions, arguments and so on. I am perfectly willing to do so regarding any aspect of biology, evolution, geology, or any other topic you like. Even theology. I don't have any doubts about evolution because I have seen no cause to have any, and have seen phenomenal amounts of evidence supporting the theory. But that doesn't mean that I don’t question it, or am averse to considering evidence against it. In point of fact I read creationist materials and arguments every day, in depth. And in investigating them one by one, I have yet to find a single argument that holds any water whatsoever. The same for ID. The same for creationist geology. This is closed-mind HOW? Please, I'm dying to know. Because I don’t agree? That seems to be your stance. I said above that we recognize creationist and ID arguments as complete crap because, well, they ARE. You see, I do have some expertise in these areas. So when an ID advocate makes an assertion that design can be proved on the basis of the obvious incorrect statement that proteins or morphological structures have no functional or structural intermediates, I recognize it immediately as crap. When a Young Earth creationist tells me that Lucy was not bipedal, I recognize it immediately as crap. And on and on. This is because such statements are at the level of someone telling me that 2+2=5. One is not "closed-minded" for being able to distinguish fact from not-fact. Vonnegut makes a statement that is clearly ignorant and you hold him up as "open-minded" (clearly because you perceive him as providing support for your position). I study creationist arguments in addition to normal science, and am accused of being closed minded.

So, FL, I'm still waiting....

It's no surprise that FL refuses to discuss the age of the earth. In earlier discussions, FL has agreed that the physical evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. He appeals to "apparent age" miracles to explain away the contradiction.

Ah. A "Last Thursdayist" then.

"Let’s do Joel first"

Heh. Looks like you're the one who was "done" here.

"You have NO conceivable rational analogue, no conceivable rational *anything*, that could even serve as a remotely plausible basis to hope or speculate or fantasize that natural selection can EVER create an immaterial object, such as your mind that you have right now, from that whch is material."

Why do you say the mind is not material? You'll have to provide evidence for this assertion.

"Mind you, I’m *not* conceding the the other items you mentioned to natural selection."

Then this is no longer a scientific discussion, since there is good scientific evidence supporting the view that the human eye, the Krebs cycle and bacterial flagella all evolved from more primitive antecedents.

Even if there were evidence for an "immaterial mind" in humans, the next question would be whether there's evidence of it's absence in apes, monkeys, other mammals, other vertebrates, etc.

Henry

It’s no surprise that FL refuses to discuss the age of the earth. In earlier discussions, FL has agreed that the physical evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. He appeals to “apparent age” miracles to explain away the contradiction.

— Jeremy Mohn

Why do you say the mind is not material? You’ll have to provide evidence for this assertion.

Think back to your first kiss. The experience of it may pop into your head instantly. Where was that memory before you became conscious of it? How was it stored in your brain before and after it came into consciousness? What is the difference between those states? An explanation of consciousness is one of the major unsolved problems of modern science. It may not turn out to be a single phenomenon; nonetheless, by way of a preliminary target, let’s think of it as the thing that flickers on when you wake up in the morning that was not there, in the exact same brain hardware, moments before. Neuroscientists believe that consciousness emerges from the material stuff of the brain primarily because even very small changes to your brain (say, by drugs or disease) can powerfully alter your subjective experiences. The heart of the problem is that we do not yet know how to engineer pieces and parts such that the resulting machine has the kind of private subjective experience that you and I take for granted. If I give you all the Tinkertoys in the world and tell you to hook them up so that they form a conscious machine, good luck. We don’t have a theory yet of how to do this; we don’t even know what the theory will look like. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=

FL has agreed that the physical evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

So, then, FL, what sort of magical authority over science was bestowed upon unofficial Humanist President Vonnegut, who was not a scientist and had never done any sort of scientific research ever?

FL:

Why do you say the mind is not material? You’ll have to provide evidence for this assertion.

Me, I say the mind is not material because it has never been measured, weighed, quantified, photographed, touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen. Period. At all. Ever. FL

I can easily see that, by way of comparison, Vonnegut’s statement is still the open-minded statement. Probably took him a long time and a lot of honest reflection to get there, but he got there.

In 2005, Vonnegut was interviewed by David Nason for The Australian. During the course of the interview Vonnegut was asked his opinion of modern terrorists, to which he replied "I regard them as very brave people." When pressed further Vonnegut also said that "They [suicide bombers] are dying for their own self-respect. It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's [like] your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing ... It is sweet and noble — sweet and honourable I guess it is — to die for what you believe in."

Based on FL's earlier discussion of "apparent age" miracles, he seems to accept that God may have created the universe in such a way that it only appears old and life on earth only appears to have evolved. Am I right, FL? (Please correct me if I have misunderstood your point.) If I am right, then FL has already expressed a willingness to accept that the physical evidence we observe may appear to contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

I'd wanted to ask FL a couple of questions. First, how he gets from:

"An explanation of consciousness is one of the major unsolved problems of modern science."

to maintaining that "An explanation of consciousness is an unsolvable problem for modern science." Nothing else will do.

Second, why he thinks that the mind has never been measured. That's done all the time, in every sort of psychological testing there is, from IQ tests to ink blots. If something that can be measured is material, then the mind is material.

Or perhaps it is as Steven Wells puts it with his comparison to
the cheetah's speed. Mind could well be what emerges from the operation of something physical, and immaterial only in the sense that that there is no "substance" involved. But then, that gets us into philosophy.

Either way, there is no need to say that the mind is an immaterial thing; it may be neither immaterial nor a thing.

Unfortunately, it would seem that I am unable to ask these of FL, because he has declared victory and pulled out.

FL:

"me, I say the mind is not material because it has never been measured, weighed, quantified, photographed, touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen"

Really? Does it have to qualify for all of these, or only a few. The mind is regularly measured and predictable in many, many aspects. It has no mass, color or taste and can't be photographed. No kidding. Neither does pain. Is it therefore an immaterial phenomenon? Wrong. Like the mind, it is an emergent property of wiring.

You want evidence that the mind could evolve? Well, the mind is complex, true. But we can start with the simple proposition that "immaterial" perceptions that are integrated into consciousness can be understood as a function material neural wiring. Tell me FL, is the perception of color, like the mind, an immaterial thing? Surely you must answer that it is immaterial, since it is a part of your mind, is it not? It can't be photographed, weighed, touched, tasted smelled heard or seen. It can be measured, but then so can the mind. Or are you denying all of psychology because it is inconvenient to your stance? Color is a property of specific, known neural paths, and arises from the presence of opsin genes in retinal cells. The evolution of these genes is well-documented and studied, including mutations and gene duplications leading to the evolution of color perception in different groups of animals. The wiring of the retina is also well-known. In fact, as part of the brain, the retina is the only part for a which a wiring diagram can be produced demonstrating exactly how specific mental perceptions arise from the interaction of neurons with the environment and with each other. Arguing that specific, complex interactions of neurons that produce thought and perception are poorly understood, and therefore not a function of evolution or natural selection, is antithetical to science itself. Even if the answer to most questions is "we don't know", this provides no basis for saying that it is designed. In case after case in biology mysterious things that must have been designed turned out to be much more easily understood in terms of selection. Anyway, you wanted evidence that the mind can be selected? There you go. Is it direct? No. But it demonstrates that "immaterial" perceptions can be traced to very real, well-documented material structures, and that the evolutionary basis of these structures is well-understood.

Naturally you will say that the mind is more complex. But most of what I've read and discussed with folks interested in this problem indicates that the mind is a continuum. The first indicator is that the mind can be altered in predictable ways by physical and chemical alteration of specific parts of the brain. Furthermore, specific cognitive, mental functions are heritable. This is strong, nay, almost definitive, evidence that the mind is an emergent property of a material object that is ultimately genetically determined, and is therefore subject to natural selection.

Meanwhile, I answered your question above, and you have done nothing but provide assertion after assertion, with no data, evidence or anything other than your own incredulity offered as support. I'm still waiting here. Give me evidence dude. So far you have only quoted "Discover Magazine" as your source of information. This is poor at best. Let's talk details. My take here is that you do not know what you are talking about, have little factual knowledge, and are unwilling to engage in a considered discussion. My mind is still open and receptive to these topics. Sadly, you have not offered anything substantial for consideration.

I'm still waiting FL....

Look FL, the "mind" is a program, in the same sense that whatever is going on in your computer is a program.

Does your computer have a mind? Well, in many ways it "thinks" and is way smarter than either of us. Does it have a human-type mind? Of course not. But it gets closer every year. There seems no reason to assume that at some point "computer intelligence" can't become self-aware and pass a Turing test. Then it will be a "human mind" in every sense except residing in silicon and gold rather than in neurons.

Whatever goes on when a computer "thinks" is clearly understood and is material. It's basically electrons being shunted around here and there, creating patterns, some permanent, some temporary. And that produces "thought" that is superior to humans' in some senses. The thought bouncing around in your brain is the _same thing_: incredibly complex patterns of electrons, through well-understood electrochemical processes, making patterns, some permanent, some temporary.

Electrons are MATERIAL. Stored computer memory is material. Computer "thought" is material. Your memories and thought are every bit as material.

Maybe you have some kind of "immaterial" soul, but your mind is material, physical. It's electrochemical-mediated programs running in a "computer" consisting of real matter.

FL: Well, as always, more interesting responses to talk about. (At this rate, NGL, how can I **ever** stop posting here? Nilbog will just have to wait, it would seem.)

FL:

I'm still waiting with my mind open to any evidence you can provide. So far, you have not provided anything other than a quote for Discover magazine, which really amounted to nothing. You haven't replied substantively to a single point or factum that I have brought up. Meanwhile, you say....

"But that’s all I’m going to say about that issue within this thread, nor will I respond to any replies to this particular post within this thread."

I'm sorry, but this does not sound like an open mind to me. Closed-minded, in my circle, usually means someone who will not engage in direct discussions of the evidence, and who will walk away when challenged with facts or difficult points. You seem to be walking away from the argument before it has even really begun. I've changed my mind on many occassions when presented with compelling evidence or arguments.

I'm still waiting FL....

in comment 137650, Nigel made a insightful observation:
"What, are you saying that people in general prefer to be guided by an authority than to make up their minds based on actual, y’know, facts and stuff?"

precicely! many people are intellectually LAZY - its so much easier for someone to just tell them the answer vs. actually putting the effort into learning

this is why 50% +/- of the population don't "believe" in evolution- science is work, and many people like to do as little as possible

*Sigh* Where has FL gone? He accused me (and effectively everybody else here) of being closed-minded. I offered to listen, and laid down a few arguments and observations that seem to contradict his assertions. He didn't answer any of them, and now he went away and won't discuss the evidence.

I'm still waiting FL. Your silence and refusal to engage seems to me to constitute an outstanding and very clear testimony about both the depth of your knowledge on the subject, and your open-mindedness in discussing the evidence. I'm open-minded, though, and still waiting for you to present evidence to support your positions, and tangentially, evidence at this point to indicate that you either know what you are talking about, or have an open mind yourself.

Still waiting FL...

Perhaps he took my advice.

I doubt it, though.

FL: Please change your online handle.

Those of us who live in Florida already have our full share of embarrassments. We don't need any more.

Thank you.

*Sigh* Where has FL gone?

So far you have only quoted “Discover Magazine” as your source of information.

"If materialism is correct, then mentation is the product of brain processes (much as digestion is the product of stomach processes, to use an analogy proposed by the philosopher John Searle). But this would mean that even though the brain can readily affect the mind, there’s no sense in which the mind can affect the brain except by way of the brain. That is, top-down causation in which the mind affects the brain must invariably presuppose bottom-up causation of the brain first affecting the mind. And yet (UCLA psychiatry professor Jeffrey) Schwartz clearly shows that a conceptual act with no clear physiological underpinnings (for instance, the conscious decision by an OCD sufferer to implement the 4-R therapy) can dramatically and lastingly alter patterns of brain activity. And in such cases, top-down causation seems to operate without prior bottom-up causation." William Dembski http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=480 *** "But I’m also waiting for a neuroscientist to tell me how the hypothesis that mental states are nothing more than neural states will be repudiated. I don’t see that as a testable hypothesis." Dr. B. Alan Wallace, former Buddhist monk, 2006 Salon interview with Steve Paulson.

Even if the answer to most questions is “we don’t know”, this provides no basis for saying that it is designed.

But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.----Vonnegut.

If I am right, then FL has already expressed a willingness to accept that the physical evidence we observe may appear to contradict a literal reading of the Bible

FL has agreed that the physical evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

Just enjoy it while it lasts. ;)

Of course, FL fails to explain how appealing to a Designer is a scientific explanation.
Again.

REALLY shaving the bottom of the barrel there, FL.

But that answer also does NOT rule out design either, does it?

You have NO conceivable rational analogue, no conceivable rational *anything*, that could even serve as a remotely plausible basis to hope or speculate or fantasize that natural selection can EVER create an immaterial object, such as your mind that you have right now, from that whch is material.

— FL

you know one of the things that disgust me the most about YECs is their willingness to both lie and to believe liars ...FL is a splendid example of that

FL, if YECs lie about scientific evidence, why should we believe them about God ?

And yes, Mplavcan, while I haven’t tried to single you out,Vonnegut seems DOES seem open-minded compared to your remarks. Let’s unpack that a little. I’m NOT saying he’s more openminded than you w.r.t. YEC or to geology. Haven’t seen any evidence of that. My guess is that Vonnegut would probably agree with you on those items. But you DID say, “what you basically have is those of us who do science daily who look at the propositions of ID and recognize it immediately as complete crap”

— FL

And Vonnegut DID say, “But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.”

And there is no doubt as to which of THOSE particular statements is more open-minded,

especially in light of the fact that you and I have an immaterial mind that material-based natural selection has never and cannot possibly come up with. I don’t think you can refute that.

And in case there IS any question, let me fill in the blank right now: Vonnegut is the open-minded one

— FL

Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines

— FL

Asking me for geological evidence of a young earth won’t change THAT situation at all, Mplavcan. The age of the earth is not relevant to the above comparison. Old earth or Young Earth, it doesn’t change a thing.

— FL weaseling out of supplying evidence

Me, I say the mind is not material because it has never been measured, weighed, quantified, photographed, touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen. Period. At all. Ever. You can ask Mplavcan if you want to: he reports that he has cut up some 2000 human bodies, and not once has he actually observed any material human mind during his dissections. ... So, the human mind is NOT material...

— FL

You guys honestly could not tell me how natural selection originated the immaterial human mind, even if you wanted to.

— FL with his quote-mining-helmet on

Tell me again how material-based natural selection can come up, AT ALL, with the immaterial human mind. Show me the evidence. Show me how natural selection does the originating. I’m listening, but you gotta come up with something there.

— FL

In the meantime, I can easily see that, by way of comparison, Vonnegut’s statement is still the open-minded statement.

— FL

Probably took him a long time and a lot of honest reflection to get there, but he got there.

Vonnegut is clearly willing to consider the possibility of design rather than natural selection when it specifically comes to the human machine.

With what we know of the human machine, it’s clear that Vonnegut’s statement is a very rational, very considered statement.

He’s not the only one who’s considering that possibility btw. Many members of the scientific community–your fellow scientists, for those of you who are scientists–are also considering that same possibility.

...After all, there can be a big difference between “the evidence” and the INTERPRETATION of that “evidence.” That has to be taken into account.

— FL

Also, much depends on the pre-suppositions a person brings to the table,

and especially whether one’s presuppositions include an acceptance or rejection of the existence of miracles, especially the supernatural miracle-claims of the Bible.

But that’s all I’m going to say about that issue within this thread, nor will I respond to any replies to this particular post within this thread.

Vonnegut’s open-minded, rational statement is where I’m at for now.

Thank you Nigel D. Yes, I am male. I wrote up a response to FL last night late, but our wireless modem stopped transmitting for some reason, so I lost it. But you have done a splendid job here. As for you FL, I'm still waiting for something concrete. You have only provided 3 largely irrelevant quotes from Discover Magazine, Dembski, and a Buddhist monk, none of which provide and actual information. Dembski's in particular is shear nonsense in that it creates conditions and requirements at odds with actual factual knowledge, and appears to be a complete nonsequitor. You have failed to reply to any point concerning the anatomical basic of cognition and consciousness.

I'm still waiting...

FL: I dare you to tell anyone who has had a loved one survive a Traumatic Brain Injury and return a completely different person (as I have) that the mind is "immaterial." They'll laugh in your face.

Also, how is Vonnegut's statement ..."my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines," or, to paraphrase, "I haven't read all the literature of scientists who actually have researched this question therefore they can't possibly be right," an open-minded, rational, supportable assertion?

Nigel D: So, FL, in what way exactly is your denial of reality (viz, the evidence for an old Earth and the evidence for MET) open-minded?

mplavcan: You have failed to reply to any point concerning the anatomical basic of cognition and consciousness. I'm still waiting...

Not at all. Exactly how did natural selection produce your immaterial mind, for example?

You’ll never find an answer to that one.

Humans are beyond the ability of natural selection to create.

That’s just a matter of open-minded observation.

In the meantime, I can easily see that, by way of comparison, Vonnegut’s statement is still the open-minded statement.

Me, I say the mind is not material because it has never been measured, weighed, quantified, photographed, touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen. Period. At all. Ever.

The heart of the problem is that we do not yet know how to engineer pieces and parts such that the resulting machine has the kind of private subjective experience that you and I take for granted. If I give you all the Tinkertoys in the world and tell you to hook them up so that they form a conscious machine, good luck. We don’t have a theory yet of how to do this; we don’t even know what the theory will look like.

Neuroscientists believe that consciousness emerges from the material stuff of the brain primarily because even very small changes to your brain (say, by drugs or disease) can powerfully alter your subjective experiences.

“If materialism is correct, then mentation is the product of brain processes (much as digestion is the product of stomach processes, to use an analogy proposed by the philosopher John Searle).

“But I’m also waiting for a neuroscientist to tell me how the hypothesis that mental states are nothing more than neural states will be repudiated. I don’t see that as a testable hypothesis.” Dr. B. Alan Wallace, former Buddhist monk, 2006 Salon interview with Steve Paulson.

And that’s not all. Not only is the evidence not there, but very rational, scientific counter-arguments already exist against your proposition anyway. (Just-Bob, check this part out as well.) “If materialism is correct, then mentation is the product of brain processes (much as digestion is the product of stomach processes, to use an analogy proposed by the philosopher John Searle). But this would mean that even though the brain can readily affect the mind, there’s no sense in which the mind can affect the brain except by way of the brain. That is, top-down causation in which the mind affects the brain must invariably presuppose bottom-up causation of the brain first affecting the mind. And yet (UCLA psychiatry professor Jeffrey) Schwartz clearly shows that a conceptual act with no clear physiological underpinnings (for instance, the conscious decision by an OCD sufferer to implement the 4-R therapy) can dramatically and lastingly alter patterns of brain activity. And in such cases, top-down causation seems to operate without prior bottom-up causation.” William Dembski http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article… *** “But I’m also waiting for a neuroscientist to tell me how the hypothesis that mental states are nothing more than neural states will be repudiated. I don’t see that as a testable hypothesis.” Dr. B. Alan Wallace, former Buddhist monk, 2006 Salon interview with Steve Paulson.

(PS: David, since you say the mind has been measured, can you give me some dimensions, mass, etc, in metric units? Aside from that, though, you’re very right about something else: your statement “But then, that gets us into philosophy.” We’re NOT getting evidence that natural selection can create the immaterial human mind, but we ARE getting some materialist philosophical beliefs for sure on this one.

The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front."

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.

If the mind were immaterial, then shoving an ice pick through your nasal bones and wiggling the point back and forth would cause only minor discomfort, and might be a viable sinus-clearing activity.

I'm still waiting FL. You've had multiple people pointing out clear and unambiguous lines of evidence that the mind is an emergent property of a material organ. There is a large body of literature dealing with cognitive and neural evolution. In fact, just today in the mail I got my American Scientist with a brief review article on the evidence for cognitive evolution in Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (Wynn, T, and Coolidge, FL. 2008. A stone-age meeting of minds. Am Sci 96: 44-51). It's a simple review article, but at least it's a step up from Discover Magazine, or from Bill Dembski's ignorant assertions.

You have provided absolutely no evidence, and in fact have completely ignored, evidence that Vonnegut's claim that the body is too complex to have been produced by selection is based on ignorance and ignorance alone. You have accused us of being closed-minded, but have failed each and every time to address the points made here using actual known observations. You have instead tried to back up your assertions with a few largely meaningless quotes.

Please FL, provide us with some actual scientific observation that the mind is NOT a function of the structure of the brain and therefore cannot evolve, that the human body is too complex to have evolved, or even, God help us, something related to the original topic concerning a young earth.

I'm waiting....

Maybe FL should be renamed Godot.

NGL: Or is your confrontational instinct too strong for your "immaterial" mind to control?

FL: A load of unrepentant idiocy

Maybe FL should be renamed Godot

— fnxtr

Please FL, provide us with some actual scientific observation that the mind is NOT a function of the structure of the brain and therefore cannot evolve.

The eminent microbiologist, Herbert Jennings, in his studies of bacteria, paramecium, and amoebas found that their responses to stimuli were strikingly similar to those of large-brained animals. He concluded that if these tiny, one-celled creatures were enlarged to the size of dogs, we would readily see them to possess conscious choice, perception, memory, intelligence, and emotion. The fact that these mental qualities are present in minute bags of slithering protoplasm strongly supports Eccles’ view that the conscious mind does not “emerge” from the brain but is an independent, nonphysical force. ---Carl Gunter, quoted by Denyse O'Leary at http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2006/12/26/lstrongglemgrecent_events_in_the_intelli

FL:

That quote from Herbert Jennings about the intelligence of amoeba rivalling that of dogs if they were scaled up to the same size - would that be from his 1904 paper 'Contributions to the study of the behavior of lower organisms'?

Do you have anything more recent than that which comes to a similar conclusion?

FL, you claimed the mind is immaterial and used that claim as a premise in another argument. It is not incumbent on anyone to demonstrate that the mind is material in order to defeat those arguments, it's up to you to support the claim that it is immaterial or retract the argument that used this premise.

If logic is too tough for you, I'm sure there's no shortage of creo blogs where you could belch your tepid apologetics endlessly without ever being challenged on the validity of your goddidit agruments.

Further...Among those who believe that the mind is immaterial, many believe that the mind is emergent from the material stuff or that it supervenes on the material. Therefore, even if the mind is immaterial, that does not automatically mean that it cannot have arisen via a material process.

Plus, it's hard to tell what people mean when they call something immaterial or non-physical. It is hard to give a positive account of such things rather than just saying "They're not physical."

"Black is white." "Prove it!" "No! You prove I'm wrong."

And we also equate American Scientist and Discover. After all, tic-tac-toe and chess are both just games, right?

A more serious thought: Saying that software is not material ignores the fact that the software must exist as an arrangement of something tangible, be it photons, electrons, tiny pits on a CD-ROM, or on-and-off states of transistors. These arrangements may easily translate from one medium to another, but they still have to exist in the physical world, so in what sense is software immaterial? The mind is an arrangement of neurons. Maybe someday we'll be able to translate it to another medium, but we will never be able to eliminate the media altogether.

OK FL. You have provided me with no data, no information, and yet another meaningless quote.

Unlike you, I did a simple search on medline. That's a search engine, meaning that it is a "thingy" on your computer that locates "articles" also known as "scientific literature" that are available. I got about 20,000 articles cited in the recent literature on the biological basis of the mind. This by scientists, not theologians, or monks, or some pompous and ignorant ideologue passing themselves off as experts in fields that they have no clue about. You obviously think my anatomical training and expertise are irrelevant. In point of fact, I described several well-known systems and observations above. You ignore them. Other people have provided a wealth of simple observations listed above. You ignore them. So the bottom line is that there is nothing that anyone can say that will convince you. Nevertheless, following are a couple of amusing abstracts about the biological basis of consciousness and the mind. I think you should particularly look up the second one and contemplate it in depth.

Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences (Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci) 2006 Dec 29; 361(1476): 2173-86
Additional Info: England
ISSN: 0962-8436 (Print); 1471-2970 (Electronic); NLM Unique Journal Identifier: 7503623
Mammals and birds regularly express mate preferences and make mate choices. Data on mate choice among mammals suggest that this behavioural 'attraction system' is associated with dopaminergic reward pathways in the brain. It has been proposed that intense romantic love, a human cross-cultural universal, is a developed form of this attraction system. To begin to determine the neural mechanisms associated with romantic attraction in humans, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study 17 people who were intensely 'in love'. Activation specific to the beloved occurred in the brainstem right ventral tegmental area and right postero-dorsal body of the caudate nucleus. These and other results suggest that dopaminergic reward and motivation pathways contribute to aspects of romantic love. We also used fMRI to study 15 men and women who had just been rejected in love. Preliminary analysis showed activity specific to the beloved in related regions of the reward system associated with monetary gambling for uncertain large gains and losses, and in regions of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex associated with theory of mind, obsessive/compulsive behaviours and controlling anger. These data contribute to our view that romantic love is one of the three primary brain systems that evolved in avian and mammalian species to direct reproduction. The sex drive evolved to motivate individuals to seek a range of mating partners; attraction evolved to motivate individuals to prefer and pursue specific partners; and attachment evolved to motivate individuals to remain together long enough to complete species-specific parenting duties. These three behavioural repertoires appear to be based on brain systems that are largely distinct yet interrelated, and they interact in specific ways to orchestrate reproduction, using both hormones and monoamines. Romantic attraction in humans and its antecedent in other mammalian species play a primary role: this neural mechanism motivates individuals to focus their courtship energy on specific others, thereby conserving valuable time and metabolic energy, and facilitating mate choice.

The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in human religious activity.
Medical hypotheses (Med Hypotheses) 2004; 62(4): 479-85
Additional Info: Scotland
ISSN: 0306-9877 (Print); NLM Unique Journal Identifier: 7505668
Although religious practices are ubiquitous and universal throughout human history, their biological basis is little understood, particularly at the neural level. In this paper, I will first review the current understanding of the neural basis of human religious activity, and then present a hypothesis that the medial prefrontal cortex plays a vital role in the integrity of religious activity. In this hypothesis, optimal functions of the medial prefrontal cortex, such as error detection, compliance to social norms, self-reflection, and theory of mind, are a key prerequisite to the maintenance of integrated religious activity. Hyperreligiosity may result from the hyperfunction of the medial prefrontal cortex, including rigid legalism (excessive error detection), excessive concern over one's existence (excessive self-reflection), and delusional interpretation of God's mind (excess of theory of mind). Future research based on this hypothesis is proposed, and the potential implication of this hypothesis on our society is also discussed.

Game, set, and match. Again.

Are there any "good" new creationists haunting the Thumb at the moment?

I don't mean worn-out old retreads like FL...obviously. Somebody with entertainingly new tard!

Even if the mind could be shown to be in some way immaterial (whatever that means), in what way would that conflict with evolution of the body? For that matter, if the "immaterial" mind is affected by hereditary traits, it could still evolve over the generations as if it were physical. There'd also be the question of what species have the alleged immaterial minds, since there don't seem to have been any obvious sharp division points (that I know of) at which such might have started.

Henry

The idea here is very simple. If the mind is independent of the brain, then it could not evolve. Ergo it must be created: hence design and proof of God. Of course, once you take that stance you can't acknowledge the blindingly obvious evidence that the mind is a function of the brain, and that mental function is not only contingent on neural architecture, but also heritable. That's why FL will not address anything actually having to do with the biological basis of the mind (which is well-known and well-established), instead trying to deflect the argument to ad hominem attacks and irrelevancies. It is also why he/she will not even acknowledge the facts, and mocks any sort of evidential presentation. But FL, in spite of the bluster, is a fairly ordinary, low-level creationist equipped with poor education and logical skills. Most of his/her information is a simple rehash of crap read in creationist popular sources. I suppose that he/she hangs around these lists because he/she gets off on feeling like he/she is smarter than "those scientists." Pretty ordinary when you get down to it. But it gets boring after a while. Masturbation is, after all, a self-gratifying exprience that has limited audience appeal.

All of the evidence that does exist (which is in the public domain as part of the scientific mainstream, FL, so if you want a detailed account of it, it is available for you to find) points towards consciousness being a function of the physical human brain, and that it has arisen by one or more of the mechanisms described in MET. For now, these general conclusions are all that is clear. The fine detail has yet to be worked out.

— Nigel D #137870

So how about YOU providing me with some actual scientific observation (either from your own observations, or from your newly arrived magazine there) of material-based natural selection actually producing the immaterial human brain? Merely four months ago, Discover magazine said “we don’t know.” And now, you’re in a great position to prove them wrong. (Probably snag a Nobel Prize with a little luck.) Just provide the actual scientific observations, just provide the evidence, the specifics. How hard can that be?

— FL #137925

mplavcan writes... Having cut up a couple of thousand bodies myself, I am unimpressed with the “miracle of design.”

Gross anatomy. Gross, but necessary.

Nigel D: FL, the short version is, if you seriously want to debate about consciousness and the mind, then go and do your homework first.

FL: Are you stil waiting Mplavcan? But of course.

Please FL, provide us with some actual scientific observation that the mind is NOT a function of the structure of the brain and therefore cannot evolve.

Well, let's see now. You've dissected 2000 human bodies and you just received the most recent copy of American Scientist in the mail this week, to boot. So how about YOU providing me with some actual scientific observation (either from your own observations, or from your newly arrived magazine there) of material-based natural selection actually producing the immaterial human brain? Merely four months ago, Discover magazine said "we don't know." And now, you're in a great position to prove them wrong. (Probably snag a Nobel Prize with a little luck.) Just provide the actual scientific observations, just provide the evidence, the specifics. How hard can that be? ****** But let's not make it too easy for you, hmmm?

The eminent microbiologist, Herbert Jennings, in his studies of bacteria, paramecium, and amoebas found that their responses to stimuli were strikingly similar to those of large-brained animals. He concluded that if these tiny, one-celled creatures were enlarged to the size of dogs, we would readily see them to possess conscious choice, perception, memory, intelligence, and emotion. The fact that these mental qualities are present in minute bags of slithering protoplasm strongly supports Eccles’ view that the conscious mind does not “emerge” from the brain but is an independent, nonphysical force. ---Carl Gunter, quoted by Denyse O'Leary at http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2006/12/26/lstrongglemgrecent_events_in_the_intelli

Anyway, there you go! You may resume your waiting, once again. FL :)