The Discovery Institute Needs your help

A new blog called Opposing Views, eh? The fact that IDers can't seem to do anything but blog kinda tells you how much scientific merit ID has. No papers, no research, no experiments, no journal. Lotsa blogs though.

The blog is actually quite cool and allows many controversial issue be discussed. Note that the question was not if ID was a science but rather if it had any merit at all.

Of course ID, especially our aspiring journalist Denyse O'Leary seems to have many blogs

Yeah at some point I WHOIS'd it and was surprised to see it wasn't from The Discovery Institute. When I hear about a new ID blog I just assume it's from the usual suspects.

I dunno. I went over there and looked at some of the ID arguments.

Whenever I peruse these ID arguments, I feel like I’m in the presence of a Dementor. Their “physics” is really depressing. There are so many egregious errors, it’s hard to know where to start; and you sense that anything you say will have no effect because these IDiots don’t understand the words or the science. They have their own meanings and misconceptions. And all this comes out of people who wave their PhD’s.

Their rubes won’t get it either; they just go with whoever quotes scripture properly.

I guess I’d have to think about it for a while before getting involved with that site.

Holy crow, PvM, you're really holding down the fort over there :) I'm not going to be able to even skim all the comments over there at this rate!

Ugh, Dembski's horrid "explanatory filter". I notice that it treats chance, regularity and design all separately, turning it into a choice of three (if one assumes that design is not split into rarefied design and conscious design) instead of the eight combinations it could be. Way to exclude the actual proposed evolutionary model, which would be comprised of regularity and chance (and, in fact, would not work without one or the other).

Then again, the whole enterprise seems reliant on omitting things. Things like, if evolutionary science discovered something in 1980, then use papers from 1979 and before and, oh, maybe get it published by shady methods in a systematics journal.

I've met a few intelligent design supporters online who are not creationists, but they still seem to cling to somewhat antifactual oddities as Hoyle's panspermia ravings or some variant on a "life force" theme.

It would be pretty refreshing just to see an intelligent design advocate free of strawman beliefs about evolutionary theory, actually. Perhaps I'm still exhausted from participating in the Expelled! blog; there were still a couple of nice, polite folks amongst the creationists there, and a few who were clearly surprised that what they had been told about evolutionary theory was not true, but they hardly posted.

Ignorance is no crime, but willful ignorance is.

Keep up the good work, PvM :)

Jobby in Bizarro World!

Awesome job PvM.
You've collected an impressive amount of scalps.

ID supporters trying to defend ID without a pre-planned and vetted script is just pure entertainment.

(On second thoughts, even WITH the pre-planned script...)

;)

PvM said: I am having a lovely time, but perhaps a few could go over and vote on the issue?

And I do not even count the ‘Hovind was framed’ arguments

Mike Elzinga said: I guess I’d have to think about it for a while before getting involved with that site.

The Research Fellowship Program has been by far the single largest program expense of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Eric said: So, the "lack of funds" argument just doesn't factually hold water as a defense for their insignificant* publication record. (*I'd say zero but thought I'd give'em credit for the few articles Behe claims are design-related, just to pre-empt Jobby's whining.)

Eric said: So, the "lack of funds" argument just doesn't factually hold water as a defense for their insignificant* publication record.

Paul Burnett said: They're telling folks they can buy their way into heaven and then using the money for their non-productive "research."

Hi all,

The Dishonesty Institute ought to just give it, raise their hands in surrender and admit that Klingon Cosmology makes a lot more sense than Intelligent Design as I noted here:

http://www.amazon.com/Klingon-Cosmology-Explanation-Origins-Intelligent/forum/Fx2QMNLWR0COM08/Tx19MZJVRCWV9J4/1/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0980021308

Regards,

John

John, for shame, getting my hopes up that someone had published a Klingon Cosmology book :)

Does Intelligent Design Have Merit? With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.

Jobby is not longer with us, please avoid feeding the troll.

PvM said: Jobby is not longer with us ...

PvM said: Jobby is not longer with us, please avoid feeding the troll.

Indeed, what he said. And just a suggestion, but I'd use a different phrase when banning people.

iml8 said:

PvM said: Jobby is not longer with us ...

In all kindness, good sir, haven't we heard this before? Of course, if PT has a more effective banning mechanism now, I'd be the first to be glad to hear it. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

PvM said: So let me take care of cleaning up the threads.

iml8 said:

PvM said: So let me take care of cleaning up the threads.

That's a very welcome answer -- thanks. However, I am curious as to why PT doesn't use registration. Most forums do -- it seems like a standard feature in forum apps that I could get my hands on -- and it's no great bother to valid users, but I would think it would raise the obstacles to entry to malicious visitors enough to make it not worth the bother any longer. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

"With about 70 billion stars ... the universe is a stunningly complex place."

Aren't there like hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way alone? And aren't there billions of galaxies? We gotta get Phil to set Opposing Views straight.

As a question about Intelligent Design, it occurs to me that whether or not a designer, whether it be a supernatural entity or a fleet of aliens fresh off a barhop, doesn't answer the question it's purported to answer anyway. It says 'x conciously produced y' but does not specify the method by which y was manufactured, whereas evolution provides this answer in all but the earliest instance (the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution)

Is this a potential venue or argument against ID? Invoking a designer says nothing about methods of species creation, merely that some dude/dudette/duditte had a hand in it. This assumes that explanation of method is important, which I feel it is.

ragarth said: ... whereas evolution provides this answer in all but the earliest instance (the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution)

This assumes that explanation of method is important, which I feel it is.

Over at the NASA site, they list the number of stars in the Universe as on the order of 10^21. I guess DI calculators don't go that high.

ragarth said: ...It says ‘x conciously produced y’ but does not specify the method by which y was manufactured, whereas evolution provides this answer in all but the earliest instance (the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution) Is this [the argument 'ID lacks a mechanism'] a potential venue or argument against ID?

Matt G said: Over at the NASA site, they list the number of stars in the Universe as on the order of 10^21. I guess DI calculators don't go that high.

iml8 said:

ragarth said: ... whereas evolution provides this answer in all but the earliest instance (the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution)

Well, it's got something to do with it, initial conditions and so on -- though of course evolution by natural selection would work exactly the same no matter how life got started. OK, belaboring the obvious here ...

iml8 said: There was an interesting article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN some time back on what would happen if humanity abruptly disappeared. Most of our works would not be visible in a few thousand years and in a few million years you'd be hard-pressed to know we'd existed. So, suppose another technological civilization arises in 40 million years or so, populated by evolved descendants of baboons or whatever. And also suppose that before humans disappeared they got more heavily into genetic engineering, in particular producing chimera organisms that survived the fall of humankind. Once the "Inheritors" starting poking around in genomes, they might get really baffled: "There seems to have been big-time horizontal gene transfer in multicellular organisms!" Now here's the intriguing point ... if an Inheritor geneticist suggested: "Maybe it was done by some intelligent species tens of millions of years ago." -- he or she would have NO chance of selling the idea until some evidence of our existence was discovered. The idea would be pure baseless speculation, picked out of thin air, proposing a complicated mechanism not supported by any evidence. Once evidence of our existence did start to pop up, everyone else would look at each other and say: "Good Lord, maybe the idea was right after all!" The moral: until somebody could actually produce hard evidence of a designer, the assertion of design would remain no more more than vaporous speculation -- EVEN IF IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

iml8 said: ...if an Inheritor geneticist suggested: "Maybe it was done by some intelligent species tens of millions of years ago." -- he or she would have NO chance of selling the idea until some evidence of our existence was discovered.

Corey S. said: "With about 70 billion stars ... the universe is a stunningly complex place."

ragarth said: It says 'x conciously produced y' but does not specify the method by which y was manufactured, whereas evolution provides this answer in all but the earliest instance (the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution) Is this a potential venue or argument against ID? Invoking a designer says nothing about methods of species creation, merely that some dude/dudette/duditte had a hand in it. This assumes that explanation of method is important, which I feel it is.

iml8 said: The moral: until somebody could actually produce hard evidence of a designer, the assertion of design would remain no more more than vaporous speculation -- EVEN IF IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE.

In response to Eric:
Thanks, that answers my question very well, actually. I guess you can see the underlying reason for supporting ID, as well as a little about the personality of the person supporting it based on their answer to those questions. Behe is the most amusing one of all to me.

Robin said: They think that the teaching of evolution pretty much establishes that there can be NO entertainment within society (except privately and quietly) of the idea that God might be behind things, even though we KNOW it is true.

ragarth said: So, I say that working towards an understanding of the nature by which extra-natural processes could produce speciation would be more valuable to intelligent design than using the idea of a designer as a catchall, it provides that ever critical thing in science... testability. You cannot test for the existance of a designer, but you can test for the methods of design.

Robin said: Interesting point, Greg. The thing is (at least as I see it), many fundamentalists have a tough time with evolution because they (mistakenly) think that it closes the door on divine intervention. They think that the teaching of evolution pretty much establishes that there can be NO entertainment within society (except privately and quietly) of the idea that God might be behind things, even though we KNOW it is true.

Eric said: Fortunately for posthuman civilizations (and unlike any previous designer), every genetic oddity will probably have "Patent #123456789, Monsanto Corporation, 2020" or the equivalent written into that gene's DNA code.

Yeah, I used the term extra-natural to set it apart from supernatural. Supernatural invokes the tooth-fairy, extra-natural in this context was to reference something beyond just natural processes including selective breeding and genetic manipulation. I suppose for the sake of argument, I'm hypothesizing that one *can* prove extra-natural processes, but not supernatural processes. Studying the ability to prove extra-natural processes would be an interesting line of research and potentially enhance the geneticist and biologist's toolkit.

As per switching midargument between the discussion of what I've defined as extra-natural to supernatural, that either shows intense ignorance about the methods of debate, poor thought structure, or a desire to manipulate. The asking about intelligence is an interesting way to isolate which category they fall into.

ragarth said: Let's use scientists today instead of trying to speculate on a culture 40 million years in the future.

So, scientist steve writes a paper about discovery X and states 'The mechanism by which discovery X could have come about appears to have no natural origin.' or something of that type.

Discovery X would then be tested and confirmed by other scientists, then they would begin tossing about several hypothesis for how it could have happened.

If the ancient civilization that has as of yet not been discovered had used advanced technology to produce discovery X, then we would need to narrow it down. By understanding the nature of discovery X, it then allows us to narrow down the nature of the creator, and put said creator to test... ie, can we produce discovery X using the hypothesized techniques, and if this is the only explanation, with no natural corollary, are there other explanations that can be produced via cross-discipline analysis?

So, I say that working towards an understanding of the nature by which extra-natural processes could produce speciation would be more valuable to intelligent design than using the idea of a designer as a catchall, it provides that ever critical thing in science... testability. You cannot test for the existance of a designer, but you can test for the methods of design.

A scientist today makes an amazing discovery, I won’t presume to guess what kind of discovery would be considered beyond natural in modern genetics, because I’m not a geneticist, so we’ll call this discovery X. So, scientist steve writes a paper about discovery X and states ‘The mechanism by which discovery X could have come about appears to have no natural origin.’ or something of that type. Discovery X would then be tested and confirmed by other scientists, then they would begin tossing about several hypothesis for how it could have happened. If the ancient civilization that has as of yet not been discovered had used advanced technology to produce discovery X, then we would need to narrow it down. By understanding the nature of discovery X, it then allows us to narrow down the nature of the creator, and put said creator to test… ie, can we produce discovery X using the hypothesized techniques, and if this is the only explanation, with no natural corollary, are there other explanations that can be produced via cross-discipline analysis? “Look here! perhaps dinosaurs DID have a moon base!” So, I say that working towards an understanding of the nature by which extra-natural processes could produce speciation would be more valuable to intelligent design than using the idea of a designer as a catchall, it provides that ever critical thing in science… testability. You cannot test for the existance of a designer, but you can test for the methods of design.

— ragarth

Mike Elzinga said: And if “beyond natural” means “supernatural”, then the problem for ID is even worse. They have no clue about how to connect the natural to the supernatural, even though that is what they are really trying to do but won’t admit in public.

Far be it from me to respond to a banned troll. I'd just like to make the general comment that anyone who endeavors to post hundreds of times here over a period of many months without displaying the minimal intelligence required to utilize the blockquote tag, notice and click the "reply" link over each post, or employ any method whatsoever of discriminating quoted text from their own, should be banned for general stupidity regardless of the content of their contributions.

Mike Elzinga said: First of all, the reason you can’t guess what kind of discovery would be “beyond natural” in modern genetics (or in modern science) is that there is nothing in modern genetics that identifies any discovery as “beyond natural”.

Mike Elzinga said: First of all, the reason you can’t guess what kind of discovery would be “beyond natural” in modern genetics (or in modern science) is that there is nothing in modern genetics that identifies any discovery as “beyond natural”.

Once traces of our existence were found that would change the ballgame dramatically. Here’s the interesting thing: clear evidence of horizontal gene transfer between macroorganisms would be VASTLY more serious evidence of design than anything supplied so far by the DI. Behe’s irreducible complexity? Just a rephrasing of the old “unevolvability of the eye” argument in biochemical terms, with plenty of models to suggest otherwise. Dembski’s explanatory filter? At the core, nothing more than “monkeys & typewriters” probability calculations that ignore the effects of selection. But even horizontal gene transfer wouldn’t be enough to sell the idea.

— iml8

I disagree that science cannot discover extra-natural things (To define what I mean by extra-natural, I refer to my previous post on the subject and how I distinguish it from supernatural). It may take time and an increasing number of facts, but as iml8 stated above, sometimes science moves at a geologic pace, like in the case of continental drift.

I can't presume to know what would signify non-natural origins. Finding a message such as the Fibonacci sequence, or list of prime numbers within our DNA would certainly be a hint, but if that were there we would have found it. The best I can give is to look back on previous research that could have potentially became proof otherwise. A while back it was discovered that viral transposon dna inserted into a host cell sometimes found itself as part of the DNA of the host creature. If this happened in the reproductive cells, then it would be passed on from generation to generation as 'junk' dna. This was first found in the fruitfly, and has since been used to confirm the phylogenetic tree by seeing which species contain the same virally-inserted, inactive transposon dna. It could have feasibly gone another way, however, if no correlation was found with the phylogenetic tree or further proof was found that this inserted DNA was complex, and had no natural origin. So yes, I think science can find the marks of design, but I think finding that isn't likely because I don't feel such exists. If such were found, however, I'd join the science community in letting out a collective 'oh cool!' and then read about the research on it for years to come.

The core of this is it's pointless to attempt to invoke a designer as an answer because it says nothing, gives no proof, and adds nothing to the existing argument. It's like being given the equation 3 * 3 = x, and instead of saying x = 9, you say x = y, in which case, while possibly correct, it's useless because there's no way to test if x = y, rather you would need to prove that y = 9 first. For science to be valid, it can't toss any testable, provable possibility, but the key of that is testable and provable. The ability of something to arise from natural origin is testable, a designer is not.

Another example of something arising from natural origin being tested is Abiogenesis, or the idea that life on this planet arose natural from inorganic materials. There's a lot of debate, theorizing and hypothesizing taking place in this field. Thus far it has discovered little to nothing pointing towards like beginning due to aliens, my uncle bob, panspermia, or God, but there's a lot of room in there for such things to show up.

To redefine why I'm using the term extranatural instead of supernatural. Supernatural can include divine intervention, mages waving their hands, and father christmas breathing life into snow. Such things cannot be proven because it can be said that God decided to mimic evolution, put the evidence there to test our fatih, or that satan put the evidence there to tempt us to hell. That is why supernatural has nothing to do with science, it's utterly unprovable.

extra-natural (I coined it for this argument, so if it has prior use, I'm sorry for infringing upon wasilla assembly of god's copyright) on the other hand, as I'm using the term, means reproducable processes of non-natural origin. Genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc. These would be measurable, whether it be aliens shoving viruses in our ecosystem, or a secret gamma laser inside the moon zapping the gonads of terran creatures.

To further narrow the scope so it's completely clear. I'm arguing speciation, not origin of life. Evolution says zilch about origin of life, as I said in my first post, and trying to argue against evolution based on origin of life (ie, god made life, evolution did not) is not only ludicrous, but also like comparing apples and oranges.

extra-natural (I coined it for this argument, so if it has prior use, I’m sorry for infringing upon wasilla assembly of god’s copyright) on the other hand, as I’m using the term, means reproducable processes of non-natural origin. Genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc. These would be measurable, whether it be aliens shoving viruses in our ecosystem, or a secret gamma laser inside the moon zapping the gonads of terran creatures.

— ragarth

Mike Elzinga said: The problem with “extra-natural” is that it conjures up things like supernatural, and to my knowledge, there are no intermediates between natural and supernatural.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, a better term would be “artificial” in the similar sense of “artificial selection.” The problem with “extra-natural” is that it conjures up things like supernatural, and to my knowledge, there are no intermediates between natural and supernatural. “Reproducible process of non-natural origin” sounds like an oxymoron. And it doesn’t clear up things to substitute “non-natural” as an explanation for “extra-natural”. It’s fine to try to clarify words and concepts, but before one does that, it is important to know the meanings and ranges of meanings of related concepts. Otherwise you build easy bridges that can be used for conflation. And that is just what the ID/Creationists have a long track record of doing.

iml8 said: I would personally define "extra-natural" as meaning "natural processes beyond our current knowledge", as opposed to "supernatural", meaning "outside of the laws of nature", even the ones we don't know about, and forever inexplicable in materialistic scientific terms: "POOF!"

It's not whether a concept is natural, super-natural, extra-natural, ultra-natural, unnatural, etc., it's whether (1) that concept actually explains some pattern in a set of observations or measurements, and (2) produces conclusions* that can be tested.

(*Conclusions that logically follow from the premise, not merely ideas that somebody associates with it.)

Henry

Henry J said: It's not whether a concept is natural, super-natural, extra-natural, ultra-natural, unnatural, etc., it's whether (1) that concept actually explains some pattern in a set of observations or measurements, and (2) produces conclusions* that can be tested. (*Conclusions that logically follow from the premise, not merely ideas that somebody associates with it.) Henry

ragarth said: “Reproducible process of non-natural origin” can be defined as a process of producing something by methods that are not natural. ie, building a house. While it is theoretically possible that a house may naturally occur in nature, it's about as likely as Jesus starting a rock-band and singing gospel in a stadium. As soon as that happens, I'll start looking for signs of roots on my home.

iml8 said: I would personally define "extra-natural" as meaning "natural processes beyond our current knowledge", as opposed to "supernatural", meaning "outside of the laws of nature", even the ones we don't know about, and forever inexplicable in materialistic scientific terms: "POOF!"

That's a problematic definition, because even if we don't know about a natural process, it is still a natural process, and therefore must be defined as natural.

Aren’t we next having problems with the term natural? Is a beaver dam a natural structure or not? Richard Dawkins has proposed that dams are part of the extended phenotype of beavers. There are parasites that are able to change the behavior of their hosts. Similarly, we are able to change the breeding pattern of other animals for our benefit (or pleasure).

— Eric Finn

What we have are three classes of phenomena:

1: Natural phenomena we understand.

2: Natural phenomena we don't have a clue about at the
present time, but which we will understand once we
learn more.

3: Supernatural phenomena that are outright violations,
now and forever, of the laws of nature, even those that
we don't now understand.

The sciences have no real problem with (2). They
emphatically reject (3) because by that definition
there is nothing the sciences can say about it at
the very least, and no good reason to believe in
such things at the most.
For various reasons that I don't claim to
really understand, the ID crowd wants the sciences to
address (3). This being nonsensical, they
tapdance continuously between (2) and (3) in hopes of
confusing the issue.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

When I hear the phrase "X is no longer with us," I cringe. It is way too reminiscent of DaveScott. I say let trolls post until they do something particularly egregious. I always took pleasure in the fact that our side wasn't afraid to take on trolls.

Ric said: When I hear the phrase "X is no longer with us," I cringe. It is way too reminiscent of DaveScott. I say let trolls post until they do something particularly egregious.

I always took pleasure in the fact that our side wasn't afraid to take on trolls.

I see, PvM, that you've met "island."

A more arrogant, condescending gasbag one will be hard pressed to meet.

Just remember, he is right about everything, and if you disagree, you will be called names.

Simple as that.

Paul Burnett said:

Ric said: When I hear the phrase "X is no longer with us," I cringe. It is way too reminiscent of DaveScott. I say let trolls post until they do something particularly egregious.

If you don't think "Bobby's" / "Jobby's" blatant vandalism and sabotage at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/the-evolution-o-7.html or a couple of other recent threads is "egregious," please re-define "egregious" for us.

I always took pleasure in the fact that our side wasn't afraid to take on trolls.

It's not fear at all - it's sadness and regret at the waste of time and bandwidth - and diversion from the actual topic at hand. That being said, I somewhat don't mind trolls, because the time spent explaining things and providing useful links may be instructive and useful for innocent pilgrims and honest lurkers.

Paul Burnett said: If you don't think "Bobby's" / "Jobby's" blatant vandalism and sabotage ... is "egregious," please re-define "egregious" for us.

Mike Elzinga said: How complex does instinct have to become in order to qualify as “purposeful intelligence”?

Eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: How complex does instinct have to become in order to qualify as “purposeful intelligence”?

Yup yup. Awesome question. Beavers, leafcutter ants, bower birds, chimpanzees etc... all perform actions that blur the line between designed and not. Evidently nature really has it in for creationists. First she won't play ball on the age of the earth, now she goes and muddies up teleology by making animals that use tools. And plan. And communicate intentions, when they aren't supposed to have intentions. Its almost as if - perish the thought - their philosophical premise that there is a bright-line distinction between design on the one side and "chance + law" on the other does not reflect observed reality. Nah. Couldn't be. ;) (P.S. Mike, you know the ID answer to your question, right? No amount of complexity qualifies animals because they aren't made in the image of G..uh, I mean they aren't sentient. Humans are special and unique that way. So only their stuff counts as purposeful. I suspect most IDers are closet Cartesians.)

which would make my previous arguments about artificial origin of species being discoverable by sciencen moot*

It's terrible when a critical word disappears through edit.

ragarth said: Okay, so changing gears: Would it be a natural course of the universe, ie, considered natural origin of species if an alien civilization...

Its almost as if - perish the thought - their philosophical premise that there is a bright-line distinction between design on the one side and “chance + law” on the other does not reflect observed reality. Nah. Couldn’t be. ;) (P.S. Mike, you know the ID answer to your question, right? No amount of complexity qualifies animals because they aren’t made in the image of G..uh, I mean they aren’t sentient. Humans are special and unique that way. So only their stuff counts as purposeful. I suspect most IDers are closet Cartesians.)

— Eric

Eric said: ID does not make the weak claim that we have our earth history wrong. What ID claims is that natural selection can't produce some traits.

iml8 said: So that leaves a supernatural cause -- "POOF!" -- which by definition of "supernatural" means "outside of the laws of nature" and "inherently and forever unexplainable by science" and so the sciences literally can't have much to say about it.

Eric said: So, I'd argue that it's not that the supernatural can't be studied via science. Its that anything that can be studied via science is not supernatural enough to be worth worshipping.

So, I’d argue that it’s not that the supernatural can’t be studied via science. Its that anything that can be studied via science is not supernatural enough to be worth worshipping.

— Eric

Sort of like Douglas Adams and the BabelFish: “But the BabelFish is so Intelligently Designed that it’s a dead giveaway to your existence, so we don’t need faith in you any more.” “Oh dear, I hadn’t thought of that,” God said, and disappeared in a puff of logic.

— iml8

Eric said: God, I filled the petri dish in just the right way, so now you spontaneously generate a flagella for me.

Eric:

I'm sorry to show my ignorance more than I have already, but for me this is a learn-through-debate experience.

What is TOE? I can't find the proper words to fit the acronym, and the part of the anatomy that matches those letters is so common as to obfuscate a google search.

ragarth said: Eric: I'm sorry to show my ignorance more than I have already, but for me this is a learn-through-debate experience. What is TOE? I can't find the proper words to fit the acronym, and the part of the anatomy that matches those letters is so common as to obfuscate a google search.

Mike Elzinga said: Theory Of Evolution

Good GRIEF, Discovery Institute, are you objecting enough there?

Once again, any battle appears to be THE Battle for Intelligent Design. I want to sit the ID crowd down for a time-out with a cup of tea and cookies.