Saturday, September 14, 2013

Today’s NRO Shows Again That Evolution Transcends Politics

More Warfare Thesis Mythology

A common misconception is that the origins debate is politically aligned, with those on the political right supporting creationism and opposing evolution, and those on the political left taking the opposite positions. But the origins debate is more complicated than this and here again it is helpful to understand the history of evolutionary thought and its religious foundation. A naturalistic origins narrative was advanced by 17th and 18th century Christian thinkers, who found divine intervention and miracles to be theologically awkward and unacceptable, not by atheists or political revolutionaries. Only much later did the left find evolution to be politically useful. The bottom line is that today evolution cuts across political boundaries, enjoying strong support from the political right, as well as the left. George Will and Bill O’Reilly are examples of center right commentators who believe the biological world spontaneously arose. So is Kevin Williamson whose piece in today’s National Review Online is yet another painful example political punditry gone wild.

Williamson’s article is on the seemingly never ending and controversial textbook selection process in Texas. But the piece is short on detail and long on generalities. As political pundits often do, Williamson judges the debate from afar with apparently very little knowledge of what its participants are actually saying. Those who doubt the reality of evolution are anti-science Evangelical knuckleheads, pseudointellectual dopes making misguided assaults, fraudulent and up to no good.

In case you didn’t get the gist, Williamson is all about the same old mythical Warfare Thesis. Science is slowly but surely discovering the truth such as, err, that the world spontaneously arose. Religion opposes such advances until it becomes enlightened and figures out how to deal with them. Today most religious people are confident enough in their faith that such minor bumps in the road do not shake their beliefs. They simply adjust their sights accordingly. But there are those few oddballs, such as the literalists, who just won’t to get on board. Their anti-intellectualism fights the tide of truth and makes us all look bad. They do not realize that there is no intrinsic conflict between science and religion or between evolution and theology.

The nineteenth century’s false history of science and Warfare Thesis myth, as advocated by conservatives such as Andrew Dickson White, is today’s truth. As Republican Judge John Jones of Dover fame explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.” The Lawrence and Lee script has codified the myth for us.

Evolution is not a left-wing or atheist enterprise. It is a pervasive religious theory that has strong appeal across the political spectrum, regardless of the facts.

204 comments:

  1. DrHunter,
    As Republican Judge John Jones of Dover fame explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”


    You cannot help yourself can you? Include the whole quote. Is you case so shaky that you need to use that abbreviated quote again? I "understood the general theme" just as likely referred to the numerous law cases which the judge mentions preceding the quote. Not that he derived his knowledge from a Hollywood movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid you can't walk that one back.

      Delete
    2. Funny it seems like you admitted previously it was a misleading quote, statue of limitations expire?

      Delete
    3. Hey, what's a little dishonest quote-mining among friends? After all, everyone knows that a lie told for Jesus isn't really a lie.

      Delete
    4. V: One can always enlarge a quote, as you had requested. But your concern is a distinction without a difference.

      Delete
    5. Unless these are equivalent

      " When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      " I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      There is a distinction with a difference.

      Delete
    6. A great illustration to "fraudulent and up to no good," Cornelius. Thanks for supplying the material.

      Delete
    7. V: Unless these are equivalent

      " When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      " I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      There is a distinction with a difference.

      J: What's the relevant difference there? The statement, "I'd seen Inherit the Wind," seems to be explanatory. And that seems to mean that he saw no difference in the putative legal issues involved in later cases.

      The methodology works like this. You re-interpret the 1st amendment to apply to States as well as the Federal government (i.e., "Congress shall make no law"). Then you say that explanations involving libertarianly-free agents that are more capable than humans in certain respects "establish" a religion even when they imply nothing about how one should live.

      Once you have those two whopping lies in hand, you've just made yourself a legislator with judiciary power. Because the legislature will almost never impeach judges. Hamilton explained why in the Federalist papers: They are complicit in violating the constitutional separation of powers. And as the framers realized, tyranny is the result of a long train of such usurpations.

      Delete
    8. Cornelius Hunter

      One can always enlarge a quote, as you had requested


      No one should have to enlarge a quote to get its true meaning instead of the dishonest out-of-context spin presented.

      Amazing that you understand so little about intellectual integrity. Or you do understand and just don't care, which is even worse.

      Delete
    9. Jeff,

      Let me help you understand this, in case you are indeed that clueless.

      Hunter's carefully cropped quote makes an impression that Judge Jones's understanding of the creation-vs-evolution cases came from seeing the film Inherit the Wind. The context of the quote makes it clear that the judge was far better informed than Hunter would have us believe. As a law student in the 70s, Jones followed the legal precedents as they unfolded in real time.

      Hunter's quote mining is a clear attempt at character assassination. It doesn't take much to see through his shenanigans.

      Delete
    10. Jeff,
      The methodology works like this. You re-interpret the 1st amendment to apply to States as well as the Federal government (i.e., "Congress shall make no law").


      Except for the 14 Admendment you might have a point

      " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      Then you say that explanations involving libertarianly-free agents that are more capable than humans in certain respects "establish" a religion even when they imply nothing about how one should live.

      Please clarify

      Delete
    11. Hunter's carefully cropped quote makes an impression that Judge Jones's understanding of the creation-vs-evolution cases came from seeing the film Inherit the Wind. The context of the quote makes it clear that the judge was far better informed than Hunter would have us believe. As a law student in the 70s, Jones followed the legal precedents as they unfolded in real time.

      Given your steady stream of inane scientific posts, I guess making up new meanings for English should not be surprising. "I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind" does not mean "I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind," it means "I understood the history and philosophy of evolutionary thought and the origins debate because I learned about some , court cases."

      Hilarious. Not only do you butcher the English language, but even your made up version is ridiculous. Court cases, where evolutionists such as Mike Ruse make such blunders as saying he "intuits morality"--with a straight face--are the last place one is going to learn about the history and philosophy of evolutionary thought, not to mention the science, and the origins debate.

      But then again Jones didn't say that. That's your made up rendition. At least Jones had the guts to be honest.

      When asked about his education for the case and if it was a field that he had followed at all, he responded, No, not other than popular culture. At least Jones knew enough not to claim that following some earlier creationism litigation was giving him anything beyond legal precedent.

      What Jones did not realize is that *Inherit the Wind* is the usual evolutionary lie. His head was filled with the propaganda of popular culture and he approvingly cited the film as a resource. That's the point. He approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*! He bought it hook, line and sinker. It would be like saying you understand the general theme of lung cancer because you've seen a Philip Morris video. Then water boys come along and desperately try to mop it up. Unbelievable.

      Delete
    12. Hunter: "When asked about his education for the case and if it was a field that he had followed at all, he responded, No, not other than popular culture."

      You are misrepresenting what Jones said, even after it has been pointed out to you. Here is again the quote:

      "When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      A fair reading of this quote is: Jones was familiar with the legal cases preceding his. He was aware of the general themes. He was also familiar with the cultural side of it, as presented in the movie.

      Your misrepresentation suggests his familiarity only with the cultural side. This is a lie by omission. You stick with this lie even though anyone can see through it.

      Delete
    13. Ahh, too good. So what exactly is it about "No, not other than popular culture." that you don't understand?

      And while we're at it, what exactly is it about "I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind." that you don't understand?

      Delete
    14. LOL! Hilarious that after almost 8 years the Creationist professional liars at the DI are still whining about Judge Jones and the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

      Oh well, it's not like they're busy with any scientific research.

      Delete
    15. Cornelius Hunter

      And while we're at it, what exactly is it about "I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind." that you don't understand?


      What part of taking quotes of of context to change their meaning is both dishonest and despicable don't you understand?

      Delete
    16. O: Hunter's quote mining is a clear attempt at character assassination. It doesn't take much to see through his shenanigans.

      J: There's no such thing as "character assassination" in an atheistic epistemology. Because there's no such thing as duty. And therefore there's no such things as dereliction of duty, etc.

      But in a theistic epistemology that includes the reality of duty, it's not even remotely difficult to see that the average usurping federal judge has no character. They swear an oath to NOT usurp (if they're swearing anything intelligible at all) and then do it day in and day out.

      Delete
    17. V: Except for the 14 Admendment you might have a point

      " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      J: Where therein does it say that the 1st amendment suddenly applied to something other than the federal government?

      V: Please clarify

      J: Please be specific as to what you want clarified.

      Delete
    18. DrHunter,
      When asked about his education for the case and if it was a field that he had followed at all, he responded, No, not other than popular culture.


      And legal precedents cited in the interview previously, which he included in the answer.

      At least Jones knew enough not to claim that following some earlier creationism litigation was giving him anything beyond legal precedent.

      And for a judge only the legal precedents have legal meaning, not fictional account based on a historical event.

      What Jones did not realize is that *Inherit the Wind* is the usual evolutionary lie. His head was filled with the propaganda of popular culture and he approvingly cited the film as a resource.

      That is your opinion of course, truncating his quote is your propaganda. Tipping the scales to back up your opinion. He knew the movie was fiction since he was aware of the actual historical account of the trial. By your logic anyone who has seen " Miracle On 34th Street" believes in Santa Claus. You are grasping at straws

      That's the point. He approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*! He bought it hook, line and sinker. It would be like saying you understand the general theme of lung cancer because you've seen a Philip Morris video.

      No, this is what it would be like

      Question" what do you know about the controversy of smoking causing cancer?
      Answer" I went to medical school , and read all the research about lung cancer. I understood the general theme. I've seen cigarette commericals.

      Then water boys come along and desperately try to mop it up. Unbelievable.

      We are only desperate to save you from yourself.

      Delete
    19. I understand all of that, Cornelius. I also understand that Jones was aware of the previous litigation. Earlier in the interview he mentions specific precedents, Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. He refers to them when he says "When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before."

      Following relevant legal cases isn't exactly learning from a movie.

      Delete
    20. Jeff,
      Where therein does it say that the 1st amendment suddenly applied to something other than the federal government


      nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

      Those laws include the First Admendment

      Then you say that explanations involving libertarianly-free agents that are more capable than humans in certain respects "establish" a religion even when they imply nothing about how one should live

      From Then....live, is unclear

      Delete
    21. V: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

      Those laws include the First Admendment

      J: V, we didn't need a 14th amendment to remind us there was a 1st amendment. The 1st amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law, not STATE LEGISLATORS shall make no law.

      V: Then you say that explanations involving libertarianly-free agents that are more capable than humans in certain respects "establish" a religion even when they imply nothing about how one should live

      V: From Then....live, is unclear

      J: To explain by libertarian causality does not establish a religion in the sense that is meant in the 1st amendment. Because that meaning is made clear in the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." IOW, a religion, in the sense meant by the 1st amendment is a set of beliefs that implies the propriety or benefit of certain voluntary actions. What ID'ists are arguing implies no such thing. It's no different than what is involved in inferring intent in the sense that SETI is attempting.

      Delete
    22. ... and before you go all irrelevant, the mere fact THAT such ID inferences are consistent WITH certain religions is not the logical equivalent of an ID inference BEING religious.

      Now, you would be right that I, for one, argue that induction itself is not valid apart from teleological inductivism. And I do, indeed, argue that the additional assumption of benevolent/competent teleology is a necessary condition of the validity of induction. For if human satisfaction has no relation to inference criteria, then reason is not knowably normative in any conceivable sense.

      But atheists who believe in free-will disagree. They think one can do design inferences apart from religiously obligatory implications. So there goes their 1st amendment argument, right there!

      That leaves atheists who believe all events are uncaused and/or deterministically caused. By that approach, no belief is voluntarily and discursively derived. That means all beliefs are species of intuition. There's no normative way to argue against non-voluntarily-caused intuitions. They just are what they are.

      Delete
    23. J1: There's no normative way to argue against non-voluntarily-caused intuitions. They just are what they are.

      J2: J1 should have read: There's no KNOWABLY normative way to argue against a mind that can ONLY believe intuitively. Intuitions just are what they are in the absence of the capacity to VOLUNTARILY subject them to the evaluation of critical criteria.

      Delete
    24. ... and so if no beliefs are voluntarily and discursively derived, they are basically intutions. And in that case, all belief amounts to mere personal credulity. And then it matters not that belief in other minds is ungrounded, for there is no normative criteria that could knowably apply to all minds in the case that they existed anyway.

      Delete
    25. Jeff,
      V, we didn't need a 14th amendment to remind us there was a 1st amendment. The 1st amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law, not STATE LEGISLATORS shall make no law.


      Yes apparently you do, the 14th No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States broadens that prohibition to include the states

      Delete
    26. No. It doesn't, V. The framers of the 14th amendment claimed that the "privileges" and "immunities" of the 14th amendment were none other than those of the 1865 Bill of Rights. And what that Bill of Rights granted was the same rights entailed in the comity clause. But prior to the 14th amendment, the comity clause applied to the THEN citizens of States. The 14th amendment created a NEW criteria for citizenship that trumped the prior criteria of the States.

      IOW, after the 14th amendment, those who had theretofore been slaves and non-citizens were now rendered citizens. And this gave them the rights of the comity clause that prior citizens of the United States had theretofore.

      But the comity clause provided no absolute rights to citizens even theretofore. The comity clause was interpreted theretofore to include only those "fundamental" rights that each State granted to their citizens. Thus, the 14th amendment provides no absolute rights. It just means that to the extent that a State grants "fundamental" rights to any of its legal residents, it must do so for ALL citizens of the United StateS that reside in that State.

      Raoul Berger's works on the 14th amendment show how literally ALL the evidence of the legislative history screams this out. Perjuring, usurping judges treat the 14th amendment and the legislative history thereof like toilet paper.

      Berger documents how the judges began the usurpation and yet were thereafter shocked at each others' rulings on the subsequent decisions. We see this to this day. We see Scalia respond in awe at the usurpations of the left-wing portion of the Court while he, himself, does the EXACT same kind of usurpations. And vice versa. As IF all judges would have the same "gut" on an issue, once the relevant legislative text is NOT the controlling factor. I suppose it should not be surprising that liars, after having become pathological liars, should become stupid as well.

      Delete
    27. CH: Hunter: "When asked about his education for the case and if it was a field that he had followed at all, he responded, No, not other than popular culture."

      Jones was asked about his eduction on creationism or creation science *prior to the case*.

      Gitschier: Tell us about your education for this case. Although you hadn't heard of ID, you likely had heard of creationism or creation science. Had this been a field that you followed at all?

      Jones: No, not other than popular culture. When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.


      Unless you've suggesting the progression of cases he referred to were equally "fraudulent" as "Inherit the Wind", then his pre-trial eduction wasn't limited to "Inherit the Wind".

      Delete
    28. But even if that were the case, he does goes on to clearly say that prior education isn't a factor in his decision making process. In fact, he avoided any pre-decision research on his own and calls an assumption that pre-decision education would be relevant a layperson's assumption.

      As such, Cornelius' continual use of this quote from Jones indicates his argument is, at best, based on a common layperson's false assumption or, at worst, an intentional misrepresentation of Jones' decision making process.

      Apparently, Cornelius didn't read the rest of the interview, or he deliberately ignored it.

      Gitschier: So now it's on your docket, and you must have been curious. Did you Google intelligent design?

      Jones: No. I got what I needed in the context of the case. And it was the monster on my docket.

      To your question: I think laypersons apprehend that when we get a case, it's incumbent upon us to go into an intensive study mode to learn everything about it. Actually that is the wrong thing to do. The analogy is that when I have a jury trial in front of me, I always instruct jurors, particularly in this day and age when you can Google anything, not to do that. I don't want you to do any research or investigation. Everything you need to decide this case you'll get within the corners of this courtroom.

      So it is with me. And I knew that by the time the case went to trial and during the trial, that I would get expert reports.

      Gitschier: From whom?

      Jones: Everybody. The way expert opinion works is that I get a summary of their testimony first, and that I can read in advance. So I have a flavor for it. So then the question is, why also have them testify? That is because they are subject to cross examination and everything they say may not hold up that well. And, as it turned out, some of it didn't during the trial.

      In any event, I was taken to school. From the earliest point in the litigation to the time the briefs were filed, it was the equivalent of a degree in this area. Folks who disagree with my opinion will tell you I never got it right, but I'm confident that I did.

      Go back to your last question. It's very critical. I have to decide cases on the facts that are before me. I can't decide a case based on my own opinion, gleaned from outside the courtroom. That's why I don't engage in my own independent investigation. If you look at other systems in other countries throughout the world, they do that. But in our system of justice in the US, we let the parties try their cases and we find the facts from what is presented to us in the courtroom. And the law, presumably we know and we apply the law. That's our job. But the facts that we apply the law to are covered at that time.

      Gitschier: I don't know if you're even allowed to answer this. Before this case landed on your lap, did you have any thoughts about creationism or evolution, or the debate?

      Jones: The precursor to my answer is that it doesn't matter. A judge could be an avowed creationist, but he's got to rule based on the facts and the law. In that event, he'd have to hold his nose and do his duty as a judge.

      Delete
    29. Scott: quoting ... "Jones: The precursor to my answer is that it doesn't matter. A judge could be an avowed creationist, but he's got to rule based on the facts and the law. In that event, he'd have to hold his nose and do his duty as a judge."

      J: Now help me, Scott. You say any conceivable proposition is equally a-probable as any other. So how do you know:

      1) That there are other people,

      2) That some of those other people are judges,

      3) That judges have duties,

      4) That judges know facts,

      5) That one judge is a man named Jones?

      You exemplify to the uttermost what I've claimed about atheists: They pendulum swing between absolute skepticism and utter credulity. How can sane people take this non-sense seriously?

      Delete
    30. Apologies,

      The Supreme Court found this compelling, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

      Cantwell v. Connecticut

      "We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." 310 U.S. 296, 303-304.

      Delete
    31. Jeff,
      religion in the sense that is meant in the 1st amendment. Because that meaning is made clear in the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


      And also the establishment

      IOW, a religion, in the sense meant by the 1st amendment is a set of beliefs that implies the propriety or benefit of certain voluntary actions

      Citation please,

      . What ID'ists are arguing implies no such thing

      Since there is no scientific theory of ID we can't be sure of what it implies.

      It's no different than what is involved in inferring intent in the sense that SETI is attempting.

      SETI is not universally considered scientific.

      ... and before you go all irrelevant, the mere fact THAT such ID inferences are consistent WITH certain religions is not the logical equivalent of an ID inference BEING religious.

      Whatever it is,it is not a scientific theory. Unless you can provide it.

      And I do, indeed, argue that the additional assumption of benevolent/competent teleology is a necessary condition of the validity of induction

      Only if you know what that teleology is. A comprehensible nature is simplier.

      But atheists who believe in free-will disagree. They think one can do design inferences apart from religiously obligatory implications.

      So ID using design inferences is not religious, but atheists using design inferences is?


      Delete
    32. Jeff: Now help me, Scott. You say any conceivable proposition is equally a-probable as any other. So how do you know:

      Help you? Unless Foundationaism solves the problem of justifying beliefs, then you're the one with the problem, not me.

      I've discarded justificationism which, apparently, you think means I can know nothing. That idea, that I can know nothing without being positively warranted, justified, how is it itself positively warranted, justified, etc?

      Delete
    33. oleg:

      I understand all of that, Cornelius. I also understand that Jones was aware of the previous litigation. Earlier in the interview he mentions specific precedents, Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. He refers to them when he says "When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before."

      Following relevant legal cases isn't exactly learning from a movie.


      The jurisprudence is not what is in question here. No one is questioning that the judge was aware of earlier creationism cases. The point is he approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*, whether you admit to that or not.

      Delete
    34. Cornelius Hunter

      The point is he approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*, whether you admit to that or not.


      The real point is that Judge Jones didn't offer *Inherit the Wind* as his sole exposure to C/E issues as your quote-mining dishonestly suggests.

      A lie of omission is still a lie CH, whether you admit to that or not.

      Delete
    35. Scott: Help you? Unless Foundationaism solves the problem of justifying beliefs, then you're the one with the problem, not me.

      I've discarded justificationism which, apparently, you think means I can know nothing. That idea, that I can know nothing without being positively warranted, justified, how is it itself positively warranted, justified, etc?

      J: Scott, I've already explained that justification is irrelevant to naturally-formed beliefs. One can only voluntary and discursively criticize them after their occurrence using naturally-occurring criteria (LNC, etc) and preference (parsimony, breadth of explanation, etc).

      But that's beside the point. You insist that ALL propositions are equally a-probable. Apparently you're clueless that that actually implies (assuming the validity of the LNC, of course) that one can not convince, in the conventional sense, at all. Indeed, define "convince" per your epistemology.

      Delete
    36. CH: The point is he approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*, whether you admit to that or not.

      At best, one might interpret that paragraph as Jones suggesting "Inherent the Wind" represented creationism in *popular culture*. After all, films about creationism, regardless of how accurate, *are* part of popular culture, right?

      But, again, so what? Jones goes on to explicitly indicate his pre-case views on popular culture, among other things, isn't part of his decision making process.

      Furthermore, are you claiming that the prior cases discussed are not materially different than "Inherent the Wind"? Really? Are they all equally accurate or contain the same "falsehoods"?

      Delete
    37. V: Whatever it is,it is not a scientific theory. Unless you can provide it.

      J: The problem is, the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA is also "not a scientific theory." Nor is it an inference derivable FROM any "scientific theory." It is a bald hypothesis void of evidence. All hypotheses about earth's biological history would require the positing of more a-plausible hypotheses than any person could enumerate.

      I'll get to the rest of your comments when I get time.

      Delete
    38. Scott: Are they all equally accurate or contain the same "falsehoods"?

      J: First of all, they are inaccurate. Second, you insist that the claim that they are inaccurate is no less probable than the claim that they are accurate. So you're approach is irrelevant to convincing anyone of anything. You're just a self-avowed known-nothing.

      Delete
    39. Hunter: "The jurisprudence is not what is in question here. No one is questioning that the judge was aware of earlier creationism cases. The point is he approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*, whether you admit to that or not."

      The sentence in bold is a lie. You question that right here, on this very blog, all the time. Here is a link to an April 2012 post of yours, in which you wrote:

      When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      That is as astonishing.

      How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve? It would be like saying I understand the general theme of lung cancer because I’ve seen a Phillip Morris video.


      (end of quote)

      Turns out, the judge wasn't so profoundly naïve. He was familiar with the precedents.

      You repeated this lie in November of 2012:

      But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”

      And in March of 2013:

      That reminds us of how after the 2005 Dover trial, kangaroo-court Judge John Jones explained that his education for the case came from popular culture.

      So yes, there are people out there (you, specifically) who question Judge Jones' understanding of the history of creation-v-evolution legal cases. Perhaps you changed your mind about it sometime this year, but there is no record of it anywhere.

      Delete
    40. Jeff: J: First of all, they are inaccurate.

      Can you be any more vague?

      For example, are you saying that both the preceding cases and the movie "Inherit the Wind" are equally inaccurate about the exact same aspects of creationism? Therefore Jone's knowledge of creationism is limited to the contents of "Inherit the Wind"?

      Jeff: Second, you insist that the claim that they are inaccurate is no less probable than the claim that they are accurate. So you're approach is irrelevant to convincing anyone of anything. You're just a self-avowed known-nothing.

      No, you're the one stuck in that position, not me.

      All ideas and sources of knowledge are incomplete and contain errors. But that doesn't mean we know absolutely nothing. We go in knowing this from the start. Even if there was an such a thing as an infallible source, how can you infallibly interpret it?

      Delete
    41. Oleg,
      Perhaps you changed your mind about it sometime this year, but there is no record of it anywhere.


      It would have since the beginning of this thread earlier...

      " At least Jones knew enough not to claim that following some earlier creationism litigation was giving him anything beyond legal precedent."

      Knew enough? Was he dishonestly answering the question?

      What Jones did not realize is that *Inherit the Wind* is the usual evolutionary lie

      DrHunter knows it must be true, therefore it is true.

      His head was filled with the propaganda of popular culture and he approvingly cited the film as a resource.

      Apparently if you see a movie you approve everything in the movie. DrHunter have you seen " Inherit the Wind " ? If yes, why do you accept the lies and approve of that propaganda?

      That's the point. He approvingly cites *Inherit the Wind*! He bought it hook, line and sinker

      Of course how else can one explain his ruling? Surely the trial itself had nothing to do with it, therefore the ref was crooked. Therefore using the Quote is acceptable because it reflects the truth DrHunter intuits to be true.

      Delete
    42. Scott,
      For example, are you saying that both the preceding cases and the movie "Inherit the Wind" are equally inaccurate about the exact same aspects of creationism


      Here is a novel idea perhaps the movie/ play was a metaphor using the trial, as a mechanism. And therefore took license with the facts to make that point, and should not be viewed a a literal account.

      In a perfect world there might be a hint
      "However, Lee and Lawrence state in a note at the opening of the play on which the film is based that it is not meant to be a historical account,and many events were substantially altered or invented."

      "Lawrence explained in a 1996 interview that the play's purpose was to criticize McCarthyism and defend intellectual freedom. According to Lawrence, "we used the teaching of evolution as a parable, a metaphor for any kind of mind control [...] It's not about science versus religion. It's about the right to think."

      Never mind,it is absurd. All movies are true and should be believed literally. Never are the antagonists reduced to two dimensions to make the point clearer.

      Delete
    43. Jeff,

      The problem is, the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA is also "not a scientific theory." Nor is it an inference derivable FROM any "scientific theory."


      That is a hypothesis not the Theory of Evolution, but again you have not provided a Theory of ID.

      All hypotheses about earth's biological history would require the positing of more a-plausible hypotheses than any person could enumerate.

      How do you know they are a-plausible?

      Delete
    44. oleg:

      Turns out, the judge wasn't so profoundly naïve.

      Did Jones approvingly cite *Inherit the Wind* as a useful background resource?

      Delete
    45. Cornelius Hunter

      Did Jones approvingly cite *Inherit the Wind* as a useful background resource?


      No. He merely mentioned that he had seen it without any mention of his approval or disapproval.

      Did Jones list *Inherit the Wind* as his only background resource as your quote-mined cite dishonestly insinuates?

      Delete
    46. "No. He merely mentioned that he had seen it without any mention of his approval or disapproval."

      ROFL you liar for Darwin You ;)

      "Gitschier: Tell us about your education for this case. Although you hadn't heard of ID, you likely had heard of creationism or creation science. Had this been a field that you followed at all?

      Jones: No, not other than popular culture. When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      He directly states he was mostly informed by pop culture going in and took an understanding of the general theme at least in part from "inherit the wind" and here you are LYING while accusing C of the same.

      Its one thing to argue he was informed by other things but to pretend he was just casually mentioning it is just laughable garbage

      How can you take that quote and turn it into something he had just mentioned outside of the context of him directly stating he was informed by it?


      Simple for all the charges of lying and dishonesty thou oh T are chief among them.


      Delete
    47. "You repeated this lie in November of 2012:

      But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”

      Oleg as usual you are begging bread and blathering. The quote above is entirely legitimate. You can argue ambiguity but nothing even approaching substance to pin the charge of a lie on. The judge DID cite his going into the case with a general theme connected to inherit the wind. He says it straight and direct and you are begging that -

      " Had this been a field that you followed at all?

      Jones: No, not other than popular culture"

      be stricken from the record. You can say it was not all he relied on as the case progressed but he most definitely said going in he had only a pop culture level understanding. furthermore of the other cases you referenced he referred to one of the main ones WAS the subject of the Inherit the wind film.

      Wipe the spittle off your mouth and try again. You begging for a lie on Cornelius's statement just fell flat.

      Delete
    48. Scott: All ideas and sources of knowledge are incomplete and contain errors. But that doesn't mean we know absolutely nothing. We go in knowing this from the start.

      J: Scott, you know nothing from the start. You know nothing after the start. At the start, you say all propositions are equally a-probable. And thereafter, even if (which you couldn't know since you're clueless as to whether you remember or infer aright) ideas are discarded, you could still only be left with propositions that are as equally a-probable as the discarded ones. YOu can't GET more ignorant than that!

      Delete
    49. V: That [naturalistic UCA] is a hypothesis not the Theory of Evolution, but again you have not provided a Theory of ID.

      J: Take away the nested hierarchy methodology of speculation (which assumes the TRUTH of historical UCA lineages) and that hypothesis, and you have exactly what Ken Ham accepts.

      V: How do you know they are a-plausible?

      J: Because there is no inductive evidence that they occurred historically.

      Delete
    50. Elijah2012: "furthermore of the other cases you referenced he referred to one of the main ones WAS the subject of the Inherit the wind film."

      That's pretty desperate, Elijah. :)

      Tennessee v. Scopes can't even be considered a precedent for Kitzmiller v. Dover. It was tried in Tennessee and thus had no relevance for a Pennsylvania a court. The relevant cases Judge Jones mentioned happened well after Inherit the Wind was shot.

      Anyway, Hunter's repeated assertions that everything Jones knew about the creation-evolution controversy came from watching Inherit the Wind are clearly bogus. The judge followed the legal precedents, so he was not the dupe Hunter makes him to be. If you want to grasp at straws, be my guest. These mental contortions don't add to your integrity.

      Delete
    51. Scott: Unless Foundationaism solves the problem of justifying beliefs, then you're the one with the problem, not me.

      Jeff: Scott, I've already explained that justification is irrelevant to naturally-formed beliefs.

      That merely avoids the problem without solving it.

      Again, what property or feature of naturally formed beliefs allow them to ground, warrant, justify non-naturlly formed beliefs?

      Furthermore, what you keep describing is compatible with conjecture and criticism.

      Delete
    52. Jeff,
      J: Take away the nested hierarchy methodology of speculation (which assumes the TRUTH of historical UCA lineages) and that hypothesis, and you have exactly what Ken Ham accepts.


      Yes,the assumption that nature is comprehensible, that what occurs in the present occurred in the past. ToE explains why the data, organisms can be placed in a hierachy, exists. Mechanistically.

      I am not a expert on Ken Ham,what exactly is his scientific explanation? .

      V: How do you know they are a-plausible?

      J: Because there is no inductive evidence that they occurred historically.


      There is physical evidence of change in the present, if the same processes occurred in the past, (assumption) it is plausible that there was change in the past. The same methodology as geology,astronomony , and physics.

      And for you induction to be valid requires the assumption that there exists a benevolence ,and the assumption that there exists an intelligence, and the assumption that the intelligence is capable of material action, and the assumption that all that occurs in one entity , and the assumption that that entity has a teleos to it's actions, and the assumption that we can comprehend that teleos. And therefore we can induce that teleos.

      Which brings us back to the question, what does induction tell you about the history of life? How,when and why?

      Delete
    53. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    54. " If you want to grasp at straws, be my guest. These mental contortions don't add to your integrity."

      Oleg you could not question the integrity of a fruit fly. You're a serial commenter on an ID blog because you have no voice of your own so much attach yourself to one that has at least some readership. At the end of the day you are flailing hopelessly to have the following clear answer blotted out to make your own dishonest charge of dishonesty palatable -

      "" Had this been a field that you followed at all?

      Jones: No, not other than popular culture"

      swing it, spin it, try to bury it and lie to cover your own lie of lying - IT WAS the man's answer and he summarized the idea with "inherit the wind". NOTHING in what he discussed before goes into any - depth just passing knowledge of some cases INCLUDING the inherit the wind inspiration. He even then goes into detail that he was fine with his ignorance going in knowing that he would get the information within the case itself.

      Do you have a difference of opinion as to whether his knowledge going in which he characterizes as being dependent on pop culture affected his ruling. No doubt but C does not have to be lying you are just trolling as usual

      Delete
    55. oleg:

      Anyway, Hunter's repeated assertions that everything Jones knew about the creation-evolution controversy came from watching Inherit the Wind ...

      Except that I didn't actually say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

      CH: Did Jones approvingly cite *Inherit the Wind* as a useful background resource?

      oleg: <...crickets...>

      Delete
    56. J: Take away the nested hierarchy methodology ..., and you have exactly what Ken Ham accepts.

      V: Yes,the assumption that nature is comprehensible, that what occurs in the present occurred in the past.

      J: This is not strictly true for atheism or theism. Explanation is about THIS universe. You would say that this universe only involved ONE origin point, right? There is no uniformity of the past in the absolute sense. Rather, we try to explain a finitely-enduring world/cosmos as ANALOGICALLY as possible.

      V: ToE explains why the data, organisms can be placed in a hierachy, exists. Mechanistically.

      J: On the contrary. Not only are the merely POSITED transitional traits not required for the hierarchy (meaning the large, systematic morphological gaps are consistent with SA and saltations, as well), but current consensi posit the historical existence of those transitional traits regardless, even though they have no set of mechanisms that render any posited historical tree logically possible.

      V: I am not a expert on Ken Ham,what exactly is his scientific explanation?.

      J: He accepts all observations. He accepts analogical extrapolations therefrom as legitimate scientific hypotheses. But there is nothing we know from observations that can be extrapolated from precambrian initial conditions that indicates or implies the subsequent events or even that they are possible in the posited time-frame.

      V: How do you know they are a-plausible?

      J: Because there is no inductive evidence that they occurred historically.

      V: There is physical evidence of change in the present, if the same processes occurred in the past, (assumption) it is plausible that there was change in the past. The same methodology as geology,astronomony , and physics.

      J: On the contrary. By that view, no one would be trying to find dark matter, etc. Those sciences you mention have REAL predictive requirements. The ToE, when applied to evolutionary history, doesn't. SA is literally ruled out A PRIORI. That's not science. That's metaphysics.

      V: And for you induction to be valid requires the assumption that there exists a benevolence ,and the assumption that there exists an intelligence, and the assumption that the intelligence is capable of material action, and the assumption that all that occurs in one entity , and the assumption that that entity has a teleos to it's actions, and the assumption that we can comprehend that teleos. And therefore we can induce that teleos.

      J: We induce many ends, not one. We infer that eyes are FOR seeing. Ears are FOR hearing, etc. And you, on the other hand, have NO way of accounting for the validity of induction. And that's why, to be consistent, you should deem all propositions to be equally a-probable/probable, as Scott does. Of course, that renders debate utterly void of purpose.

      V: Which brings us back to the question, what does induction tell you about the history of life? How,when and why?

      J: The way induction works, when applied to the data set used by UCA'ists, it currently indicates contradictory results for specific sets of data. But it seems that people can't yet abandon the hope that there will ultimately be true inductive evidence for a biological history characterized by either:

      1) significantly salational evolution from one or a few single-celled common ancestors,

      2) non-saltational (predominantly, at least) evolution from one or a few single-celled common ancestors.

      3)SA's from many ancestors, including many multi-cellular ones.

      And if you reject 3), you have to account for an abiogenetic origin for the ancestor(s) to even render your evolutionary view logically possible, and so on, all the way back to the universe origin, which, itself, will be unexplained, since explanation ALWAYS has finality for humans.

      And as I've said before, positing uncaused events just makes ALL claims even MORE speculative--including whether you're even experiencing a world of more than 2 entities (or more than 1 entity, if you deny the existence of libertarian causality).

      Delete
    57. Scott: Unless Foundationaism solves the problem of justifying beliefs, then you're the one with the problem, not me.

      Jeff: Scott, I've already explained that justification is irrelevant to naturally-formed beliefs.

      Scott: That merely avoids the problem without solving it.

      Jeff: You're missing the point. There is no evidence that humans can actually live consistently with the belief that all propositions are equally a-probable/probable. You surely haven't. You have to use language in an utterly non-conventional way to even attempt to communicate. But of course that approach is doomed to failure. You would need to provide me with your lexicon and grammar to even have a clue how you're using words.

      Thus, I, like other sane people, am trying to explain what people CLAIM in CONVENTIONAL language they experience, epistemologically. You're trying to explain how all people choose EVERY belief they have, as though that's even logically possible (and it's NOT).

      Scott: Again, what property or feature of naturally formed beliefs allow them to ground, warrant, justify non-naturlly formed beliefs?

      J: It works like this. What must be true of causality to render ANY belief valid in ANY conceivable sense? And the answer is this: My intellectual/volitional nature must be teleologically and sufficiently fitted to my satisfaction-oriented/dissatisfaction-averse sentient nature to render my existence WORTHWHILE. If this condition is not true, I am left with the very radical skepticism you live in.

      Scott: Furthermore, what you keep describing is compatible with conjecture and criticism.

      J: No, it's not. Because you deny the necessary conditions of the VALIDITY of conjecture and criticism. In particular, you deny the existence of naturally-formed beliefs and the invulnerability of many of those beliefs to inductive, voluntary criticism. And without the VALIDITY of conjecture and criticism, one can't even know WHETHER conjecture and criticism has ever occurred.

      Delete
    58. Oleg might say..
      DrHunter

      except that I didn't actually say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite



      Not from your edited quote, you didn't. You created the impression that his knowledge was based on a fictional movie,solely.

      CH: Did Jones approvingly cite *Inherit the Wind* as a useful background resource?

      Question " you likely had heard of creationism or creation science. Had this been a field that you followed at all?

      Not approvingly, not a background resource, just a place where he had heard about it. In fact he rejects the whole idea of background sources.What did he actually say about them?

      "Go back to your last question. It's very critical. I have to decide cases on the facts that are before me. I can't decide a case based on my own opinion, gleaned from outside the courtroom. That's why I don't engage in my own independent investigation"

      " I think laypersons apprehend that when we get a case, it's incumbent upon us to go into an intensive study mode to learn everything about it. Actually that is the wrong thing to do"

      Delete
    59. Scott: For example, are you saying that both the preceding cases and the movie "Inherit the Wind" are equally inaccurate about the exact same aspects of creationism?

      J: No, the errors are different. The former errors are legal in nature. Those decisions were pure usurpations of State power reserved to States in the 10th amendment.

      Scott: Therefore Jone's knowledge of creationism is limited to the contents of "Inherit the Wind"?

      J: No idea. He's a perjured usurper and an idiot. What can you know about a perjurer from his/her mere words?

      Jeff: Second, you insist that the claim that they are inaccurate is no less probable than the claim that they are accurate. So you're approach is irrelevant to convincing anyone of anything. You're just a self-avowed known-nothing.

      Scott: No, you're the one stuck in that position, not me.

      J: No, Scott. You're pretty much stuck there seeing how you don't even if know if you remember having ever moved arbitrarily therefrom. And arbitrary moves aren't moves based on "positive evidence," anyway. You're HOSED, epistemologically.

      Scott: All ideas and sources of knowledge are incomplete and contain errors.

      J: But you can't verify that claim evidentially. Because you don't believe there is "positive" evidence for any claim whatsoever, including whether any claims have been MADE!!!

      Scott: But that doesn't mean we know absolutely nothing.

      J: By the conventional meaning of language, your view is a CLAIM that you know NOTHING.

      Scott: We go in knowing this from the start.

      J: No, your claim is tha we NEVER know anything, if, by "knowledge," we mean what people mean by it CONVENTIONALLY.

      Delete
    60. Jeff,
      V: Yes,the assumption that nature is comprehensible, that what occurs in the present occurred in the past.

      J: This is not strictly true for atheism or theism. Explanation is about THIS universe. You would say that this universe only involved ONE origin point, right?


      That is the current theory.

      There is no uniformity of the past in the absolute sense. Rather, we try to explain a finitely-enduring world/cosmos as ANALOGICALLY as possible.

      That is why it is an assumption. Do have any data which contradicts that assumption?

      J: On the contrary. Not only are the merely POSITED transitional traits not required for the hierarchy (meaning the large, systematic morphological gaps are consistent with SA and saltations, as well)

      Then the question would be are the gaps real or an artifact of the nature of fossilization. Which gaps exactly does the theory of SA predict?

      But there is nothing we know from observations that can be extrapolated from precambrian initial conditions that indicates or implies the subsequent events or even that they are possible in the posited time-frame.

      Since we have incomplete knowledge of the initial conditions, any observations are subject to that limitation. But those observations are based on the assumption that nature is comprehensible, which you question.

      He(Ken Ham) accepts all observations. He accepts analogical extrapolations therefrom as legitimate scientific hypotheses

      For instance? What is his scientific hypothesis?


      V: There is physical evidence of change in the present, if the same processes occurred in the past, (assumption) it is plausible that there was change in the past. The same methodology as geology,astronomony , and physics.

      J: On the contrary. By that view, no one would be trying to find dark matter, etc


      How do you figure?

      Those sciences you mention have REAL predictive requirements. The ToE, when applied to evolutionary history, doesn't

      Each have modifications of the existing paradigms with the improvement of our scientific tools.

      SA is literally ruled out A PRIORI.

      Provide a scientific theory of SA first and a way to test it, perhaps the UCA was the only SA that survived. Who knows without some specificity?

      3)SA's from many ancestors, including many multi-cellular ones.

      Which ones? When? How?

      you have to account for an abiogenetic origin for the ancestor(s) to even render your evolutionary view logically possible

      As I said, we see change in organisms in present time, that based on the assumption that organisms likewise changed by the same mechanisms in the past, makes it logically possible.

      and so on, all the way back to the universe origin, which, itself, will be unexplained, since explanation ALWAYS has finality for humans

      It is unnecessary, we assume nature is comprehensible,how it came to be that way is of secondary. I don't need to know the origin of all things to put gas in my truck when it stops and the gauge reads E.

      Delete
    61. Let's recap. Cornelius Hunter has stated, on a number of occasions:

      When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.

      When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve? It would be like saying I understand the general theme of lung cancer because I’ve seen a Phillip Morris video.

      That reminds us of how after the 2005 Dover trial, kangaroo-court Judge John Jones explained that his education for the case came from popular culture.


      I summarize the above as "everything Jones knew about the creation-evolution controversy came from watching Inherit the Wind."

      To which Hunter responds: "Except that I didn't actually say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite."

      You did actually say that, Cornelius. The quotes confirm that.

      Delete
    62. Scott: Therefore Jone's knowledge of creationism is limited to the contents of "Inherit the Wind"?

      Jeff: No idea.

      So, I'll ignoring your comments on Jones for the rest of this thread.

      Jeff: No, Scott. You're pretty much stuck there seeing how you don't even if know if you remember having ever moved arbitrarily therefrom.

      Again, all ideas start out as intuitions, instincts, etc. We expect them to start out as conjectures because the idea wasn't already out there somewhere for us to extrapolate, induce though experience, etc. That's what Popper means by a conjecture. We start out assuming they are guesses.

      So, unless you're saying that they are not effectively guesses, but are somehow infallible sources of pre-existing knowledge which you can infallibly interpret, then it's unclear how you've actually solved the problem, rather than merely avoided it.

      Apparently you think it works because "God just must have wanted it to work". As such, it needs no explanation of how it actually works and is not subject to rational criticism.

      IOW, since you have yet to discard Justifiicationism, you're the one suck with solving the problem of how to justify beliefs, not me.

      The actual contents of conjectures have the potential to conflict with all the rest of our conjectures about reality. That is, we expect them to conflict in ways that reveal significant differences with reality and we can rationally devise tests that can show errors in at least one or more conjectures of how to solve the same problem.

      Scott: All ideas and sources of knowledge are incomplete and contain errors.

      Jeff: But you can't verify that claim evidentially. Because you don't believe there is "positive" evidence for any claim whatsoever, including whether any claims have been MADE!!!

      Where did I suggest I had or that is possible, Jeff? Apparently, you're not actually paying attention to my comments.

      Can you explain how we could infallibly interpret an infallible source, should it exist?

      Scott: But that doesn't mean we know absolutely nothing.

      Jeff: By the conventional meaning of language, your view is a CLAIM that you know NOTHING.

      The claim that we know nothing unless is there is positive evidence, what positive evidence do you have for that claim? Or could it be that you think it's is a basic / natural belief?

      Scott: We go in knowing this from the start.

      J: No, your claim is tha we NEVER know anything, if, by "knowledge," we mean what people mean by it CONVENTIONALLY.

      Why in the world do you think I'm speaking conventionally? After all, I've said the idea that we actually use induction is a myth because it does not withstand rational criticism. So, the conventional idea that knowledge grows via creating theories from data doesn't withstand criticism either.

      Are you actually paying attention to anything I've written?

      Delete
    63. oleg:

      CH: Did Jones approvingly cite *Inherit the Wind* as a useful background resource?

      oleg: <...crickets^2...>

      Delete
    64. Since you insist, Cornelius...

      Judge Jones cited Inherit the Wind. The mention of the film was too brief to determine whether it was "approving," disparaging, or downright neutral.

      Delete
    65. oleg:

      Judge Jones cited Inherit the Wind. The mention of the film was too brief to determine whether it was "approving," disparaging, or downright neutral.

      I see. So when Judge Jones said “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind,” he may have really been referring to the film's massive misrepresentation.

      Evolutionists's reading skills are almost as bad as their science skills. Well this should clear things up, even for evolutionists:

      "He said he saw the film - based on the landmark Scopes trial that tested a Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution - years ago. Jones says he plans to watch the movie again, soon. "It would help put things in historical context," he said."

      http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/06cf275fc2c90c9a80af51a1f35c33b5.pdf?direct

      Historical context? That would be like seeing "McHale's Navy" to put WWII in historical context. Unbelievable.

      Delete
    66. That's all you got, Cornelius? Who can take you seriously now?

      And could you explain why you never bothered to mention the judge's familiarity with the legal precedents? You know, in the course of his law studies?

      Delete
    67. oleg:

      That's all you got, Cornelius? Who can take you seriously now?

      Well, gee, yeah, you really have a point there. After all, so what that Judge Jones thought that *Inherit the Wind* provided the general theme and put things into historical context.

      And could you explain why you never bothered to mention the judge's familiarity with the legal precedents? You know, in the course of his law studies?

      Because that is not what is in question.

      Delete
    68. But you admit now that Judge Jones was familiar with the legal precedents, and not just from seeing a movie? He wasn't the naif you painted him to be?

      Delete
    69. Jones' expertise and knowledge of the creationist cases is not in question. The point is much more important. Jones suffered from evolutionary brainwashing. The cultural memes and underlying evolutionary worldview, as portrayed in *Inherit the Wind*, are subtle and powerful. The fact that Jones bought the evolutionary lies at face value, your feigned ignorance notwithstanding, reveals an unbelievable ignorance, false preconception and potential bias, about the very case the federal judge would be presiding over.

      Delete
    70. So, your theory is that creationists lost in Dover because the judge saw Inherit the Wind? What's your advice to the next creationist lawyers? Destroy all the copies of the film?

      You make me laugh so hard, Cornelius.

      Delete
    71. oleg

      You make me laugh so hard, Cornelius.


      He's a real gem, ain't he? :D

      Especially when he gets caught in a flagrant porkie like now and trips all over his own feet trying to walk it back.

      Delete
    72. So, your theory is that creationists lost in Dover because the judge saw Inherit the Wind

      No, my theory is there is a great deal of ignorance regarding evolution. This has nothing to do with the Dover case, per se, which I think was meaningful merely for the misrepresentations and continuing ignorance that were showcased. Like the 1925 Monkey Trial, I don't think the ruling itself is a big deal. And I'm not a proponent of teaching creationism or ID. More important, I think, are the ways these trials are represented, portrayed and perceived in the culture.

      You make me laugh so hard, Cornelius.

      Well I'm glad to see some good come out of this exchange.

      Delete
    73. Cornelius Hunter

      No, my theory is there is a great deal of ignorance regarding evolution.


      Which sadly you do your best to propagate based on the false and misleading OPs you continually offer here.

      This has nothing to do with the Dover case, per se, which I think was meaningful merely for the misrepresentations and continuing ignorance that were showcased

      C'mon, don't be too hard on Behe, Fuller, and Minnich. No one could defend the disguised Creationist stupidity being pushed in Of Pandas And People. At least Dembski had the sense to cut and run. Living proof it's better to be thought an incompetent Bozo than testify and remove all doubt.

      Well I'm glad to see some good come out of this exchange.

      It's all good CH. You're our most entertaining Creationist culture warrior, bar none.

      Delete
    74. DrHunter,
      Jones suffered from evolutionary brainwashing. The cultural memes and underlying evolutionary worldview, as portrayed in *Inherit the Wind*, are subtle and powerful.


      Which cultural memes are those ?

      The fact that Jones bought the evolutionary lies at face value,

      For someone who spends a great deal of time mocking others for considering evolution a fact,you seem rather casual in your use of " fact ", how do you know that is a fact?

      Delete
    75. V:

      I’m sorry but “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind,” and “It [seeing Inherit the Wind] would help put things in historical context” really do mean “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind,” and “It [seeing Inherit the Wind] would help put things in historical context”.

      Delete
    76. CH: "No, my theory is there is a great deal of ignorance regarding evolution. This has nothing to do with the Dover case, per se, which I think was meaningful merely for the misrepresentations and continuing ignorance that were showcased. Like the 1925 Monkey Trial, I don't think the ruling itself is a big deal."

      I agree that the ruling is not a big deal as it only applies to a Pennsylvania district and would not be considered precedent anywhere else. I don't agree with you that it was based on misrepresentations and ignorance. You tried to insinuate that Ken Miller lied on the stand, but that was a deliberate misrepresentation on your part.

      CH: "And I'm not a proponent of teaching creationism or ID."

      Don't you teach CSSR 530: Darwin, Evolution, and Design on a regular basis?

      CH: "More important, I think, are the ways these trials are represented, portrayed and perceived in the culture."

      This I can see. The ID movement isn't really about science. It's about culture. Science merely stands in the way, so it gets the flak.

      Delete
    77. That is a history of thought class.

      Delete
    78. I can see how CSSR 514 is a class in history of thought. I can't see how CSSR 530 is. Its focus is entirely different.

      Delete
    79. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    80. DrHunter,
      I’m sorry but “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind,” and “It [seeing Inherit the Wind] would help put things in historical context” really do mean “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind


      Likewise when he says" When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. " means " When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. "

      The question you avoided was concerning this " The fact that Jones bought the evolutionary lies at face value, reveals an unbelievable ignorance, false preconception and potential bias, about the very case the federal judge would be presiding over."

      Except of course you don't know it is a fact, you just need it to be to justify your belief that the trial was unfair to creationists.

      Delete
    81. V: Yes,the assumption that nature is comprehensible, that what occurs in the present occurred in the past.

      J: This is not strictly true for atheism or theism. Explanation is about THIS universe. You would say that this universe only involved ONE origin point, right?

      V: That is the current theory.

      J: "The" current theory, huh? So those atheists with distinguished scientific careers who disagree can't have theories? Why? Because you say so?

      Jeff: There is no uniformity of the past in the absolute sense. Rather, we try to explain a finitely-enduring world/cosmos as ANALOGICALLY as possible.

      V: That is why it is an assumption. Do have any data which contradicts that assumption?

      J: The relevant question is whether there's evidence FOR an origin point.

      V: Then the question would be are the gaps real or an artifact of the nature of fossilization. Which gaps exactly does the theory of SA predict?

      J: You're confused. No hypothesis predicts the gaps. They can be due to non-biological variables.

      V: Since we have incomplete knowledge of the initial conditions, any observations are subject to that limitation. But those observations are based on the assumption that nature is comprehensible, which you question.

      J: You're confused. That reality is comprehensible can't mean we have to have non-tentative answers to all questions.

      Jeff: He(Ken Ham) accepts all observations. He accepts analogical extrapolations therefrom as legitimate scientific hypotheses

      V: For instance? What is his scientific hypothesis?

      J: There is no explanation of biological history derivable from the data set used by biologists. Thus, there are no predictions that are falsifiable. You keep assuming there's science to a non-predictive historical hypothesis. But by what definition of "science?"

      V: There is physical evidence of change in the present, if the same processes occurred in the past, (assumption) it is plausible that there was change in the past. The same methodology as geology,astronomony , and physics.

      J: Change is general. You're positing VERY specific change--specific change that is not indicated or implied by anything we know about the initial conditions or ANY initial conditions, for that matter.

      J: On the contrary. By that view, no one would be trying to find dark matter, etc

      V: How do you figure?

      J: Because UCA'ists claim to have a scientific theory without having any observation-based theory that implies the observations. Physicists can't be that moronic and stay employed.

      Jeff: Those sciences you mention have REAL predictive requirements. The ToE, when applied to evolutionary history, doesn't

      V: Each have modifications of the existing paradigms with the improvement of our scientific tools.

      J: Physicist ADMIT they have no evidence of the dark matter, etc, that can explain the failure of our previous gravitational math. Biologists NEVER admit they've never had a theory that implied the observations.

      V: Provide a scientific theory of SA first and a way to test it, perhaps the UCA was the only SA that survived. Who knows without some specificity?

      J: V, you don't have such a theory yourself.

      V: As I said, we see change in organisms in present time, that based on the assumption that organisms likewise changed by the same mechanisms in the past, makes it logically possible.

      J: There's no evidence it's logically possible. Because there are no patterns to observed variation that can be extrapolated in any meaningful way to imply any particular UCA tree.

      V: I don't need to know the origin of all things to put gas in my truck when it stops and the gauge reads E.

      J: Actually, Scott is right--if atheism is true, it's no more knowably probable that there are no trucks as that there are. Assuming without evidence is not knowing.

      Delete
    82. Jeff
      J: This is not strictly true for atheism or theism. Explanation is about THIS universe. You would say that this universe only involved ONE origin point, right?

      V: That is the current theory.

      J: "The" current theory, huh?


      Yes, that is current accepted provisional model of the origin of the universe, based on the available data. It is known as the " Big Bang Theory" not to be confused with a TV show of the same name.

      So those atheists with distinguished scientific careers who disagree can't have theories?

      It isn't religion,of course anyone can believe whatever they want. But to be the accepted paradigm, first it must an actual theory and second it must a better explanation for the data.

      Plate Tectonics for instance replacing the previous explanation for mountain building.

      Now a question ,why is " atheistic" relevant?

      Why? Because you say so?

      No, because the professionals in the field use the most useful model to study the existing data,as data increases the most useful models can change. Big Bang replacing steady state universe. Better technology increased data which caused a shift in paradigm

      Delete
    83. Jeff,
      V: I don't need to know the origin of all things to put gas in my truck when it stops and the gauge reads E.

      J: Actually, Scott is right--if atheism is true, it's no more knowably probable that there are no trucks as that there are. Assuming without evidence is not knowing.


      While I am sure Scott would be happy to know you agree with an " idiot" ,I think Scott might say , theism isn't a get out of jail free card. The fact you need to assume a god, puts you in the same pickle as the rest of humanity.
      You assume that there is a benevolent teleological , Christian probably , entity . The only evidence for that assumption requires a comprehensible universe.It seems to me in order to assume a benevolent diety with any evidence at all, you first must assume a coherent universe.
      After all,
      Assuming without evidence is not knowing.

      Delete
  2. I'm pretty sure O'Reilly is a creationist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you didn't check to see if O'Reilly was a creationist before suggesting he was an evolutionist in your post? Shocking!

      Bill O’Reilly — Flaming, Full-Blown Creationist

      Delete
    2. Scott: You're confusing creationism with theism. O'Reilly is talking about existence of a deity, something many if not most evolutionists accept.

      Delete
    3. Are you saying "Throwing in with Jesus" doesn't make O'Reilly a creationist?

      Delete
    4. Preemptively, these two videos, if taken completely in isolation, do not make O'Relly a creationist. For example, theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus died for our sins. However, O'Relly's individual statements do not exist in a vacuum, any more than your's do.

      Delete
    5. DrHunter,
      Scott: You're confusing creationism with theism. O'Reilly is talking about existence of a deity, something many if not most evolutionists accept.


      Do theistic evolutionists also believe all things arose spontaneously?

      Delete
    6. Scott: However, O'Reilly's individual statements do not exist in a vacuum, any more than your's do.

      What do I mean by this? If we take what O'Reilly says across the board seriously, he's a creationist.

      O'Reilly states he thinks life was intelligently designed. O'Reilly says, "If we have life, on earth, why don't we have it on other planets?" O'Reilly says "It takes more faith to not believe - and to think this was all luck - All this human body, the intricacies of the human body, all luck, than it does to believe in a deity. O'Reilly is "throwing in with Jesus"

      IOW, you're giving O'Reilly far too much credit in assuming he knows when use of the term "deity" is actually appropriate.

      Delete
    7. Scott, if by creationist you mean that O'Reilly is an SA'ist of the Ken Ham stripe, I don't see how you get that from his statements. Don't get me wrong, he may very well BE one. I just don't see how you can infer it given the stance of so many UCA'ist Catholics.

      Delete
    8. Yet another thing we supposedly cannot make progress on. Check.

      Delete
    9. What an idiot! Of course you could make progress on that question, Scott. You could ASK him SPECIFICALLY. What an ABSOLUTE IDIOT you are.

      Delete
    10. Scott: What do I mean by this? If we take what O'Reilly says across the board seriously, he's a creationist.

      Jeff: I don't see how you get that from his statements.

      Scott: Yet another thing we supposedly cannot make progress on. Check.

      Jeff: Of course you could make progress on that question, Scott. You could ASK him SPECIFICALLY.

      We can't make progress unless I ask O'Reilly directly? Really?

      Did you actually watch any of the videos I referenced?

      Specifically, where he says "I think Intelligent Design made everything happen" and "It takes more faith to not believe - and to think this was all luck - All this human body, the intricacies of the human body, all luck, than it does to believe in a deity."

      Do those statement sound like someone who believes "the biological world spontaneously arose"?

      Furthermore, O'Reilly could tap dance around the question or refuse to acknowledge it at all. Or he could simply lie about his belief. After all, I've asked Cornelius direct questions over and over again, which he refuses to answer.

      For example, I've asked Cornelius directly, at least a dozen times, if he believes that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative, supernatural sources. But he refuses to even acknowledge the question. Apparently, he thinks this somehow creates the illusion of being neutral on the issue.

      But, again, O'Reilly's individual statements do not exist in a vacuum, any more than Cornelius' do.

      Delete
  3. Williamson’s article is on the seemingly never ending and controversial textbook selection process in Texas. But the piece is short on detail and long on generalities. As political pundits often do, Williamson judges the debate from afar with apparently very little knowledge of what its participants are actually saying

    As one who is not afar, he is correct in his evaluation. Please show your knowledge of the debate does not suffer from that which you accuse him of. Quoting something from the eighteenth century hardly demonstrates current knowledge of the facts on the ground.

    . Those who doubt the reality of evolution are anti-science Evangelical knuckleheads, pseudointellectual dopes making misguided assaults, fraudulent and up to no good.

    No,those who wish to put non scientific information in science books know exactly what they are doing. The tell is that more than science is under attack, our history books have been ' improved " by eliminating facts which they find unacceptable.

    " We are adding balance,” said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”


    Today most religious people are confident enough in their faith that such minor bumps in the road do not shake their beliefs

    Most religious people are not evangelical Baptists in Texas.

    But there are those few oddballs, such as the literalists, who just won’t to get on board. Their anti-intellectualism fights the tide of truth and makes us all look bad

    You aren't from Texas are you if you believe that literalists are few, they control the Texas Republican Party which controls state government. And they most certainly believe that evolution is directly at odds with their dogma. Man did not come from any dirty ape. That is a left wing bias.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hunter: "Those who doubt the reality of evolution are anti-science Evangelical knuckleheads, pseudointellectual dopes making misguided assaults, fraudulent and up to no good."

    That's a pretty accurate summary of the ID movement. Kudos to our host.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, since Oleg is just mocking you, not making a case, cogency is entirely irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. Just mocking?

      Anti-science: Cornelius doesn't imply we cannot make progress on the origin of biological adaptations?

      Evangelical: Cornelius doesn't believe that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative supernatural sources?

      Pseudointellectual: Cornelius doesn't completely ignore entire fields of epistemology and progress in the philosophy of science that does not suit his agenda?

      Misguided, fraudulent: One only need to point out quote mining, and misrepresentations in just this post alone; many of which Cornelius keeps using over and over again, despite being corrected.

      So, no, Didymos, it's not mocking, it's a summary. All you need to do is go back and look at his posts. It's all right there in black and white.

      Delete
    3. Scott, I think that you misunderstood didymos. I'm pretty sure that he's just pointing out that the "cogency" cornelius expects isn't necessary when it comes to oleg justifiably mocking cornelius.

      Delete
    4. Ahh.. Sorry, if I misinterpreted you, didymos.

      Delete
  5. Origin fights are indeed beyond the normal segregation in Yankee politics.
    The conservatives have not been faithful to creationist opions despite they are mostly in the conservative elements of the land.
    They are incompetent and missing a good point for republican activisms.
    To defend the truth, freedom of speech/inquiry, freedom in schools and so on is a GREAT value for those most identifying with historical America.
    Conservatives today fail to be dominate because they fail to understand the great influences and agendas in the people. They should embrace creationism as a option in all matters of collective identity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. cornelius said:

    "It is a pervasive religious theory that has strong appeal across the political spectrum, regardless of the facts."

    So, you obviously believe and constantly assert that evolution or evolutionary thought or evolutionary theory (make up your mind, they're not the same thing) are a religion, which of course means that you are constantly attacking what you believe are religious beliefs that don't match your own, and you claim that those alleged religious beliefs are not supported by facts.

    Well then, you surely must have plenty of facts that support your religious beliefs, and of course your facts are undoubtedly scientifically testable and verifiable since you're only interested in practicing and promoting top notch, non-religious science, right? LOL

    Will you please be kind enough to honor me and the rest of the readers here with a list of scientific facts that support your particular religious beliefs? Please don't skimp on the details.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to an instantaneous creation event. -

    2. Materialism predicted that the basis of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

    3. Materialism predicted that consciousness is a 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a 'special' position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. -

    4. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9) -

    5. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - The unchanging universal constants are found to be fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. -

    6. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely 'privileged' in this universe. -

    7. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8. Materialism predicted a beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -

      9. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -

      10. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth -

      11. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. -

      12. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. -

      13. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record (Tattersall). -

      Draw your own conclusions as to which way the science actually points.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. bornagain77 September 15, 2013 at 5:37 AM

      1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to an instantaneous creation event.


      Man, got a whole army of strawmen here.

      First, theism asserts the existence of an eternal creator. But there is no reason given why an eternal, necessary being like the Christian God should create anything at all. It would have no need, no reason. The existence of a universe is not predicted by the existence of such a being.

      Second, if you can have an eternal creator, why not an eternal universe?

      Third, there were two contending theories in physics, the Steady State and the Big Bang. Materialistic science found evidence in the form of the CBMR which settled it in favor of the Big Bang, for the moment at least.

      Fourth, yes, the evidence points towards a Big Bang event. But we don't know what conditions were like in the primordial singularity. We don't know why it went "bang" when it did. We don't know what, if anything, went before. Maybe it was a creation event but not necessarily the creation event. Maybe it was the effect of a collision between to branes. We don't know and the Bible really isn't much help in these matters either.

      2. Materialism predicted that the basis of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space.

      Quantum mechanics is the product of materialistic science and it's been a long time since physicists thought of atoms as tiny solar systems

      3. Materialism predicted that consciousness is a 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a 'special' position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality.

      Really? So, unless I'm looking at you, you don't exist?

      Another question: which comes first, the chicken or the egg? To be aware is to be aware of something, even if it's only oneself. If there is nothing to be aware of there can be no awareness. That implies that the 'something' must exist before the awareness of it. How can you be aware of something before you are aware it exists?

      4. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9)

      Materialistic Newtonian physics assumed time was invariant. Materialistic relativity theory showed that the observed universe could be better explained by assuming the speed of light was invariant but time was not. An eternal God has nothing to do with it.

      {Continued...]

      Delete
    4. [...Continued]

      5. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - The unchanging universal constants are found to be fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe.

      Yes, without a god, there is no mind to have a purpose so we would just be an accidental outcome of evolution. But for a stray asteroid and maybe some climate change it could now be the descendants of dinosaurs denying the existence of global warming, not us. Not very comforting, no special place at the pinancle of creation, but there it is.

      And the best answer to the fine-tuning argument is Douglas Adams's puddle analogy.

      6. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely 'privileged' in this universe.

      They're finding thousands of extra-solar planets. I'm betting there's a lot more to come. Do you really think there's no life whatsoever on any of them? I'm betting you're wrong, that it's only a matter of time before we have the first evidence of extraterrestrial life which will knock that little argument on the head once and for all.

      7. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.".

      ENCODE used a really elastic concept of function. Without it, a lot of the genome still is 'junk'. Even with it, there's still 'junk'

      8. Materialism predicted a beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford)

      Animals with too high a mutation rate will have a tragic but praiseworthy tendency to go extinct. Same for those with too slow a rate which means they can't adapt fast enough to changing environments. What remains is a mutation rate that is about right.

      The ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is high. That's to be expected. There are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right. But the unfortunate bearers of detrimental mutations tend to go extinct. That's why they're call detrimental. What's left are the beneficial ones. What's so difficult about that?

      [Continued...]

      Delete
    5. [...Continued]

      9. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

      The "warm little pond" thing was one of Darwin's , nothing more. It wasn't a prediction of materialism or any other 'ism' come to that. Except may be Biblical literalism.

      Asserting the existence of a god doesn't necessarily predict life as we know it as was mentioned earlier.

      10. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth

      Let's get one thing straight, the creation account in Genesis is part of Christian theology not theism generally. There are many creation stories other than the one in the Bible. Theism doesn't necessarily predict any particular creation process.

      Oh, and it may have escaped your attention but, having just dismissed the "warm, little pond" notion as a failed prediction of materialism, you've just provided Biblical support with this life following the creation of water reference.

      11. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas.

      An event that takes up to 80 million years is only explosive or even sudden on geological timescales. And we have plenty of evidence now of life existing way before then

      12. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, ...

      That depends on what you mean by "transitional". In one sense, we are all transitional between what went before and what will come after. There are also transitional fossils in the larger sense. If you're really interested in a list, you could start here

      13. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record (Tattersall).

      Seriously? The Cambrian started around 540 million years ago, just to pick one benchmark. You really think nothing else will happen in the next 540 million years? Does Tattersall?

      Draw your own conclusions as to which way the science actually points.

      That's right. Do it based on the whole of science, not the cherry-picked, quote-mined scraps we have here.

      Delete
    6. "Man, got a whole army of strawmen here.

      First, theism asserts the existence of an eternal creator. But there is no reason given why an eternal, necessary being like the Christian God should create anything at all. It would have no need, no reason. The existence of a universe is not predicted by the existence of such a being. "

      ROFL and he prefaced that whopper strawman - There would be no reason for a Christian God to create antything" with complaining about strawman.

      oh the rich insanity of hypocrisy!

      "Second, if you can have an eternal creator, why not an eternal universe?"

      You mean besides the overwhelming evidence that this present universe is not eternal and had a beginning? Or the problem that an ETERNAL universe has no cause for its existence but itself complete with rational (intelligent) laws. order and interactions that themselves have no cause but simply are because they are and are a natural property of himself?

      "And the best answer to the fine-tuning argument is Douglas Adams's puddle analogy."

      ROFL then you are in deep trouble because the fine tuning argument NEVER claims that relatively uncomplex entities exist so they are fine tuned but extends to incredibly fortuitous highly complex systems that rely on multiple fine tunings not merely ones that would bring about puddles.

      You atheist rather love the analogy while ignoring that a puddle that could think would no longer be a mere puddle. to wit the puddle would have far more going on for it than water and a shape to fill it and that destroys the very simplicity that the analogy is trying to maintain.

      If I had the time I wold go through your other weak points but my allotment for blowing up weak atheist argument for the day has been taken up.

      Delete
  8. Poor Cornelius. He goes out of his way to hide the fundamentalist nature of the campaign against evolution and to present it as a dispassionate scholarly criticism (yeah, right) of a religious viewpoint (there go all ungrounded irony meters).

    Then along comes Phil Cunningham and tells everyone in no uncertain terms that it's "theism vs. materialism." Phil, can't you pretend for a moment, along with Cornelius, that criticism of evolution is not (I repeat, NOT) related to the struggle against atheism? I am sure he would appreciate that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why I just love reading Creationist blogs like this. One IDiot will argue "oh ID is pure science, no religion, we're being unfairly kept out of science labs blah blah blah" and right behind him will come another IDiot "the Designer is JESUS!!! and all you evil evos will BURN IN HELL!!"

      :D :D :D

      The stumbling and bumbling is funnier than watching Three Stooges reruns.

      Delete
  9. From tbe article: Perhaps it is the case that the scientific consensus regarding evolution is wildly off base and that George Gilder is in possession of the secrets of the universe. If that is the case, then the people who need convincing are the professors, not the high-school kids. Attempting to influence the scientific debate by monkeying around with high-school textbooks is like trying to steer an aircraft carrier with a wooden oar. That the creation-science gang is most interested in sharing its ideas with the audiences least intellectually prepared to evaluate them suggests that it is up to no good.

    That last part - sounds just like the target audience of a blog... If I could only remember which. I think it starts and ends with "d".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott: That last part - sounds just like the target audience of a blog... If I could only remember which. I think it starts and ends with "d".

      J: Given that this is from the man who thinks ALL propositions are EQUALLY a-probable, one can only marvel at the utter oblivion between your two ears.

      Delete
    2. Again, you're conflating "we grossly overestimate the role of probability in adopting ideas" and "you cannot calculate the probability of theory X being true, rather than Y being probability true inside theory X" with "all propositions are equally a-probable"

      I've clarified this in the past, which you continue to ignore. Par for the course.

      Delete
    3. Scott: I've clarified this in the past, which you continue to ignore. Par for the course.

      J: Not at all. There are claims asserted in the name of some "Scott" that are logically unintelligible if, indeed, that same "Scott" believes NOTHING foundationally/naturally. Because it is logically impossible for one to self-conciously CHOOSE to believe one CHOOSES, unless events aren't caused or effects precede causes. And since you don't believe EITHER naturally/foundationally, merely asserting either isn't the logical equivalent of knowledge or warranted belief thereof. You really don't get how deduction works, dude.

      Delete
    4. Jeff: Not at all. There are claims asserted in the name of some "Scott" that are logically unintelligible if, indeed, that same "Scott" believes NOTHING foundationally/naturally.

      Yes, Jeff. I know you think you know this. You've made that clear.

      However, the question is, how do you know this? Is this also a natural / basic belief as well? Is it justified some how? Have you proven it somehow?

      IOW, it's seems that your own claim of intelligibility without foundationalism doesn't meet your own standards for belief. So, according to you, you can't KNOW that.

      That's why you're the one with the problem, not me. Again, avoiding it doesn't mean you've actually solved it, Jeff.

      And I'm clueless?

      Delete
    5. Scott: That's why you're the one with the problem, not me.

      J: No, Scott. If the propositions written under the name "Scott" are true in their conventional meaning, you are clueless as to both my very EXISTENCE and the EXISTENCE of problems.

      Scott: And I'm clueless?

      J: UTTERLY!

      Delete
    6. Scott: Have you proven it somehow?

      J: This is very simple, Scott. As C.S.Lewis said, you can not prove there ARE proofs, and you can not prove there are NO proofs. Epistemology can't ask such questions for that very reason. This is your confusion. You think epistemology can answer such questions. It can't. People just naturally BELIEVE there are proofs. The question is, which epistemology ACCOUNTS for MORE of what people mean by "proof?" And it turns out that deduction and induction, as described in logic books, is the best we have on that question. The fact that this bothers you doesn't trouble sane people a bit.

      Delete
    7. Scott: ….your own claim of intelligibility without foundationalism … is this also a natural / basic belief as well? Is it justified some how? Have you proven it somehow?

      Jeff: People just naturally BELIEVE there are proofs.

      Again, you are conflating something people naturally do, conjecture beliefs, with the content of those beliefs being basic or natural. Is there a particular reason you keep ignoring this distinction?

      Jeff: The question is, which epistemology ACCOUNTS for MORE of what people mean by "proof?"

      Like benevolent/competent theism accounts for inductivism? What most people mean by proof and inductivism doesn't withstand rational criticism. We can account for why a significant number of people ignore this criticism in that they have adopted the idea that knowledge is justified true belief. And without it there can be no knowledge. But there is knowledge, so they conclude we must use it.

      But, again, how do you know this isn't a false dichotomy? People just naturally believe it isn't a false dichotomy?

      Jeff: And it turns out that deduction and induction, as described in logic books, is the best we have on that question.

      The funny thing is, what you keep describing is compatible with conjecture and criticism. So, apparently you've merely decided to call C&C inductive reasoning in an attempt to defend it.

      Jeff: The fact that this bothers you doesn't trouble sane people a bit.

      I must be insane if I don't think you're presenting a false dichotomy?

      Delete
    8. Scott: Again, you are conflating something people naturally do, conjecture beliefs, with the content of those beliefs being basic or natural. Is there a particular reason you keep ignoring this distinction?

      J: Conjecturing beliefs is logically equivalent to natural belief-formation? That's counter-intuitive to me. I have no recall of conjecturing a belief. Regardless, could you define "conjecture?"

      Scott: Like benevolent/competent theism accounts for inductivism?

      J: No, it's a necessary condition of the VALIDITY of induction.

      Scott: But there is knowledge ...

      J: How could you know that?

      Scott: What most people mean by proof and inductivism doesn't withstand rational criticism.

      J: What is rational criticism? Give me some examples that aren't deductive or inductive.

      Delete
    9. Scott: Again, you are conflating something people naturally do, conjecture beliefs, with the content of those beliefs being basic or natural. Is there a particular reason you keep ignoring this distinction?

      Jeff: Conjecturing beliefs is logically equivalent to natural belief-formation?

      Does the term 'conflating' mean equivalent?

      Jeff: That's counter-intuitive to me.

      From Popper's Conjectures and Refutations V.

      The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. I have even been suspected of being insincere--of denying what nobody in his senses can doubt.

      But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory, is absurd; as may be illustrated by the story of the man who dedicated his life to natural science, wrote down everything he could observe, and bequeathed his priceless collection of observations to the Royal Society to be used as inductive evidence. This story should show us that though beetles may profitably be collected, observations may not.

      Delete
    10. Jeff: I have no recall of conjecturing a belief. Regardless, could you define "conjecture?"

      Again, from Conjectures and Refutations V.

      The theory of inborn ideas is absurd, I think; but every organism has inborn reactions or responses; and among them, responses adapted to impending events. These responses we may describe as 'expectations' without implying that these 'expectations' are conscious. The new- born baby 'expects', in this sense, to be fed (and, one could even argue, to be protected and loved). In view of the close relation between expectation and knowledge we may even speak in quite a reasonable sense of 'inborn knowledge'. This 'knowledge' is not, however, valid a priori; an inborn expectation, no matter how strong and specific, may be mistaken. (The newborn child may be abandoned, and starve.)

      Thus we are born with expectations; with 'knowledge' which, although not valid a priori, is psychologically or genetically a priori, i.e. prior to all observational experience. One of the most important of these expectations is the expectation of finding a regularity. It is connected with an inborn propensity to look out for regularities, or with a need to find regularities, as we may see from the pleasure of the child who satisfies this need.

      This 'instinctive' expectation of finding regularities, which is psychologically a priori, corresponds very closely to the 'law of causality' which Kant believed to be part of our mental outfit and to be a priori valid. One might thus be inclined to say that Kant failed to distinguish between psychologically a priori ways of thinking or responding and a priori valid beliefs. But I do not think that his mistake was quite as crude as that. For the expectation of finding regularities is not only psychologically a priori, but also logically a priori: it is logically prior to all observational experience, for it is prior to any recognition of similarities, as we have seen; and all observation involves the recognition of similarities (or dissimilarities). But in spite of being logically a priori in this sense the expectation is not valid a priori. For it may fail: we can easily construct an environment (it would be a lethal one) which, compared with our ordinary environment, is so chaotic that we completely fail to find regularities. (All natural laws could remain valid: environments of this kind have been used in the animal experiments mentioned in the next section.)


      IOW, they are conjectures because they are not valid a priori. And they are knowledge in the sense that they grow via trial and error.

      Delete
    11. J: What is rational criticism? Give me some examples that aren't deductive or inductive.

      You keep providing example of rational criticism, Jeff. You've just chosen to call it inductive reasoning. Since no one has managed to formulate a principle of induction, then you're not actually using induction to provide guidance. That's the myth. What you're using is a limited sense of rational criticism.

      Delete
  10. Dr Hunter is out of sorts because a writer in one of the premier conservative journals, National Review, criticizes his brand of fundamentalism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. jeff the obedient sub passed on this command from his imaginary dom:

    "There's no such thing as "character assassination" in an atheistic epistemology. Because there's no such thing as duty. And therefore there's no such things as dereliction of duty, etc."

    Duty to an imaginary, sadistic, hypocritical, genocidal sky monster? You have the mindset of a muslim terrorist/suicide bomber.

    Hey jeff, do you have a real dom too? Does he role play the part of a god or a military officer or some other hard core authority figure while you eagerly submit to whatever commands he dishes out?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT: You have the mindset of a muslim terrorist/suicide bomber.

      J: What premises are you inferring that from, fideist?

      TWT: Hey jeff, do you have a real dom too?

      J: Only feidists need a dom. One or more, i.e.

      Delete
    2. And, fideist, could you please tell me how it is that you infer that certainty of the non-existence of duty is less conducive to behavior you consider undesirable than is the same degree of certainty that Jesus' character is the character of God? Can you articulate the grounds, etc of that reasoning?

      Delete
    3. jeff, it's pretty funny that you, a fideist (faith-ist), who believes in biblical fairy tales, would call me a fideist. There is absolutely no evidence that supports your faith in biblical fairy tales and there's lots of evidence that thoroughly refutes biblical fairy tales. Your faith is based on and wasted on delusional crap.

      Even IF the ToE were completely wrong, your religious beliefs (religious faith, based on the bible) are still delusional crap.

      TWT: You have the mindset of a muslim terrorist/suicide bomber.

      J: What premises are you inferring that from, fideist?

      Your words.

      Delete
    4. jeff drooled:

      "And, fideist, could you please tell me how it is that you infer that certainty of the non-existence of duty is less conducive to behavior you consider undesirable than is the same degree of certainty that Jesus' character is the character of God? Can you articulate the grounds, etc of that reasoning?"

      What a bunch of gibberish.

      Look, god sub, if you need an imaginary, monstrous sky daddy to understand and perform your "duty" as a decent person to the Earth and society then you just don't have a clue.

      Frankly, people like you are dangerous to the Earth and society because your so-called morality and "duty" is determined by the delusional, authoritarian screed of ancient, ignorant, destructive, superstitious, war mongering, genocidal barbarians and by the self serving translations, editing, interpretations, dictatorial proclamations, and heinous actions of the god wannabes who have been pushing that crazy religious crap ever since.

      godisimaginary.com

      Delete
    5. Hey jeff and other religious faith-ists, read this, including at least the first comment (by Con-Tester):

      http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/creationist-wisdom-357-the-principal/#comments

      Delete
    6. Fideist: jeff, it's pretty funny that you, a fideist (faith-ist), who believes in biblical fairy tales, would call me a fideist.

      J: Ah, but you ARE the feidist.

      Fideist: There is absolutely no evidence that supports you ...

      J: Wrong again.

      Fideist: ... and there's lots of evidence that thoroughly refutes biblical fairy tales.

      J: Namely?

      Fideist: You have the mindset of a muslim terrorist/suicide bomber.

      J: What premises are you inferring that from, fideist?

      Fideist: Your words.

      J: Namely?

      Fideist: Look, god sub, if you need an imaginary, monstrous sky daddy to understand and perform your "duty" as a decent person to the Earth and society then you just don't have a clue.

      J: I'm glad you put duty in quotes. Because you can't non-arbitrarily believe in duty or, therefore, dereliction of duty. IOW, you don't even believe there are "wrong" actions. And you call me "dangerous." Your stupidity is unfathomable. The millions slaughtered by atheist states were done by people JUST LIKE YOU.

      Fideist: Frankly, people like you are dangerous to the Earth and society because your so-called morality and "duty" is determined by the delusional, authoritarian screed of ancient, ignorant, destructive, superstitious, war mongering, genocidal barbarians and by the self serving translations, editing, interpretations, dictatorial proclamations, and heinous actions of the god wannabes who have been pushing that crazy religious crap ever since.

      J: Your stupidity is unfathomable. You'd be hard-pressed to find 2 people (let alone theists) who even have the same beliefs about proper human behavior. But somehow you've neatly classified all theists into one specifically defined group. Moreover, your interpretation of religious texts is so void of normal exegetical constraints that one can't help but find it more lilely that you're a pathetic pathological liar rather than the mere moron you AT LEAST are. No wonder even other atheists and agnostics see the sheer idiocy of atheists of your ilk.

      Fideist: Hey jeff and other religious faith-ists, read this, including at least the first comment (by Con-Tester):

      http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/creationist-wisdom-357-the-principal/#comments

      J: They say "All of the above ignores that “faith” in evolution (or, more accurately, the faith that the scientific approach will continue to be fruitful) and religious faith are vastly different in quality, character, target and quantity."

      That's a confused way of stating the real issue. The atheist has blind faith for every belief he/she has (as Scott has admitted). The benevolent/competent theist doesn't, if benevolent/competent theism is true. If benevolent/competent theism is false, nothing is knowable. Because in that case, as Scott has admitted, all propositions are, to honest, concept-using minds, seemingly equally a-probable/probable, rendering progress of any conceivable kind unintelligible.

      Delete
    7. Jeff: If benevolent/competent theism is false, nothing is knowable. Because in that case, as Scott has admitted, all propositions are, to honest, concept-using minds, seemingly equally a-probable/probable, rendering progress of any conceivable kind unintelligible.

      So, induction "works" because "That's just what God must have wanted it to work"?

      Gee Jeff, thanks for clearing that up - and not misrepresenting my attitude yet again, despite having differentiated my position over and over again.

      Delete
    8. Jeff: If benevolent/competent theism is false, nothing is knowable. Because in that case, as Scott has admitted, all propositions are, to honest, concept-using minds, seemingly equally a-probable/probable, rendering progress of any conceivable kind unintelligible.

      Scott: So, induction "works" because "That's just what God must have wanted it to work"?

      J: Scott, you're making an elementary error over and over. My being wrong doesn't make you right! Are you really THIS stupid?

      Scott: Gee Jeff, thanks for clearing that up - and not misrepresenting my attitude yet again, despite having differentiated my position over and over again.

      J: You've never differentiated your position from absolute skepticism. You're just too stupid to realize you haven't. If every proposition is equally a-probable/probable to a mind conscious of propositions and their meaning, then such minds know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be articulated by propositions. Dude, get a GRIP!

      Delete
    9. Scott: So, induction "works" because "[]God [just] must have wanted it to work"?

      Jeff: Scott, you're making an elementary error over and over. My being wrong doesn't make you right! Are you really THIS stupid?

      When you claim inductionism works, despite having pointing out it doesn't actually withstand rational criticism, which you have yet to actually address, yet you keep assuming it *does* work, what else am I supposed to think, Jeff?

      Specifically, part of inductivism is the idea that we can get theories from data. But this doesn't withstand rational criticism either.

      So, my best guess is that you think inductivism works merely because some benevolent/competent God exists and wants it to work. Apparently, the details of how inductivism works are irrelevant because you think, ultimately, the details about how anything that God wants to work is irrelevant.

      But, by all means, if I've got it wrong, please explain why you continue to think knowledge grows via inductivism.

      Jeff: You've never differentiated your position from absolute skepticism. You're just too stupid to realize you haven't.

      Disagreeing with you on how knowledge grows isn't the same as suggesting there is no knowledge. And I'm stupid?

      Delete
    10. Scott: Specifically, part of inductivism is the idea that we can get theories from data. But this doesn't withstand rational criticism either.

      Scott: Apparently, the details of how inductivism works are irrelevant because you think, ultimately, the details about how anything that God wants to work is irrelevant.

      What do I mean by this?

      Exactly how does benevolent/competent theism *alone* make anything knowable, despite criticisms of inductivism you have yet to refute? Explain how that works, in detail. Please be specific.

      Delete
    11. Scott: Exactly how does benevolent/competent theism *alone* make anything knowable, despite criticisms of inductivism you have yet to refute? Explain how that works, in detail. Please be specific.

      J: Scott, I've answered this. Here I go again. Benevolent/competent theism "alone" is a NECESSARY condition of the CONCEIVABLE validity of inductive criteria. If inductive criteria has no validity, then there is no positive evidence for any claim whatsoever, as you have admitted. And this latter means that there is nothing to debate. Because there is no conceivable way to convince, in that case. Indeed, in that case, even believing there are other minds is just belief that is utterly blind, unwarranted, and inexplicable. In short, knowledge is not even definable in your epistemology. And, Scott, that's WHY you can't define it.

      Delete
    12. Scott: Exactly how does benevolent/competent theism *alone* make anything knowable, despite criticisms of inductivism you have yet to refute? Explain how that works, in detail. Please be specific.

      Jeff: Benevolent/competent theism "alone" is a NECESSARY condition of the CONCEIVABLE validity of inductive criteria.

      I know that's your claim, Jeff. You're not saying anything new. What I asked for is explanation of why it alone is necessary and how it works.

      Jeff: If inductive criteria has no validity, then there is no positive evidence for any claim whatsoever, as you have admitted. And this latter means that there is nothing to debate.

      How human knowledge grows isn't up for debate? How do you know that Jeff?

      Jeff: Because there is no conceivable way to convince, in that case. Indeed, in that case, even believing there are other minds is just belief that is utterly blind, unwarranted, and inexplicable.

      I'm not following you. For example, given your view, how could you be conceived of the idea there is no way to convince anyone without warrant or explanation, unless that idea itself is warranted and/or explained?

      This is one of the reason why I asked you to " Explain how that works, in detail. Please be specific."

      But all you've done is repeat the claim. So, again, it seems we're left with benevolent/competent theism makes inductivism valid because, "God just must have wanted inductivism to be valid".

      Delete
    13. Scott: I'm not following you. For example, given your view, how could you be conceived of the idea there is no way to convince anyone without warrant or explanation, unless that idea itself is warranted and/or explained?

      J: Because I agree with you that if my view is false, you are right that any conceivable proposition (one distinguishable from others, because of the LNC) is equally a-probable/probable with every other as far as my mind can tell. But then how do you define "convince" in that scheme? Please give me YOUR definition and an example to clarify it. I mean, by "convince," providing POSITIVE evidence. But you say that's not possible.

      Scott: How human knowledge grows isn't up for debate? How do you know that Jeff?

      J: No, the question is, if you're right in your skepticism, how do YOU know ANYTHING? You can't even DEFINE knowledge!!

      Delete
    14. Scott: I'm not following you. For example, given your view, how could you be conceived of the idea there is no way to convince anyone without warrant or explanation, unless that idea itself is warranted and/or explained?

      Jeff: Because I agree with you...

      You don't agree with me, Jeff. That's my entire point. If I agreed with you, why would I keep suggesting you are presenting a false dilemma?

      Furthermore, any solution to a problem that includes the idea that it is also a non-solution doesn't survive criticism as a solution to any problem. As such I discard it. It's that simple.

      Jeff: I mean, by "convince," providing POSITIVE evidence.

      Of course you do, Jeff. That's what I asked what positive evidence you have for your belief that there must be positive evidence, etc.

      Jeff: ...if you're right in your skepticism...

      Again, disagreeing with you on how knowledge grows isn't the same as claiming there is no knowledge.

      Is there something about this you do not understand?

      Delete
  12. I've heard the claims that evolution is a fact, however what I don't hear is what would falsify it. It's a rigorous theory right so there should be some consensus?

    I've re-posted my question from the previous post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Falsifying the fact of evolution - the observed patterns of life which branched and diversified over deep time - would take something amazing. Basically you'd have to overturn our findings in almost every scientific field for the last several hundred years.

      Falsifying the theory of evolution - the idea that explains the fact - is a lot easier. There are any number of discoveries which if made would kill the current ToE. Discovering the phylogenetic trees formed from the fossil and genetic data are wildly discordant would do it. Discovering that different animal species have vastly different incompatible forms of DNA would do it. Discovering the magic barrier that limits evolution to like "kinds" would do it. Finding chimera animals like winged horses (Pegasus) would do it.

      Scientifically illiterate Creationists like blustering Steve here still haven't figured out there's a big difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Thorton, but I was more interested in what the current consensus is. I'd expect a mature theory to have some well specified falsification criteria.

      Delete
    3. Happy Kenesin

      Thanks Thorton, but I was more interested in what the current consensus is. I'd expect a mature theory to have some well specified falsification criteria.


      No scientific theory sets out "specified falsification criteria". Individual hypotheses that are being tested may list such criteria, but once an idea attains the status of scientific theory it's no longer necessary.

      Here is a good overview of the evidence for evolution

      29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

      Each area has a section on potential falsification. That's probably as close as you're going to get for a written list of items.

      Note also that Intelligent Design pushers continually misuse the word "theory". There is no "theory" of ID. There isn't even a testable hypothesis of ID. What we have now is unverified speculation about ID with zero falsification criteria.

      Delete
    4. I must say that I'm quite perplexed. I'd expect that such a resource would be welcomed by researchers, since it provide a valuable heuristic?

      Delete
    5. Happy Kenesin

      I must say that I'm quite perplexed.


      By what?

      I'd expect that such a resource would be welcomed by researchers, since it provide a valuable heuristic?

      The article is welcomed by real scientific researchers as a valuable teaching aid to help uneducated laymen come up to speed on the actual ToE. Intelligent Design Creationists hate it because it deals with empirically observed reality.

      Delete
    6. Perplexed because I'd expect a more scholarly work. Also the heuristic would not necessarily be for laymen but researchers in the lab.

      Delete
    7. Happy Kenesin

      Perplexed because I'd expect a more scholarly work.


      The article is not written to be a scholarly work. There are literally millions of peer-reviewed research papers on all aspects of evolutionary theory that provide an enormous scholarly background for anyone interested.

      Also the heuristic would not necessarily be for laymen but researchers in the lab

      Professional researchers in the lab don't need a layman's overview of the subject they're studying.

      I'm afraid you're not making much sense here.

      Delete
    8. "I'd expect a mature theory to have some well specified falsification criteria."

      and why would you think it is mature - because of time? What should be the falsification of it is Molecular convergence but oops that means it would be well on its way to falsification so the darnuts hand wave and cry that even molecular convergence cannot falsify their belief in the just so fairy that sprinkles dust of natural selection on everything and gets even the sames genes following the same changes across unrelated species.

      The Darnuts will never surrender their cherished worship but it matters little. They kid themselves.Its enough fact that the public - which has not got enough wind of it yet - will shrink their atheism to levels where they will have no hope of cracking double digit. The parties over for everyone else but they will still keep on their party hats while everyone else goes home.

      Delete
    9. Thorton, the recent discovery of gears in the planthopper nymph raises valid questions regarding how the ToE can account for them. Falsification criteria, even some general ones would be very helpful here, and as a researcher I'd welcome them since they would guide me to re-assess or look for alternatives. I'm finding very little consensus.

      Delete
    10. Happy Kenesin

      Thorton, the recent discovery of gears in the planthopper nymph raises valid questions regarding how the ToE can account for them.


      Questions, yes. Problems, no. Insects have evolved all sorts of bumps and protrusions all over their legs and bodies which perform different functions - sound production in crickets for example. Why do you think this one variety of juvenile planthoppers with their imperfectly functioning "gears" should be any different?

      Falsification criteria, even some general ones would be very helpful here, and as a researcher I'd welcome them since they would guide me to re-assess or look for alternatives.

      What's wrong the few dozen I've already provided you?

      I'm finding very little consensus.

      Why would you expect falsification consensus for something with 150+ years of positive evidence? Maybe you can show me the "falsification consensus" for other sciences. Where is the master list of falsifications for the germ theory of disease? Or plate tectonics? Or gravity?

      I'd wonder about your motives if you're just singling out evolutionary theory for these frankly ridiculous demands.

      Delete
  13. Hey Kenesin,

    Where did you get the idea that evolution(the non-guided, non-purposeful, non-goal oriented,non-designed kind, see) is falsifiable.

    Every new discovery is incorporated into the theory. EVERY one. What are the usual refrains? ; "hey, this is not a problem for evolution "...and what's the other favorite line?: "Evolution is fine with this".

    Design deniers are so good at co-opting design concepts like lateral gene transfer, endosymbiosis, convergence. They simply friggin' steal the concepts outright, cutting and pasting them into their theory, then with utter speed, spinning right around and claiming that anyone that doesn't accept lateral gene transfer, convergence, endosymbiosis, etc as evidence for evolution are luddites.

    Gotta hand it to the spinmeistering by our 'guest' trolls Thorton, Oleg, et al...

    But thats why Cornelius lets them hang here...with all the trash talk and their other 'special' characteristics....its all on record.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve I'm very interested to hear what the consensus view is, and what the sources are.
      I think it's a reasonable scientific question to ask.

      Delete
    2. Steve

      Every new discovery is incorporated into the theory. EVERY one.


      Not every one possible, just every one made to date. That speaks to the strength and correctness of the fundamental ideas. Of course like all good theories the specific details may be modified as more data becomes available. That's how all science works.

      It's not science's problem you're too stupid to understand the big difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. "But thats why Cornelius lets them hang here...with all the trash talk and their other 'special' characteristics....its all on record."

      There is no wisdom in Cornelius letting them run around. it rather defaces his whole blog as you can see Thorton yet demonstrating again with the usual vile.

      Cornelius just can't be bothered and in my opinion is just too lazy to do something about making the user interaction more civil or useful. I, like I am sure many others visit rarely now because he has failed to make his blog the kind of place it could be while nevertheless allowing descent. truth is with this blog almost anything goes (goodness you have cursing, name calling even frequent dsicussions about Hockry games junking up the site and sorry its on him for just flat out doing nothing about it.

      Theres no excuse. If he leaves comments up then he must expect that they should offer something civil and reasonable to is readers than the likes of some posters and if he doesn't think so he should just lock down comments altogether

      Delete
    6. steve said:

      "There isn't a thing darwinian about endosymbiosis, HGT, convergence, and a host of others."

      Where does it say that any of that has to be "darwinian"? The ToE has come a long way since Darwin.


      Delete
    7. The whole truth

      Where does it say that any of that has to be "darwinian"? The ToE has come a long way since Darwin.


      Steve's just the latest in a long line of scientifically ignorant Creationist mouth-breathers to trundle through here. He'll belch and fart and curse, tell his quota of lies for Jeebus, then be gone. Just like so many others before him.

      I sometimes wonder if this place is like minor league AAA baseball compared to the "major leagues" of UD and the DI. We get the raw rookies, the hopefuls, the ones with the most ignorance and biggest mouths. They're all trying to impress the coach and get that call-up to the Show.

      Delete
    8. Elijah2012

      even frequent dsicussions about Hockry games junking up the site


      Hockry. Is that what they play in Japan? :D

      We've tried discussing the evolutionary sciences with you ID-Creationists but there's none of you here who know even the basics of the topic. We can't discuss things you're totally ignorant about. What's left?

      Delete
    9. ...what Thorton was trying to say is that he's a weasel, and he just doesn't get that we cant seem to weasel as well as Thorton does....

      ...we all bow to Thorton's superior weasel skills....Thorton, the Grand Weaseler

      ...oh, and the trash talk....we cant seem to communicate with Thorton until we start to trash talk.. Then he gets it...

      ....weasel, trash, Thorton..the logic is unassailable




      "The whole truth

      Where does it say that any of that has to be "darwinian"? The ToE has come a long way since Darwin.

      Steve's just the latest in a long line of scientifically ignorant Creationist mouth-breathers to trundle through here. He'll belch and fart and curse, tell his quota of lies for Jeebus, then be gone. Just like so many others before him.

      I sometimes wonder if this place is like minor league AAA baseball compared to the "major leagues" of UD and the DI. We get the raw rookies, the hopefuls, the ones with the most ignorance and biggest mouths. They're all trying to impress the coach and get that call-up to the Show."

      Delete
    10. LOL! Thanks Steve! It's not often we get a scientifically ignorant Creationist mouth-breather to step up and so clearly demonstrate exactly what I was describing.

      Oh, and you still forgot to name a single example of a "biological development that evolution is utterly mute on" like you claimed. Thanks for showing everyone you were lying about that too.

      Delete
    11. Ha, the weasel scribbles and scratches in vain...

      ...come on weasel, you can do better than that!!!

      link, weasel, link...

      ...you've got mountains and mountains of 'evidence' to choose from...

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Face it Thorton, you're a weasel.

      Delete
    3. LOL! Steve, you were so busy lying for Jeebus that you STILL can't name a single example of a "biological development that evolution is utterly mute on."

      Delete

    4. Face it Thorton, you're a weasel.


      " You can sail in a ship by yourself,
      Take a nap or a nip by yourself.
      You can get into debt on your own.
      There are lots of things that you can do alone.
      (But it)
      Takes two to tango ... "

      Delete
    5. Vel, you're a weasel too???

      I wouldn't have figured you for a weasel but then you never know...

      ...guess Thorton oughta be happy now that he can rely on Vel as his weasel dance partner...

      ...anna 1, anna 2, anna 3,

      just kidding Vel...you've got weasel tendencies but your weasel skills are far and away from the Grand Weaseler Himself...

      Delete
    6. Steve,
      guess Thorton oughta be happy now that he can rely on Vel as his weasel dance partner...


      Nah, you have his card all filled in. I prefer the bar anyway.

      Delete
    7. FYI, DrHunter considers using obvious symbols for letters is still using bad language

      Delete
    8. "LOL! Steve, you were so busy lying for Jeebus that you STILL can't name a single example of a "biological development that evolution is utterly mute on."

      abiogenesis....Go ahead and make a fool of yourself claiming it is either not a biological development or that Evolution is separate from abiogenesis but still is not utterly mute on.

      You ARE always good for high hilarity

      Delete
    9. Elijah2012

      abiogenesis....Go ahead and make a fool of yourself claiming it is either not a biological development or that Evolution is separate from abiogenesis but still is not utterly mute on.


      LOL! It's always so cute when one Creationist face-plants and another picks up the stupidity torch for him.

      There are several hundred thousand published papers and hundreds of labs around the world actively researching all aspects of the origin of life.

      Abiogenesis overview

      Not exactly what an honest person would call "being utterly mute on".

      Funny thing is, not a single one of those papers or labs are from ID-Creationists. No need to research when you already know GAWDDIDIT!

      Delete
    10. "There are several hundred thousand published papers and hundreds of labs around the world actively researching all aspects of the origin of life."

      and not a one of them has an answer so EVOLUTION is mute on it.

      Its so funny watching a Darnut trying to contort and conflate. First they beg and whine that abiogenesis is not part of evolution and they they whine and cry that abiogenesis research must be conflated into an answer that EVOLUTION gives.

      Try again T you might bring tears of laughter to my eyes next.

      Delete
    11. Thorton: "Not exactly what an honest person would call "being utterly mute on".

      Elijah2012: "and not a one of them has an answer so EVOLUTION is mute on it."


      Q.E.D.

      Seems like every day we get some lame-brained Creationist claiming "science doesn't know EVERYTHING so that means science doesn't know ANYTHING!!"

      These clueless boobs will never learn.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. LOL, he knows no shame! More weaseling.

      No one was talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis refers to the advent of the most primitive proto-cell.

      There is a long list of biological developments that appeared AFTER the initial abiogenesis event.

      Or does Thorton now claim all these biological phenomena were front-loaded at the intitial abiogenesis event?

      Take you pick: a defense system, a sensory system, a digestive system, a command and control system, a DNA editing system, a cellular transportation system, on and on and on....

      from a darwinian perspective, not one of these systems were present at the initial abiogenesis event...theY all supposedly evolved subsequent to it....

      So weasel, pick out one of those millions of papers, and lets see what it has to say on one of these systems....lets nail down the science part....

      ...you know the part VOID of speculative guesswork/assumptions based on finding from other papers, which in turn came to their speculative conclusions based on the assumptions from yet other papers, whose speculative conclusions were based on assumptions from yet other papers.....

      ...so Thorton, the Grand Weasler just keeps on thumpin' on about the extraordinary value of his shiny, gaudy string of speculative beads that weighs heavy on his 'scientific' mind...

      Delete
    14. Steve

      No one was talking about abiogenesis.


      Elijah2012 brought it up you moron, after you cut and ran from your claims. He's not very knowledgeable but at least he had the sack to respond.

      Take you pick: a defense system, a sensory system, a digestive system, a command and control system, a DNA editing system, a cellular transportation system, on and on and on....

      OK moron. Here's one of many papers, this one on the evolution of the digestive system in ruminants.

      Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system

      Simple fact is science has investigated and is still learning about all those topics you listed. So your asinine claim that science was "utterly mute on them" was just another lie from your feeble Fundy pie hole.

      Thanks again for making yourself look like an ignorant fool. Makes my job so much easier.

      Delete
    15. Just as I thought, Weasel.

      Literature bluff.

      The paper is a comparative discussion of the diversity of ruminant digestive systems and as usual assumes evolution.

      Again, the paper assumes an existing digestive system. NOWHERE in the paper is discussed the appearance of a digestive system in early organisms spanning from ones that had no digestive system to ones that did and how that transition was made....

      Let...me...speak....a...bit....slower....so...you...can....understand....

      Link to a paper that provides supporting evidence for the step-wise transition from non-digestive to digestive....

      Delete
    16. Steve

      Just as I thought, Weasel.

      Literature bluff.


      LOL! Just as I thought, ignorant cowardly Creationist is changing his demands and moving the goalposts.

      Your original claim was that evolution is "utterly mute" on all the subjects, remember?

      I showed you where research has been done and published.

      That means your "utterly mute" lie is utterly refuted.

      Doesn't matter that we still don't know all the details. We know some, and that's enough to shoot down your stupidity.

      Keep going Steve, keep making yourself look like a fool.

      Delete
    17. No, my claim is that evolution is silent on the emergence of cellular systems after the initial abiogenesis event created the first proto-cell.

      It is design deniers that do a bait-and-switch, claiming that the emergence of cellular systems is included in the original abiogenesis event, which it clearly is not.

      ....and you thought you would be a clever weasel and inject the phrase 'all the subjects', which is no where to be found in any of my comments.

      So now you are a lying weasel.

      This blog is above your pay grade.

      Go home and play nicey at TSZ.

      Delete
    18. Steve

      No, my claim is that evolution is silent on the emergence of cellular systems after the initial abiogenesis event created the first proto-cell


      And you are clearly wrong as I've already provided research papers on the subject. There's a lot more out there too.

      Expanding Roles for Diverse Physical Phenomena During the Origin of Life
      Budin, Szostak
      Annual Review of Biophysics
      Vol. 39: 245-263 (June 2010)

      "Abstract: Recent synthetic approaches to understanding the origin of life have yielded insights into plausible pathways for the emergence of the first cells. Here we review current experiments with implications for the origin of life, emphasizing the ability of unexpected physical processes to facilitate the self-assembly and self-replication of the first biological systems. These laboratory efforts have uncovered novel physical mechanisms for the emergence of homochirality; the concentration and purification of prebiotic building blocks; and the ability of the first cells to assemble, grow, divide, and acquire greater complexity. In the absence of evolved biochemical capabilities, such physical processes likely played an essential role in early biology"

      Not my problem you're a mouth breathing Creationist moron who's totally ignorant of what the actual evolutionary sciences are doing. Go back to your dumpster diving at UncommonlyDense.

      Delete
    19. Ha, now an obtuse and dense weasel....

      After having spotted the weasel the initial abiogenesis event which resulted in the first proto-cells....what does he do??? He pasted an article 'yielding insights' into possible pathways for the first cells.

      Let's repeat for the slower one among us:

      ...show supporting evidence for selection acting on heritable variation as the mechanism for the development of cellular systems that came AFTER the initial abiogenesis event, which resulted in the first proto cells.

      Delete
    20. LOL! Poor ignorant mouth-breather Steve. His bluff was called and now all he can do is waddle around with his pants around his ankles.

      Try reading the scientific literature sometime dummy. The initial abiogenesis event isn't though to be the evolution of the first complete cell. It is hypothesized that the first organic self-replicators occurred on already available physical niches, possibly clay substrates, that help produce fatty acid vesicles which eventually became cell membranes.

      Steve the Creationist dummy, always willing to make a fool of himself for a laugh.

      Delete
    21. Can't squirm outta this one weasel!

      All you are here to do is scratch graffiti on Hunter's blog.

      .besides being an obtuse, dense, lying weasel.

      Back in the hole you go, weasel.

      Delete
    22. LOL! Poor pitiful mouth-breather Steve. Too ignorant to discuss any research in evolutionary biology, but he's got the blustering Creationist dumbass act down cold.

      Delete
    23. More graffiti from the weasel.

      ....so he wants to discuss something.

      ...er, link to that paper which discusses step-wise selection acting on heritable variation creating cellular systems in organisms 1 BYA ....

      ...then we'll discuss (if that's possible with the weasel).

      Delete
    24. Poor ignoramus Creationist Steve. His mouth keeps running but nothing intelligible comes out.

      Pulls your pants up Steve. Waddling around with them around your ankles isn't dignified.

      Delete
    25. ...More scribbling and scratching from the weasel.

      ....you can do better than that, weasel...

      Link, weasel, link....

      ..you've gotton mountains and mountains of 'evidence' to choose from....

      Delete
    26. Mouth breather Steve

      Link, weasel, link....


      The links that show you were 100% wrong when claims evolution is "utterly mute" on topics are scattered throughout this thread.

      You won't read them of course, but your willful ignorance isn't my problem.

      Now pull your pants up. Don't you get cold with them around your ankles all the time?

      Delete
    27. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    28. The lying weasel thinks no one can read.

      We can do this all day. So lets repeat again. Evolution is mute on the development of cellular systems like defense, sensory, digestive, motility systems, etc

      Your links show diddly squat about cellular systems being created by selection acting on heritable variation.

      There is no supporting evidence except conjecture and speculation.

      The weasel knows this. So he styles himself clever by trying to literature bluff.

      Ha, the lying weasel can't show any evidence to support selection acting on heritable variation creating cellular systems.

      Weasel some more, weasel.

      Delete
    29. LOL! Poor little fussy baby Steve, still bawling for attention. Still with his childish Creationist cry

      "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!"

      I already fold you fussy baby, I can't do anything about your willful ignorance. Why don't you try holding your breath and stomping your feet? Maybe that will have more effect on the scientific community than your current impotent whining.

      Delete
    30. Again, we can do this all day, weasel.

      Now for those links supporting selection acting on heritable variation creating cellular systems.

      Delete
  15. Who's Jeebus anyway? Is that supposed to be subeej spelled backwards or something?

    Ooooo, some kinda Darwinian Voodoo spell!


    ReplyDelete
  16. Jeebus?

    He is a dj at Discotute.

    (you people will make me go to hell)

    ReplyDelete