Sunday, August 2, 2015

Jim Stump: “I almost felt sorry for design advocates”

F6 Thinking

In his recent review of Benjamin Jantzen’s Introduction to Design Arguments (Cambridge University Press, 2014), evolutionist Jim Stump finds much to agree with because, as Stump argues, design arguments are both bad science and bad religion. For example, Michael Behe argues that evolution is challenged by the irreducible complexity of biological structures, but “almost all” biologists think Behe’s examples don’t hold water. The problem is Behe is implicitly appealing to a caricature of how evolution works that views complexity arising all at once. “In reality,” the ex Bethel professor explains, “natural selection operates on combinations of traits, not merely on isolated structures. Half-developed wings won’t help an insect fly, but they might help it do other things that contribute to its survival, like skim across the surface of water. Contrary to the ID claim about irreducible complexity, you don’t have to get the whole thing at once.”

Furthermore, even if Behe is right, he can merely conclude that design is the best explanation available. The history of science is full of best explanations that were later rejected because a previously unconceived explanation arose. Therefore Behe’s claim is considerably weakened. Stump finds Jantzen’s analyses to be cogent and by the end “almost felt sorry for design advocates as the soft underbelly of their arguments was exposed.”

Unfortunately what the philosopher demonstrates here is not a helpful and insightful commentary on design arguments but rather the usual sequence of evolutionary misrepresentations.

It begins with Stump's appeal to authority. This is a common evolutionary argument, but the fact that a majority of scientists accept an idea means very little. Certainly expert opinion is an important factor and needs to be considered, but the reasons for that consensus also need to be understood. The history of science is full of examples of new ideas that accurately described and explained natural phenomena, yet were summarily rejected by experts. Scientists are people with a range of nonscientific, as well as scientific influences. Social, career, and funding influences are easy to underestimate. There can be tremendous pressures on a scientist that have little to do with the evidence at hand. This certainly is true in evolutionary circles, where the pressure to conform is intense.

Next, Behe does not appeal to a caricature of how evolution works as Stump describes. In his development of the problem of irreducible complexity, Behe specifically addresses the adaptation of pre existing structures. Indeed, Stump’s representation of ID as claiming that with evolution you must “get the whole thing at once” is itself a caricature.

Furthermore Stump’s view that “natural selection operates on combinations of traits” is nothing more than the usual Aristotelianism dressed up in Darwinian language. Natural selection doesn’t “operate” on anything. And Stump’s credulous explanation of how “Half-developed wings won’t help an insect fly, but they might help it do other things that contribute to its survival, like skim across the surface of water” is simply a just-so story. There is no scientific evidence that this ever actually occurred in history, and it adds enormous serendipity to evolutionary theory. Does that make it impossible? Of course not. But that’s not the point.

The final critique of Behe is that he can only present design as the best explanation and is therefore vulnerable to the problem of unconceived explanations. Is not Behe’s claim considerably weakened?

This coming from an evolutionist is hypocritical for contrastive thinking is foundational to evolutionary thought. If Behe’s claim is considerably weakened then evolution is demolished.

Stump concludes with the usual Leibnizian / Kantian appeal to naturalism. Reminiscent of the final scene in Inherit the Wind which has the victorious Spencer Tracy clutching a Bible, we are told that the divine hand is evident in the created order, not in the failures of nature:

We see God’s hand throughout the created order not because science can’t explain nature, but because it can. The Designer’s mark is not in systems that don’t work quite right and need tinkering; those are signs of imperfection.

If naturalism fails, then nature fails. And if nature fails, then the Creator has failed. It’s the seventeenth century all over again.

129 comments:

  1. When the defenders of a field of science feel that they have to resort to lies to make a point, that's when you know the field is finished. In my opinion, there is a simple refutation of Darwinism that does not get enough consideration. It has to do with the impossibly huge genomic search space. The human genome contains about 22,000 genes and close to 3 billion base pairs. This means that the search space that evolution (RM+NS) must search through is 4 (the number of letters in DNA) raised to 3 billion! Faced with such a huge search space, RM+NS do not even make it out of the gate because the search space is essentially a black hole.

    The combinatorial explosion is such a serious problem in the field of genetic algorithms that GA programmers continually look for new ways to limit the number of variables. Even then, GAs are only used for toy domains.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter

    And Stump’s credulous explanation of how “Half-developed wings won’t help an insect fly, but they might help it do other things that contribute to its survival, like skim across the surface of water” is simply a just-so story.


    You may wish to check the scientific literature before making such pronouncements.

    Surface-Skimming Stoneflies: A Possible Intermediate Stage in Insect Flight Evolution
    Marden, Kramer
    Science 21 October 1994: Vol. 266 no. 5184 pp. 427-430

    Abstract: Insect wings appear to have evolved from gills used by aquatic forms for ventilation and swimming, yet the nature of intermediate stages remains a mystery. Here a form of nonflying aerodynamic locomotion used by aquatic insects is described, called surface skimming, in which thrust is provided by wing flapping while continuous contact with the water removes the need for total aerodynamic weight support. Stoneflies surface skim with wing areas and muscle power output severely reduced, which indicates that surface skimming could have been an effective form of locomotion for ancestral aquatic insects with small protowings and low muscle power output.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius, maybe it is because of the way the review was written, but I think that you are attributing as Stump's opinion some things that he is simply relating from the book. But regardless.

    You claim that the statement that most scientists disagree with Behe is an argument from authority. But I don't see that the review uses it as an argument from authority; rather that most scientists disagree with Behe because of a weakness in Behe's argument. I haven't read the book so I can't say whether the author is using it as an argument from authority.

    You then assert that the pressure to conform within evolutionary science is intense, a common ID argument. But it is an argument that has not been demonstrated. Sure, any scientist who proposes something which goes against what is generally accepted will face more scrutiny of the evidence presented to support the new proposal. But scrutiny and criticism is not persecution, as manny IDists would have us believe. Neutral theory, horizontal gene flow in metazoans, epigenetics, punctuated equilibrium, etc., were all ideas that did not conform to the generally accepted theory at the time, but I don't see any shortage of papers about these ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it is an argument that has not been demonstrated.

      Oh my.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius, is that the best you have?

      Every example of this so called "intense pressure" to conform that has been raised has crumbled at close examination.

      Evolutionary science has the same strengths and weaknesses as any other science. No better, no worse. And Universities suffer from the same childish politics as all other large organizations. It would be great if none of this were true, but it is.

      If any scientist proposed something that did not conform to the current understanding of evolution, and could provide strong evidence to support it, it would likely get published. This is not to say that it would not be criticized. But if the idea was sound, evolutionary theory would be modified to account for it. If the idea does not stand up to scrutiny, it will be discarded. And, yes, if a persons continuously pushes a theory that repeatedly fails to stand up to scrutiny, it will likely negatively affect their career. What most people would call pressure to perform, which is a requirement of every job, you call it pressure to conform when it applies to evolution science. Maybe ID would gain more traction if there was some pressure to perform for its proponents.

      Delete
  4. Surface-Skimming Stoneflies: A Possible Intermediate Stage in Insect Flight Evolution

    Really? This is why ToE is so difficult to argue, this statement cannot be refuted. It's a "possible" whatever... Everything is a "possible" something which then gets put into grade school textbooks as though it were fact.

    Evolutionary Theory is an exercise in storytelling just like the Greek gods. The observations are far more sophisticated today and the explanations are regarding genetics instead of how the sun moves across the sky, but they are stories nonetheless. Just because a phd tells the story doesn't make it true.

    Stories and fantasy can't be refuted. Even if they were true, they are not more than stories.

    Take WAIR, baby birds flap their under-developed winds while running and even use them to help climb. Newsflash, they're birds. Birds have wings and instinctively try to flap them. To extrapolate more is just storytelling. I move my arms when I run, does that mean I'm evolving flight?

    The cumulative burden of improbable stories being true should make anyone with critical thinking skills search for another potential explanation. But it's not really about science is it? It's about the intolerable alternative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sure wish I could edit typos

      Delete
    2. ohandy1

      Really? This is why ToE is so difficult to argue, this statement cannot be refuted. It's a "possible" whatever... Everything is a "possible" something which then gets put into grade school textbooks as though it were fact.


      Did you bother to read the paper? The title describes the event as possible and the body of the paper provides the empirical evidence that supports the idea. That's how virtually all scientific papers are written.

      Far from being a "just-so" story there are many examples of insects using partial or modified wings for things other than flight. Offering insect wings as an example of Behe's claimed "irreducible complexity" shows a major misunderstanding of the scientific evidence.

      Delete
    3. Ghostrider:

      With all due respect, empirical evidence for such a statement is just not possible. Finding an insect that swims with its wings means you have an insect that swims with its wings, not an intermediary towards flight. The narrative demands an intermediary so finding an insect like this is nothing more than convenient for the story, that's wishful thinking... not empirical evidence.

      It seems to me that the argument used to dispute Behe shows a major prejudice against it. What it doesn't present is any real explanation for the problem of irreducible complexity.

      Delete
    4. ohandy1

      With all due respect, empirical evidence for such a statement is just not possible.


      With all due respects, the paper I linked to provides exactly such evidence. Not proof, evidence that supports the hypothesis.

      It's just like your complaint about WAIR research. We know that flight capable birds did not exist before roughly 160 million years ago. We do know feathered non-flight capable coelurosaurian theropod dinosaurs existed around that time. Those are both scientific facts. The evidence indicates birds evolved from that earlier group of dinosaurs and along the way picked up the ability to fly. Both ground-up and tree-down hypotheses have some supporting evidence of which WAIR is a part.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider:

      "the body of the paper provides the empirical evidence that supports the idea"

      Perhaps I misunderstand the definition of empirical. I thought it was something verified by observation rather than inference, theory, or logic.

      The body presents evidence much as cash in my pocket is evidence that I committed a robbery reported to the police. The narrative predicts there should be insects using wings for different things, lo you found one. It must be the one you're looking for.

      If that makes sense to you then cops should arrest anyone with cash in their pockets after a robbery because the narrative predicts that the robber will have cash.

      What I'm saying is that the "evidence" is at best evidence of what may be possible (as the title states) not what is. If this is enough for you to place faith in, so be it. You really shouldn't be surprised when others say not so much. It's just no convincing unless you already believe.

      Delete
    6. ohandy1

      Perhaps I misunderstand the definition of empirical. I thought it was something verified by observation rather than inference, theory, or logic.


      That the wings are used to aid water skimming is an empirical observation.

      What I'm saying is that the "evidence" is at best evidence of what may be possible (as the title states) not what is.

      You're complaining because the paper describes the finding exactly the way you say it should describe the finding??

      You're unclear on this whole "supporting evidence' concept, aren't you?

      BTW, this one piece isn't the only evidence we have for insect evolution, not by a long shot. This evidence is considered in conjunction with all the other evidence. If the bank was robbed by a one legged blond man wearing a red jump suit and the police find a one legged blond man in a red jump suit a block away 5 minutes later with a packet of marked dollar bills in his pocket, it's not just the money they consider.

      Delete
  5. ghostrider says: "a form of nonflying aerodynamic locomotion used by aquatic insects is described, called surface skimming, in which thrust is provided by wing flapping while continuous contact with the water removes the need for total aerodynamic weight support. Stoneflies surface skim with wing areas and muscle power output severely reduced, which indicates that surface skimming could have been an effective form of locomotion for ancestral aquatic insects with small protowings and low muscle power output."

    OK, so what we know is that there are some insects who use their wings to motor across the water but not for flying. We also know that their wings are fully formed and there a variety of muscles are also necessary for this type of locomotion to occur.

    The evolutionary just so story/interpretation that goes beyond the facts/data is that this is a mid-point stage in wing evolution, but it could also simply be the way this fly was designed to move.

    It still requires many different parts to work. How/why did a fully formed wing/muscle structure appear in this insect?

    And as handy points out, the article says this is simply one possibility. In other words, it MIGHT represent a mid-point stage in evolution, but we don't know. No one can say it is not possible. Even they view this only as a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was under he impression that the argument of irreducible complexity is not about a half-formed organ or adaptation, but rather an adaptation that has numerous interacting parts. All the parts have to be there at once, or it doesn't work.

    Could it be that Jim Stump is the one appealing to a caricature of a theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shevi S

      All the parts have to be there at once, or it doesn't work.


      All the parts have to be there or it doesn't work for that particular function in that particular manner. There's nothing in evolution to prevent a simpler version of the parts from performing the same function less efficiently or performing a different function entirely.

      Delete
    2. So you're saying that a bunch of parts with existing functions decided to abandon their functions and join together to engage in an entirely new function which would be impossible without precise cooperation.

      That's likely...

      Delete
    3. ohandy1

      So you're saying that a bunch of parts with existing functions decided to abandon their functions and join together to engage in an entirely new function which would be impossible without precise cooperation.


      Science doesn't posit anything even remotely close to that. Where do you Fundies get such nonsense?

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      ohandy "So you're saying that a bunch of parts with existing functions decided to abandon their functions and join together to engage in an entirely new function which would be impossible without precise cooperation."

      ghostrider, "Science doesn't posit anything even remotely close to that. Where do you Fundies get such nonsense?"

      Perhaps from here?

      Wikipedia: Evolution of flagella:

      "An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system."

      "All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

      This type of story telling is a hallmark of evolution.

      Where do us fundies get such nonsense?

      Evolutionary thought provides an endless supply.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      Evolutionary thought provides an endless supply.


      Sorry Nic but Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument has been dead and buried for more than a decade. Science knows of various processes for IC structures to form and has evidence from numerous examples of exactly where such processes occurred. No one and I mean no one in science pays any attention to his mindless yapping on this topic. Even the fools at AIG have dropped the "what good is half an eye" argument. Why are you still clinging to it like a security blanket?

      Delete
    6. No one, that is, who is an Epicurean ... yawn

      Delete
    7. ghostrider

      This is why the argument never achieves intelligent dialogue. You asked where us "fundies" get our ideas and when presented with an example from the evolutionary standpoint you simply declare dissent as dead. If that were true, where are the refutations and the research to back them up? Seems to me that the research is pointing back to Behe's side.

      There are serious problems with ToE and IC remains one of them. Ostracising dissent isn't the same as refuting it.

      Funny thing is, I don't ever expect to alter your viewpoint. The whole thing is a matter of faith. We believe what we want to believe and we perceive evidence in light of what we believe.

      What I don't understand is why it is so necessary to science that God not exist. Don't try to suggest it's irrelevant to science, it's very relevant. Evolution isn't required for science and research, it's required to support scientism.

      Delete
    8. ohandy1

      This is why the argument never achieves intelligent dialogue. You asked where us "fundies" get our ideas and when presented with an example from the evolutionary standpoint you simply declare dissent as dead.


      What you posted has nothing to do with the ridiculous claim you made about how science thinks IC systems come into existence.

      There are serious problems with ToE and IC remains one of them.

      Not to science it isn't. ToE certainly still has unknowns but to science unknowns aren't considered problems. Despite all the bellyaching Creationists have done nothing to refute the solid evidence for ToE we do have.

      What I don't understand is why it is so necessary to science that God not exist.

      It's not. Science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any God or Gods. It's the Fundies who feel threatened by science who are always screaming at that strawman of their own making.

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      "Sorry Nic but Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument has been dead and buried for more than a decade."

      Really? I would be interested in knowing who killed it. I certainly hope you will not say Kenneth Miller with his juvenile mouse trap argument. That was so pathetically poor I felt sorry for the man. I was literally laughing at his incompetence when I first saw it.

      Or are you going to argue the co-option gambit where IC critics claim the bacterial flagellum and other systems originated from an earlier similar structure by co-opting that basic structure and adding the necessary parts, and as is usual in evolutionary thinking, confused a just-so story for scientific fact?

      So which is it going to be, or are you going to try a different story?

      Delete
    10. ohandy,

      O: "You asked where us "fundies" get our ideas and when presented with an example from the evolutionary standpoint you simply declare dissent as dead."

      O: "There are serious problems with ToE and IC remains one of them. Ostracising dissent isn't the same as refuting it."

      Ghost: "Not to science it isn't. ToE certainly still has unknowns but to science unknowns aren't considered problems. Despite all the bellyaching Creationists have done nothing to refute the solid evidence for ToE we do have."

      It just never penetrates. It's like shooting BBs at a battleship, nothing gets through. They are so entrenched in evolutionary dogma they can't see what is staring them in the face. Logic, rational thought and common sense are all sacrificed on the alter of evolutionary correctness. Evolution is a fact and no evidence to the contrary will be accepted.

      O: "What I don't understand is why it is so necessary to science that God not exist."

      ghost: "It's not. Science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any God or Gods."

      They just consider God to be irrelevant. He can exist if we want him too, but beyond that it is all evolution, all the way down.

      Delete
    11. ghostrider

      "Creationists have done nothing to refute the solid evidence for ToE we do have."

      Because it's based on stories. How can anyone refute something that is made up? So you see something that might be true, you call it true and require it be refuted. That's just not how its supposed to work.

      You claim IC isn't a problem because some of the proteins for flagellum have been found in the syringe structure of other bacteria. There remains no explanation beyond saying "it evolved" for how one biological machine is related to the other. In fact, as posted earlier, science indicates that the less complex version is in fact more likely a decayed version of the more complex. Even that's nothing but a story but far more plausible since it's easier to break down than build up.

      Occam's razor anyone?

      If you want to believe the answer will come one day fine. But to impugn those who say the answer is design is not only close-minded, it's a character flaw called arrogance.

      Delete
    12. Nic:

      They call God irrelevant, but that's just denial. If God were irrelevant it wouldn't be important to stand on dogma. If the possibility of creation was as acceptable as naturalism then science would determine the conclusions. Research wouldn't shoe-horn every experiment's conclusion into the evolutionary box.

      But God is relevant. It MUST be shown that no God is required for life or anything else. The imperative is evident in the verbiage of nearly every research paper.

      Sad as that seems, it's supporting evidence for the Christian doctrine since this was predicted to happen thousands of years ago. I suspect it will get worse.

      Delete
  7. Sorry, the above post is from me. Shevi is my daughter. She forgot to sign out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ID thinkers make case. The other side must disprove it. No appeal to head counts in this small circles.
    anyways belief in a creator has a great head count.
    Its up to evos to prove their case.
    they don't and failing to see they don't hints they are not the sharpest folks. Maybe the sharpest went into other science subjects of more prestige.Hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ghostrider: Sorry Nic but Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument has been dead and buried for more than a decade.

    OK ghostrider you get to try your hand at this one which has earned yours truly the title of "twerp" and "dipsh__" from hardcore Darwinists.

    So so we're going to look at a system with tens of billions of parts doing one job, all of them doing the same thing. These parts are interconnected over many centimeters. I'm talking about the mammalian respirator endothelium. We have these parts called cilia, which move mucus out of the lungs and up the trachea. Tell me how any reduced implementation of this system, say at the 2% level, in numbers, provided any benefit to survival. You must also tell us how these parts became accidentally wired to give the wave-like motion in coordination to move the mucus. You must tell us how the system in its nascent beginnings provided selective advantage even though there were far too few parts to move the mucus. You must tell us how those too few parts became wired together to wave in concert for no apparent advantage in itself unless you can imagine one.

    I've posted this to a couple of dozen Darwinists and what I get is nastiness or urges to go get educated, or suggestions that yours truly is not interested in learning, even though somehow coming up with an MS to my name. Have at it ghostrider, I will be humbled by your success which would be a nice surprise for my day, as opposed to insults that I get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shorter MSEE: "ZOMG this (insert biological feature here) is so complicated and I don't understand it so it must be DESIGNED!!'

      I'll write out the details of the evolutionary explanation as soon as you give me the details of the "design" explanation - when and where the design was done, how the manufacturing was achieved, where the raw materials were gathered, and who did the design. Don't forget to support your claims with references from the primary scientific literature.

      Delete
    2. MSEE,

      M: "OK ghostrider you get to try your hand at this one which has earned yours truly the title of "twerp" and "dipsh__" from hardcore Darwinists."

      "So so we're going to look at a system with tens of billions of parts doing one job, all of them doing the same thing. These parts are interconnected over many centimeters. I'm talking about the mammalian respirator endothelium."

      ghost: "Shorter MSEE: "ZOMG this (insert biological feature here) is so complicated and I don't understand it so it must be DESIGNED!!'

      "I'll write out the details of the evolutionary explanation as soon as you give me the details of the "design" explanation - when and where the design was done, how the manufacturing was achieved, where the raw materials were gathered, and who did the design. Don't forget to support your claims with references from the primary scientific literature."

      Can't see him for the dust. Run ghostrider, run!

      It is too funny for words, really.

      Delete
    3. Ghostrider:

      The flagellum requires a certain minimum number of parts e.g a motor, propellor, etc, or it can't function as a flagellum. An outboard motor can't function as an outboard motor without a minimum number parts. Also, it has to be able to function well enough to provide a benefit. A flagellum that rotates once per minute will not be of much use to a bacterium, so no fitness benefit. The standard response has been that there must have been some sort of functional intermediate, that might have done something different that had some benefit. But that is all theoretical. And the flagellum is a just one example of an irreducibly complex structure. There are so many irreducibly complex things in every organism. So ToE requires so much hypothesizing of so many theoretical intermediates.

      Delete
    4. natschuster,

      "The standard response has been that there must have been some sort of functional intermediate, that might have done something different that had some benefit. But that is all theoretical."

      This is not at all theoretical, it is wishful thinking stemming from utter desperation. Their world is collapsing all around them and they will do and say anything to stave off the inevitable.

      Delete
  10. ghostrider, "I'll write out the details of the evolutionary explanation as soon as you give me the details of the "design" explanation"
    Philosophical hogwash. We demand step by very tiny step explanations from you because your theory predicts such. We don't feel obligated to reciprocate because our theory doesn't predict it. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Right. Rock throwing Creationists demands infinite details from science while providing zero details about the idea which is suppose to replace evolution.

      You can safely be ignored.

      Delete
  11. Beast: "Philosophical hogwash. We demand step by very tiny step explanations from you because your theory predicts such. We don't feel obligated to reciprocate because our theory doesn't predict it. Get it?"

    That is the problem. Your theory predicts everything and nothing. You claim that life is designed. You claim that you have evidence for it. In any other science, the next step would be to propose mechanisms as to how this design reaches fruition. But ID steadfastly refuses to do so. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William,

      "In any other science, the next step would be to propose mechanisms as to how this design reaches fruition."

      If one is a creationist what do you think the proposed mechanism would be?

      Delete
    2. "That is the problem. Your theory predicts everything and nothing."
      No, that's not the problem. The problem is that your theory does not predict the data. That is to say, if your theory were correct, then the data would be much different than it is.

      I find it scientifically lagitimate to say that ID is out of bounds to science, but if it is then the scientific explanation for the details of life should be "we don't know", not "we have this stupid, half baked, theory that doesn't fit the facts -- but it must be right because it conforms to our philosophy.

      Delete
    3. bFast

      No, that's not the problem. The problem is that your theory does not predict the data. That is to say, if your theory were correct, then the data would be much different than it is.


      How so?

      I find it scientifically lagitimate to say that ID is out of bounds to science,

      Kudos to you for the honesty.

      but if it is then the scientific explanation for the details of life should be "we don't know", not "we have this stupid, half baked, theory that doesn't fit the facts -- but it must be right because it conforms to our philosophy.

      You aren't describing the actual ToE. You are describing the Creationist cartoon version of ToE. The actual theory is based upon the facts and is offered as an explanation for the facts. Like all scientific theories it gets modified when necessary when new knowledge is discovered.

      With science the facts drive the theory.

      With Creation facts are ignored and the ideology drives the claims.

      Delete
    4. "The actual theory is based upon the facts and is offered as an explanation for the facts."
      Please keep repeating the mantra.
      "You are describing the Creationist cartoon version of ToE." Maybe. Probably not.

      "With science the facts drive the theory.
      With Creation facts are ignored and the ideology drives the claims." I am certainly finding the opposite to be the case. Alas Dr. Hunter's primary position is that the opposite is the case.

      BTW, these guys seem to be well qualified, yet they find it necessary to reject the current paradigm: thethirdwayofevolution.com

      Dr. Shapiro even suggests that natural selection is totally irrelevant to the development of life as we know it. I personally think he overstates -- but not by much.

      Denis Noble is an interesting study. He does a great job of explaining the intricate dance of genes; a dance that is not expected by the current theory. However, his entire presentation is one of data, of the data that is revealed in his field -- physiology.

      I know, these guys have developed a caricature of the ToE also. They must have or they would accept the theory as a clear, clean, explanation.

      Delete
    5. bFast

      BTW, these guys seem to be well qualified, yet they find it necessary to reject the current paradigm: thethirdwayofevolution.com


      Let me know when they publish anything in the primary scientific literature to support their claims. Popular press books aimed at lay people don't do much to convince the scientific community as the ID pushers well know.

      Delete
    6. Here's Shapiro's list of publications: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications.shtml
      Denis Noble reports: Over 500 articles in academic journals, including Nature, Science, PNAS, Journal of Physiology.

      Now, please provide the list of your publications so we can confirm that you have better than a "cartoon version of ToE".

      Delete
    7. Those papers don''t support the claims he made in his popular press book. Do you not understand what the term "primary scientific literature" means?

      Delete
  12. "If one is a creationist what do you think the proposed mechanism would be?"

    I presume that God is the designer, but I am talking about the mechanisms that God uses to make the design come to life.

    Human design starts with the human designer. For example, the designer of an internal combustion engine. But how does it go from the paper to the climate changing gas guzzler in your Lada? Does the designer just waive his hands and...poof? How are the component parts manufactured? What design went into the production of the manufacturing equipment? Once the components are manufactured, in what order are they manufactured?

    So far, poof is the only thing that ID has. And since they refuse to prose anything else, that is all they will ever have. Do you now understand why ID does not receive any respect in the scientific community?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William,

      "Does the designer just waive his hands and...poof?"

      I can't say for sure, but that is certainly within the prerogative of an omnipotent being.

      On a more serious note, I think God has used mechanisms which we do not understand at this present time. Will we ever know? Perhaps not, but he gave us brains to use and motivation to find out and that is the aim of intelligent design research in my opinion.

      As for how component parts are manufactured I think we are beginning to understand the process with the recent advances in knowledge relative to the genome.

      As for the order of manufacture that is the purview of embryonic research. It is obvious there is a blueprint which is followed in the manufacture of any living organism. That fact simply cannot be denied.

      And as you state design starts with a designer and proceeds from there. How does it proceed from design to function? Via blueprint. In the case of God the blueprint would appear to be the DNA code.

      "So far, poof is the only thing that ID has."

      Nonsense, a great deal has been learned about the genome of various animals and it clearly shows definite signs of precise planning and engineering. You're simply closing your eyes to the progress being made in the field of Intelligent Design research.

      Move out of your comfort zone and do a little digging in to what is actually happening. If you have read as many research papers as you claim you will notice a decline in the type of comments which pay lip service to evolution.

      More researchers, if they are truly objective; and I believe many are; will begin a slide to design as the facts overwhelm them. The climate as it is presently prevents many from speaking out, but I believe there are many more than we know about. Please don't ask for numbers because I have no hard facts, my comments are based solely on intuition.

      "Do you now understand why ID does not receive any respect in the scientific community?"

      William, this is exactly the type of comment which shows your close mindedness to the facts. Who do think comprises the Intelligent Design community, bus drivers? Intelligent Design researchers are part of the scientific community. Come on man, use some honest common sense.

      Delete
    2. Who do think comprises the Intelligent Design community, bus drivers?

      Virtually the entire Intelligent Design "community" consists of religious Fundamentalists, some with science backgrounds, funded by the Discovery Institute to produce anti-science propaganda. They do so as part of the DI's "wedge strategy" to try and establish Christian religious views as the dominant paradigm in all scientific and political arenas. They even set up a phony ID "science" journal run by other IDers to claim their propaganda was peer reviewed. Their actual scientific evidence for ID is zero.

      BTW Nic you have several dozen questions you bailed out on in the last few threads. ( Orca "kind' anyone?) I expect you'll never get back to them, right?

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "Virtually the entire Intelligent Design "community" consists of religious Fundamentalists, some with science backgrounds,..."

      Even if this was true, which it is not, would the fact they were religious fundamentalists mean their science was invalid for that reason?

      Before you answer remember Sir Isaac Newton was a religious fundamentalist who wrote as much on theology as he did on science.

      "funded by the Discovery Institute to produce anti-science propaganda."

      So being funded by The Discovery Institute is bad, while being funded by The Leakey Foundation is good. How exactly does that work?

      "They even set up a phony ID "science" journal run by other IDers to claim their propaganda was peer reviewed."

      So if evolutionary scientists set up journals so other evolutionary scientists can peer review research that's good scientific practice, but if intelligent deigns scientists set up journals so other intelligent design scientists can peer review research that's phony scientific practice.

      Again, how exactly does that work? It just sounds hypocritical to me.

      You're a hoot.

      "Orca "kind' anyone?"

      Orcas are whales, genius.

      By the way, have you figured out the functional difference of how fish swim as opposed to whales?
      You've had several days to work on it. Proving a little difficult is it?

      Delete
    4. Nic

      Even if this was true, which it is not, would the fact they were religious fundamentalists mean their science was invalid for that reason?


      Their "science" is invalid because they don't do any science, only religious apologetics. Being Fundies is their motivation for the charade.

      So being funded by The Discovery Institute is bad, while being funded by The Leakey Foundation is good. How exactly does that work?

      The Leaky Foundation doesn't have the stated goal of overthrowing materialism and having all science based on Christian religious beliefs.

      Orcas are whales, genius.

      They are familiarly known as "killer whales' but they are actually members of the dolphin family, order cetacea.

      Orca: " The orca is the apex predators of the sea and the largest member of the dolphin family."

      Are you now claiming dolphins and blue whales are the same "kind"?

      Why did you run from all the other questions about your 'kind' claims? And from providing your "common design" timeline? And your explanation for the "kind' of all the legged cetacean fossils? Do I need to list all the questions you fled from again?

      Delete
    5. Nic, it is amazing that the mechanisms you describe as being candidates for those used by god are all ones that were discovered by people doing research stemming from evolution. Don't you find This unusual?

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "Their "science" is invalid because they don't do any science, only religious apologetics. Being Fundies is their motivation for the charade."

      So says ghostrider and his cronies.

      In what way do they not do science? They are scientists after all. Have they simply turned their back on their chosen profession to become apologists? Is that your argument?

      "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being,... This being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called lord God,... Universal Ruler." Sir Isaac Newton

      "Oh God, I am thinking thy thoughts after thee."
      Johann Kepler

      Tell us, ghostrider, were these scientists guilty of turning their backs on true science in order to be apologists?

      "Are you now claiming dolphins and blue whales are the same "kind"?"

      No, I'm saying they are both cetaceans which includes whales, dolphins and porpoises.

      "And from providing your "common design" timeline?"

      I'm a creationist, does that not give you a hint as to the timeline?

      "And your explanation for the "kind' of all the legged cetacean fossils?"

      And what fossils would you be referring too? Not Pakicetus I hope.

      Delete
  13. W.S., "Do you now understand why ID does not receive any respect in the scientific community?"
    Balderdash!
    The scientific community rejects ID on philosophical grounds alone. I present my simple case as follows:
    There is a group of biologists who find neo-Darwinism inadequate. Their response to ID is as follows:
    One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process.(emphasis mine)

    Note the purely philosophical rejection of ID's position.

    The principle of falsification is that if evidence does not fit theory, theory is wrong -- even if there is no other theory. Neo-Darwinan evolution doesn't come vaguely close to explaining the evidence. It is a theory worthy of rejection! Your response that ID is somehow incomplete as a theory is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ghostrider: I'll write out the details of the evolutionary explanation as soon as you give me the details of the "design" explanation -

    Well now how about that - This writer saying nothing about 'design' yet is supposed for some reason to be challenged by the brilliant above argument and expounding upon 'design' whatever that means.

    Hey ghostrider how about this - Darwinists whining or blustering or ridiculing layperson's claiming of Darwinian theory -- "it's only a theory"

    Well how about this, since I'm really into superb debate opponents such as yourself: "It's as well established as the law of gravity". Not that you have claimed such but it is the MAJOR SLOGAN. So this ubiquitous slogan means that it is up to Darwinians to show how it is well established that the RM/NS paradigm was absolutely established in the case of the respiratory endothelium, as well established as the "law of gravity" If you can't do it then what we have is really Darwinism as the hypothesis for this system. No more and in fact much less since there is no evidence for the relevance of RM/NS. In short, the Darwinian Hypothesis is only a hypothesis.

    Go ahead ghostrider, show that Darwinism is more than a hypothesis in the case of the respiratory endothelium. Transfer that take down of irreducible complexity to this thread. Do what you love to do. Show us why you love coming onto this blog which is to show us what dufuses don't know about the "theory as well established as the law of gravity".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEE you forgot to provide your "design" details. Please try again.

      Delete
    2. MSEE
      Don't ever expect a scientific refutation from him. He doesn't have the science.

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

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

      Delete
  15. "So far, poof is the only thing that ID has. And since they refuse to prose anything else, that is all they will ever have."

    Like ghostrider, you're making a category error. You're expecting ID to answer the sorts of questions that Darwinism is supposed to answer, as Darwinism is about a mechanism. Whether one decides to call ID a "science" or not is one thing, but expecting it to answer questions it wasn't designed to answer is rather silly. ID is not about the mechanisms used by an intelligent agent, it's about detecting the hallmarks of intelligence in the physical world.

    Question: Imagine that all the parts of an outboard motor are spread out on a blanket in a garage. What is the most important tool that every mechanic must have to assemble those parts into a functioning motor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alethinon61

      Like ghostrider, you're making a category error. You're expecting ID to answer the sorts of questions that Darwinism is supposed to answer, as Darwinism is about a mechanism


      Since the goal for the IDiots is to have ID replace evolution in science classes then ID has to provide better explanations that evolution theory does. You don't replace one of the best supported scientific theories of all time with a blank slate of ignorance.

      ID is not about the mechanisms used by an intelligent agent, it's about detecting the hallmarks of intelligence in the physical world.

      Actually it's about gutting science standards and sowing doubt about science in general. The ultimate goal is to make it easier for the Christian religion to recruit new scientifically illiterate sheep into their church. An ignorant flock is an easily led flock.

      Delete
    2. A61: "ID is not about the mechanisms used by an intelligent agent, it's about detecting the hallmarks of intelligence in the physical world."

      How do you detect design in a structure without having some theory about the mechanisms used to realize that design in the physical world. The only intelligent designer that we have any knowledge of, and evidence for, is human. I guess that it is possible that the designer of life used the same processes that humans do, but I haven't heard anybody proposing that.

      Delete
    3. William,

      "How do you detect design in a structure without having some theory about the mechanisms used to realize that design in the physical world."

      Quite easily actually. There is no requirement to understand the designer or the methods used to achieve the design in order to detect something is actually designed.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "Actually it's about gutting science standards and sowing doubt about science in general. The ultimate goal is to make it easier for the Christian religion to recruit new scientifically illiterate sheep into their church. An ignorant flock is an easily led flock."

      You're so smart gostrider, you've figured it out. It is all a big conspiracy to take over the world and subject all evolutionists and atheists to slavery.

      You might as well know the whole truth. The conspiracy is led by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Their deaths were faked so as to remove any suspicion and allow them to direct this nefarious plot unimpeded.

      But don't worry, if you wear your tinfoil cap you'll be undetectable by their minions and you can go on leading the revolt against their dastardly plans.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      You're so smart gostrider, you've figured it out. It is all a big conspiracy to take over the world and subject all evolutionists and atheists to slavery.


      It's not a big conspiracy but it is a concerted effort for religious/political reasons led by the Discovery Institute. Go ahead and name any major ID players who aren't funded by or associated with the DI..

      Dembski? Yep.
      Behe? Yep.
      Meyer? Yep.
      Wells? Yep.
      Axe? Yep.
      Gauger? Yep.
      Gonzales? Yep.
      West? Yep.
      Luskin? Yep.

      All riding in the same Discovery Institute clown car.

      Delete
    6. THE RULES OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IN A NUTSHELL - (In their own words.)
      Professor Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist and evolution proponent, states the naturalists' position clearly:
      We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our [prior] adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
      In what can only be an attempt to further muddy the waters, some adherents of naturalism try to imply that it is not a philosophy but rather a method of investigating nature. But in this methodological naturalism, all non-material (read "spiritual") possibilities that could be considered are automatically (and therefore irrationally) excluded. This totally doctrinaire approach is, as John Rennie, editor of the magazine Scientific American, stated, "a central tenet of modern science." Whether one wants to quibble over whether naturalism is a method or a philosophy, the result is the same: the exclusion of any facts and research that doesn't support what the naturalists have already presupposed. Is this science? Or does it resemble what Saint Paul referred to as the "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"? (1 Timothy 6:20 KJV). And the scientific establishment brooks no dissent. As explained by a popular science writer, Robert Wright, naturalism is one of the "unwritten rules of scientific conduct" that requires adherents "to scrupulously avoid even the faintest [ID] overtones."
      This is further explained by biologist Scott Todd, who writes that "even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
      Those who break this rule are generally subject to insult and derision, loss of employment, manuscript rejection from peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are shunned by the science establishment.
      Donald Gould, a former editor of the magazine New Scientist, stated with some irony: "The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' … or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade."
      Science, it seems, can be a nasty business!

      Delete
    7. That's from a previous blog of CH
      That's why Discovery Institute is nescessary

      Delete
    8. Phillymike

      That's from a previous blog of CH
      That's why Discovery Institute is nescessary


      In case you weren't aware CH is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

      Delete
    9. Quotes are all from your high priests.

      Delete
    10. Phillymike

      Quotes are all from your high priests.


      You mean the out-of-context quote-mined quotes are taken from actual scientists. But I wouldn't expect a creationist to know the difference.

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,

      "You mean the out-of-context quote-mined quotes are taken from actual scientists."

      Way to go ghostrider. You're on a real roll today. Now you've figured out that us fundy, conspiratorial creationists quote mine so we can make those nasty evolutionists look bad. What are we to do in the face of such intellect?

      We really don't need to stoop to that level as evolutionists supply more fodder than we can use.

      The truth is ghostrider, what Phillmike posted is exactly what Lewontin said. It is not out of context and it is not quote mined (what a childish argument that is). Lewontin was at least honest enough to admit it is not about the science, but the philosophy behind the science.

      If you think Phillymike quoted him out of context I would suggest you demonstrate that to be the case. Otherwise it is nothing but more ghostrider empty bluster.

      Also, why do you consistently apply double standards? A group of evolutionists can get together and form an institute to promote their view and that's all well and fine with you. Those who support ID do the same and suddenly it's a concerted effort to overthrow science and put us back in that imaginary time known as the dark ages.

      Really ghostrider, it is time to take a mature tone in these discussions. Your nasty attitude and name calling has become more than boring.

      Delete
    12. Nic

      Those who support ID do the same


      No Nic, those who support ID don't do the same. They continually bypass accepted scientific methodology like submitting work to peer reviewed professional journals in favor of selling their propaganda directly to the lay public. Most of what they pass off as "science" is execrably bad. A recent example is Meyer's nonsense book "Darwin's Doubt". Meyers isn't a scientist and he got plenty of the basics wrong. His book was torn a new one by actual paleontologists and specialists on the Cambrian biota. However that hasn't stopped the DI from still pushing it hard as they can. The target audience isn't scientists of course. It's ignorant laymen especially Creationists who are looking for any excuse to reject evolution in favor of their religious beliefs.

      Science knows exactly what's going on with these underhanded attempts to gull the lay public which is why so many scientists can't stand the professional IDiots.

      Really ghostrider, it is time to take a mature tone in these discussions.

      Practice what you preach. Your constant dishonest misrepresentations and evading of questions has become more than boring.

      Delete
    13. Nic: "Quite easily actually. There is no requirement to understand the designer or the methods used to achieve the design in order to detect something is actually designed."

      OK, I am game. Provide a single example of uncontestable observed design that can't be attributed to humans, or any other intelligence, for which we do not understand the mechanism used or the nature of the designer.

      Delete
    14. William,

      "OK, I am game. Provide a single example of uncontestable observed design that can't be attributed to humans, or any other intelligence, for which we do not understand the mechanism used or the nature of the designer."

      First, all design is attributable to an intelligence, whether or not it is human.

      Second. You're missing the gist of the argument. You can certainly tell if something was designed without understanding the mechanism or knowing the designer.

      As an example, if you were to land on an alien world and found artifacts you intuitively knew to be designed; for example, buildings; you might apply your human conceptions and believe you have an understanding of the designer and the mechanism used. You could be right, but you could also be 100% wrong. If it turned out you were wrong in understanding the designer and the mechanism would you then also be wrong in your belief the buildings had been designed?

      The SETI project depends on this being the case. If they were to receive a signal they believed originated from an intelligent source do you think they would disregard that finding until they understood the nature of the designer of that signal and they mechanism it used? Not a chance.

      You really must think these questions through more thoroughly. This is not difficult to grasp.

      Delete
    15. ghostrider

      "No Nic, those who support ID don't do the same. They continually bypass accepted scientific methodology like submitting work to peer reviewed professional journals,..."

      So let me see if I understand your reasoning. If biochemist Michael Behe produces a research paper and submits it to 10 other biochemists who support intelligent so they can review his work before publication, that does not qualify as peer review? Is that what you're saying?

      "Science knows exactly what's going on with these underhanded attempts to gull the lay public which is why so many scientists can't stand the professional IDiots."

      What establishment science is worried about is the defunding of their phony little evolutionary research projects.

      "Practice what you preach."

      I didn't evade any questions. If you were not bright enough to figure out what I would see as a mechanism and a timeline being a creationist, I cannot be held responsible for your obtuseness.I made my position quite clear.

      Delete
    16. "First, all design is attributable to an intelligence, whether or not it is human."

      Small correction. All design is attributed to a human cause (unless we include birds and bees in the same category).

      "Second. You're missing the gist of the argument. You can certainly tell if something was designed without understanding the mechanism or knowing the designer.

      As an example, if you were to land on an alien world and found artifacts you intuitively knew to be designed; for example, buildings; you might apply your human conceptions and believe you have an understanding of the designer and the mechanism used. You could be right, but you could also be 100% wrong. If it turned out you were wrong in understanding the designer and the mechanism would you then also be wrong in your belief the buildings had been designed?"


      When we land on another planet and find obviously designed structures, you might have an argument. Until then...,

      SETI, the same response.

      But in both cases we are talking about an intelligence that uses mechanisms very similar you outs. In other words, a designer and a design process that is bound by the same physical laws that we are bound by.

      Are you proposing that the designer of the universe and life is also bound by the same physical laws that we are? If so, you would be the first ID proponent to propose this.

      Delete
    17. Nic

      I didn't evade any questions.


      LOL! You took off so fast you left skid marks.

      BTW Nic, you're exactly the kind of ignorant and gullible religious rube the DI is targeting. I actually think you enjoy being a tool.

      Delete
    18. Willam,

      "Small correction. All design is attributed to a human cause (unless we include birds and bees in the same category)."

      I really don't need you to correct my statements, thank you very much. I stand by what I said. All design is attributable to an intelligence. Because you a priori reject a non-human intelligence; in this case God: it changes the situation not one iota. Because you reject God does not make him non-existent, in case you were unaware of that fact.

      "When we land on another planet and find obviously designed structures, you might have an argument. Until then...,"

      Seriously? You think that invalidates the argument? You need more work than I thought.

      "But in both cases we are talking about an intelligence that uses mechanisms very similar you outs. In other words, a designer and a design process that is bound by the same physical laws that we are bound by."

      You have no way of knowing that, it is just your assumption. Besides, arguing that way is inconsistent with your arguments in support of evolution. Until we see a living organism pop into existence spontaneously we have no need to entertain the process of life originating on its own and evolving. You have never seen a reptile become a non-reptile, yet you presume that to have happened.

      What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend.

      "Are you proposing that the designer of the universe and life is also bound by the same physical laws that we are?"

      Not in any way shape or form. No, nein, nyet, uh uh. He made those laws, but he is certainly not bound by them, thus the possibility of miracles.

      I thought you claimed you understood Christian doctrine? It does not appear that way.

      Delete
    19. Nic: " I stand by what I said. All design is attributable to an intelligence."

      I completely agree.

      "Because you a priori reject a non-human intelligence; "

      I don't.

      "Because you reject God does not make him non-existent,"

      I don't, and I never said it did.

      "Besides, arguing that way is inconsistent with your arguments in support of evolution."

      Hardly.

      "You have never seen a reptile become a non-reptile, yet you presume that to have happened."

      I have also never seen air, but I am pretty sure that it exists.

      "I thought you claimed you understood Christian doctrine? It does not appear that way."

      I never claimed to "understand " Christian doctrine. I just claimed to have thoroughly read it. And after reading it, I still fail to understand why people believe it.

      Bit there are many things I don't understand. That doesn't mean that they are wrong.

      Delete
    20. Wiliam,

      "I have also never seen air, but I am pretty sure that it exists."

      If you think about it you probably have seen air as it is visible under certain conditions. Besides, air can be tested for and its existence confirmed. A reptile becoming non-reptile cannot.

      "And after reading it, I still fail to understand why people believe it."

      I thank you for being honest about that, and for not taking cheap shots at those of us who do. That happens so often in these forums that all us 'fundies' can sometimes make assumptions we should not make. Perhaps I am guilty of that here. If you feel that to be the case, accept my apologies.

      I can understand why you would feel that way as I used to as well. It is hard to know what to say to a comment like that, other than if you really want to know the Bible better you can easily do so by approaching someone who is a Christian and ask for help in reading the Bible.

      Once you understand how to approach it, it does fall into place and make sense. Trust me on this, that was my experience exactly.

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

      Delete
  16. Nic
    And here I thought we could get one by him. Lol

    ReplyDelete
  17. ghostrider,

    "BTW Nic, you're exactly the kind of ignorant and gullible religious rube the DI is targeting. I actually think you enjoy being a tool."

    I really do pity you. You perceive yourself as an intelligent well informed individual, yet all you provide are snide remarks, insults and nastiness. You supply nothing to these exchanges but cut and paste arguments from wikipedia or talkorigins. Some of which are so out of date it is laughable that you still try to use them.

    So carry on in your little world thinking up nasty, snide remarks to throw around in the belief your presenting a cogent argument. If that is what makes you feel good enjoy yourself. It is quite sad however.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nic

    You perceive yourself as an intelligent well informed individual,


    Only in comparison to the average scientifically illiterate Creationist.

    You supply nothing to these exchanges but cut and paste arguments from wikipedia or talkorigins.

    There you go lying again. I've provided at least half a dozen scientific papers that support what I say and offered to discuss them. Dinosaur phylogenetic relationships, genetic evidence of cetacean evolution, etc. You ran from every last one. Trying to rewrite your history of evading is beyond pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghostrider,

      "I've provided at least half a dozen scientific papers that support what I say and offered to discuss them."

      Pick your favourite. But keep in mind that I will not pay to read a paper on evolution, so make sure what you pick is freely available.

      Delete
  19. They just consider God to be irrelevant.

    Yes, Zeus is irrelevant. Why should any other imagined supernatural entity be considered relevant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Why should any other imagined supernatural entity be considered relevant?"

      I'm just curious, how many churches are there in the world today where people go to worship Zeus?

      Yeah, I thought so.

      You're simply guilty of committing the amateurs mistake of believing because there are false gods, that means there is in fact no God at all. How very illogical of you.

      Delete
    2. Nic, why do you think that Zeus and the like are false gods? They reigned for far more of human history than your god has. I am not trying to offend, I just wonder why you think the "current god" is more probable than the previous gods (or the other extant gods that are worshipped by humans).

      Is your opinion based on hard evidence, or is it based on what you were taught as a little tadpole. I put my money on the latter.

      Delete
    3. Nic, what is your method for distinguishing true gods from false gods?

      Bear in mind that your method must be objective, not based on your personal history.

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

      Delete
  20. Sorry Nic that boat has sailed. You had multiple chances but you cut and ran every time. I've got better things to do than listen to a disingenuous Creationist ignoramus hand-wave away the data with "bad interpretation!" "bad assumptions!!" "evolution is presumed!!".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghostrider,

      "Sorry Nic that boat has sailed."

      Exactly as I thought. I call your bluff and you run away. The truth is the boat was never in port. Like the loud mouth you are you stay safely out of reach and lob rocks. You have no answers, only rhetoric.

      As I said, you're a hoot.

      Delete
    2. LOL! Why is it the most ignorant Creationists always have the biggest mouths?

      Here Nic, the paper you soiled yourself and ran from just a few days ago. I even found you an open source copy so you can't whine about having to pay for your knowledge.

      Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea

      Read the whole thing then give us your explanation for the congruence of the fossil and genetic patterns seen in cetaceans as documented in the paper. Don't forget to include your explanation for the temporal distribution pattern of morphological changes seen in the fossil record.

      Oh, and don't bother using the same cowardly excuses of "bad interpretation!" "bad assumptions!!" "common designer!!" unless you can demonstrate those things to be the case.

      Over to you Mr. Mouthy.

      Delete
    3. I rad that they found afully aquatic whale fossil that is older than all those semi-aquatic whales. It throws the whole chronology off.

      Delete
    4. "I rad that they found afully aquatic whale fossil that is older than all those semi-aquatic whales. It throws the whole chronology off."

      Why? Fully upright apes coexist with other apes. Just because one evolves along one course does not mean that the other must go extinct.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Read the whole thing then give us your explanation for the congruence of the fossil and genetic patterns seen in cetaceans as documented in the paper. Don't forget to include your explanation for the temporal distribution pattern of morphological changes seen in the fossil record."

      So that's it, the best one you got?

      Well, I must say I'm not surprised. It's your typical evolutionary research paper. Assert evolution to be true; in this case the evolution of whales from land mammals; and then spend the rest of your time making up stories as to how it may have, could have, possibly, might have happened.

      Sorry, ghostrider, it is full of the usual bad assumptions and presuppositional arguments. Nothing to see here.

      Why do evolutionists always assume genetic similarities are proof of common descent. Genetic similarities are easily explained via design.

      As for the temporal distribution pattern of morphological changes that is simply another argument based on presupposition. The relative placement of fossils does not necessarily reflect an ascending timeline.

      You are so entrenched in evolutionary dogma, common sense doesn't even hang around in your neighbourhood any longer.

      So, how are doing with your assignments? You were supposed to be working on the functional difference between fish propulsion and whale/dolphin propulsion. How are you doing there? After this amount of time I would assume not very good at all.

      Also, you were supposed to explain how lateral gene transfer, duplication induced mutations, or whatever method you wish to employ, can turn a reptile into a non-reptile without overwhelming us with just-so stories. I'll bet you're having a heck of a time coming up with something there.

      It's alright, we're a patient bunch.

      Delete
    6. William

      "Why? Fully upright apes coexist with other apes. Just because one evolves along one course does not mean that the other must go extinct."

      It means that the semi-aquatic whales mentioned in the study are not really the ancestors of whales. This means that the whole premise of the study, which claims to match DNA evidence with the fossils has no basis.

      Delete
    7. Nic

      Well, I must say I'm not surprised. It's your typical evolutionary research paper.


      All that mouthy bluster and you still didn't read the paper. Instead you did exactly what I knew you'd do - vomit up the same tired creationist cowardly excuses while evading all questions AGAIN. You were suppose to provide your non-evolutionary explanation for the fossil and genetic congruence described in the paper, remember? Not just hand-wave away the evolutionary explanation. As usual all you did was stain another pair of shorts.

      The relative placement of fossils does not necessarily reflect an ascending timeline.

      The fossil timeline wasn't determined by relative placement. It was determined by radiometric dating. But you didn't read the paper so you wouldn't know. Since you say all those animals died at the same time 4500 years ago why don't they all date the same? How did the Flood manage to sort sediment by isotopic ratio?

      Nic the tool. Never time to learn the science, always time to run the mouth then run from questions.

      Delete
    8. natschuster

      It means that the semi-aquatic whales mentioned in the study are not really the ancestors of whales.


      What extinct cetacean species are you talking about exactly? There are multiple lineages leading to the various species of extant whales.

      I suspect you are misremembering some made up creationist garbage you got from AIG or ICR.

      This means that the whole premise of the study, which claims to match DNA evidence with the fossils has no basis

      It means you read something you don't understand.

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      "All that mouthy bluster and you still didn't read the paper. Instead you did exactly what I knew you'd do - vomit up the same tired creationist cowardly excuses while evading all questions AGAIN."

      Sorry, I did read it, completely. It was not at all convincing. It was simply more story telling chock full of could have, might have, perhaps, possibly, perhaps, ad nauseum. Just like virtually every paper on evolution.

      "You were suppose to provide your non-evolutionary explanation for the fossil and genetic congruence described in the paper, remember?"

      That's not hard at all. That can be easily explained via design. Genetic congruence would be the very thing one would expect from design. I don't know why you would think that was a game changer.

      "Not just hand-wave away the evolutionary explanation."

      Actually ghostrider, all I need to do is show your explanation is not sound. I don't need to supply an alternative. Your explanation could be the only one presently available and if it can be shown to be unsustainable being the only game in town doesn't save it.

      I know that's hard for you to grasp, but, too bad for you.

      "As usual all you did was stain another pair of shorts."

      I really don't understand your childishness. Do you think your ignorant little comments are funny? All it does is shine a spotlight on your immaturity.

      "It was determined by radiometric dating."

      What isotope would they look for in the fossils?

      How's your homework coming? You've had a lot of time to work on those questions, especially the propulsion problem, and yet I get nothing back but crude comments. Why is that Mr. Science?

      Delete
    10. Nic

      Sorry, I did read it


      Lying for Jesus again. Pity.

      That can be easily explained via design.

      Where is your demonstration of "design" in biological life?

      Claiming "design" isn't an explanation any more than claiming "magic!" is an explanation. An explanation provides some detail, such as the mechanisms used for manufacture, the materials, the timeline, and the identity of the designer. "Design" is the ignorant creationist one-size-fits-all excuse.

      What isotope would they look for in the fossils?

      I see you're just as ignorant of basic physics as you are of biology, paleontology, and genetics. You were home schooled, right?

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,

      Nic: "What isotope would they look for in the fossils?"

      ghostrider: "I see you're just as ignorant of basic physics as you are of biology, paleontology, and genetics. You were home schooled, right?"

      I'll take that to mean you don't know. Not unexpected.

      "Where is your demonstration of "design" in biological life?"

      Too you, nowhere. It wouldn't matter one iota what anybody presented to you as evidence for design, you would not accept it. To you it is all just one massive stroke of luck that has been on a roll for billions of years. With a mind set like that how does one expect any kind of logic to penetrate?

      "Lying for Jesus again. Pity."

      I don't think you realize I really don't care if you believe I read the article or not. I know I did and whether you believe that or not does not change the facts. What's bugging you is that I did read it and found it wanting and that ticks you off as you were under the impression I would be scared off by all the tripe it contained. Sorry.

      "Claiming "design" isn't an explanation any more than claiming "magic!" is an explanation."

      But claiming evolution did it is. Absolutely incredible how your little mind works.

      "An explanation provides some detail, such as the mechanisms used for manufacture, the materials, the timeline, and the identity of the designer."

      How about you provide some of that for evolution? Actually you still have a couple of assignments that still need to be completed. Remember?

      There is the one on whale propulsion and its functional difference to fish propulsion, and the transformation of a reptile to a non-reptile via genetic drift, mutation, or whatever your imagination can cook up. Maybe you should complete those before taking on anything more.

      But then again, you haven't got a clue about either of them so I will not be expecting an answer, just more insults.

      Delete
    12. Nic

      I don't think you realize I really don't care if you believe I read the article or not.


      I know you didn't read the article because everything you've claimed it said is wrong. But hey, if you think lying for Jesus will help get you into heaven who I am to judge?

      I'll take that to mean you don't know.

      It means you don't have the faintest clue of how radiometric dating is done and how it is used in paleontology. Here, read these to cure your ignorance.

      Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

      How fossils are dated

      How about you provide some of that for evolution?

      I already did. You ignored it. There are also thousands of colleges, universities, natural history museums where you can learn about and see the evidence. There are hundreds of good web sites too where you can educate yourself. But you won't. You're happy in your willful ignorance.

      Delete
    13. ghostrider,

      "I know you didn't read the article because everything you've claimed it said is wrong."

      I guess that proves it is actually you who has not read the article. Doesn't surprise me at all.

      "There are also thousands of colleges, universities, natural history museums where you can learn about and see the evidence. There are hundreds of good web sites too where you can educate yourself."

      You're such an arrogant fool. Do you really believe that everyone who reads these papers, visits museums or visits websites will simply be overwhelmed by the presentations and be forced to bow the knee to evolution? It's obvious you have. Others have the ability to question and think for themselves.

      Do you really fall for the idea that a vast quantity of papers, universities and websites promoting evolution actually makes it true? I have studied the subject, from both perspectives, as I used to think like you until I started looking at the facts with an open mind. Presuppositions can be very powerful and will prevent you from seeing what is actually very obvious if you will step back and look on it objectively. It is obvious this is something you have never done.

      I know how fossils are dated and I know how rocks are dated and I also know it can become very circular. Obviously you do not know the processes or you would have simply answered my questions vis a vis isotopes.

      You've indulged in the kool-aid, don't think everyone else must do so as well. The willful ignorance is wholly on your part. It is something you have demonstrated repeatedly.

      I'll ask one more time, how are your assignments going? Have you figured out the functional difference in the swimming styles of fish and whales? Have you figured out a way to demonstrate the transition of a reptile to a non-reptile?

      The answer, no, because you have absolutely no clue where to start with either problem. Your critical thinking skills will not allow you to take on anything which requires any level of thought.

      You constantly present yourself as so well informed on this subject and the truth is you know nothing much at all about any aspect of the whole debate. Rhetoric and insults is all you've ever presented and all you've got.

      You know ghostrider, if you actually read the little cut and paste references you send out to people you might learn something. But no, you wouldn't want that to happen as it might upset your fantasy.

      Delete
    14. Ghostrider:

      The study says that they look at the fossil whales. They assume that these are ancestors of modern whales. Then they say that if these really are the ancestors of modern whales we should see certain things when we look at the DNA. It turns out the these are not the ancestors of modern whales. The real ancestors haven't been found yet.

      Delete
  21. Question: Imagine that all the parts of an outboard motor are spread out on a blanket in a garage. What is the most important 'tool' that every mechanic must have to assemble those parts into a functioning motor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Biological entities aren't assembled like outboard motors. You don't have individual piece parts existing that someone has to put together like a Tinker Toy. Biological entities grow and develop due to the chemical reactions that take place based on the molecular combinations in their DNA.

      Delete
    2. If you take, lest say, all the proteins in a flagellum, and put them in a testibe and shake it, I don;t think you will get a flagellum, will you? It has to be assembled tinker toy fashion, doesn't it? It's they same with a lot of biological entities. They don;t just spontaniously come together.

      Delete
    3. "It has to be assembled tinker toy fashion, doesn't it?"

      Ahhh, No.

      Delete
    4. William,

      Shevi S: "It has to be assembled tinker toy fashion, doesn't it?"

      WS: "Ahhh, No."

      Come on William, this is not an answer. It has to assemble somehow. It's not going to happen by good fortune. Can evolution explain how these entities assemble or not?

      Delete
    5. Oh, my.

      Now for the correct answer: "Ahhh, Yes."

      You would get lots of quaternary structure of course, but you of course would not get a flagellum.

      Delete
    6. William:

      The bacterium assembles the flagellum ina very painstaking, methodical fashion. It doesn't self-assemble.

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

      Delete
    8. @ghostrider:

      You didn't answer the question. Couldn't even bring yourself to type the 12 letter word, hey? LOL

      You remind me of an episode of Happy Days I saw as a child, where "The Fonz" had to apologize to one of Richie's friends. He tried to say "I was wrong" but all he could get out was "I was wrrr....I was wrrrr....I was not exactly right." Ironic.

      ~Sean Garrigan

      Delete
    9. Nats:"The bacterium assembles the flagellum ina very painstaking, methodical fashion. It doesn't self-assemble."

      Really? Who assembles it? Does god get involved in the assembly of every flagellum? Is that really the argument that you want to make? If so, given the massive workload that you have dumped on him, who is going to answer my prayer? I really was hoping to afford a new Mustang.

      Delete
    10. I think the answer is that God delegated the assembly to the bacterium. He inserted the assembly instructions in the DNA.

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

      Delete
    12. William:

      The bacterial cell has a very complex mechanism for assembling the flagellum. When G-d created the first bacteria, he designed that mechanism. Ever since then when bacteria reproduce they reproduce that mechanism as well. The flagellum itself doesn't self assemble.

      Delete
  22. Alethinon61,

    ghostrider: "Biological entities grow and develop due to the chemical reactions that take place based on the molecular combinations in their DNA."

    Yeah Al, don't you know anything you silly fundy? Biological entities just grow and develop without any guidance or plan or objective, nothing like that. The minor fact we have absolutely no idea how these biological entities came to be is not something that concerns us scientists. You just need to take our word on that, trust us, we're educated you know, and well, you're not.

    So, don't be silly and worry about minor details. We can safely say we do know for SURE they just grow and develop all on their own. And apparently popped into existence all on their own as well.

    Just be assured it is all because of molecular combinations and their DNA. Which when I think about it, we have no idea how they came to exist either. But rest assured Al, they just came along with the passage of time like everything else.

    So Al, like I said, just trust us, we're smart. And don't ask any more silly questions or we'll have to start calling you nasty names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic,
      Don't forget to add 1 huge boiling couldron of CHANCE.
      To the recipe. ROFL!

      Delete
    2. Nic,
      Don't forget to add 1 huge boiling couldron of CHANCE.
      To the recipe. ROFL!

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

      Delete
    4. @Nic,

      One of the clues that Darwinism isn't really a scientific theory is how it's proponents fear allowing that there may be teleology in biology. Many embrace the "random" in "random variations" even though they really don't know whether all variations are in fact "random". Simply saying "variations" doesn't deliberately exclude the possibility of design and purpose.

      I think that simple questions like the one I asked amplify the congnative dissonance that the other side experiences, even if they won't admit it to themselves. No one in his right mind honestly believes that a biological outboard motor self-assembles without that ingredient that ghostrider couldn't even bring herself to type;-)

      ~Sean Garrigan

      Delete
    5. Alethinon61

      No one in his right mind honestly believes that a biological outboard motor self-assembles


      No one in science thinks a bacteria flagella is a biological outboard motor. People sometimes use the simple analogy of an outboard motor to explain the propulsion concept to laymen but that's not the same thing. Do you really not understand the difference between an analogy and the real item?

      Delete
    6. The bacterium finctions in a way hat is similar. It follows similar laws. They both consist of interacting parts that have be present. You see,. we leanr certain things when we designa nd manufacture outboard motors. For example, they don't assemble or design themselves. That principal is applicable to flagellum.

      Delete
    7. Alethinon61,

      "No one in his right mind honestly believes that a biological outboard motor self-assembles without that ingredient."

      No one in his right mind believes anything in biology assembles and functions without intelligence behind it.

      The simple truth is none of this is about the science, it is about world views. Evolutionists cannot bring themselves to even entertain the possibility of design because of the obvious consequences to their belief system. It is this absolute adherence to the denial of intelligence that leads to the completely illogical and foolish arguments which so commonly pop up.

      If you go look at some of the sites ghostrider references you will fall off your chair with laughter. One he recently listed still talks about the difference between the genetic codes of chimps and humans being only 1%. It's mind boggling to think a web page which prides itself on presenting sound science is so incredibly out of date. It's amazing what can result from willful ignorance.

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

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nats:"The bacterium assembles the flagellum ina very painstaking, methodical fashion. It doesn't self-assemble."

    WS: "Really? Who assembles it? Does god get involved in the assembly of every flagellum? Is that really the argument that you want to make?"

    Do the programmers at Microsoft get personally involved in the painstaking methodical processes that Windows goes through every time you turn on your computer to read Cornelius's blog?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alethinon61

      Do the programmers at Microsoft get personally involved in the painstaking methodical processes that Windows goes through every time you turn on your computer to read Cornelius's blog?


      (facepalm) OK, you really don't understand the difference between an analogy (like software for genetic functionality) and the actual item.

      Delete
  25. Nats:"The bacterium assembles the flagellum ina very painstaking, methodical fashion. It doesn't self-assemble."
    Actually, if I understand correctly, it does. The technology for assembly is part of the makeup of the proteins involved. 'Far more advanced engineering than I am capable of.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nic, what is your method for distinguishing true gods from false gods?

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

    ReplyDelete