Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Someone named Ben left a comment on an almost 2 year old thread, so I'm moving it up here to answer it so it doesn't get lost. Ben shows the typical ignorance, both mundane and virulent, that we've come to expect from creationists. To wit:
If there are all these missing links that had to have happened and all these trial and errors in life, where are all the fossils? There should be a vast number of them. How come there's only a few found?
This is a good example of ignorance that is both mundane and virulent. The ignorance of the reality of the fossil record is mundane; the memorized platitude that there should be a vast number of such fossils is virulent - a ridiculous claim that is accepted credulously by creationists precisely because of their mundane ignorance of paleontology.
This whole notion of the "missing link" is just plain silly. There are lots of gaps in the fossil record, of course, and there always will be. Fossilization is relatively rare; we have fossils of only a small percentage of all the species that have ever lived. But all of the fossils we do have are found in very specific patterns predicted by evolution. That is compelling evidence for common descent. I will repeat here the challenge I have offered to every creationist who has posted here, without a single one of them even attempting to try and answer it:
If evolution is true, and each of these major animal groups split off from the previous one, then what would we expect? Well, we would expect that since each of these new groups split off from an already existing one, the order of appearance within those groups should be as conspicuous as the order of appearance in general. If the first amphibians split off from fish, then the first amphibians could only be slightly different than fish; if birds evolved from reptiles, then the first birds must have been very similar to reptiles; and so forth. And what does the fossil record show? Precisely that. The first amphibians to appear are the most fish-like, so much so that they retained internal gills and were still primarily aquatic. Over time, amphibians become more and more diversified and less fish-like, with later forms being successively more terrestrial and less aquatic. The first birds to appear are so reptile-like that they would be classified as theropod dinosaurs if not for the feathers. We now have multiple feathered theropod species to bridge the gap, and they all appear very early and share most of their traits with reptiles, not with modern birds. Over time, they diversified and became less reptile-like. The same can be said of the first mammals, which are so identical to the therapsid reptiles that they evolved from that where exactly you draw the line between the two groups is largely academic. And just like the other lineages, they start out with only one or two species that looks just like their presumed ancestor, then over time new branches appear that are successively less like those ancestors and more like modern mammals. This is exactly what evolution would predict. Indeed, if it wasn't that way, evolution would be falsified. If modern birds appeared all at once in the fossil record, with entirely avian skeletal structure and feathers and fully adapted for powered flight, there would be no way to link them to reptiles, and the same is true of every other major animal group. But they don't appear that way, and the order in which they do appear is precisely what evolution predicts.This is called "biostratigraphy". As you go up the geologic column, from older strata to more recent strata, the types of plants and animals that you find fossilized within them change rather dramatically, but they change in a very specific pattern. In the oldest rocks you find nothing but bacteria and the chemical traces thereof, and that continues for over 2 billion years of the earth's history. Then you find simple multi-celled organisms in the form of algal stromatolites. Then in the late Precambrian, more complex life forms begin to appear, all marine invertebrates. The pattern continues in this basic order: hemichordates --> chordates -->jawless fishes --> jawed fishes --> amphibians --> reptiles --> birds and mammals. That's a very rough overview, of course, and there is a lot of detail to be filled in. But the important fact here is that the order of appearance is exactly what one would predict if evolution is true, and within each of those major animal groups we find the same predicted order. Now, from the perspective of a young earth creationist, what is the explanation for this order of appearance?
Good luck, Ben. You're gonna need it.
Ben continues:
Now say it took evolution 10 trys (vastly more of course, but for sake of argument...) to get each limb in the right place on a lizard. That's AT LEAST 40 skeletons. Now say it took 10 trys for each one of those types to get two eyes in the right spot (assuming already they are pretty much human). That's 400. Now weather or not the lizards got eaten because they had no eyes is besides the point right now. Now say those 400 lizards were then all going to evolve out of having tails. Well if they went from tail to no tail (the fastest method) we would then have over 800 examples of evolutionary proof right? The fact is that there isn't really any proof.
This is pretty much pure ignorance. Ben seems to think that evolution is like someone sitting in a lab trying to build each species from scratch, but that is obviously nonsense. Evolution works by constant modification of genomes that already exist, it does not start from scratch. There is no will or goal, only random variation and non-random selection based on the local environment.
The best argument I've heard for evolutionary proof is about the finches in the Galapagos Islands. Darwin said that because during periods of less resources, the birds with the less adaptable beaks died off while the ones with larger beaks lived on because they could eat other things. They in turn bred with the only other birds alive, the large beaked. Now while this is a GREAT example of microevolution, it is NOT macroevolution. Yes they did change, but no new DNA was added. The birds had bigger beaks but after the recourses became plentiful again, the birds devolved back into what they looked like from the beginning. They didn't evolve into having a strand of hair or even keep the large beaks. They exhibited adaptation, not macroevolution.
If this is the best argument you've heard, I suggest seeking out other arguments. And then I suggest paying attention to them rather than building straw men caricatures of them. The Galapagos finches are not used as evidence of "macroevolution", they are examples of natural selection only. And that is all they are ever used as. Your criticism, that this example doesn't prove what it was never intended to prove, is simply inane.
How come all we have found are fully formed fossils yet not a dog/cat or fish/ lizard, or even a fish/frog?
Funny you should mention the fish to amphibian transition, as it is not only one of the best documented transitions it is also a perfect example of evolution making accurate predictions. No one would expect a dog/cat transition because cats did not evolve from dogs, not did lizards evolve from fish. But amphibians did evolve from fish and the evidence of how and when that transition took place is simply undeniable.
We have a very well documented series of fossils in precisely the right anatomical and temporal sequence showing the gradual transition of lobe-finned fishes living in shallow water environments to amphibious tetrapods living part of the time out of the water. That series of fossils shows the transition in every key trait - the shape of the head, the position of the nostrils, the structure of the ear, the stiffening of the limbs and the rib cage to be able to support the animal's weight, and so forth.
In fact, there was a "missing link" in that series, a gap for which we had no fossil evidence, up until about 3 years ago. Paleontologists could predict what that transitional form must have looked like, the age of the rocks in which it must be found and the type of sediments it would be found in if it left fossils behind. And that's exactly where they found it. The species is called Tiktaalik roseae and it fills that gap perfectly. This is what people who actually know the science know that creationist trolls do not.
Comments
Ben also seems convinced, as are all the creationists I've encountered, that evolution must proceed in a strictly linear fashion or not at all. This simplistic kind of idea always baffles me. As for the "micro" versus "macro" evolution, I've always wanted to ask a creationist: how many micros are there, exactly, in a macro? It's like this argument is somehow a magic force field against speciation.
Posted by: Dan | March 2, 2008 9:47 AM
Creationist often claim that modern evolutionary theory has an entropy problem (because they don't really understand the theory). The irony is that YECs really do have an entropy problem, in accounting for the geological and fossil record.
Posted by: Divalent | March 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Ed asks:
Easy answer: "Goddidit". Can you prove otherwise??
Sorry, but I'm trying to think like an ID/creationist here. But this is pretty typical of such an exchange. It all boils down to their faith in God and their particular interpretation of the Bible.
A rational person can try, like Ed just did, to explain some of the intricate details of evolution in an attempt to show that there's a more complicated, but more reasonable, explanation than what the creationist is looking for. But if they aren't curious about the world around them and aren't willing to learn something that just might conflict with their religious beliefs... then they are going to be completely and utterly satisfied with "Goddidit" as an answer.
So Ed, I think you'll be waiting a long time for this creationist to logically, much less successfully, address your comments about common descent.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Hey Ed, are you ever going to do anything covering that lulzery of a movie by Ben Stein, since we're on the subject?
Oh, and good stuff, good stuff.
Posted by: Jeff | March 2, 2008 11:16 AM
Re: Doctorgoo"
I agree that it is unlikely that Ed will change Ben's opinions. Why then should we bother to post responses to creationist claims?
I saw an answer to that question over at the Panda's thumb a while back. I think that Ed was involved in the establishment of that site.
A respondent made exactly the same point that you did; why try to explain things to people who won't listen anyway? The individual who had posted the refutation of the creationist nonsense noted that although he had little hope of changing the opinion of the benighted creationist, other people also read the blog. These individuals might be open to change and would benefit from the explanation offered, even if people like Ben never did.
I think that is justification enough to continue to attempt to refute assertions made by people like Ben.
Ed, nice job. Please keep up the good work. Your blog is the first one that I read each day.
Posted by: NJ Osprey | March 2, 2008 12:29 PM
This struck me as moreso what creationism must... God building each species from nothing and completely formed from the beginning. Isn't this what Genesis tells us happened?
Posted by: Tony | March 2, 2008 12:31 PM
Unfortunately he probably found that post through a search engine and probably won't be responding to this thread.
Posted by: FutureMD | March 2, 2008 12:38 PM
Jeff wrote:
I've written about it several times, actually. And when the movie is actually released, I'm going to have an article in Skeptic debunking the claims about Richard Sternberg in the movie.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 2, 2008 12:42 PM
YECs also seem to think that every physical/biological differences in species must be the result of one specific evolutionary change that only affected the one physical/biological attribute. What they don't realize or refuse to understand is that one change in DNA can result in several different, and often unexpected, physical differences. I am thinking specifically about a documentary I saw on the evolution of wolves into domesticated dogs. Research by Soviet scientists exiled to Siberia showed a lot of the physical differences between wolves and dogs, and the much broader variation in physical characterstics of dogs (as opposed to wolves, who tend to be very similar) can be traced to one cause - lower levels of adrenaline production in dogs.
It is also interesting to me that creationists, particularly YECs (I have relatives of the Southern Baptist persuasion who subscribe to YEC thinking) do not reject the same science of physics and biology when their own healthcare is at stake. If one does not believe, for instance, in the results of radio-isotope dating of rocks, how can one trust the results of X-rays or nuclear medicine treatment?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 2, 2008 12:43 PM
In addition to all of the above, the creationists seem unable or unwilling to take into consideration how unlikely it is that any individual organisim will fossilize. Probably the most surprising thing is how many "links" there are available for study, given the unliklihood that a fossil will form and the added unliklihood that once it has formed it will be found.
Posted by: Elaine | March 2, 2008 1:08 PM
Bemnhas his head so far up his ass he can't see for the you what in his eyes. Evolution does not take place in a straight line, there nare many branches from the tree of life, to bad his branch broke
Posted by: Ex Partiate | March 2, 2008 1:23 PM
doctorgoo wrote:
Perhaps we should ask Dembski to calculate the probability of "new information" being added to the bad arguments against evolution.
We could use that to narrow down a time frame when we need to check back. You know, before or after the heat death of the universe, just a rough guess.
Posted by: Leni | March 2, 2008 1:26 PM
All this Science jargon is confusing to the average person. To generalize and simply things, the whole creationist or intelligent design argument hinges on one thing: Can life come from non-life in a macro sense or micro sense? I do not think most people have any problem with micro evolution. I disagree that we were common ancestors with apes but Genesis does not preclude this or an old earth. It starts with in the beginning...
Where does Science say this beginning came from and where is the proof? I understand that you could say the same to me. My proof would be verifying the historical accuracy of the Bible which is not Science I understand. What is your proof?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 2, 2008 2:22 PM
This is exactly what I meant by what ID/creationsists are thinking when I summarized the bulk of Ed's query with "blah blah blah... ".
Did you ever think, King, that science wouldn't be confusing to the average person if science, and not theology, were allowed to be taught to our children in high school?
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 2, 2008 2:32 PM
King of Ireland said:
I don't believe this is accurate. I believe what's behind the actual creationist sentiment is that humans could not have evolved from earlier life forms, just as you yourself have admitted. I think "life from lifelessness" is an issue, but not the one that really chaps off most creationists, it's "I didn't come from a monkey!" that is the deal-breaker.
And on that score, the scientific evidence is absolutely rock solid: Modern humans evolved from earlier forms of life, specifically from an early ape-like ancestor that also gave rise to chimps and other great apes. Check here for a synopsis of just the fossil evidence. And that doesn't even consider the DNA footprints left by viruses, or the chromosome damage evidence between chimps and humans, or any of the other multiple lines of evidence from other disciplines.
Human evolution from our early common ancestor with the apes is only the latest act in a very, very long sequence of events. Because creationists cannot accept this last tail end of the story, they reject the entire premise, ignoring the vast amount of evidence that Ed has pointed to.
The problem isn't abiogenesis, the problem is a gut-level rejection of the idea that we weren't poofed into existence.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 2, 2008 2:47 PM
To generalize and simply things, the whole creationist or intelligent design argument hinges on one thing: Can life come from non-life in a macro sense or micro sense?
If that is honestly all the creationist/ID argument hinges on, then they really need to find a new theory to attempt to discredit. The theory of evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis. One can speculate on the origin of life, but TOE describes and predicts what happens after life begins. It doesn't matter one bit to the theory of evolution how that first single celled life form came to exist. It could have came into being by natural methods, been poofed into existence by capital G god or by any number of gods, or been left here by an alien species. Once life appears, that's when evolution takes over.
Of course, the origin of life isn't the main problem creationists/IDists have with evolution.
*shrug*
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | March 2, 2008 3:23 PM
King - Science doesn't say anything one way or another about what an ultimate beginning was. There are plenty of scientists who are theists and would answer that the ultimate cause was God. Personally I'm an atheist but I'd answer that there doesn't need to be specific first cause, some things just are, which is probably not too different from how most people would respond if they were asked why there's a God.
All science can has explanations for is what has happened since there has been something. In the case of evolution it wouldn't matter how life got started, we still have very clear evidence of how it has evolved since then. All Ed's challenge is saying is that the fossils we've found all fit into a pattern that is consistent with all life having a common ancestor. Some changes may be more filled in with details than others, but there aren't things that don't fit into a pattern at all. The jargon is just the details explaining specific examples that we've found.
As for saying that most people accept microevolution, just not macro - that's a pretty meaningless distinction. It's all just evolution, there doesn't seem to be magical barriers that prevent species from evolving more than some set amount. Macroevolution generally seems to just mean "evolution that a creationist doesn't think has happened yet"
Posted by: mcmillan | March 2, 2008 3:23 PM
Ed, "The Galapagos finches are not used as evidence of "macroevolution", they are examples of natural selection only. And that is all they are ever used as."?? While your creo chum was babbling nonsense, Darwin collected birds he identified as a mixture of "blackbirds", "gros-beaks", "wrens" and finches, and on his return from the voyage was told by Gould that they were, in fact, thirteen separate species of finches. By some definitions that's "macroevolution", though of course a creationist would retort that they're not "kinds", and none had evolved into a dog.
Posted by: dave | March 2, 2008 3:25 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
No, no, no. The last sentence is simply gibberish - what in the world is macro or micro even doing in that sentence? They mean nothing in that context. Either the first life form on earth came about through a natural, abiogenetic process or it did not; there is no macro or micro to it. But either way, this is an entirely separate question from the theory of evolution. Even if we presume that the first self-replicating life form was planted on Earth by God, the theory of evolution (which means the theory of common descent) remains true and valid and supported by the evidence. Regardless of how the first self-replicating life form got here, all modern life forms are derived from it via descent with modification.
The book of Genesis has precisely zero relevance to this or any other scientific question. The Hebrew creation myth carries no more evidential weight than the Hindu, Norse or Dogon creation myths - and they all carry none at all. Even if Genesis did "preclude" those things, it would make them no less true.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of anything other than biodiversity on earth. It says nothing at all about the origin of the universe, the origin of the planet or even the origin of life on this planet. Period. Those are all interesting questions, but the theory of evolution remains true no matter what you believe about those things.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 2, 2008 3:29 PM
McMillan wrote:
Just to be clear, the argument is actually considerably stronger than that. It's not just that those patterns fit a pattern that is consistent with evolution, it's that those patterns fit what absolutely must be true if evolution is true. If life on earth shares a common ancestor then we must find the pattern that we find - we must see a pattern of increasing complexity beginning with relatively simple creatures; we must see that the first of each major taxa looks nearly identical to its presumed ancestor, and it must show increasing diversity and differentiation from the ancestral species over time. If those patterns were not there, evolution would be dead in the water. Creationism, on the other hand, can explain any possible pattern; whatever the order the various life forms appeared in, hey, that's the way God decided to create them. So it's not just that the patterns in the fossil record are consistent with evolution, it's that those patterns are the only way they could possibly be if evolution is a valid explanation, while the alternative could explain anything at all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 2, 2008 3:35 PM
America wants to know if Ben was home schooled or if he attended public school in Texas. Someone ought to shine a flashlight in his ear to make his eyes sparkle.
I think the second biggest impediment to people accepting evolution as a rational explanation for biodiversity is ignorance of the basic data--the living forms that are so, well, diverse and how some are more similar than others; and the natural biological processes that allow and promote evolution. If Darwin and Wallace had stayed home playing checkers, they never would have speculated about natural selection.
Posted by: mark | March 2, 2008 4:08 PM
I know you aren't being entirely serious, but I work with someone who has a BS in biochemistry who thinks that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. She went to a an average state university. Not a great one, but there's nothing remarkably bad about it either.
So sadly, it isn't just home-schoolers and people from the depths of the bible belt, it's everywhere.
Posted by: Leni | March 2, 2008 5:02 PM
Posted by: Taz | March 2, 2008 5:13 PM
Ben the Creationist is apparently visualizing evolution by using the game Cootie as his model.
King of Ireland wrote:
First of all, life from non-life: you see it all the time. None of the atoms in your body is alive. None of the molecules in your body is alive. None of the chemicals in your body is alive. Taken apart, no single tiny part of you is alive. You're alive.
Sperm is not alive. An egg is not alive. A fetus is alive.
Both common examples of life coming from non-life. There's no "vital essence" or life force. Nothing magic or supernatural has to happen. Whether something is living or not living has to do with the way dead, non-living chemicals move around and come together in patterns. King-of-Ireland put through a blender is made of the same stuff as King-of-Ireland thankfully not put through a blender.
Second, micro vs. macro: it's all micro - the macro is only an arbitrary division made from a distance, after the fact.
Consider a growing baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult. They grow day by day -- micro-changes. The stages are the "macro" changes. Sure, the differences between those different categories are real differences, but it's fuzzy at the borders when stages are next to each other. The "transition" between a toddler and a child is going to be a three or four year old -- and some will say "that's a toddler," others say "no, that's a child." The transition between the Macro-stage of Toddler and the Macro-stage of Child is NOT going to be an eight-year-old with the arms of a two-year-old.
Think of these common, everyday experiences of life/non-life, micro/macro -- and apply it to evolution. Evolution used the same sorts of ordinary processes which still happen every day.
Posted by: Sastra | March 2, 2008 5:33 PM
Sue... Unless you meant something unobvious, I must mention that both sperm and eggs are living cells.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 2, 2008 5:47 PM
"Sperm is not alive. An egg is not alive."
Say WHAT!???
The best thing about arguments in favor of evolution is the robustness of multiple lines of evidence. Don't like the fossil record? No problem. The DNA evidence is compelling. Don't like the DNA evidence? Simply looking at how organisms are classified is evidence of evolution. If common descent were not true, then nested hierarchies would be impossible. Buildings can't be classified that way. Motor vehicles can't be classified that way. Only living things, because they are descended from common ancestors, can be classified in a nested hierarchical way.
Why do all birds have feathers? Not just by definition, but because the common ancestor of birds had feathers. If it were a matter of definition, you could (in principal) find an animal with feathers that nurses its young. But the common ancestor of mammals had hair, not feathers.
Posted by: BaldApe | March 2, 2008 6:11 PM
"Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of anything other than biodiversity on earth. It says nothing at all about the origin of the universe, the origin of the planet or even the origin of life on this planet. Period. Those are all interesting questions, but the theory of evolution remains true no matter what you believe about those things."
Then why the problem with ID?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 2, 2008 6:26 PM
Re Dave
"Darwin collected birds he identified as a mixture of "blackbirds", "gros-beaks", "wrens" and finches, and on his return from the voyage was told by Gould that they were, in fact, thirteen separate species of finches."
Stephen Jay Gould was born 120+ years after Darwin returned from the Beagle voyage. I believe that it was Richard Owen who provided the information that the birds were separate species of finches.
Posted by: SLC | March 2, 2008 6:36 PM
Posted by: Taz | March 2, 2008 6:42 PM
doctorgoo wrote:
Argh, my apologies -- I should have made the case that they weren't living individuals or something -- a transition takes place from one kind of life to another very different form of life, without magic -- but I got sloppy and didn't do that. My bad, ditto to BaldApe.
Richard Dawkins once wrote that one of the major impediments to understanding evolution was the "discontinuous mind," which has a tendency to divide everything into distinct, discrete categories of either/or. Nature, on the other hand is not about abrupt transitions, but small ones, gradual shifts, unremarkable when seen up close, and astonishing when seen at a distance. Watch a sperm and egg unite and it's interesting, but there are no trumpets and bolts of lightning.
I think the idea that there is some "leap" between micro/macro and life/non-life comes out of the tendency the human brain has to look for differences, and make much of them, and assume everything is separated by lines in Nature. But I've taken maps, and gone to the borders between states, and searched -- and they're just not there. I think Rand McNally just makes them up.
Posted by: Sastra | March 2, 2008 6:53 PM
Aside from what Taz just pointed out, concepts like irreducible complexity are antithetical to the scientific approach.
It in effect says "stop looking for answers here", where "here" is a point determined by what we do not know, rather than what we do know.
In other words, it's an argument from ignorance, which is unacceptable on its own. Notice that this is independent from any other possible theory, not just abiogenesis or evolution.
Posted by: Leni | March 2, 2008 6:55 PM
Huh? Of course they are. They can die, and we can watch them die. Any cell can do that.
This, however, is spot-on.
--------------------------
If that's your definition, Tyrannosaurus is a bird. I'm just saying.
--------------------------
...not the only Gould to ever go into biology. There was a famous ornithologist called Gould in the 19th century...
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 2, 2008 7:03 PM
King:
Better question: Why does ID have a problem with evolution? It is because of the science, or some other reason?
Posted by: Flavin | March 2, 2008 8:47 PM
Okay, a few points.
First, the terms macroevolution and microevolution referred, in science, to two different proposed mechanisms of evolution that were meant to get around the perceived "speciation problem", namely that when "species" was seen as an imperiable barrier, the evolution of new species was seen as difficult, requiring some "trick" of evolution to accomplish. With more information, we realized that the barriers between species are extremely plastic and the "problem" went away in a puff of ether.
For the scientists, (when they were used at all) the terms simply mean:
Macroevolution: Evolution past the species barrier (which we now know doesn't really exist).
Microevolution: Evolution of a lesser sort.
Creationists leapt on the terms with wild abandon, reinventing their meanings as follows:
Microevolution: Evolution so painfully obvious to have happened that even we can no longer deny it.
Macroevolution: Evolution that, while proven beyond any reasonable doubt, is not proven beyond the realm of utterly unreasonable doubt.
Creationists frequently define the words in terms of the "created kind", a concept they refuse to define in any testible fashion. After decades of asking them, I have yet to encounter a single definition of "created kind" that was testible and not already disproven (many creationists continue to insist that new species cannot evolve, despite what that would do to the Ark nonsense). Most of them stick with some vague boundary that they can never find, allowing them to infinitely move the goalposts. "But it's still a fish!" they declare, unaware that if "fish" consitute a kind, that is a far larger acceptance of evolution than is necessary to get man from monkeys.
ID is the "theory" that at some point, somewhere, something happened somehow in some fashion that in some way must have required intelligence.
"Intelligence somewhere!" isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It isn't even a decent assertion. it's just to vapid to be allowed to live.
Science is rigorous. Science is about exposing ideas to a brutal gauntlet of scepticism and forcing them to live up to the highest expectations. A world where that ID drivel constitutes science is a world in which science is dead. Telling school children that ID is science is lying to them, plain and simple.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, ii | March 2, 2008 9:01 PM
that's your definition, Tyrannosaurus is a bird. I'm just saying.
I don't have a problem with that.
The original taxonomies were done by Creationists, as they are somewhat before Darwin. They onlydealt with modern forms. So we can either try to stuff things into those outdated maps, or say "Bollocks" and re-draw it.
I'm in favour of re-drawing it, as it is more accurate ans less likely to be misunderstood.
Posted by: Graculus | March 2, 2008 10:08 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
I don't know what you mean. Do you think that ID is an argument against abiogenesis? It's not. ID is nothing more than a set of long-debunked arguments against evolution, all of them taken from older creationist material.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 2, 2008 11:18 PM
Because ID is not science. ID claims the "god did it" stance. As soon as you say that, whats the point in further investigation. You can claim that anytime the actual reason hasn't been found and stop searching. It assumes a supernatural source. It is not science period.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | March 3, 2008 12:14 AM
Gould the ornithologist produced a wonderful set of books of Australian birds - hand-coloured lithographs of great beauty. Individual pages are extremely valuable, while a complete set would be close to priceless (at least from my point of view - I just found all 8 volumes for sale for $US550,000).
Posted by: David | March 3, 2008 12:21 AM
One argument that I have very rarely seen when creationsts complain about the paltry [to their very limited knowledge} number of fossils is:
There are more than 60 million cats in the US alone. In the last century there must have been well over 300 million cats in the US. And many billions worldwide in the last 4 millenia. How many fossil [or fosssilizing] pussy cats have been found? Then why do you expect there to be scads of anything else found?
Posted by: natural cynic | March 3, 2008 1:48 AM
SLC, the finches were identified as such by the ornithologist John Gould, who subsequently went to Australia and, as David says, produced books on the birds and mammals of Australia. Before Gould took on describing the bird collections Darwin had made on the Beagle voyage, David Owen described the South American fossils, showing that these gigantic creatures were related to modern species in the same geographical area, and not the same "design" as large African animals. In particular Owen named the Glyptodon, a gigantic armadillo. All of which confirmed Darwin's increasing doubts that species were fixed and immutable, and pushed him on to studying transmutation of species... or as we'd say nowadays, evolution.
Posted by: dave | March 3, 2008 5:27 AM
If I remember right some palaeontologists use macroevolution to mean evolution over a sufficiently long time scale that some of the questions asked can't be answered using the same methods as for observed evolution (which includes speciation).
The only example I can think of is, 'why do some lineages produce more species than others?' but I'm sure someone more knowledgable could come up with others.
Am I right that the distinction does get made this way by genuine researchers, and if so should this be pointed out in addition to the 'any evolution that includes speciation' definiton generally given?
Posted by: Matt | March 3, 2008 6:15 AM
It's almost like you just aren't listening. Read again:
Now can you see what the problem with ID is? With evolution, we can get answers to questions like, "why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviral DNA?" See, watch:
Q: "Why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviral DNA?"
A: "Because humans and chimps have a common ancestor who caught that retrovirus."
Q: "Okay, that makes sense."
Q: "Why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviral DNA?"
A: "Because that's the way God wanted things to be."
Q: "But why would God want things to be that way and not another way?"
A: "I don't know, he just did."
Q: "That doesn't sound like an explanation."
Do you get it? I'll spell it out again, because I don't trust you to address the actual point being made: Intelligent Design, as a hypothesis, has no explanatory power whatsoever, because it cannot say why one event should be more likely to occur than another event, and thus it cannot make any predictions about what scientists should expect to find (because, hint hint, it's not science).
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 3, 2008 7:09 AM
As a homeschooling father I take a bit of offense at the implication that all homeschoolers are creo-idiots. My wife and I HS because the school system where we live is over-crowded, has stuffed children in currently decaying "temporary" trailers and would most likely drug our son after classifying him as ADD. Add to that a rampant drug culture in the high school, along with three teachers (1 male, 2 females) accused of "inapproriateness" with their students.
I am lucky enough to be able to support my family while my wife schools our children. We provide a strictly secular education based on curricula we obtain through an evaluation of available resources - and there are many - excluding the BJU and similar ilk.
We do not hide in our homes, pull down the curtains and read the Bible all day long. Many, many organizations, museums, historic sites, etc now host "home school" days and we take advantage of everything we can. Just some of the opportunities here on the east coast: Colonial Williamsburg VA hosts a weeklong series of lectures, demos and skits on life during the colonial era, including such subjects as slavery; both the Franklin Institute and the Liberty Science Center host yearly science seminars for all ages; the Grounds for Sculpture Art Museum in Trenton NJ hosts a home school art appreciation day yearly; plus we are engaged in an "Archaeology Dig" put on yearly by a retired Arch. professor who salts a field with actual relics that the kids spend a week digging for, classifying and researching - all the while as he is teaching them.
So please, don't label us all as bible thumping idiots. Some of us want a better education for our children that our broken public school system provides.
I'll get off my soapbox now and return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: Pineyman | March 3, 2008 10:54 AM
I second Pineyman's emotion: My grade-school was created by generally-liberal and college-educated parents who shared serious dissatisfaction with the public schools of their time; so that kinda puts me about one or two steps away from being home-schooled -- especially when you add the fact that they formed the school long before they could find a permanent building, so for some weeks the whole class was shuffled from one family's basement to another.
The problem, Pineyman, is that within the home-school movement, your kind (and my parents') tend to be outshouted by the radical escapist wingnuts, whose complaints about the public schools are more lurid and less rational (and less honest) than yours. Also, I've heard that one of the biggest home-schooler-support organizations tends to focus its resources, curriculum and atention toward the wingnuts; which doesn't do home-schoolers' image a lot of good.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 11:55 AM
The creationist "kinds" seem to adhere most closely to the cognitive psychology concept of the "basic level", first detailed in the 1976 Rosch paper "Basic Objects in Natural Categories".
Rosch loosely defined the basic level in practical terms, as the term that springs to mind first when a human is trying to classify an object. It was later refined by Tversky and Hemenway in the 1984 paper "Objects, Parts, and Categories" to a stricter standard - the "basic level" is the most abstract level in the mental hierarchy where the category exemplars all share physical features. Rosch observed an operational level different from the basic level in her study - an airplane mechanic will name photos of airplanes as their model rather than just "airplane" - but didn't elaborate much on the difference.
I submit that what a creationist means by "kind" is simply a basic-level category, either a genuine basic level or the creationist's personal operational level. But even the genuine basic level is still fuzzy around the edges - objects with weaker category membership, such as the Biblical example of bats in the bird category, may be categorized differently by different people. So a species can jump from one "created kind" to another in zero generations if it's on the edge of a "kind" category already - just ask a different person to classify it.
Posted by: Glazius | March 3, 2008 12:13 PM
"Better question: Why does ID have a problem with evolution? It is because of the science, or some other reason?"
I think there are two questions: 1. Where did the Universe come from? 2. Where did man come from? I think the first is legitimate inquiry for Science class. Is there order in the Universe that could be traced to some sort of intelligent design?
The second question is more troublesome from a liberty standpoint. Ed is right when he says that if we let one Creation story in we have to let them all in. Science definetly points to evolution being true. My beef is does it explain the origins of life? Leave the Bible out of it and just take the Science does it do it?
On a more philosophical level is Science the only means of obtaining knowledge? Many would say yes. If we cannot find a natural explanation we have to keep looking because the supernatural cannot explain things they would say. All knowledge must be measured in the natural and tested they say.
I say that that does not work. Both sides get into it and both say prove it. The Bible is either true or it is not. The two greatest tests are the historical test and the miracle test. I agree the second could never be measured in Science other than people who have been prayed for and then go to the Doctor and their sickness is gone. Most think it a coincidence and I agree you cannot prove it for sure by Science standards.
I guess I am saying that I will not stop at the natural and explainable in searching for knowledge and truth. Nor will I throw Science out. We need Science and the progress it brings to society. I just think where it cannot explain things it should stay silent. Many do use it to say there is not Creator and then the next sentence say well it is inconclusive and not something we can measure.
I still ask why is there so much order in something that many think came about by chance? Can I do tests to prove God exists? No but you cannot do tests to prove He does not.
On a legal note, I think some of you may be so blinded by this issue that you look at who is saying things instead of what they are saying and why? Just because it is Christians that are pushing ID does not mean it should be thrown out. That seems to be the test. The Dover case from what I read that was the whole argument. It was who is saying this and why? It was not what does the order we see in DNA, the second law of thermodynamics, and other things we can study say about design in nature and where this came from?
This is a legitimate question and get thrown out because some are afraid that gay bashing preacher will one day take over the government and make us all go back to the Dark Ages. That is the fear. That religion will take over. Why go into the discussion with assumptions. From what I understand the science is new in ID. Why not give it time and see where it takes us? I would think a good scientist would want to see this order in ways never availible before and begin to ask why it is there?
I hope I answered your question. I think we lump both of my questions at the top into one lump and both sides do it and it should not be done.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 12:55 PM
"I don't know what you mean. Do you think that ID is an argument against abiogenesis? It's not. ID is nothing more than a set of long-debunked arguments against evolution, all of them taken from older creationist material."
Leave aside the war for the schools here for a moment and step out and answer this question: Does the design that we can see in nature and is tested and verifiable point to a designer or not? First explain the Universe and then Man. Can we know for sure? If we cannot then you admit be definition that Science cannot explain everything which is exactly the point. If it cannot explain everything then kids should be told that. There is not harm in that.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 1:09 PM
King said:
The "science" of ID was thoroughly explored and found utterly lacking during the Dover trial. A little bit of research on Ed's site alone would've revealed that.
Please provide examples of the tested and verifiable design in nature that you refer to.
You seem to be saying that if science cannot explain everything about the universe right this very instant, then there's no possibility that it will ever be able to. This strikes me as rather foolish.
I'm not sure what point you're referring to, but the "point" of ID is not that science can't explain everything, it's that they want to teach the creation myth in science class, and ID is the latest attempt.
Posted by: Jason I. | March 3, 2008 1:22 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Both are valid questions in science. Evolution answers the second. The first is not relevant to the discussion of evolution.
I answer that with the Anthropic Principle: That the universe appears ordered only because if it were not so, you wouldn't be here to ask why it isn't.
In other words, you can only ask that question because the universe just happened to develop in a way that is friendly to life. There is no reason it should or shouldn't have. Creationists then point to the fact that it DID as evidence of God, but again, that merely begs the question.
You're not talking about science, you're talking about epistemology - the study of knowledge. Science is not concerned with 'truth', assuming we could actually agree on a definition of it. Truth is an epistemological concept, not a scientific one. What would science do with 'truth' if it were ever to discover such a thing? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
Science is and can only be about asking the right questions and then searching out evidence for various answers. Truth is a concept synthesized by human minds, not by a litany of facts, and that is all science can give you.
You can't prove a negative. Consequently, the onus is on the person making the positive assertion to prove that it is true. Ergo, it is up to creationists to prove the existence of God, not on scientists to disprove it.
But that's not the point - we don't want ID thrown out because Christians are pushing it, we want it thrown out because it's not a scientific theory, is not rigorous, and does a great disservice to children by curtailing their scientific growth at the exact moment in their lives when it needs to be most fostered.
Posted by: Patrick | March 3, 2008 1:28 PM
'Please provide examples of the tested and verifiable design in nature that you refer to."
DNA, second law of thermodynamics, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 1:40 PM
KoI: "DNA, second law of thermodynamics, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun."
How are those examples of design? What tests were done and by whom?
Posted by: jba | March 3, 2008 1:46 PM
"You seem to be saying that if science cannot explain everything about the universe right this very instant, then there's no possibility that it will ever be able to. This strikes me as rather foolish.
I'm not sure what point you're referring to, but the "point" of ID is not that science can't explain everything, it's that they want to teach the creation myth in science class, and ID is the latest attempt."
The first point is not what I was saying. I am saying that Scientists come and say all the time that "Science" proves Genesis wrong. They say it like it is a fact but it is an opinion based on tests they have done that cannot know for sure. If we do not know for sure it is an opinion. Maybe we will know in the future. But until someone proves that the supernatural does not exist then when there is no natural explanation that we can know for sure then why not at least ask the question?
The second point is well taken. But this seems to again state that we are rejecting this more based on who is doing it than on the merits of it. Neither side wants to give an inch based on the fact that they see an agenda on the other side that will follow each little victory. It is a pissing contest and when this happens learning usually is hurt.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 1:47 PM
"How are those examples of design? What tests were done and by whom?"
Again the average person, including me does not want to get bogged down in a discussion full of jargon that others use to sound good but do not add to the discussion. Christians do it all the time and look at people weird who have not idea what they are talking about. To effect society we have to bring it down to Joe six pack level.
If you are willing to do this then I will discuss this. If we are going to get into terms and studies that I would need a PHd to participate in the conversation then I am not interested.
With that said, my understanding of DNA is that it shows incredible order and complexity that we never thought possible before. I am questioning if this order and complexity can come about through millions of years of chance circumstances? I would think that order and design would point toward intelligence. The fact that we say there are laws to nature would seem to point to some sort of order as well.
Look I have said a million times on here that I am no Scientist. Neither is 99.9% of the world. I am not going to take things just because you guys say it anymore than you would from me about the Bible. We can complicate things and use big theological terms and keep the average person from participating as well. It was done and it was called the Dark Ages. It has to be simplified.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 1:57 PM
King said:
Which part of Genesis are you referring to? The creation story? The one where all the animals that ever existed were created in a matter of two days? Hundreds of years of scientific tests and evidence show that's wrong. If that's your idea of "an opinion", then I really don't know what else you expect.
Again, you're asking to prove a negative. There is no proof that any sort of deity exists. If people want to believe in one, or many, that's fine. But that belief has no place in a science classroom. And to reiterate Patrick's point from earlier, the onus of disproving god's existence isn't on science, or anyone else. The onus of proof lies with the claimant.
Posted by: Jason I. | March 3, 2008 2:34 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Just for the record, there are Hindus, Muslims, New-Agey Spirituality types and postmodernist groups out there which are also attacking or distorting evolution -- along with mangling physics, medicine, history, etc. When any form of virulent pseudoscience pokes itself into the public arena it gets reamed, and as far as I can tell no scientist really cares if it came from a Ken Ham or a Deepak Chopra.
Posted by: Sastra | March 3, 2008 2:38 PM
KoI,
I think your comments, regardless of the scientific accuracy of them, indicates you're all over the place. Let's answer one question at a time.
The root of your questions was "Then why the problem with ID?". This is very *very* easy to answer, because ID is *not* science. And, in fact, no one here would really have a thing to say about ID unless proponents of it didn't try to peddle it as science and teach it in high school science class.
Now, before you go on railing about everyone being "blinded", you might want to stop and ask "Why isn't ID science?". You may be enlightened by the answer and in the process, learn what science is.
And, on a side note: I don't know what you got that characterization of the Dover decision, but I suggest you actually read the decision itself. It goes into great detail explaining why the judge made the decision he did. No where does he say "Because Christians said it". Really, if this were the case, then school boards couldn't make any decisions about what to teach, since they are almost all predominantly Christian.
And, once you understand a little bit more about science, you will understand that it doesn't matter a bit who proposes something. The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest and today it is the dominant theory. It wasn't discounted because a Christian proposed it and the reason is because it is science, it makes predictions and because there is evidence.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 3, 2008 2:44 PM
I am not going to take things just because you guys say it anymore than you would from me about the Bible. We can complicate things and use big theological terms and keep the average person from participating as well. It was done and it was called the Dark Ages. It has to be simplified.
Um...that's horsemuffins. People need to be educated to be able to cope with the complexity they will find in their world. That's how we got out of the Dark Ages. If the Gods created a complicated Universe -- and the available evidence sugests they did -- then there's no way we mortals can demand that it be "simplified."
And please don't insult our intelligence by equating the complicated concepts of science with the purely made-up absractions that fill most of what passes for theological discourse. Just because they're equally unreal to you, does not make them equal in any objective sense.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 2:49 PM
"The onus of proof lies with the claimant"
This can be said to all the "naturalists" out there who want to explain everything through nature only, thus ruling out the supernatural. But a valid challenge to Bible believers. Have you ever tested the Bible with History?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:02 PM
"why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviral DNA
Common ancestor or common creator?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:05 PM
KoI "I am not going to take things just because you guys say it anymore than you would from me about the Bible."
Not for nothing, but no one is asking you to just take someones word for it. I remember at least one person pointing you towards TalkOrigins, there is scads of evidence and information there and most of it is easily understandable by the layman. Have you looked into it? I myself am not a scientist, I never even went to college and I didn't have a problem with it.
Posted by: jba | March 3, 2008 3:21 PM
"Um...that's horsemuffins. People need to be educated to be able to cope with the complexity they will find in their world. That's how we got out of the Dark Ages. If the Gods created a complicated Universe -- and the available evidence sugests they did -- then there's no way we mortals can demand that it be "simplified.""
Conversations filled with jargon will never produce your desired effect. The first Dude to stand up to the Catholic Church and say that the common people need to be educated was Luther. He wrote to the common people. Anyone wishing to have an impact on society should do the same. I understand for the most part what Science is. It is a study of nature. I am all for it.
I like the comment about Epistemology. Who says that in the realm of academia that Science is king? Who says that Science is the only way of truly knowing? That is my issue. What goes on in Science class is not so much my conern as what credence we give to each discipline. That is not to say that your guys definition of Science should stand.
I would be an idiot and probably have been many times on here, to argue with Scientists about Science. As an educator I can have a discussion about the breadth of academia. Ed brings many other issues into this blog besides Science. That is why I like it. I may sound like I am trying to be "virulent" in my ignorance. I could say the same with the way some interpret the Bible on here. But everyone cannot be an expert on everything. Especially when it gets so technical.
I guess I am saying if you want me to understand what in the hell you are talking about you need to break it down more for regular people to understand.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:24 PM
"Common ancestor or common creator?"
Which one of these explanations explains a real world observation and which one explains any possible set of observations?
What you continue to miss is that there very well may be a common creator, science can't rule it out, but *that doesn't make it a scientific explanation*. We can't call it science. The reason is that saying "A common creator" explains both shared DNA or completely unshared DNA or no DNA at all or *anything you can thing of*. When something explains anything, it explains nothing as it cannot be tested.
Furthermore, what can you predict by saying there is a "common designer"? Nothing. Intellectually, it's a dead end. Who knows why a designer put a endogenous retroviral insert into in the same place in our's and chimp's DNA.
Common ancestry on the other hand is a scientific explanation because if the DNA looked differently, the explanation would be invalid. If the DNA between chimps and, say, frogs what closer than humans, we'd have to go back to the drawing board. Using common ancestry as an explanation also leads to useful predictions, like where we might find transitional forms between the common ancestor between chimps and humans in the fossil record and what those forms probably looked like.
This is precisely the difference between ID and evolution and why one is science and the other is not. It doesn't make ID untrue (except for it's bogus antievolution claims), it just makes it not science. All claims to the contrary are why we "have a problem with ID".
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 3, 2008 3:36 PM
Jba:
I have looked into some of these sights. I have read more about this in the last year than all of my life. Like anything else you have to take it a little at a time. That is to really understand the basics of it. It is like learning a foreign language you have learn the basics and then keep building on them. I think I ask good and fair questions and people spit out jargon that makes no sense to answer me. It is not done on purpose but is unproductive. I learned as a teacher that I could know everything in the world but if I could not break it down for my kids to understand it meant nothing to them.
It is good to discuss something other than who is having gay sex with who and who is a bigot or not though in any rate.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:36 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
This is no more and no less than a question of semantics (no really - stick with me).
The natural is defined as anything that can be encompassed by what we call natural laws (known or unknown) - in simple terms, anything we think we can explain.
The super natural is, by definition, anything outside the realm of explanation. The instant something becomes explainable, it ceases to be super natural.
Science is, and can only be, concerned with that which is observable, through our senses or through experimentation. Anything that can be observed or experimented on is by definition, natural. The super natural, then, can never be dealt with by the realm of science.
Does it make sense, then, why science rejects investigation or question of the supernatural? There has never been any verifiable evidence for anything unexplainable. Never.
With regards to testing the Bible against history - it would do you well to learn about the history of the Bible, notably the Council of Trent in 312 AD. The volumes of apostolic work excluded from the official Bible would fill a volume 5 times the Bible's size.
My point is that the Bible is as much a historical document as it is a religious one; and the correlation of historical events between the Bible and the historical record is not incidental. This does not, however, imply that EVERYTHING in the Bible is correct - despite the historical accuracy, much of the mythology was swiped straight from older religions, Zoroastrianism for one.
Posted by: Patrick | March 3, 2008 3:42 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
The first question has absolutely nothing to do with evolution; the second question does. The first question is, of course, a legitimate inquiry for science class but it's already been answered: the big bang. Big bang cosmology explains how and when the universe, or at least the current space/time continuum, came into place. Beyond that point, we have nothing but speculation. And science classes say nothing about it as a result. And that is how it should be.
The second question is not troublesome at all from a liberty standpoint; one simply has nothing to do with the other. And we can explain the origin of the human species just as we can explain the origin of every other existing species on earth, as the result of evolution. The evidence for that explanation is overwhelming. And as I've explained several times, the origin of life is a separate question from the origin of biodiversity, which is what evolution deals with. No matter how the original self-replicating life form got on the earth - whether it developed from abiotic chemistry or blew in on solar winds or was placed here by God - the theory of evolution remains equally true and valid.
Science is the only reliable means of explaining and modeling the natural world. And you have it precisely backwards when it comes to supernatural explanations; the problem is not that they can't explain things, the problem is that supernatural explanations can explain anything. And because they can explain anything they are not open to testing because no prediction made on that basis could possibly be falsified. That makes supernatural explanations absolutely useless. Even if they are true, there is no possible means of showing that they're true because if reality was the opposite they would still explain things. Let's say you want to invoke the anger of God as a supernatural explanation for earthquakes. Can you actually use this to predict when earthquakes are going to happen? Of course not. If an earthquake does not happen, that just means God isn't angry. Or that he decided not to indulge his anger this time. No matter what happens, it can't possibly be inconsistent with that explanation. Science requires falsifiability as a means of testing an explanation. Some possible set of data must be incompatible with the explanation; if it isn't, the explanation doesn't explain anything at all.
You seem to be making the odd argument that the existence of "order" somehow proves the existence of God. That strikes me as an utterly nonsensical argument. Why would that be true? You have to fill in the missing logic for it to be taken at all seriously.
The same argument as above. Why do you keep implying that the existence of "order" and "complexity" is evidence for the existence of God? You have to logically justify that statement, not merely repeat it. What's the argument, exactly? We see "order" arise from natural processes all the time. Go look at a river delta and observe how the natural flow of the river separates rocks and sorts them by size. That's "order" and we don't have to invoke a "river god" to explain it. The argument from design was shown to be nonsense centuries ago. It ultimately collapses into an infinite regression. After all, any God capable of creating order and complexity must be even more complex than his creation, right? So why doesn't God require an Uber-God to create him? If complexity requires an explanation, why does it suddenly not need to be explained when it's called "God"? It's simply a dead end. It's like searching for the beginning of the equator. You go round and round until someone gets tired, plants a flag and calls it "God". But the question hasn't been answered, it's only been declared as answered. When it comes to such ultimate questions, there is only one acceptable answer: I don't know. And neither do you. But science doesn't deal with such ultimate questions, nor should it. Science deals with the natural world only.
No, ERVs cannot be explained by a common creator. ERVs are not part of an original genome, they are inserted into a genome by the action of viruses at some point in the past. Once inserted, they will be part of the genome for every descendant of that organism. This allows a perfect marker for determining common ancestry. When you find the same ERV sequence in humans and chimpanzees, for example, you know that both humans and chimps inherited that sequence from a common ancestor. Unless you'd rather believe that God planted false evidence of common descent in our genomes to test our faith, and that would make God something quite vile don't you think?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 3, 2008 3:46 PM
King said:
Not personally, no, but a lot of other people have. One glaring example would be that the bible indicates the world is about 6,000 years old. I'm pretty sure that falls under the category of "epic fail". There are a number of things that science has confirmed that are in the bible. There are plenty of things that science has discounted as they are described in the bible. I'm not sure what your point is.
Posted by: Jason I. | March 3, 2008 3:51 PM
"The super natural is, by definition, anything outside the realm of explanation'
I think you just proved my point. IT IS ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF NATURAL EXPLANATION. Why limit everything to only natural explanations?
By the way I started looking into the Corporate Personhood thing and I think you are on to something.
What is mythology in the Bible in your view?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:51 PM
"Why do you keep implying that the existence of "order" and "complexity" is evidence for the existence of God?"
I am stating that order and complexity could point to intelligence. If that is true then we can move forward to begin to ask what kind of intelligence. You have jumped ahead.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:56 PM
"So why doesn't God require an Uber-God to create him?'
Good question that will blow the mind of any person who thinks. But nonetheless, does not disprove the existense of intelligence behind the order and complexity. Where do you think this order and complexity comes from?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 4:00 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
The supernatural is not ruled out; the hypothesis that it exists hasn't been necessary to explain anything -- at least not yet.
Science says nothing in advance about whether the supernatural can exist. It's a series of methods which have developed over time which try to rule out bias and human errors -- and be objective -- as much as possible, in the search for explanations.
Other methods do not try to rule out bias and human errors as strictly; they assume that some people have special insights or abilities others don't. These methods include special revelations, mystical experiences, traditional wisdom, intuition, and designated authorities. They're all highly subjective, because they're not trying to find common ground, they're trying to find Truth for Those Who Can Find It.
Who decides that science is "better?" I think it's anyone who starts out with "humans make mistakes, and need to be able to check themselves and make corrections when they do." In other words, anyone who is looking for common ground for a reasonable consensus.
Those people who agree that we make errors, sure, but only in a limited sense, because there are some human beings who should be trusted completely because they're somehow beyond human limitations -- may instead pick another "way of knowing."
Science may seem "elitist" on the surface, because it requires more work, education, and discipline. But I think that when it gets down to it, it's the least elitist of all the methods.
Posted by: Sastra | March 3, 2008 4:01 PM
"I guess I am saying if you want me to understand what in the hell you are talking about you need to break it down more for regular people to understand."
I hate this argument. Complex language exists to explain complex ideas. It doesn't matter what field you are talking about, evolution, computers, motorcycle mechanics...all of them if delved into deep enough require a very specific language and knowledge that go with it. Angels aren't delivering your posts and emails. But because the "regular person" doesn't know a TCP stack from a token ring I'm supposed to stand by and let someone "teach the controversy" that angels serve up web pages, not servers?
Posted by: Laen | March 3, 2008 4:02 PM
"No, ERVs cannot be explained by a common creator. ERVs are not part of an original genome, they are inserted into a genome by the action of viruses at some point in the past. Once inserted, they will be part of the genome for every descendant of that organism. This allows a perfect marker for determining common ancestry. When you find the same ERV sequence in humans and chimpanzees, for example, you know that both humans and chimps inherited that sequence from a common ancestor. Unless you'd rather believe that God planted false evidence of common descent in our genomes to test our faith, and that would make God something quite vile don't you think?'
I bow out here. Like I said, I am not going to argue Science with a Science dude. That would make me an idiot. I try not to be one on most occasions.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 4:08 PM
Why limit everything to only natural explanations?
Because those are the only explanations that can be trusted to a) point to a truth we all can verify, regardless of our personal beliefs; and b) point to a plan of action or response that will get the most reliable results. Admitting supernatural agency does neither, because once you do so, you admit an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations, all equally possible, and none more provable than the others. (Who's the "designer?" Yahweh? Odin? Chronos? The Great Mother Goddess? The God and Goddess together? Nut? Someone in the Voudoun or Ifa pantheon...? Or maybe a God worshipped only by some shmoe who hasn't written his belief down yet?)
In order to see how truly lame and bankrupt your position is, King, try applying it to a specific field, such as CSI, and see how far you get before the position of "wait, we haven't ruled out supernatural agency yet" stops you dead and makes progress impossible.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 4:14 PM
"I hate this argument"
It does not diminish the fact that if your goal is to educate the other 99.9% of the population on earth about what you think then you are going to have to break it down. This is whether what you say is true or false. More false ideas have been spread becuase the purveyors of them were able to do this than for any other reason I can see in history.
I can tell you guys that you will be hit the same way religion is with Post modern thought. Anything that seems like an institution or elistist will not be taken seriously. I think it is a shame becuase while I do not understand Science that well I do understand that the world is a better place becuase of it and the technology it has produced. We may quibble on some things but I am not anti Science. I am anti- "evolution explains everything" and man is going to progress on earth without God.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 4:18 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
As far as science is concerned, because science requires verifiable evidence to support any hypothesis. On the flipside, it requires hypothesis to be falsifiable - if there's no standard of failure, you have no way of knowing if your proof succeeded.
Consequently, science can only deal with the observable, the measurable. The super natural is defined as that which is not measurable. So science can't measure it.
Does that make more sense?
I knew you were going to ask that :)
The 'mythology' I refer to is the savior God, the good vs. evil "anti-christ" battle (the concept of an AntiChrist is ripped straight out of Zoroastrianism, although it's interesting to note that the Bible never uses the term as it is understood by evangelicals today).
The father, son, Holy Spirit, Jesus rising from the dead, performing of miracles.. these are all elements from stories older than Christianity.
What we know as the Christian theology today is an amalgam of literally hundreds of Christian sects that arose in the century after Christ's death. Each sect had its own particular interpretations of historical events, and each one drew on different aspects of older mythologies. This is, incidentally, the direct cause for the Council of Trent - to put to rest the infighting once and for all and create a unified Christian faith.
OT:
Thanks :) I've often thought - if I could go back in time and change one thing, what would it be.. of all the dictators who should have been assassinated, information that should have arrived on time... I'd have to put preventing Corporate Personhood in my top 5.
Posted by: Patrick | March 3, 2008 4:23 PM
"In order to see how truly lame and bankrupt your position is, King, try applying it to a specific field, such as CSI, and see how far you get before the position of "wait, we haven't ruled out supernatural agency yet" stops you dead and makes progress impossible"
This is ridiculus. The vast majority of relgious people value CSI and I would say other fields that bring natural causes and effects into the light. I am not saying in anyway that every little things that happens needs some supernatural explanation to be ruled out before we study it. I am saying that in a big picture sense that we should not rule it out to help explain the unexplainable. Then we can begin to search the merits of each view of god or gods and the tenets of religions. Some will want to do that and some will not. I think all should explore it and try to discover what truth is. Or maybe what beauty is? As I have brought up before as a possible starting point.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 4:24 PM
'Thanks :) I've often thought - if I could go back in time and change one thing, what would it be.. of all the dictators who should have been assassinated, information that should have arrived on time... I'd have to put preventing Corporate Personhood in my top 5"
This is going to sound crazy but I think "Science" and "Evangelical Christianity" are going to be fighting the same battle here soon against the post modern onslaught. Education was the key to the Reformation and Enlightenment. Tyranny depends on ignorance. That is why I think Ed's article about anti-intellectualism is the most important I have read on here since I have posted comments on this site.
I did read your myth comments and am too tired to respond. I do acknowledge that some people have some issues with many Councils of the Catholic Church. I have done some reading about this but not enough to really respond. Avatars or people representing god on earth are prevalent in many religions I go agree. There is so much here to talk about on this site it gives me a headache. Best to do what I usually do and take it all in and think about it.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Keep in mind that if you want to bring God and/or the supernatural into science explanations, then they become hypotheses which have to meet scientific standards.
The reason science and religion are kept separate isn't so God is forced out of our explanations: it's so "God" is protected from being shredded to bits by a process that throws out those theories which fail to make successful predictions in favor of theories which do.
Deities stay behind the line for their own safety, not ours.
Posted by: Sastra | March 3, 2008 4:49 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
But you still haven't made an argument for that conclusion. I've given you an example of order arising without intelligence. I could easily give many more. There simply is no logical reason to believe that "order" or "complexity" require intelligence or will.
What it shows is that you don't even apply your own argument consistently, which suggests that you don't really believe it. If your argument is true and complexity requires an intelligence to create that complexity, then it must logically follow that anything capable of creating this complex world must be even more complex yet. So why doesn't that even greater complexity require a creator? The obvious logical conclusion is that your argument, as I stated before, simply leads to an infinite regression. That means it can't really explain anything. It's a logical dead end.
But you still need to think about the substance of the argument I made if you want to be intellectually honest in handling the issue. ERVs are an incredibly powerful and compelling argument for common descent. There simply is no logical creationist answer for their existence; they only make sense if common descent is true. If you want to handle evidence in an intellectually honest manner, it's not good enough to just throw up your hands and say "I'm not going to argue about this." This is very compelling evidence and it cannot just be ignored.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 3, 2008 5:13 PM
"But you still need to think about the substance of the argument I made if you want to be intellectually honest in handling the issue. ERVs are an incredibly powerful and compelling argument for common descent. There simply is no logical creationist answer for their existence; they only make sense if common descent is true. If you want to handle evidence in an intellectually honest manner, it's not good enough to just throw up your hands and say "I'm not going to argue about this." This is very compelling evidence and it cannot just be ignored."
I cannot fathom nor will I ever I am sure about why God does not need something more complex than Himself to exist. It is like the Trinity. I believe in it and have heard some good analogies but to completely comprehend it I never will. Or how does Jesus raise from the dead? I believe it but cannot say I completely understand it.
I do not know what a ERV is Ed and neither does 99.9% of the population. If you have something simple that anyone can read and understand about it I will look at it. I am making a very broad argument or inquiry here and you guys keep wanting to get specific. I would love to take everything to its logical conclusion but sometimes we just do not know why things happen. This is plain in real life. Why do some people die young and others do not. Why does one person who has cancer respond to treatments and others do not? I have no idea. Science can try to study it and explain it and I think you guys should. It will end up with better treatments and all. But it will never explain all the whys? We just cannot know everything.
This is where people begin to look to something bigger than us for answers. Some have been stupid answers and others seem more plausible. But no one has all the answers. I would take my son to a doctor if he was sick. But I would still pray.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 5:33 PM
Damn, Sastra, that's just so elegantly put. I have to admire your explanatory power!
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 3, 2008 6:22 PM
Then why did you pretend that you did, King? I put forward the question, "why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviral DNA?" And you pretended to know the answer, when you said "common creator."
If you're going to deign to answer questions you don't really understand, you should at least do some half-assed internet research. Maybe you could start at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Incidentally, you said exactly what I predicted you'd say:
Q: "Why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviral DNA?"
A: "Because that's the way The Common Creator wanted things to be."
So here's your next question:
Q: "But why would The Common Creator want things to be that way and not another way?"
When you admit you can't answer that, you'll be simultaneously admitting that Intelligent Design does not have the ability to make testable predictions, and thus, is not science. And then you'll have answered your original question, "then why the problem with ID?"
Thank Socrates.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 3, 2008 6:33 PM
ERVs
I'll admit I'm actually kind of disappointed that's not a very good description. Basically ERVs are viruses that integrate into the DNA of whatever organism they infect. Chimps and Humans have signs of retrovirus infections that integrated into the same place. This is easily explained by common ancestry. I believe there is some specificity to how a virus will integrate, but it's still general enough that it's incredibly unlikely to have occurred by chance as often as has been observed. If you try to explain this by common creation then it seems that God created humans and chimps (as well as other animals that are related to each other and also show the same pattern) so that they look like they were infected by the same virus in the same way, implying that God created the world in such a way to trick us into thinking it evolved, which seems like a pretty nasty type of god.
If you had asked what ERVs are you would have gotten a description. Instead you just claimed you were ready to give up. This is the problem with the attempt at discussion here. To talk about science in any meaningful way will require some knowledge. We're happy to help you understand things that are confusing, but it also requires some effort on your part. This hasn't been some weird deep esoteric discussion. We've kept things to a pretty basic level. I don't if anyone else involved is actually a scientist, but Ed's not, jba has said he/she is not, I may be a biologist but we're not talking about anything to do with my specialization. There really isn't much that has been said that can't be understood by a layman if they're willing to think about it and learn.
Posted by: mcmillan | March 3, 2008 6:33 PM
King,
The biggest difference between science and other forms of knowledge, is that science gives you a way to prove it wrong. With others, you have no way to know if your even close. This is part of what is wrong with intelligent design. Even at its basic principal, the part even sensible people can agree with, isn't a statement of science of philosophy, that it's possible that life can about just the way scientists think it did, because that's the way some intelligent designer (or a god) wanted it too. It's a fine idea, a neat little way to reconcile your religous beliefs with the realities science has discovered. The problem is that the people came up with the idea (or least those who gave it a name) are incredible dishonest people who are pretending to try and prove life must be designed for various reasons. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal except for the people behind it, who are completely blind to evidence, argument, and reason. Basically the ID movement isn't a scientific one but a political one. Anyway, I'm not an expert on all this but I hope I helped a bit.
Posted by: Drekab | March 3, 2008 6:54 PM
KoI:
The most complete and lay-accessible explanation of evidences for common descent that I am aware of are at Talk Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
ERVs are discussed on the page "Endogenous Retroviruses," under molecular evidence. One thing I'll note about these ERVs that is not mentioned on the page is that they can be either functional or nonfunctional.
I think Ashby Camp wrote up a rebuttal on TrueOrigin, if you insist on exploring the "other side." I found Camp's objections to be without merit, and would be willing to discuss them if you're interested.
Posted by: argystokes | March 3, 2008 6:54 PM
Your disappointment is good news, because it is the encyclopedia that you can edit. ;)
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 3, 2008 6:55 PM
when you said "common creator."
I was asking you a question not giving an answer. I think I put a question mark.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 7:44 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
There have been several good takes on why this is not a good argument that I hope you have read. You are sayiing, in effect, that God must be hiding in the gaps of our knowledge.
This is not a good argument for several reasons, but here are two: first, it's fallacious. If you do not have an explanation for something, you are not justified in using that ignorance to make inferences.
Second, it's ultimately more harmful to your position than it is to mine. I am not a believer, so I will let someone who is explain why:
The only thing that I would add is that it isn't just creationists who do this.
Posted by: Leni | March 3, 2008 8:10 PM
I'm not a scientist either, but reading the description of endogenous retroviral DNA made me think of this analogy:
You have a student who writes a paper, and when you read it it sounds very familiar. Sure enough, you take a book off your shelf on that subject and you find that it looks as if entire paragraphs have been lifted right out of the text, changed slightly, and passed off as the student's own.
When the student comes in to your office and is challenged with plagerism, he denies it. After all, the words are not exactly the same, and, since he's writing on the same topic as your author, it makes sense that there'd be similarities. They're just making the same point. Then you notice something: the book writer is British, and uses a couple British spellings like "colour" instead of "color." So does the student -- and he's not British. Coincidence? Says he reads Peter Whimsey mysteries. Hm.
But then --even more damning -- you find it. There's an editing glitch, a typo in the middle of the third sentence in the second paragraph of the book -- and that exact same typo is right there in the student's paper, in the exact same place.
Busted.
ERV's sound a bit -- to me -- like that telltale typo.
Posted by: Sastra | March 3, 2008 8:29 PM
King said:
Jason I responded:
Come on King, didn't we have this conversation already about a month ago? Remember me pointing out the the section in the Dover decision called "Whether ID is Science"? So therefore, you are incorrect when you claim that the "whole argument" in the Dover decision was "[j]ust because it is Christians that are pushing ID does not mean it should be thrown out".
But I'm glad that you did read more of that decision than the section I pointed out. And you are correct that the Judge did write about the hidden motives (i.e. promoting ID as a way to promote Christianity) of the school board. Here's why the Judge did so:
This is because while it is bad policy for the future of America, it isn't unconstitutional to teach non-science (like ID or astrology, which invokes the supernatural), or even terribly incorrect science (like claiming that the world is flat or that Pi equals exactly 3 instead of 3.14...etc). Teaching non-science or bad science becomes unconstitutional only if the reason for it is to advance religion... or more precisely, to advance a particular religious view while excluding others.
So this is the reason why so much emphasis was put on the motives of school board members. But as I pointed out, this was hardly the only part that Judge Jones criticized in his decision.
Also, I'd like to point out that that all the plaintiffs and almost all of the witnesses called by the plaintiffs were Christians (the only atheist who comes to mind is Barbara Forrest... any others?). So they were hardly suing the schoolboard because they were anti-religious.
Oh... and Leni's quote that s/he (sorry, I forgot your gender!) just gave @ 8:10pm was from Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God, which I still recommend you read. I first mentioned this book here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/sandefurs_latest_law_review_ar.php#comment-740508
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 3, 2008 9:36 PM
King, we're all slowly but surely getting to know each other. I was surprised to learn on another thread today that you are (or were) a teacher?
How could you not have been exposed to the Theory of Evolution enough to understand it? Just read through the text of some of Ken Miller's Biology textbooks. Doesn't evolution just make for common sense? These textbooks aren't loaded with the 'science jargon' that you've repeatedly complained about. They mostly are very understandable and lead you through, step-by-step, how evolution explains the data that exists and makes predictions.
If you really want to learn more about evolution and can't find any basic textbooks at the local university bookstore, I recommend reading this site... it's very easy to follow and covers virtually all the aspects of evolution and how to overcome certain cultural and religious objections to it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 3, 2008 10:27 PM
So, what subject(s) do you teach, at which level, in what kind of institution, where?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 3, 2008 11:26 PM
On a different topic...
King, my only guess for why you don't want school children to learn evolution is because you're afraid that it might lead them into a crisis of faith, or might even lead them away from Christ and into atheism. As I've written before, this might happen (but not necessarily... while many, maybe most atheists are well educated in the sciences, most scientists in the US still self-identify as Christians).
But give Ken Miller's quote above some thought... isn't the "God of the Gaps" (i.e. if science cannot answer the question, then it's okay to claim "Goddidit") a poor concept of theology? And can't you see that "Goddidit" is basically what your argument is?
And if my guess above isn't correct, then can you express why exactly it is that you want to prevent evolution from being taught in science class (or given equal time with a non-science like ID, as if to imply that they're equal in scientific validity)?
I hope that you're answer isn't some irrational, fear-based answer like 'I'm afraid that if I don't fight evolution and push Christianity on them that they won't go to heaven', or some other form of "because theBiblesaysso".
But if this isn't the reason... then what is it? I mean, you've already admitted that you like the benefits that science can bring to society... so why do you want to fight it being taught to children so they can continue on?
And going back to my original guess, what's wrong if they do end up having a crisis of faith? Wouldn't you agree that all religious people should continually examine and re-examine their beliefs to determine if what they are being told is moral, is indeed, actually moral?
And what if some of them do decide to become non-believers, do you think that atheists are somehow inherently less moral, on average, than Christians?
Basically King, you've been patient and respectful on many threads... better behavior than many Christians who show up here... so I'm trying to be respectful towards you as well. But I just cannot for the life of me figure out why you hold the beliefs that you hold.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 3, 2008 11:41 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
But you're missing the point. Why should we take seriously the argument that everything that is complex must have a creator if even the person making the argument refuses to apply that argument in a consistent manner? You suddenly suspend the validity of that argument when the subject is god and you throw up your hands and say "I just don't know." But if you're not willing to apply your own reasoning logically and consistently, why should that same argument be taken seriously when you do decide to use it? The answer is clear: there's a flaw in your argument (several, actually, because we still have the undenied fact that we can observe a myriad of ways in which "order" comes into being without any intelligent or willful input). So we have an argument that A) is in conflict with what we observe and B) can't be applied consistently without turning into an infinite regression that makes no sense. A rational person would say this is an illogical argument.
Well so far, the broad argument you make has turned out to be nonsensical and incapable of being applied consistently without leading to an impossible conclusion. And the specific arguments for why evolution is the only logical explanation, you just punt on and throw up your hands and say you don't understand them. So do some research if you don't understand them. Several people gave you links above and I gave a simple layman's explanation of what an ERV is and why it is an all but irrefutable argument for common descent.
But so what? We don't have to know everything and no one claims to know everything. But the fact is that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming, so much so that it is intellectually perverse to pretend otherwise. "We don't know everything" is not a compelling counter-argument to that. We don't have to. What we do know and what we do observe is explained very, very well by the theory of evolution. And the counter arguments from creationists of all varieties quickly collapse into absurdities and distortions upon examination.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 12:56 AM
Consider the passenger pigeon. Once, according to all reports, their numbers were so great that they blotted out the sun and covered the sky.
Do you know how many fossil passenger pigeons we have?
Zero.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I've said something similar on many occasions. By and large, animals are "obviously the same kind" if and only if they are covered by the same words a seven year old would use to describe them. He knows cat and dog and sheep and goat. Humans and chimps, sure, different. Cardinals and sparrows... depends on how much attention he pays. Most kids are happy with "bird".
This is varied by familiarity. A creationist who doesn't fish will probably be happy with "fish kind". A creationist who deals with fish will split fish up.
The Bible doesn't have a "created kind" concept. In fact, it's usage of the word "kind" quite contradicts creationists, since it refers to owls as a kind, and a specific species of owl as a kind, and later to birds entire as a kind. In short, the Bible uses "kind = type", with no intention to indicate relationship from a created archetype. "Baramin" is a term not found in the Bible, just mock Hebrew from people trying to make a pretense of Biblicality.
That depends on what you mean. This is an emerging area of research. There are a number of explanations for how life may have begun. Any of them could be true. Perhaps all of them are false and the explanation lies elsewhere. It's not really relevant, though. Even if science had no explanation, it wouldn't support god as an explanation.
But let me ask, KoI, consider the situation that existed in medicine during the Renaissance. There were three basic hypotheses regarding the origin of disease. Some held that disease was caused by specific supernatural acts. Some held that disease was caused by bad smells, and some held that disease was caused by imbalanced "humours", essentially body fluids (though not the way a modern doctor understands them).
Suppose I show that bad smells don't cause disease by forcibly exposing some people to the smell of sulfur-dioxide for several days. I then do another experiment to show that imbalanced humors don't cause disease either.
Can I now claim to have shown that diseases must be caused by supernatural agents? I have no other explanation, after all! I've eliminated all of them!
Science always has another explanation: "Something we haven't thought of yet." Nobody had thought of germs as an explanation for disease back then. Just because nobody had thought of it didn't mean it wasn't a valid option, though. That's why you can't support an explanation just by disproving it's *current* competitors. Science simply doesn't work that way.
We have several working hypotheses for the origin of life. Maybe none of them are right. If so, we'll keep looking. Even if we had none, "God!" wouldn't become the default alternative. Not until you can tell us how to test the "god did it!" explanation.
Nobody. On a practical level, it's the way of obtaining knowledge that has the most successful track record. Nothing else comes close. It would, however, be anti-scientific to say it was the only way.
Well, that's how science works. You're welcome to practice "other ways of knowing" (whatever those may be). Have a ball. But, you cannot:
A) Claim to be doing science while you are doing it.
B) Teach your "ways of knowing" in science class.
Those of us interested in playing the game of science will continue to keep looking. Just like we kept looking for explanations of diseases. That worked out pretty well for the science side. How has religion done lately? Increased the average human lifespan by a few decades? Eradicated smallpox? We're predicting global eradication of fire worm by 2010. This is a disease that has plagued humanity from it's inception, possibly inspiring the caduceus, symbol of medicine from ancient times. It will be gone.
Science works. Nothing else comes close.
Judas dies two contradictory ways, and Genesis is flat wrong about how old the universe is and where humans came from.
So, if your simplistic dichotomy is to be believed, not true is your only conclusion.
Or, you can abandon the heresy of literalism and accept that the Bible is NOT and has never been the basis of Christianity.
As individuals? No. We can't prove that THAT person who was prayed for and got better wasn't a specific miracle.
We can prove (and have done so ages ago) that being prayed for does not in any way improve someone's chances of getting better. If God is doing miracles in response to prayer, it's not horribly often, less than the boundary of statistical significance. What's wrong with the other 99% of people? God hates them?
Order forms whenever energy has to move from an area of higher concentration to one of lower. It's that simple. Turn your stove on and put a pot of water on to boil. As the water heats, you can see circulation cells form in the water. (It may help to put in a few grains of rice.) Spontaneously formed order.
Hurricanes are highly ordered storms. That's what separates them from other storms: they're organized. Is every hurricane a spontaneous act of God? No, organization is what happens when the rising hot air and falling cold air collapses into a stable, efficient pattern. It happens "by chance", but when it happens, it supports its own existence.
If I leave salt water out in the sun, the water will evaporate and leave organized crystals. God? Or just how things happen. Order forms spontaneously over and over in the world around us. Pretending that some forms of order must require god will require you to tell us how we are to distinguish typical order from divine order. To date, nobody has done this.
Which makes the concept unscientific, that is, outside the realms of science. Until you can, in theory, disprove an idea, it's not going to be in science class. Bye, bye, ID.
Feel free to believe in any god you choose. Just don't call it science and don't try and force it into science. And for goodness sakes don't go around telling scientists that they must respect your "other ways of knowing"
Okay, no.
Legally, there is something called the Lemon test. It has three prongs. One of which does speak to intent, but it's not "they're Christians, so out!" It is that the intent of what is being tested is to forward a religion.
I.e., it's not "IDers are Christians!" It's "IDers are FORCING Christianity onto others."
The ID movement isn't composed of Christians. It's composed of Christians who are not content with having their own religion and believing it, but want your children to be taught their religion as well.
Most of us are quite willing to tolerate all religions. We are not and should never be tolerant of those who wish to force their beliefs on others.
Again, no. The only way it was relevant was that the school board made it clear that their primary motive was advancing fundamentalist Christianity. Again, not that they were Christians, but that they phrased their motivation as pushing Christianity onto the students.
What assumption? The Discovery Institute announced this was their goal in the Wedge Document! If their announcing their intention doesn't make it a fact, what will?
The science is non-existent in ID. Paley's Watch and the argument from design are at least a hundred years old, but it isn't getting any better. They're still making the same errors and repeating the same lies.
Because they have no science, their fundamental argument is "Not evolution (supported only with lies) therefore Go... Unknown Intelligent Designer". It's illogical (literally, it's a logical fallacy) and anti-science. Even their vaunted "filter" just give sthe "design" label to anything that doesn't match it's criteria. It has no respect for the "something we haven't thought of yet" possibility. It is not science.
More time will not turn a fundamentally anti-scientific idea based on a logical fallacy and a collection of lies into a science. We should waste neither time nor money on such nonsense.
Tell me, if I proposed, "Diseases are caused by Evil Space Elves that attack you with invisible lasers when you think about plants!", should we give this idea time to grow just because it is new? Or should we call a spade a spade and stop wasting time on obvious nonsense.
I'm not saying the core "God" idea is automatically nonsense, but ID isn't equivalent to God. It is "Not evolution (argued from lies), therefore Unknown intelligent Designer". Bad logic will not get better with age. "New" is not a bromide against nonsense.
We've been asking that question for years! And finding answers. We know where the order comes from in hurricanes. We know where the order comes from in crystals. Natural selection has the power to make order out of unordered DNA.
Done!
Next!
We do not know for sure that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. We do not know for sure that gravity will not reverse itself and send us all flying away from the Earth. We do not know for sure that the world actually exists.
So, are all these things just opinions? Should we make sure to carefully tell children, "This gravity stuff we're teaching is just an opinion. You might want to be careful walking home in case it reverses. Not that you really exist anyway."?
Nothing is absolutely certain, KoI. Nothing. That Genesis is false is exactly as certain as the rising of the sun in the east tomorrow. If one deserves special "we're not certain!" hesitation, then so does the other. The fact that you don't understand the evidence that leads to either conclusion does not mean the rest of us should pussyfoot around and pretend uncertainty where no reasonable doubt exists.
Let me see if I can explain this simply. Several things I'm about to state are vast oversimplifications, but they'll do for a start.
From time to time, people get viruses. One type of virus is called a retrovirus. This virus has to implant its DNA into your genome in order to reproduce. In essence, it becomes a new gene for the cell, and your cell begins making copies of the virus.
Your body has defenses against this sort of thing. They aren't very good, but it does have them. Bits of DNA can be marked with something called a "methyl tag". You don't have to know what that is other than it marks sections of DNA and tells the body, "Don't use these genes!" So, when (if!) the body detects that a bit of a cells' DNA are acting like a virus and not good-old-fashioned human DNA, it marks that spot with a tag and the body ignores it in future. But, your body has no garbage collection system, so that virus remains in your cell for the life of that cell.
Now, imagine that cell is one of the cells used to make sperm. All (well, really half, but nevermind) of the resulting sperm will have a copy of that virus and a copy of the tag that says, "Don't touch this part". If those sperm cells form a new person, ever cell in that person will have a copy of the virus and the "don't touch!" tag. If that person has children, all of his descendents will have the virus and copies of the "Don't touch!" tag.
See how that works? Okay, now that we have it in the forward direction, let's work backwards.
Your Genome (that is, the set of your DNA) is FULL OF THESE BLOODY THINGS. In fact, more than half the mass of your DNA is old viruses marked off with "Do not touch!" tags. Think about that! This is your intelligent design, half your DNA is dead viruses with warning signs. Would you consider a building intelligently designed if half the rooms contained shoddy construction, open walls, and deadly traps, but the doors had warning markers on them?
Each of these viruses is a record of a specific event. Just like a scratch in your car paint comes from one moment when something scrapped against your car, each virus records one moment when a virus implanted itself into the DNA of you or one of your ancestors. They record a history.
And that history, largely, matches that of chimps. Most of our marked-off viruses are the same.
This makes perfect sense, if we have a common ancestor.
It makes no sense as an element of design. Why would it? Why would an intelligent designer load us up full of viruses, taking special care to make sure our viruses matched chimpanzee viruses 95% of the time?
Does it prove ABSOLUTELY that there is no designer? No, but it makes any designer who does exist look like a right bastard and a liar.
Interestingly, one of these viruses that we don't share with chimpanzees is sitting right in the middle of the chimpanzee fur gene. That is, you have the gene that gives chimps that nice, thick coat of fur. You have it, but a ERV (technically, a transposon, which is different, but I don't want to bury you in terms) is stuck in the middle of it. The body detected the transposon and marked it "Don't touch this bit!". The gene doesn't work. That's why you have a pathetic coating of body hair.
So, about this designer. Why give us a fur gene we aren't using? Why give us a gene and then deactivate it? Why deactivate it with a virus that, should it reactivate (which does happen, those tags fall off far too often, causing cancers and who knows how many other diseases) could easily kill us?
And once you've worked that out, realize that another chimp gene we all have that doesn't work because an ERV is stuck in it is the direct cause of our enlarged brains. The gene that, in chimps, shuts off their fetal development at the right time doesn't work in us. It hasn't been marked "do not touch", though, so it is expressed, it's just "short" because an ERV that mutated when it was inserted put a "stop" code, signalling the end of the gene. Our bodies spend our entire lives churning out tiny little three-piece long proteins that would, were we chimps, terminate our fetal development with our brains chimp-sized.
So, this designer, he gives us a gene we don't want, that would make us dumb as chimps should it actually work, and sticks a non-functioning virus in it, while wasting tons of amino-acids making proteins that, literally, cannot do anything.
It just screams design, doesn't it?
See, this is a huge part of the problem with ID. When you look at the evidence, when you actually know how the human body is constructed. When you see the inept design of the eye with it's backwards retina, when you see the spine still built for life on four-legs, when you see the idiotic patch job done so that the testes can form in entirely the wrong place, then move through the protective tissues leaving a trail of carnage and destruction behind them to get where they should have been made to begin with, when you see all this evidence, the idea that we are designed by any kind of intelligence is simply ludicrous.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 4, 2008 3:08 AM
I'm aware that most of the genome is non-coding, but I had not heard that that non-coding DNA was mostly retroviral. Do you have a citation for this? I thought that much of the non-coding regions were due to transcription errors and duplication.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 4, 2008 10:00 AM
I seem to have overstated the facts. I blame the lateness of the hour I was posting. Change "over half" to "A whole freaking lot". The argument is qualitatively right if not quantitatively so.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 4, 2008 11:31 AM
Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 4, 2008 11:41 AM
There are "gaps" in the Great Wall of China too.
Posted by: ds | March 4, 2008 12:40 PM
"King, my only guess for why you don't want school children to learn evolution is because you're afraid that it might lead them into a crisis of faith,"
It does lead them to a crisis of faith. As high as 80% of Churck kids who got to college lost their faith in one year. I am the guy that goes and points this out to the powers that be and am kindly asked to leave time and time again. I not only want them to learn it I want them to be able to refute if it is untrue. Most cannot even have a conversation without getting pissed and just walking away.
We used to go to a bus stop to evangelize as a church. There was this Catholic dude there who knew more about his religion than anyone I had ever met. He knew Bishops and Scholars and could still break it down to the street level. Of course I disagreed with him but loved him and loved talking with him. He also knew more about what we believed than some of us did.
Well, people would talk to him for 5 minutes, get pissed, and walk away. Soon they wanted him to leave. I got pissed and asked if we were allowed to be their with our view why could not been there with his?
My point? I think we should all learn as much as we can even about things we do not agree with. Read my post for March 4 under "Another Creationist Comment"
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 1:05 PM
It does lead them to a crisis of faith. As high as 80% of Churck kids who got to college lost their faith in one year.
And we have to change our school curriculum to accomodate this...why? If "church kids" lose their faith that quickly and easily, that's probably because their church fed them crappy doctrines that didn't work in the real world. And it's the church doctrines that have to change, not our science curricula.
...He also knew more about what we believed than some of us did.
And still you're pretending you can lecture us about how science should be taught? If I got a smackdown like that, on my own theological "turf" so to speak, I'd take that as a clue to listen more and lecture less.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 1:18 PM
There is too much to respond to here all at once. I have gone to the website mentioned here about talk origins and will do so again. But the fact is even, if for arguments sake I was right, to try and argue that with a bunch of Scientists that can pull the I am a Scientist do not argue with me and I am going to give you a bunch of jargon to prove it is unwise and unproductive. Thre are a lot of people smarter than me who have Science degrees that have problems with evolution.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 1:21 PM
"But you're missing the point. Why should we take seriously the argument that everything that is complex must have a creator"
Not what I said. I said that one would think that complexity would seem to point to intelligence. You leap ahead again.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 1:25 PM
KoI: "I said that one would think that complexity would seem to point to intelligence."
*Why* do you think complexity would point to intelligence? There is a large amount of evidence for complexity evolving and none for it being created. This is a serious question, not an attack. Why do you think compexity points to intelligence?
Posted by: jba | March 4, 2008 1:30 PM
But the fact is even, if for arguments sake I was right, to try and argue that with a bunch of Scientists that can pull the I am a Scientist do not argue with me and I am going to give you a bunch of jargon to prove it is unwise and unproductive.
If you can't argue with scientists because you can't understand their jargon, it's probably because you're not knowledgeable enough to understand what they're saying. In which case, you have two options:
1) Go out and get yourself a good, solid science education, without letting yourself be blinded by any religious beliefs; and don't open your mouth about it until you have all the required knowledge under your belt; OR
2) Admit you're not up the challenge, stop arguing, trust the knowledgeable folks when they speak out on matters within their fields of study, drop all the dumbass anti-elitist attitude, and stop trying to influence policies of which you know nothing.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 1:31 PM
doctorgoo wrote:
She, and thanks for pointing that out. I meant to mention it was from Miller's book and completely spaced it.
The link I posted is to Miller's website, and is where I found the quote. It is from the last chapter of his book Finding Darwin's God, which he has graciously made available online. So even if King of Ireland didn't want to get the book, he could still read the last chapter if he felt so inclined.
Posted by: Leni | March 4, 2008 1:38 PM
I will just mention that Miller's final chapter is by far his weakest. Where he applies sound thinking and good science in the rest of the book he seriously falls of when he tries to apply his birth religion to the science he knows to be correct.
Raging Bee:
1) Go out and get yourself a good, solid science education, without letting yourself be blinded by any religious beliefs; and don't open your mouth about it until you have all the required knowledge under your belt; OR
2) Admit you're not up the challenge, stop arguing, trust the knowledgeable folks when they speak out on matters within their fields of study, drop all the dumbass anti-elitist attitude, and stop trying to influence policies of which you know nothing
Very true
Posted by: JimC | March 4, 2008 2:14 PM
Assuming this statistic is correct, I'd be hesitant to ascribe it to any single factor -- like being exposed to evolution (by the way, Christians who are raised to be comfortable with evolution do not worry about losing their faith by being exposed to evolution.)
I read somewhere that one of the major reasons kids who go to college 'lose their faith' is that they are, for the first time, around people who have different faiths -- or none -- and it seems to work just fine for them. Their religion isn't a factor in what kind of people they are. Or, they get into deep discussions, and figure out the other guy sounds suspiciously like they do.
It's not just the 'exposure.' They make friends. Like with racism and homophobia, it's hard to keep to the us. vs. them "all others are damned and it's good" idea when you know and like them.
Posted by: Sastra | March 4, 2008 2:23 PM
"I got pissed and asked if we were allowed to be their with our view why could not been there with his?"
Allowed in the sense that he not be hunted for his differences. If he is saying something wrong, a reply is appropriate. I guess I wonder what Christians are all afraid of sometimes. There's so many of you.
You understand the difference between theistic evolution and Intelligent Design?
"Thre are a lot of people smarter than me who have Science degrees that have problems with evolution."
Non-biologists. I'm just saying. It's likely after you get Finding Darwin's God from the library, you'll agree with its author on the main premise, because he demolishes so many of their arguments in a few pages.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 4, 2008 2:52 PM
KoI -
I'd be interested in where you got your statistics regarding loss of faith. I was raised Catholic, but lost my faith before I left elementary school after seeing the favoritism shown: a) regarding monetary contributions to my parish and b) with the "popular" altar servers.
Many "lapsed" Catholics like myself who I have discussed this with had also lost their faith way before college, growing up in an environment that preached one thing but practiced another.
It's not a crisis of faith caused by secular ideas, its one caused by hypocracy of the religious establishment.
Posted by: Pineyman | March 4, 2008 3:21 PM
I'd be interested in where you got your statistics regarding loss of faith. I was raised Catholic, but lost my faith before I left elementary school after seeing the favoritism shown: a) regarding monetary contributions to my parish and b) with the "popular" altar servers.
Many "lapsed" Catholics like myself who I have discussed this with had also lost their faith way before college, growing up in an environment that preached one thing but practiced another.
It's not a crisis of faith caused by secular ideas, its one caused by hypocracy of the religious establishment."
George Barna is the best source and I think it was 80% Many put it at 50 or 60%. I think it is both that causes this. I think the not knowing what they believe is more prevalent in the settings I have been in. I used to warn them when they were kids just how indoctinated they were.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 3:34 PM
'Why* do you think complexity would point to intelligence? There is a large amount of evidence for complexity evolving and none for it being created. This is a serious question, not an attack. Why do you think complexity points to intelligence?"
To answer this in a setting like this it would be impossible to be thorough. I would say that it goes to the mutable and immutable attributes of God. If we are made in His image then we would exhibit some of His characteristics. One would be compassion. It cannot be tested scientifically. Why do people feel compassion? It is a complex emotion. It seems to point to some other source than the material world. This is a theological explanation.
On a philosphical one it would seem to me that complex things need a source. Ideas are an example. The more complex the idea the more intelligence needed to either comprehend it or produce it. Even in the field of education we talk about higer order thinking skills that would point us toward proof that more intelligence is being created or comprehended.
I think art is another sign of this. The appreciation of beauty. The ability to create it. Where does this come from? I know these are vague and subjective thoughts but I hope it answers your question. This topic is an old one and one in which I only began to explore months ago.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 3:54 PM
'And still you're pretending you can lecture us about how science should be taught? If I got a smackdown like that, on my own theological "turf" so to speak, I'd take that as a clue to listen more and lecture less.'
Maybe I should have been more clear. He and myself had great conversations because I knew as much about what he believed as he did me. We did not agree all the time but it was productive. Why? I was not indoctrinated. I studied it all for myself. What prompted this study? Conversations like the ones on here that really challenge some of my assumptions. If I have to go to the Pastor to refute something I am in trouble. I need to know what I believe for myself and set out to prove it. This is more internal first than external.
With that said, I do need to listen more and lecture less. Character flaw.
Believe it or not this is the route I have chosen to educate myself on these topics. Sometimes you look like an ass but so what I have learned a lot. I would suggest looking at the overall point of what I said in what you quoted. You might need to follow you own advice.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 4:01 PM
"2) Admit you're not up the challenge, stop arguing, trust the knowledgeable folks when they speak out on matters within their fields of study, drop all the dumbass anti-elitist attitude, and stop trying to influence policies of which you know nothing"
You sound like a Catholic priest of the Dark Ages who tried to keep the Bible out of the language of the common people. Why? He did not want them to understand it. Why? It would cost him his power.
Now I am not accusing you of that. But it sounds so much like what you seem to despise it kind of scares me. I thought one of the things Ed was trying to do here was to get common people more up to speed on the subject. I think I have heard him say and write that a great deal of the problem is that the common person has no idea what any of you are talking about. The ID people do the same thing.
If this is a sight for Scientists to talk with other Scientists then why the culture, law, and religion aspects? This is very smart of Ed to bring all this into the discussion. Why? They are all intertwined. Good luck convincing 55% of America(Time article on Evolution Wars) that you are right and use jargon to do it. The 55% believes in the Genesis account. I do too. But I assure that most do becuase they were taught it and never questioned it. I did and still believe. They are your worst nightmare if put into power because they are not reasonable and willing to discuss things. They seek to overpower your will with theirs. I am supposedly one of their own and they do it to me dude.
I also think if you will look that I pose most of what I say with questions. This is for a reason. I am trying to learn from you guys whether you see it or not. I do not have to agree with you to learn from you.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 4:14 PM
I've followed this thread a little while now and hope you don't mind if I butt in. Have no idea about the mutable/immutable thing but compassion is easier. The origins of social traits like these lies in our murky past way back so you wont be surprised when we use evolution to explain it.
Plausible reasons for the evolution of compassion could be:
a) Kinship altriusm. In close family groups, the genes for compassion is more likely to favour copies of itself than not. Since you're related to everyone around you and they share your genes, it makes sense for those genes to make you be nice to them.
b) Reciprocal altruism. If I help you, you will be more inclined to help me. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
c) Reputation. This relies on b). In a group where reciprocal altruism plays a part, it pays to have a reputation for being helpful and honest. The failsafe way of getting that reputation is to *be* helpful and honest.
The organism is not usually aware of this reasoning, it just feels an urge help those around it. Likewise, the genes for these behaviours does not need to be very discriminating. So its not very surprising that that compassion goes over the top (from the gene's point of view).
I took most of the above from Dawkins books, in case anyone wants to know.
One interesting observation is that everyone uses the us/them kinship mentality. Peaple just differ in how wide and how many they define 'us' to include.
On complexity->intelligence, it shouldn't come as a surprise that intelligence is needed to *understand* complexity. But there is nothing to imply that intelligence is needed for complexity to form.
Beauty could be just like compassion. Some trait (curiosity? fascination?: Ooh! Shiny!:D)that was useful to our ape(ish) ancestors that has since gone overboard in a happy serendipity. Humans seems to be able to take any behaviour and pervert to extremes.
Posted by: Whodunnit | March 4, 2008 5:06 PM
"2) Admit you're not up the challenge, stop arguing, trust the knowledgeable folks when they speak out on matters within their fields of study, drop all the dumbass anti-elitist attitude, and stop trying to influence policies of which you know nothing"
You sound like a Catholic priest of the Dark Ages who tried to keep the Bible out of the language of the common people. Why? He did not want them to understand it. Why? It would cost him his power.
I call bullcrap on this.
You're being dishonest here. You are being told to GET THAT KNOWLEDGE so you can participate. And you're twisting that statement.
That's not being fair, and I'm calling shennanigans on it.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 5:20 PM
"That's not being fair, and I'm calling shennanigans on it"
Why?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:45 PM
Where did intelligence come from?
A bottom-up explanation would look to see how molecules and chemicals come together in the brains of protozoa, and insects, and fish, and mammals, and human beings. What is going on? Take it apart, look at it. Figure it out.
The religious explanation? Intelligence comes from an Intelligent Source. A FORCE of Intelligence which hands it down in some mysterious way.
We get mind from a Mind Source. We get thought from a Thought Force. We get reason from a Reason Source. We get morals from a Moral Force. We get compassion from a Compassion Source. We get love from a Love Force. The universe was created by a Creative Source which willed things into existence using its Intentional Force.
It's really simple. I mean -- it's really simple.
Posted by: Sastra | March 4, 2008 5:47 PM
"But there is nothing to imply that intelligence is needed for complexity to form."
Why not?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:50 PM
(A) Occam's Razor.
(B) The null hypothesis which is one of the bases of science.
(C) Numerous experiments which have shown complexity and order to arise spontaneously without intelligent intervention--several of which have already been mentioned.
Your turn--what evidence do you have that complexity implies intelligence? Real evidence, mind.
Posted by: Skemono | March 4, 2008 5:57 PM
"Numerous experiments which have shown complexity and order to arise spontaneously "
Like life?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 6:11 PM
Why?
Because you're not putting in the effort.
That's being lazy. That's being dishonest.
And that deserves to be called out every single time.
As a teacher, you wouldn't accept that from a student. As a student, you sure can't get away with that.
Learn the concepts, learn the terminology. It's doable for a laymen (and that's part of how students become scientists). It's sheer laziness not to learn the terminology and concepts of a field.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 6:15 PM
'Learn the concepts, learn the terminology. It's doable for a laymen (and that's part of how students become scientists). It's sheer laziness not to learn the terminology and concepts of a field.'
So by this reasoning every person who blogs on here about politics and law needs to learn everything a politican or lawyer needs to know? And if a person came to a bunch of lawyers and asked them to explain the whole Roe v Wade thing so they could understand would it be wise of them to use jargon and when the person just walks away they get mad.
I learned a foreign language and became much more compassionate for those who try and do it here in this country. For words to make sense they have to be understood. I spent all day reading about this debate and most of it made little sense to me because of not only the terms but the style of argument is so different in these circles.
To a point you are right. I have been trying to educate myself but no one can be an expert in everything. Nor should we try. Is it wise to get into these discussions with Scientists? Yes and No. If it gets into a discussion like you would have with a well trained Mormon where they use the same 10 verses and you combat them with the same 10 that you are trained with then it goes no where. If you can get into a more philosophical discussion it is profitable in my mind. I think outside thoughts can sometimes interject good points that people in a pissing contest lose sight of at times.
I am getting tired and when I get tired I start to argue just to argue and this does not help anything.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 6:35 PM
Yes.
Posted by: Skemono | March 4, 2008 6:40 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Sorry, but this is a major copout. No one here has tried to pull any such thing with you. No one here has engaged in any appeals to authority (though you just did, and to anonymous authority as well). What several of us have done is offer you scientific evidence for evolution and detailed explanations that a layman can understand, particularly about endogenous retroviruses. And you've pretty much just blown it off as irrelevant. I am not a scientist, but I have made the effort to understand the scientific issues. It's not that difficult, it just takes time and a willingness to ask the right questions. Frankly, if you're not going to take the time to do that then there is little reason to listen to any opinion you may offer about the validity of evolution. This is a complex issue, but it's not so complex that you can't gain a solid understanding of it with a little effort. I applaud your willingness to engage on these issues, and you do have a relatively open mind about things. But it seems like whenever we get into details about the evidence, you just shut down. Ultimately, that gets you nowhere. You either have to take the time to really understand the issue with as much depth as you can, or you need to stop making claims about the issue. That is the intellectually honest thing to do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 7:10 PM
"But it seems like whenever we get into details about the evidence, you just shut down"
For one this is because my mind works differently than detailed oriented people. I am visionary and big picture oriented. At times details actually piss me off. But if I am going to comment I understand I need to fight this tendency.
I am glad you see that I am truly open minded on most thing anyway. I am really on here to learn. I think it is the best way. This is how I learned most of what I did about the Bible, Church History, and the like. I would be taught something in church and go out and see how it floated in real life. I would get ruffed up some and then go back and check it out.
With all that said, I do shut down because it reminds of long ass discussions with people from other religions or whatever where they knew what they were going to say and I knew what I was going to say and then why bother. To be honest I am usually the expert in the church scene at it probably pisses me off that I do not know that much about all this stuff.
Anyway, I have done some homework and am beginning to understand some of the basics of this whole argument. Some have played the I the expert card. Have you probably not. But I stand by what I said about the post modern train coming by and the younger crowd getting on as people beat their chest and say listen to me I am the expert.
I have tried to read both sides of this debate. To be honest the Christian side I agree with when I read it but it has serious holes in it. If I was you guys I would reject it based on the same thing I have said to some here: It has holes you cannot see and you are so blinded by the fact that you think you are right you cannot see it. By holes I mean holes in explaining what the hell they are talking about so people will understand.
As some what say on here. Smack down excepted I need to read more. But I would appreciate when I do and ask sincere questions for people not to attack me as though I am Jerry Falwell. They really are sincere questions and this whole debate has lead me to some readings that have confirmed so ideas I began to have about what I want to pursue a Masters degree in.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 8:19 PM
KoI,
If, as you say, you come here to learn, why do most of your arguments seem to boil down to:
a) "I don't understand the science, so I believe..."
b) "Scientists can't disprove God, so why can't you accept God as an explanation?"
I don't mean to be cruel, but you seem to keep coming back with the same questions all the time. For example, your questions about complexity pointing to intelligence.
People then provide you with explanations. In this case, pointing out a myriad of examples of complexity arising spontaneously.
You then fail to understand the explanation, often claiming that too much jargon is used, then ask the same questions again.
Surely, if you want to learn something, it's worth putting in a little time and effort.
Posted by: Malcolm | March 4, 2008 11:37 PM
King of Ireland: for the second time - what subject(s) do you teach, at which level, in what kind of institution, where?
Please answer the question (and without identifying details, if you prefer - e.g., "music in a Christian high school in Ohio").
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2008 12:01 AM
I was just about to say something similar, Malcolm. King of Ireland doesn't just ask honest questions in the respectful manner one would expect from a knowledge-seeker. Instead, every other comment is loaded with the intellectual equivalent of "hey Mister Science-Pants, you can't explain this one, neener neener ID should be taught in schools."
In general, a person either admits ignorance and honestly asks questions, or tries to argue for the truth-value of his or her own opinions. Very few people can rigorously do both at the same time.
Since King of Ireland continually inserts statements of a mind already made up, like "I disagree that we were common ancestors with apes", even while claiming to be asking questions, I cannot believe that these questions are asked in a spirit of honest inquiry.
Could be I'm wrong. But that's sure the impression I'm getting.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 5, 2008 12:01 AM
I think King of Ireland is sincere, if obviously a bit confused. He's struggling with cognitive dissonance and that leads people to sometimes sound all over the map. But the fact that he's changed his views on a number of things after initially reacting very negatively tells me that he's open to argument and intellectually honest at his core. That's a good thing, and rare enough that I'm certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and continue to discuss these matters with him in a civil, informative manner. I hope my readers can do the same.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM
Pierce Butler, he's never going to answer you . I must confess though... I am really curious too. Wanna make a bet? I'm going to guess... history or government at the junior high level, somewhere in the upper south. Kansas or Missouri or something like that. Maybe Indiana or WV.
King of Ireland wrote:
You are being a bit melodramatic, King. C'mon.
All gwangung said was "Learn the concepts, learn the terminology. It's doable for a laymen (and that's part of how students become scientists).
There is nothing here about learning "everything" an expert needs to know. Ed doesn't know everything an expert would, nor do most of us who post here. But we do know the basics to varying degrees, and it wasn't always easy or apparent to us either.
We had to really work at it too. Aren't you a Calvinist of some sort anyway? Get crackin! Jesus loves it when you work!
Posted by: Leni | March 5, 2008 2:06 AM
Because it's not really their concern? Who are you pointing it out to and why should they care?
Are we talking about evolution here?
Well, "If" it is untrue can only be decided by someone in possession of the facts. If you aren't in possession of the facts (and by your writing, you aren't), why are you criticizing a system you cannot understand due to this lack of knowledge?
Actually, there really aren't.
Compare the Steve list to the Discovery Institutes list of "Darwin Doubters."
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Note that the Steve list includes *only* scientists with *relevant* degrees. The DI list includes everything from "food scientists" to mathematicians. I'm not even sure what a food scientist is, but I'm pretty sure he's no more an authority on evolution than a plumber.
And, yet, the Steve list, composed solely of scientists named Steve who are actually relevant to the question, has far more signers than the "doubter" list, taking all kinds of scientists with any name.
There just aren't many relevant scientists attacking evolution. There are lots of claimants, of course. Like the guy from the DI who got a degree specifically so he could say, "I have a biology degree and I don't believe in evolution!" That hardly makes him a practicing scientist. Probably the only major creationist I can think of with a genuine biology degree was Duane Gish, the biochemist. That's one. And that's a stretch, biochemistry isn't exactly conversant with natural selection the way some other biology disciplines are.
Greater than 99% of relevant scientists accept evolution. That's from all nations and all religions in the world. The people who deny evolution always argue that, shock!, their religion was right all along. You don't find any Buddhist evolution deniers finding evidence for a global flood. No Shinto evolution denier has said, "Wow, it looks like the Earth is 6000 years old." It just doesn't happen. This pattern makes it pretty clear: the only people denying evolution are doing so because of their pre-existing religious beliefs, not because the evidence is actually against evolution.
I would say the opposite: Simplicity points to intelligence. Brilliant designs are generally simpler than complex designs. I know that if I'm programming a routine, if I do it by introducing a complex mass of 5000 "if X=1, do this, if X=2, do this" lines, nobody is going to call me brilliant or my work intelligent. Making something work in the simplest manner possible is a mark of intelligent design. Excess and stupid complexity is the mark of random evolution.
What looks more intelligent, the complex eddies and swirls of a hurricane or the simple pattern of a flat concrete wall? I know, I'm stacking the deck with the question, since one is intelligently designed, but there you go. Complexity speaks of natural occurrence, mostly. That's why naturally simple things (such as crystals) stand out like a sore thumb. THOSE look intelligently designed. They aren't, but they sure do look it.
All very true. One of the real stumbling blocks for fundamentalism is that it depends on isolation. Us vs. Them. Exposure to Them makes Them harder to demonize.
For instance, I've heard a large number of fundamentalists (and even relatively liberal Christians) wax on about how depressed and unhappy people of other religions are. Sure, they may seem happy when you meet them, but since their religion offers them no support in life (it can't, it's false, duh!), they are, at their core, unhappy. When you your life surrounded by the like-minded, this is easy to believe. When you get out in the world and start meeting some of these people, making friends with them, and really getting to know them, well, it gets harder to support the lie.
I won't even get into the self-selecting bias of getting converts to lecture about how unhappy they were with their former religion because it was false. You don't think former Christian Muslims aren't making the same speeches to Islamic churches, do you?
Everything needs a source, until you get to quantum mechanics. Then you run into wacky stuff like virtual particles. They appear and disappear at random in the universe. No source. One moment you have void, the next you have a particle and an anti-particle. then they annihilate each other and you have void again. It all adds up to zero. Virtual particles have a life span inversely proportional to their mass. Bigger ones are rarer, but last longer. There's been some speculation that the universe itself might be one huge virtual particle waiting to be smacked by it's anti-particle...
What does "big picture person" even mean? I don't mean to offend (and I mean that seriously), but every single person I've known in real life who has proclaimed himself a "big picture person" has been a useless idiot who just wanted to pretend he was really important while everyone around him did all the work.
Actual conversation:
BPP: "I'm a big picture person. I'll steer the boat, you just move the rudder."
Me: "Moving the rudder is steering the boat."
BPP: "Right!"
Me: "So, I'm steering the boat."
BPP: "No, I'm steering the boat. You just move the rudder."
Me: "Which you've just agreed is the same thing as steering the boat."
BPP: "You're getting bogged down in details. That's why you need a big picture person."
Me: "To do what, exactly?"
BPP: "Steer the boat while you work the rudder."
Me: "Can we find a metaphor besides the one that hasn't worked three times now?"
BPP: "Sure. Um... I'll drive the car... no..."
Me: "You think up the metaphors, I'll do the work."
BPP: "Right! Exactly! That's why you need a big picture person!"
I worked at that company for a year. I mocked that man mercilessly every time we met. I don't think he ever noticed once.
I don't think you're this way, KoI. (You seem capable of typing complete sentences, for one thing. This guy's emails looked like a can of alphabet soup had gotten sick and threw up its contents into the Internet.) Further, I admit, I get bogged down in details to a detrimental level. I just don't know what "big picture person" is supposed to mean in any positive sense.
Now hold on here. I am on the Christian side. This debate isn't evolution vs. Christian. It's science vs. literalist religions of all stripes. There are Christians on the science side, there are non-Christians opposing evolution.
In all of the major court cases concerning evolution, the majority of the legal claimants fighting to get rid of creationism were Christian.
I pride myself on being able to explain anything I understand to just about anyone. I may not post with as much speed as some, but I try to be thorough and detailed, without using excess verbiage or technical terms I have not defined. If I fail in this, let me know.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 5, 2008 3:01 AM
Michael Behe also has a biochemistry degree, and he's a major creationist (given that ID is a form of creationism, which it is). But I'd say its at least debatable that bichemistry is actually a form of biology at all. Biochemists come mainly from a chemistry background, Behe does. As for Duane Gish, also B.S. in Chemistry, at UCLA in 1949.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 5, 2008 7:48 AM
I agree with this completely. While you can see KoI getting frustrated at times (which is understandable, since it's mostly a dozen people debating him at any given time), he has been able to keep patient with us.
He's yet to turn into the troll-type that gets upset and confused, and ends up lashing out saying we all deserve to be tortured in hell for not being Christians, or not being the right kind of Christian. Nah... he hasn't become tedious like mroberts, and I don't expect him to, either.
For the record, King, I respect you quite a bit. If I were to put myself in your shoes, I'd be more than a little bit intimidated having to learn on the fly in the middle of a debate. But you've shown signs of personal growth here on Ed's site, and for this I applaud you. You seem to be a right decent guy.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 5, 2008 8:40 AM
Surely I hope my impression has been wrong.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 5, 2008 8:50 AM
Pierce Butler: " for the second time - what subject(s) do you teach..."
To be fair, I asked him this on another thread (that I unfortunatly cant seem to find, these discussions seem to get quite long...) and he said he taught social studies, although I don't remember the level. He might not be answering you because he already answered me.
Posted by: jba | March 5, 2008 9:34 AM
King of Ireland: for the second time - what subject(s) do you teach, at which level, in what kind of institution, where?
Please answer the question (and without identifying details, if you prefer - e.g., "music in a Christian high school in Ohio").
I have not taught in 5 years. I gave it up to pursue missionary work. I left that last August and decided for sure not to go back to it in November. I taught 3 years of Elementary School. I taught all subjects. That is Reading, Math, and Science. I also taught one year of World Cultures in Middle School. All this was in Public Schools. My certification area is Social Studies with a concentration in History.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 5, 2008 11:20 AM
Because it's not really their concern? Who are you pointing it out to and why should they care?
I am talking about the powers that be in church organizations. They should care because it is their kids.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 5, 2008 11:22 AM
"We had to really work at it too. Aren't you a Calvinist of some sort "
No not a Calvinist. For the record I live in a big city in the East. I am not going to say anymore because I would like to get back into teaching and some of views on these things generate controversy and the schools at all cost avoid it. Why would people assume I was from the Midwest? I was more athiest than any of you most of my life.
"For the record, King, I respect you quite a bit. If I were to put myself in your shoes, I'd be more than a little bit intimidated having to learn on the fly in the middle of a debate. But you've shown signs of personal growth here on Ed's site, and for this I applaud you. You seem to be a right decent guy."
You are right this is not easy. But these are important subjects. The worst thing anyone can do is not find out what others think and why? I see so many pissing contests in the world today that could be solved if people sat down and really talked. I did not used to feel this way. I was bombastic and pushy all the time. Age takes some of it off but I think going to the Eastern Cultures really helped me see that not everything is black and white or us and them.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 5, 2008 11:32 AM
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 5, 2008 11:53 AM
But I stand by what I said about the post modern train coming by and the younger crowd getting on as people beat their chest and say listen to me I am the expert.
(Gee, who's driving that train, what are their motives, and why does it only show up when the topic is evolution? And where will that train go once the kids are on it?)
This is another "point" that KoI keeps coming back to -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of evolution, or what should be taught in schools. Basically, what KoI is saying, is if you challenge kids to learn something they don't already know, or try to tell them that they need to learn something in order to grow up, or do any work they don't wanna do, they will all get insulted and run away; therefore we have to kiss their fragile asses, treat them with kid-gloves 24/7, and never do anything that will damage their self-esteem by making them feel they're not just fine as they are. It's nothing but brain-dead postmodernism + spineless parenting + brain-dead self-serving anti-elitism; and it's trotted out ONLY when the subject is evolution. I certainly don't see anyone making the same "tell me what I wanna hear or I'll ignore you" threat toward ministers or Bible school teachers. Oh wait, actually I do: some dinky know-nothing Protestant churches are packed with lazy sods who ran away from smarter ministers who tried to tell them they had to actually LEARN about the WHOLE Bible, not ust the bits that reinforced their pre-existing prejudices.
This is one of the ways in which ignorant ministers attack honest science: by pandering to kids' laziness and encouraging them to reject any knowledge they find "too complicated" or "too much work." It is, to put it mildly, an example of negligent parenting and teaching, which KoI is now excusing because he cares more about bashing some "elite" than the welfare of schoolchildren.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2008 12:33 PM
King of Ireland: Thanks for the answer (though I have to wonder why you taught so much outside of your certified specialty).
Why is it that suddenly your spelling and syntax have improved so dramatically?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 6, 2008 10:51 AM