Dispatches from the Culture Wars

1

Ed:

Does "Dispatches" have an outreach and mentoring director? If not I'd like to volunteer Michael Heath for that position. He can contact Mr. Dumbski and match his students up with some easy "marks"--like, oh, I don't know, ME!--to hone their IDiotic arguing skills. Someone else should pop the corn.

Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 9:22 AM

3

"You are an expert witness in the Dover case."

Shouldn't that have been, "You have just run away from being an expert witness in the Dover case like a little school in a plaid skirt and pigtails, your heels clacking on the side walk, while you cry "Mommy, Mommy, Barbara Forrest is a mean lady!"

Posted by: Skip | August 11, 2009 9:33 AM

5

Not to distract from the astonishing inanity of Dembski and his site (my 'favorite' exam question being 'Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?' -- my jaw just dropped when I read that), but just to stay reality-based: Twitter posts are 140 characters, not 140 words.

Posted by: Squiddhartha | August 11, 2009 9:46 AM

7

As John Lynch astutely pointed out, Dembski is requiring his students to be trolls, which is the exact opposite of learning. Learning comes about when students actively engage in discussion, challenging the assumptions of others and having to defend their own assertions.

Posted by: Joe | August 11, 2009 9:48 AM

9

Sorry to be pedantic, Ed, but you need a correction in your post:

"That's 200 words each, or more than a third more than is required for a Twitter post."

Twitter post 140 characters, not 140 words. Anyways, this is no less idiotic because of that. And I thought we had bad education here...

Posted by: Guido | August 11, 2009 9:49 AM

11

Dembski, taking Piled Higher and Deeper to a whole new level since 2006.

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2009 9:57 AM

13

"That 2007 exam question was a thinly veiled plea for help with the next case he becomes an "expert witness" in. He was hoping for a student to come up with something better than what he had."

Really nothing new. Although perhaps not in this topic. I had more than one exam in Law School that just happened to be related to the topic the professor was currently or shortly about to be writing about.

Of course only the shady professors completely co-opt student ideas without attribution, the more ethical ones often contact the students who had good ideas and bring them on as research assistants for the article or project.

Posted by: Ben | August 11, 2009 10:01 AM

15

Dembski’s syllabus is legitimate. It is an apologetics course, which by definition, is defending the faith. So why would it surprise you that faith is an assumed part of the class, or that measurable interaction is required? Online interaction is a major part of 21st century debate. This is why you have a comments section. The bible study element is tactical. Christians are most likely to believe in ID because Christians believe in a providential deity. So a bible study curriculum is expected for those who will most likely serve in churches or ministries doing such work reaching out to those most likely to believe the theory. You’re a journalist, Ed. Southwestern is a seminary. Seminaries train ministers. Why is this laughable? I get your insult, but what exactly is your argument?

Posted by: Adam | August 11, 2009 10:16 AM

17

Ginger:

Please notice the doctorate is a DMIN. That stands for Doctor of Ministry. It is a professional doctorate, training men and women for the ministry where they will do things like develop religious curriculum. It is not a research doctorate, which means it is designed to train people for service in churches rather than the academy.

Posted by: Adam | August 11, 2009 10:55 AM

19

But in the final exam you need to explain how ID is not religious. Yo-yo.

Hey, nobody said you have to tell the truth. You only have to be convincing.

Posted by: Blondin | August 11, 2009 11:02 AM

21

Does this mean that our comments will be stuck in moderation behind comments that are displaying a bumper sticker that says, "Excuse us, please; Fuckhead in training aboard"

Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2009 11:09 AM

23

Adam @ 15:

In Ed's defense, I'd hazard that Ed is assuming that this forum is cognizant of Dembski's record on the proclaiming the subject of ID as science, where you appear mundanely ignorant of such claims. Otherwise I don't think a reasonable person would ask your questions (and since I don't know you, I assume you are reasonable):

1) In certain crowds Dembski argues that ID is science where he also falsely claims he uses only scientific methodologies to defend his so-called theory. Yet here we have Dembski treating ID not in any way remotely like science, but instead as a foundational plank one must defend like any other closely-held dogma. He is actually training people to make religiously-formatted arguments against evolution and for ID, rather than teaching scientific challenges. Dembski is treating ID like any lower-church quasi-theologian would (e.g., Albert Mohler), but this treatment is in no way consistent with scientific methodologies or his proclamations that it is. The dishonesty and hypocrisy surpasses Mt. Everest.

2) Dembski's asking his students to build a defense for a Dover-like trial is hilarious given that Dembski repeatedly and boisterously proclaimed a desire to get the question of whether ID is science argued in a court of law with him as a witness. When he had the opportunity to be such an expert witness on ID, he chickened out. Now he's asking his students to make a defense he himself was too scared to do. I wonder what Dembski would grade a paper turned in for such a project where the student's response was a one word recommendation, "Flee!".

I believe one can find other layers of humorous irony beyond my observations, Ed's, and other commenters responding to your query.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2009 11:40 AM

25

Ed, I gotta agree with Adam on this one. It is a seminary where their studies focus on made-up stories from long ago. Why in the world would you expect places like this to encourage rigorous academic inquiry?

Posted by: Tex | August 11, 2009 11:43 AM

27

The only reason people believe in evolution is because schools are socialist.

There, credit!

Posted by: Louis B. | August 11, 2009 12:17 PM

29

This story was covered on Slashdot as well (though it seems to have originally come from Dawkins's site).

Posted by: Steve Morrison | August 11, 2009 12:44 PM

31

Does this blog count as "hostile?"

If so, then how come there are still monkeys if we came from monkeys? How can a 200 amino acid protein evolve when the odds of that happening by pure chance are smaller than the Universal Probability Bound? If you have a mousetrap, and you take away any of its components, it ceases to work, because it's irreducibly complex. Explain how blind chance can evolve a mousetrap, evolutionists. It's like a tornado blowing into a scrapheap and assembling a Boeing 747. Now microevolution happens. A dust-devil blowing into a heap of sand can make an image of the Virgin Mary. That's microevolution. But that image of the Virgin Mary will never become a fish or a lizard. That's macroevolution, which is a Darwinian myth. And don't forget that lots of smart people believe in Intelligent Design, like Isaac Newton. These men looked at the evidence, and concluded there was a designer. You can't have design without a designer, that is fact, QED. And all the junk DNA we have is proof of a front-loading design, and since front-loading is a concept from engineering, this proves organisms are engineered. DNA contains complex specified information, and you can't have CSI without an intelligent design, because CSI doesn't come from necessity or chance, and intelligent design is the set-theoretic complement of necessity and chance. So there. And there are lots of gaps in the fossil record, which evolution can't explain, but ID explains quite well, because gaps are simply the set-theoretic complement of places where there are fossils, and evolution isn't even sophisticated enough to bring up set theory. And there are plenty of other things evolution can't explain either, like where did the universe come from, or where did matter and energy come from? Evolution is so limited, but see, ID explains all of this.

Man, I totally pass this class. Now I can get an entry-level shill-for-ID job.

Posted by: AL | August 11, 2009 1:50 PM

33

I've been in a class where I got credit for posting on the class blog and posting comments on my classmates' entries. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posted by: FishyFred | August 11, 2009 1:57 PM

35

What are the chances that David Moshinsky is one of these students... 20% of his way to getting him Masters degree in IDiocy??

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/mike_gene_admits_matzke_was_ri.php#comment-1808697

Seriously, why else would somebody pick on a year old thread and start throwing out creationist canards for no apparent reason?

Hey David... good luck getting a good job with your "degree". Hopefully the final exam will test you on the proper way to ask 'do you want fries with that?'
*snicker*

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 11, 2009 2:12 PM

37

Can you imagine a legitimate university course giving credit for comments left on blogs?

Yes, I can. Universities and colleges give credit for courses, with the specifications of the coursework left to the faculty. That does allow for slippage when there are lazy faculty members, but of course there are such out there.

What I find most disturbing about the blog comments requirement is not that they have to make blog comments, or that they are being asked to be trolls, but that they are told what side of the debate they must take. Requiring a particular ideological stance is simply illegitimate in higher education.

As to the number of required tasks for the class, it's not necessarily too low. I have classes where the only requirements are two tests and a paper. But what matters is how rigorous those tasks are. And given that the final exam question reproduced by Ed can only properly be answered by leaving the space blank, I doubt Dembski grades very rigorously.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 11, 2009 2:32 PM

39

>>The point is that there may be some seminaries that actually require work and thought from students, but this is not the case for dembski's diploma mill program. More importantly:
What is there about the "requiring the lackeys in class to be trolls" don't you get?

Dean, even if you are right that this class is too easy, it is only one class. If a person had a degree from Princeton but had one easy class, would that invalidate the degree or make it a "degree mill?" How do you know that the test does not require a great deal of work to pass? Charity is an important part of healthy debate, no? As for the lackeys comment, perhaps Dembski is wishing to establish that his students understand ID enough to defend it. This is a common debate tactic; knowing a side well enough to defend the position.

Geds, defending the faith is bull to you, but not to those who are preparing for ministry. Why belittle an institution for, um, fulfilling it's purpose? Southwestern exists to train ministers, and that is what they do. Princeton is a good school. Dembski went there. http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=800&enc=495E4B4A5433392C23442550435120415379

Tex, ID is not a made up story but a fairly new theory. You may disagree with it; that is OK. But dismiss it fairly, not by name calling. Whether or not you agree with ID, the way to go about it isn't by belittling the institution but by engaging the theory and exposing it as fanciful.

Michael, I am aware of ID's claim to be a scientific theory. Why do you think I am ignorant of ID? I do not assume you are ignorant of ID since you dissagree with it, so why are you assume that I am ignorant because I am more open to the claims? My point here is not to defend ID as legitimate science. My point here is to defend online engagement as a measurable interaction at a school designed to train christian ministers in a class on defending the christian religion. In short, I think Dembski's detractors are making a poor argument. But pointing out that Dembski is at odds with existing scientific methodologies is hardly incriminating. He may well be, but the real question is, what is wrong with the ID argument? I stake nothing in ID's success, only to say that attacking it as being at odds with science is hardly a defeater unless you belive the scientific community to be infallable, in which case, I would ask: Who is more religious, Dembski or you?

By the way, I am not posting for credit ;)

Posted by: Adam | August 11, 2009 3:57 PM

41

"Requiring a particular ideological stance is simply illegitimate in higher education."

Democommie: What if that stance is darwinian evolution? Still illegitimate?

Posted by: Adam | August 11, 2009 4:10 PM

43

"Requiring a particular ideological stance is simply illegitimate in higher education."

There is no such thing as an institution of higher education with no ideological stance. Believing there is requires an immeasurable level of naivete.

Posted by: Matt | August 11, 2009 4:19 PM

45

Adam @ 39 - We're laughing at Dembski's process for approaching ID, not ID argument itself, which we laugh at in other blog threads.

Ed's post is within the context of Dembski's past writings regarding not ID's legitimacy as a scientific theory which you repeatedly refer to, but instead Dembkski's wanting to have it both ways, i.e., sometimes ID is merely a competing scientific theory that will stand or fall based on its merits, other times ID is religious dogma, all depending on Dembski's crowd. After reading your last comment I'm not sure you are distinguishing between the two.

Re your statement to me:

I would ask: Who is more religious, Dembski or you?

This is a non-sensical response to Dembski's behavior vs. my responses to it and your posts here. Nothing I've written in this thread is remotely religious or religious-like in thinking. In fact, such a suggestion is most commonly associated with creationists whose arguments are failing on their merits - I have no idea what relationship it has to me. I'm pointing out that Dembski's actions here falsify previous arguments' he's made that ID is strictly a scientific theory which uses only scientific methodology within which to discover their so-called findings, where his only special pleading in such cases is "naturalism". I highly recommend reading Barbara Forrest's trial transcripts of the Dover Trial to get a handle on what I'm talking about if you are interested in that debate, which again, you appear to not be informed about, this is the same context Ed is framing his post in.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2009 4:37 PM

47

Dembski's test question is a good question. Has anybody seen any of the students answers and how they were graded. I hope the students understand as an expert witness your opponent gets to ask you questions and your answers must be truthfull. I think that where they got into trouble in Dover.

Posted by: bjohnson | August 11, 2009 5:11 PM

49

Phantomreader:

You say: "It's quite simple: It doesn't exist! There is not, never has been, and never will be an argument FOR Intelligent Design. Because Intelligent Design is not science, it's just creationism in a stolen, soiled labcoat."

You may think the argument is bad, but there is an ID argument. Have you read Dembski's monograph published by Cambridge University Press? You may dissagree with him, but there is an argument there (actually, there are several arguments from probability, randomness, background information, and the like). I encourage you to engage the arguments. It would be more productive and hey, isn't that what scholarship is all about?

Your second paragraph is simply not true. Again, read the CUP monograph! ID does not require any deity or supernatural creation! Evolution might have been guided by some advance advanced extra-terrestial computor program...that would be allowed by ID! You are arguing against a straw man. Again, I encourage you to engage ID and not divert attention with claims of creationism.

You say: "The problem with the "ID argument" is that no one has ever made an argument for ID, because the evidence would not support such an argument. "

Have you read "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities"? Chapter two argues for an explanatory filter to determine randomness and chapter three argues from probablity and background information. SO, it is untrue that there is no argument. You might not like his argument, but please engage the actual argument.

Posted by: Adam | August 11, 2009 5:39 PM

51

Adam #39:

Dean, even if you are right that this class is too easy, it is only one class. If a person had a degree from Princeton but had one easy class, would that invalidate the degree or make it a "degree mill?" How do you know that the test does not require a great deal of work to pass?

Then why is it only worth 30-40%, and the posting of comments on blogs is worth 20%? Why isn't it that the exam is worth at leat 50%?

Charity is an important part of healthy debate, no? As for the lackeys comment, perhaps Dembski is wishing to establish that his students understand ID enough to defend it. This is a common debate tactic; knowing a side well enough to defend the position.

But, from Dembski's requirements, posting a long-winded, 200 word comment that simply asserts ID is true, without actually providing any real arguments, then copy and pasting it to 10 different 'hostile' blogs would be enough to get that 20%.

Geds, defending the faith is bull to you, but not to those who are preparing for ministry. Why belittle an institution for, um, fulfilling it's purpose? Southwestern exists to train ministers, and that is what they do.

But we get told that ID is not religious in any way, and is very, very different to creationism, so why is it being taught in an institution that 'exists to train ministers', as you put it, instead of the Biblically-inspired creationism?

Princeton is a good school. Dembski went there. http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=800&enc=495E4B4A5433392C23442550435120415379

Yes, he got an an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, but, remember, ID is not religious, no sirree.

Tex, ID is not a made up story but a fairly new theory. You may disagree with it; that is OK.

ID is NOT a theory, new or otherwise. At best, it is an unproven hypothesis (and I'm probably being generous there).

But dismiss it fairly, not by name calling. Whether or not you agree with ID, the way to go about it isn't by belittling the institution but by engaging the theory and exposing it as fanciful.

Adam, this has already been done, ad nauseum. For example, see the evidence presented at the Dover trial. There, it was made abundantly clear that ID, as we know it today, is a disguise for creationism, and is in no way a 'scientific theory'. Highlights include Michael Behe's admission that, in order to include ID, he would have to define 'science' so loosely that astrology would qualify (and no, I don't mean astronomy, I mean astrology, as in horoscopes and such-like), and the discovery of the 'missing link' between creationists and design proponents - 'cdesign proponentsists' (printed in a 1987 edition of the textbook 'Of Pandas and People' - very popular in creationist and ID circles, before the Dover trial, at least).

I did actually formulate what would be a genuinely non-religious version of ID by simply taking the current one, including all the variations of it, and removing all references to religion in it. However, I think you'll agree it does not even remotely qualify as a 'theory':

An unknown Designer, of unknown origin, and unknown nature, designed and created life (possibly all, but maybe only some), using an unknown method at an unknown point in time in the past for an unknown purpose.

Michael, I am aware of ID's claim to be a scientific theory. Why do you think I am ignorant of ID? I do not assume you are ignorant of ID since you dissagree with it, so why are you assume that I am ignorant because I am more open to the claims?

If you are 'more open to the claims' that ID is science, then you obviously are ignorant of the fact that this claim has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked.

My point here is not to defend ID as legitimate science. My point here is to defend online engagement as a measurable interaction at a school designed to train christian ministers in a class on defending the christian religion. In short, I think Dembski's detractors are making a poor argument. But pointing out that Dembski is at odds with existing scientific methodologies is hardly incriminating.

How can ID be science if it disregards scientific methodologies? Answer: It can't. This is why Behe can only argue that ID is 'science' by radically redefining 'science'.

He may well be, but the real question is, what is wrong with the ID argument? I stake nothing in ID's success, only to say that attacking it as being at odds with science is hardly a defeater unless you belive the scientific community to be infallable

The scientific process and the scientific community are two different things. The scientific community is fallible. The scientific process is built to minimise or eliminate these fallibilities. This is why, for example, when you come up with a hypothesis, if you are a good scientist, the first thing you try to do is disprove it. This is also why, in essence, papers are published - it opens them up to the wider scientific community, so THEY can try and disprove the things in that paper. This is where the concept of 'falsifiability' comes in, and one of the two major areas ID falls down in (to me, anyway). ID is so nebulous and vague that it's not really possible to disprove it, even hypothetically. The other major area is simply 'evidence' - namely, that it has none.

Posted by: Zmidponk | August 11, 2009 6:02 PM

53

Michael,

Thanks for bringing up all the background info. But I am responding to what Ed actually wrote, which was an attack on the way Dembski structured his class.

My comment about religion was meant to point out the way in which you appear reverent or devout in regard to scientific methodology. ID is theory dependent, but so too is all science. The argument against ID here seems to go as follows: Science is the study of physical causes, ID theorizes a non-physical cause, therefore, ID is not science.

Did I get it right? So yes, ID would require an altered view of science, but insisting on your definition of science isn't exactly an argument against ID.

Posted by: Adam | August 11, 2009 6:05 PM

55

Adam #53:

My comment about religion was meant to point out the way in which you appear reverent or devout in regard to scientific methodology.

Well, I can't speak for Michael, but, speaking for myself, I am not 'reverent' or 'devout' about scientific methodologies - I accept the simple fact the scientific method has proven itself, again and again and again, to be the best way of finding out about the universe, and Id simply disregards it, seemingly because not doing so would mean you have to reject ID until you actually got some solid evidence, instead of a load of assumptions backed up with arguments steeped in logical fallacies, or arguments that are simply wrong.

ID is theory dependent

Correct - ID is dependant on the 'theory' that ID is true, because it can't actually base itself on evidence that doesn't exist.

but so too is all science

No, proper science is based on evidence and what can logically be extrapolated from that evidence. The nearest that ID gets to that is things that is extremely weak 'evidence' (to use that word in it's loosest possible sense), and circular logic like, 'let's assume there was a Creator. Given that assumption, this organism could be said to show evidence of the Creator's design, if you kinda looked at it sideways in a dimly lighted room, so therefore proves there was a Creator'.

The argument against ID here seems to go as follows: Science is the study of physical causes, ID theorizes a non-physical cause

You got it right there, but only by mistake. If ID really was non-religious, and even remotely scientific, it would postulate a cause of unknown nature, in the absence of evidence of the nature of that cause, but, as it really is religiously motivated, the cause is, indeed, of a 'non-physical' nature - namely, God. Of course, if it were completely scientific, in the absence of any evidence of the existence of that 'cause', it wouldn't even postulate there was such a 'cause' - but then, it wouldn't be ID.

Did I get it right? So yes, ID would require an altered view of science, but insisting on your definition of science isn't exactly an argument against ID.

It is an argument against ID being science, or in any way scientific. If you have to redefine the very basis of science to include ID, then it's fairly obvious it isn't science.

Posted by: Zmidponk | August 11, 2009 6:41 PM

57

Adam asid:

So yes, ID would require an altered view of science, but insisting on your definition of science isn't exactly an argument against ID.

No, but the fact that ID wants to undo over 400 years of progress by redefining science is a strong argument against it.

Early attempts to explain nature, including astrology and alchemy, involved both natural and supernatural forces. Such explanations do not accurately reflect reality. Our understanding of nature dramatically improved with the rise of scientific inquiry 400 years ago. The breakthrough that allowed science to succeed where previous methods failed was its reliance upon observation and empirical evidence and the abandonment of non-testable supernatural causes.

By focusing on natural causes, science has made amazing progress in understanding how the world works. Scientific knowledge is tied together in grand theories that explain broad swaths of nature. These theories, including the atomic theory of matter, evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics, are among mankind’s most outstanding and inspiring accomplishments.

Despite these great achievements, there is a political movement to undermine the empirical foundation of science by those who feel that its success somehow diminishes God. It is true that science has displaced humanity and Earth from the center of the universe. However, most theologians understand that science cannot address religious questions about the existence or nature of God, and scientific advances do not affect the spiritual realm. Science and religion can be reconciled by recognizing that they address non-overlapping areas of inquiry.

Denying or rejecting evolution, the only theory that explains both the unity and diversity of life, is bad enough. However, Dembski and the Discovery Institue have a larger goal in mind – reincorporating supernatural causes into science. They literally want return to methods of inquiry abandoned at the end of the Middle Ages.

The DI’s efforts are guided by the Wedge Document, a plan to wean science away from its reliance on natural causes. According to the document, they seek ‘nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”

Dr. Don McLeroy, former chair of the Texas State Board of Education, who apparently shares the Discovery Institute’s philosophy, has said “If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth—not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.” Spiritual questions are beyond its purview, but science can investigate some purported supernatural forces, such as clairvoyance, telekinesis, and astrological influences. None of these survive scientific scrutiny.

The Discovery Institute plans to ram their wedge in where they believe science is weakest, the theory of evolution. Evolution has survived rigorous scientific examination for 150 years. It has been strengthened, not weakened, by revolutionary advances in biological thought and technology, such as the elucidation of genetic principles in the early part of the 20th century and the current availability of entire genomes for an increasing number of species. Throughout all of these incredible advances, evolutionary theory has become more robust and developed even greater explanatory power.

There are still many unanswered questions in evolution, such as whether mutations in the protein coding regions or the regulatory regions of genes are more important, but no matter how answers to any of the current questions turn out, they are unlikely to overturn a theory that has survived and thrived for so long.

Nearly all who reject evolution do so not because of scientific objections, but because it is inconsistent with literal interpretations of both creation stories in Genesis. However, St. Augustine cautioned against taking the accounts too literally, as this would look foolish to pagans, who would then dismiss deeper spiritual truths. More recently, 12,000 Christian clergy signed a similar statement through the Clergy Letter Project, which reads,

… We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children… We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

It is truly disheartening to see dishonest attempts by Dembski to convince others to completely reject science and the advances it has achieved at a time when society isincreasingly dependent on the generation and application of scientific knowledge.

Posted by: Tex | August 11, 2009 6:54 PM

59

So how close is Adam to getting credit for the course, that's the only explanation for his thickheadedness

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 11, 2009 8:24 PM

61

He will need to throw in some basic math skills too.

He should also avoid my library there are Muslims, Catholics and even atheist who work together as librarians. Very scary to the average RW ID believing Christain. Don't want to scare him off so early in his studies into a much larger, more exciting and sometimes scarier world.

Posted by: theroachman | August 11, 2009 8:47 PM

63

Oh, and this-
ID is "scientific" the same way that I am a "musician".

If you allow me to completely redefine "music", of course.

Posted by: Rick R | August 11, 2009 9:05 PM

65

Re Shawn Smith @ 64

Point taken. However, I believe I have read articles on his blog about information theory about which he seems knowledgeable. Certainly Dumbski doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground in information theory as he is totally unable to define what he means by information. Whatever he means,it is neither Kolmogorov or Shannon information.

Posted by: SLC | August 11, 2009 10:18 PM

67

Are the kids flunking school? Send 'em to Dembski where they're guaranteed to get an A+ for being a moron! The only thing is they still don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting a decent job afterwards - but they could always become a pentecostal minister and fleece the more gullible.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 12, 2009 12:47 AM

69

Adam "Dembski’s syllabus is legitimate…"
Tsk, tsk! That's only 132 words. Plus most of it wasn't about ID (not to mention the fact that you never mentioned Darwin-to-Hitler once!). It's gonna take more work than that for you to pass Dembski's course…
"By the way, I am not posting for credit ;)"
Too bad. You're up to 570 words already.
"You say…"
815 words.
"Evolution might have been guided by some advance advanced extra-terrestial computor program...that would be allowed by ID!"
Um. Yeah. Just look how big the "big tent" of ID really is when the Raelians ask for a seat at the table.
"You are arguing against a straw man."
Arguing against it as it's argued by its supports is not strawman'ing. The most common ID arguments are roughly the same as they were back when ID was Creation Science, except that they've replace biblical passages with "fun with math" and scientifical terminology.
"Thanks for bringing up all the background info."
932 words.

Blondin "Hey, nobody said you have to tell the truth. You only have to be convincing."
That's pretty much the definition of apologetics, isn't it?

KKairos "Dembski might do more good by teaching his students to think critically about the issue at hand."
But then they'd probably become "Darwinists"!

Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 12, 2009 5:13 AM

71

Adam--

What makes you think noone has argued against "darwinian" evolution? There are many instances where all working biologists now agree Darwin's theory was either incomplete or just plain wrong.

Charles Darwin failed to find the actual mechanism of inheritance. Mendel's genetics and later Watson and Crick's discovery of the actual structure of the gene therefore radically changed the "darwinian" theory of evolution. (There is a new revolution going on right now, as evo-devo theory finds the driving force in evolution is not necessarily mutations in genes, but more often mutations in the DNA controlling genes, which alter which genes get expressed, where and when.)

Darwin posited that natural selection was the main (although not the sole) drive behind evolution. The current understanding of neutral mutations and genetic drift is therefore non-darwinian evolution.

Darwin believed the continents have always been in their current locations but the ocean floors rose and fell. The current evidence for plate tectonics specifically contradicts Darwin's writing on this topic.

Darwin accepted Charles Lyell's theory of "uniformitarianism" as opposed to Agassiz and others' "catastrophism." The modern scientific consensus is that catastrophic extinction events have, in fact, occurred from time to time.

Darwin never wrote about prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells but the current evidence is that eukaryotic cells did not evolve gradually through mutation and natural selection from prokaryotes, but began as symbiotic communities of prokaryotes.

Also, bacteria don't merely evolve by the natural selection of mutated genes. It's now known they share genes around, even between species.

ALL of the above examples are later corrections and extentions of Darwin's theory. In fact, a biology student who insisted on strictly adhering to "darwinian" evolution would not be able to make it through any accredited university.

The idea that the theory of evolution is some sort of sacred cow that can't be touched is a creationist lie. The reason the theory of evolution hasn't been knocked down is that any time solid counter-evidence has appeared, the scientific community has incorporated it into the theory. If ID did the same, it would be as scientific as evolutionary theory. Of course, if ID really was changed to fit the evidence, it would BE evolutionary theory.

(--sigh-- Yes, I know Adam with respond, if at all, with a non sequitur. That's why I hardly ever post any more. But I keep hoping there might be somebody out there who will listen to reason. --sigh--)

Posted by: hoary puccoon | August 12, 2009 10:18 AM

73

Adam whined @ #49:

You may think the argument is bad, but there is an ID argument.

Adam, you just don't get it. I'm not at all surprised by this, of course, not getting it is mandatory for membership in your cult. I doubt you'd be capable of understanding what I'm saying if you tried, but there's no real way to know because you'll never even try.

Dembski does make "arguments" (I use the term loosely). They are bullshit, stupid, often astoundingly dishonest "arguments", founded on false premises and supported by not the slightest speck of evidence. But I'll grant that they marginally qualify as "arguments". However, not a single one of them is an argument for Intelligent Design.

Dembski's "arguments" are all against evolution. They've also all been debunked long ago, by people far more knowledgable on the subject than you or I, not that much knowledge is necessary as these "arguments" fall apart if examined closely.

But the fact that you refuse to understand is that neither Dembski nor any other creationist has ever so much as tried to argue in favor of any form of creationism, ID or otherwise. All they do is try desperately, dishonestly, and incompetently to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution, and then demand that they be allowed to win by default. It doesn't work that way.

Adam whining again:

Have you read "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities"? Chapter two argues for an explanatory filter to determine randomness and chapter three argues from probablity and background information.

I haven't read the book, because I have better things to do with my time and money. If you'll send me a free copy and pay me at my overtime rate, I'll consider it. But then knowing that lying comes as naturally to a creationist as breathing I could never trust you to pay up.

But I am familiar with these "arguments" from reading reviews and the mindless parroting of them by creationist trolls such as yourself. And none of them are arguments FOR ID. All are arguments AGAINST EVOLUTION. There is no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of any kind of designer, nor to explain how it did all this supposed designing, nor why it made such bizarre design decisions as have been extensively documented elsewhere. All there is is a bait-and-switch; pretend the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, pretend everything science has shown us about biology is a ridiculously elaborate hoax, and then declare, apropos of nothing, without the slightest speck of evidence, that GODDESIGNERDIDIT!

Creationist arguments from probability take the following form:

"It's 'too improbable' that X evolved, therefore GODDESIGNERDIDIT!"

ALL creationist arguments from probability boil down to exactly that, no matter how much flowery language it's dressed up in. Even if the premises were true (and they aren't, but I'll get to that later), the conclusion doesn't follow. There's no effort to look for an explanation, just a declaration that evolution can't explain it, so it must have been the magic sky fairy.

Another problem with these arguments from probability is that they get the probability wrong, through either gross incompetence or deliberate lying. Creationists fudge the data to create ridiculous numbers, make up probability boundaries out of whole cloth, and base their calculations on strawman versions of evolution (sometimes using multiple incompatible strawmen). Creationist arguments from probability use bogus math and rhetorical tricks to run a bait-and-switch, pretending that if they can just discredit science their pet mythology will magically become real. But they don't actually even come close to demonstrating that said mythology has any basis at all in fact. That part is completely left out, just ignored, they run away from their only chance to substantiate their claims.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 12, 2009 10:54 AM

75

A hopeful thought, although it's more likely he filled his quota of blog comments and has moved on to the essay.

Posted by: Ramel | August 12, 2009 2:00 PM

77

Wait.

You can get a masters degree from trolling science blogs?

Umm....

Evilution is only a theory that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics while encouraging sex, drugs, rock and roll, and Hitler, which obviously shouldn't be taught to kindergarteners so therefore creatio....intelligent design should be allowed in schools.

Degree plz.

Posted by: FosterDisbelief | August 13, 2009 10:11 AM

79

I suspect Dr. Dembski's students will have more cogent and relevant remarks than the vast majority of intellectually void comments I've read here. I've never seen a more obvious circle-the-wagons mentality than when Darwinian True Believers are confronted with the many holes in their religious belief. I suppose Dawkins with his combative and profoundly ignorant "God Illusion" sets the tone.

When science becomes a religion, it's bad for both science and religion. Of course, there is none so blind as he who will not see. Few DTBs have even the basic self-awareness or intellectual honesty to recognize that they crossed that line long ago.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 15, 2009 9:46 AM

81

"ID's rephrasing of Creation Science's rephrasing of Creationist's arguments doesn't improve them." Nor does intentional misrepresentation of the science behind ID theory. I don't know if you repeat that canard because you are ignorant of the underlying science or because all DTBs eventually figure out that red herrings and straw men are the most effective arguments they have. As you correctly observed, "Ignorance of a subject does not refute it." You haven't refuted ID.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 16, 2009 1:04 PM

83

Point of order: "Nor does intentional misrepresentation of the science behind ID theory"

ID has no science behind it, and does not qualify as a theory in any scientific sense (at best you could call it a hypothesis), so it is in fact not possible misrepresent ID "theory".

Posted by: Ramel | August 16, 2009 7:05 PM

85

Sorry but as they say that's not even wrong. If life was designed there would in fact be evidence, ID propenents have tried to put forward a couple of predictions which would have provided support for ID. For example the Irreducable Complexity argument, had ID proponants demonstrated examples of irreducible complexity it would have strongly supported their hypothesis. The failed. Multiple times. The eye, blood clotting, immune system and bacterial flagellm were all put forward and knocked down one by one. The scientific merits of ID were evaluated right there, and found wanting. Oh and Dawkins book that you mention in post #79? That would be the god delusion I'm going to go ahead and guess you haven't actually read it.

Posted by: Ramel | August 16, 2009 10:32 PM

87

Steve Jones "The fact is that DTBs' worldview renders them utterly incapable of evaluating the scientific merits of ID."
What, that the only correct supernatural answer is all of them?
"If you'd care to see this article of faith spelled out by multiple academies of science and Nobel laureates, see the NAS et al amicus curiae brief in Edwards v. Aguilera."
Um, Edwards v. Aguillard?

Ramel "The eye, blood clotting, immune system and bacterial flagellm were all put forward and knocked down one by one."
Luckily, since they now know that there is information about such things (as Behe found out on blood clotting at Dover), we never hear about these examples anymore...

Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 16, 2009 11:17 PM

89

"and it took a while to click in, but of all the cases you could've brought up, why in the Intelligent Designer's name did you pick Edwards v. Aguillard?"

Thanks for correcting my spelling. I brought it up instead of eyes, clotting, stasis, or other specific questions because there is something much greater at stake. According to the brief,

Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena. Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations....

Science seeks only naturalistic explanations. Sounds reasonable, but it isn't. The a priori assumption is that a naturalistic explanation exists for every natural phenomenon (i.e. observed event in the "physical world"). If evidence points to a supernatural cause, science won't bow out of the investigation but will continue to pursue (and promote) a naturalistic one - whether one exists or not. (The state of modern science is such that any crappy naturalistic explanation is better than admitting the possibility of a supernatural one.)

Now you might claim that these scientists just made a simple statement of fact because "natural" (phenomena) is identical in meaning to "naturalistic" (explanations). If that were the case, however, the statement would be tacitly acknowledging the possibility of non-natural phenomena that might also be observed in the physical world (otherwise, why qualify it?). The original statement could then be recast as something like "science looks for naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena but does not look for non-naturalistic explanations for non-natural phenomena".

But that would introduce the fundamental problem of categorization - how could science, without determining all of their causes, possibly separate the non-natural phenomena from the natural ones and study only those? The inability to categorize the observed phenomena would leave science with no legitimate areas of inquiry. That position would obviously be untenable, so the signatories to this brief did the best they could; they punted.

More specifically, they created the (possibly false) impression that any phenomenon that occurs in the physical world is both "natural" and subject to a "naturalistic explanation". But there's that sneaky a priori assumption again - based only on philosophy, not science. The assumption is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. And it's not falsifiable because science specifically declares that any effort to falsify it is outside the bounds of science! Neat.

The brief also claims that "without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith." But of course it doesn't. Whether it's rooted in petulant hatred of God and his followers (Dawkins) or simple hubris, many scientists do indeed pass such judgments. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of epistemology knows that there are ways of knowing other than the scientific method (and a seriously compromised one at that). When scientists become amateur philosophers and operate on the ridiculous assumption that theirs is the only way of knowing, their credibility suffers.

There's a reason the public does not trust science as it once did. Arrogant scientists will look outward and blame it on public stupidity, Walmart, and talk radio. Smart scientists will look inward to see if they've overstepped their bounds, particularly their own. Science has been defined by a majority of its practitioners (by no means unanimously) as an endeavor that by definition must always reject ID and must always support a naturalistic explanation even if it is repeatedly shown to be fatally flawed barely credible.

Why would anyone - whether they have confidence in other ways of knowing or not - trust such an enterprise?

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 17, 2009 3:41 PM

91

Steve, what qualifies as supernatural? How do you define the the term? If miricles happen in this our natural world then would they not qualify as natural? The simple fact is that if god existed the it would in fact be natural, all supernatural ever seems to mean is bollocks with no supporting evidence that, if true, would contradict what we know about the universe. And would you care to elaborate on those "other ways of knowing" that actually work that I may have missed with my obvioulsy poor knowlege of epistemology? And your misscharacterisation of science betrays your ignorance of the way science actually works.

Posted by: Ramel | August 17, 2009 4:11 PM

93

I didn't assert any specific evidence. I pointed out that loads of academies of science and Nobel laureates have already determined that (a) such evidence cannot exist or (b) it is the job of science to ignore any that appears and forge ahead with a naturalistic explanation whether one exists or not. This is akin to Lewis and Clark determining that the headwaters of the Missouri River are to be found in the Mojave Desert and therefore (a) the river will not lead them to the northwest or (b) if does, they will ignore the river and seek its headwaters in California anyway.

BTW, I know you didn't mention Richard Dawkins, but I just noticed that on the cover of his new book, he promotes himself as "the most formidable intellect in public discourse". That's hilarious! I doubt he's the "most formidable intellect" in the cab when he's riding alone in a taxi. If you have to tell people you have a "formidable intellect", you probably don't.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 17, 2009 4:23 PM

95

So you don't trust scientists because they won't "bow out" of an investigation when evidence you can't cite, but seem to think exists anyway, shows up. That sounds more like Lewis and Clark ignoring the native myths about Missouri River being endless and seeking it's source anyway.

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 17, 2009 4:53 PM

97

I didn't assert any specific evidence.

Yes, we noticed that. And it's probably because you don't have any evidence to support any of your assertions.

I pointed out that loads of academies of science and Nobel laureates have already determined that (a) such evidence cannot exist...

No, dumbass, "loads of academies of science and Nobel laureates" have determined that no such evidence has ever been found, and that supernatural explanations have consistently failed in the past. And since you've offered absolutely nothing to counter this determination, there's really nothing to argue about, is there?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 17, 2009 5:15 PM

99

@Steve Jones, your post is so full of errors that it's difficult to figure out whether you're simply ignorant of the facts or blatantly lying. Perhaps you can help clarify this point?

Which theory of evolution would that be? Surely not Darwin's; he predicted ample fossil evidence to support his theory.

Nope. Darwin pointed out that fossilization is a rare occurence, and in fact predicted that few fossils would be found. I chalk this up to ignorance: or would you care to support your case?

Hmm; well maybe not. Punctuated equilibrium? Talk about a "God of the gaps" theory.

Since punctuated equilibrium is simply a model that explains observable fossil evidence, it is part of the same theory of evolution (which has moved on considerably from Darwin - unlike Christianity which was born and died with Paul)

Evolutionary theory is a patchwork of papered-over flaws and plugged leaks.

A lie. Show these flaws and leaks. Cite actual evidence. Y'know, evidence? The thing that scientists use? The thing that everyone uses but theists tend to ignore?

Throw in the inability to distinguish between observed adaptations within a species (peppered moths) and hoped-for transitions to new ones (none yet) with a dollop of snake oil (Haeckel's embryos, Ida) and bingo!

Your first point is a lie: we understand what adaptation of moth coloration is; apparently you don't. Ida? A real find with real meaning. Just throwing out a name your heard somewhere in the hopes that will make you look as if you know what you're talking about won't work here.

We're educated. You're not.

But the point of post #89 was to elaborate on my earlier comment (#84) about science's inability to evaluate evidence of ID. I'm sure most of you smart folks are aware of the evidence presented for ID and are confident that it has been refuted.

What we are aware of is that NO evidence has been presented for ID. None. If you're aware of any, please feel free to present it, but I caution you, the odds that you know something that millions of hard-working scientists don't is pretty darn slim.

Put or shut up, child. Or be dismissed as the ignoramus that you present yourself to be. But don't pretend that you can argue without showing evidence.

But you are predisposed to favor the evidence against rather than the evidence for. Repeating ad infinitum the mantra that the evidence is "no evidence" is just rhetoric.

You got it? You show it. Certainly Dembski hasn't (he's never demonstrated that anything has CSI, for example); Behe hasn't (he even admitted in "Darwin's Black Box" that irreducibly complex structures could evolve); who else is there? Stephen Meyers? No evidence.

That's all we're looking for, child. Real evidence. You got some, we're willing to look at it. But you haven't shown any yet.

The fact that science is predisposed to deny ID strips it of all credibility when it - predictably - denies ID.

But science isn't predisposed to this. You say things like this because you're not a scientist, and apparently know nothing about how science is done. 'sides, we already know that ID takes place: ants do it; beavers do it; crows do it; humans do it; other apes do it. What the ID movement (radical theists that is does consist of to be sure) claims is something totally different.

Which you would know if you actually knew anything about ID; but I'm beginning to suspect you don't.

The fact that science is predisposed to pursue any naturalistic explanation whether it is plausible or not strips it of all credibility when it - predictably - defends the Darwinian house of cards.

What an ignoramus you are, to be sure. Science deals in testable explanations, period. That ensures its credibility (as does the fact that science, unlike religion, say, actually works. It can answer questions. Religion can't)

Imagine a potential juror saying "I have a completely open mind on this case, yer honor, and I hope the lousy SOB fries." That's science evaluating ID. Everything I've seen so far confirms that observation.

What a pity you've only consulted coloring books.

I have no skin in the ID game.

You've no skin in the science game, either. Everything you've said makes it clear that you understand neither science nor logic.

But everyone suffers when the credibility of science is eroded by extravagant claims and the suppression of opposing views (i.e. editors getting fired or professors denied tenure for publishing peer reviewed articles that don't agree with current orthodoxy).

Another lie. Never happened. Prove it. See? We're just looking for evidence, child.

I'm fairly confident that Darwin will go the way of the flat Earth crowd in the next 20 years.

The demise of the TOE has been predicted for a century and a half. But every year it gets stronger and better supported (go check pub med if you don't believe me - but then you'd have to read and evaluate the papers there. You might not have the education to do that).

But if evolutionists can actually come up with some evidence of their own and show one species actually evolving into another that'll be fine with me.

Every fossil ever unearthed is evidence. Every gene sequence ever done is evidence.

We have facts. You've got ignorance.

Guess who's winning?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 17, 2009 5:37 PM

101

Steve Jones - my mama knows the bare rudiments of golf. You talking science is like my mama trying to tell Tiger Woods what he lacks understanding on regarding the game of golf.

You may not perceive your ignorance on matters of both scientific methodology, its inherent strengths, and on matters of the TOE and ID, but we can certainly evaluate your credentials in your posts, which is worse than zero but instead just plain wrong. I'd say my mama is better equipped to give Tiger an earful than you do to us.

Man-up and crack some books. Those of us who've done the hard work understanding science and its findings find it repugnant that people like yourself make false claims discredited long ago and then work to influence others on these matters in spite of your ignorance. I personally find that evil given it greatly helps limit the educational and career opportunities of children who are pressured to conform to their faith communities ignorant, and idiotic delusions, such as those you've spewed here.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 17, 2009 6:22 PM

103

It's when Steve says stuff like this:

Science has been defined by a majority of its practitioners (by no means unanimously) as an endeavor that by definition must always reject ID and must always support a naturalistic explanation even if it is repeatedly shown to be fatally flawed barely credible.

that you think he's probably a POE.

Science has NOT been defined this way, Steve. If you claim otherwise, SHOW IT. SHOW THE EVIDENCE.

And science knows that ID IS behind a number of artifacts in the real world. So science CANNOT BE dogmatically claiming ID is impossible. If you claim otherwise, SHOW IT. SHOW THE EVIDENCE.

Evolution has never been shown to be fatally flawed. Ever. If you claim otherwise, SHOW IT. SHOW THE EVIDENCE.

That's all we want, Steve. Evidence from you.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 17, 2009 6:50 PM

105

Well, now that we're reduced to invective and personal attacks, it's probably time to agree to disagree. I'm disappointed that no one really tried to refute - or even much address - anything I said about science and its limitations. This is not unexpected because most DTBs are unable to see the forest beyond their favorite twig on their favorite branch on their favorite tree. It is such closed minds and narrow perspectives (not "IDiots" and religious fanatics) that threaten the ability of science to serve us in the future as wonderfully and surprisingly as it has in the past.

I'm not sure why such topics as the limitations of science or its important but not imperial place in the intellectual landscape seem so hard to communicate in cyberspace. I know scientists are capable of understanding such things because I've had interesting and productive discussions with science faculty at the public universities where I've taught. But on the Internet, not so much. I suspect it's simply a matter of hubris: "WRT the physical world, science is all knowing and all powerful (and by extension I am too), so don't tell me there are questions beyond my grasp."

I do think that Michael Heath @101 illustrates another problem with discourse on this subject. Your silly comment about "faith communities [sic] ignorant, and idiotic delusions, such as those you've spewed here" is quite revealing. You have no idea what my religious views are because I have been careful not to inject them into this discussion - it wasn't I who made reference to the "Intelligent Designer". If you're looking for a source of ignorant delusions, look in a mirror. A lot of DTBs react to what they imagine they heard or read rather than what was actually spoken or written. It's much easier to repeat a canned insult than it is to "man up" and "do the hard work" of producing a thoughtful response.

But the comment did remind me that I misspoke myself in in #89; I should have written "Arrogant scientists will look outward and blame it on public stupidity, Walmart, talk radio, and religion."

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 17, 2009 7:35 PM

107

Steve, you said:

Science seeks only naturalistic explanations. Sounds reasonable, but it isn't. The a priori assumption is that a naturalistic explanation exists for every natural phenomenon (i.e. observed event in the "physical world"). If evidence points to a supernatural cause, science won't bow out of the investigation but will continue to pursue (and promote) a naturalistic one - whether one exists or not. (The state of modern science is such that any crappy naturalistic explanation is better than admitting the possibility of a supernatural one.)

Okay, let's presume this is true (I'm an open-minded guy and used to be sympathetic to ID). You have a suspicion that science is disregarding some supernatural cause for a natural one. Which instance would this be? Surely you aren't proposing that science is always overlooking a supernatural cause for a natural one - that would make science's purpose rather useless. So if there is some specific instance where "science" is disregarding a supernatural cause, what is it? Show us the evidence that is being disregarded.

Of course, there is no monolithic "science," and the "science" supposedly behind "ID theory" would suffer from the same problems if so, or (as you suggest) it wouldn't be science. So right now, you haven't made any sort of coherent case for ID - which you shouldn't take too hard, since no one has ever managed to make a coherent case for ID based on first principles or on the evidence.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 17, 2009 8:00 PM

109

Steve Jones - I've seen zero evidence of anyone besides religionists misrepresenting science and the evidence for evolution when it comes to looking at this from the perspective of a movement; a movement whose talking points you repeat as if we'd never heard this idiocy prior to you. Given you've shown you have no clue regarding what science is and where we stand on the evidence for evolution - I stand by my point. The Creationist/ID movement is a movement that abuses children. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with actual, authentic science and its understandings.

In addition your comment that no one has not directly engaged you on the merits of your arguments regarding science and evolution is an out-right lie, at least Rilke's Granddaughter and Abby Normal have directly falsified many of your claims. Add liar to your collection of attributes.

I've long run out of patience fisking the ignorance and dishonesty by Creationists such as yourself; I've become increasingly jaded people like you can be rehabilitated from your delusions and the harm you cause our society, especially its children. Crack some books on science and get a clue, your ignorance and dishonesty reeks; my confidence you're able to take this advice approaches zero.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 17, 2009 9:34 PM

111

I see no evidence in any of these discussions that any evolutionist of any stripe has ever considered the possibility that there might not exist a naturalistic explanation of speciation.

Almost every one before darwin believed in a supernatural creation, when darwin released his idea into the scientific comunity he backed it with a large amount of evidence. This is what moved the scientific consensus from god-did-it to the current dominance of the theory of evolution. The idea of a design was not just considererd at great length, but was in fact the mainstream veiw for most of human history.

For example, the 18th century deists (Thomas Jefferson et al) believed that there a supreme being who created the universe and has left it alone ever since. That is a plausible explanation for the origin of the singularity that the big bang model proposes and leaves room for evolution by any means at all.

Deism is not really relevent, for a start it does not in fact contradict observed reality in the way ID does. Deism is philosophically interesting, but until some one comes up with an idea of how a deistic universe would differ from an atheistic universe, and how such an idea could be tested, deism is scientifically irrelevent. ID on the other hand does make claims, that have been examined. And found wanting. Repeatedly.

When encountering nearly any object, the first question out of an archaeologist's mouth is "are there signs of intelligent design?"

Analogy Fail. Archaeologists are specifically looking for evidence of prior human activity, that question is asked in an attempt to eliminate the possibility that the arrow head that has just been found is in fact just a triangular rock. The problem is that sometimes things can appear to be designed when they are not.

Posted by: Ramel | August 17, 2009 10:46 PM

113

And one last thing I missed:

Of course, the implication assumed by most people who use terms such as "IDiot" is the literally-interpreted Biblical story of creation, a much less plausible explanation.

Without the biblical interpretation where would the question of a designer come from? There simply would not be a serious debate on the subject, people who thought we appeared by magic would be considerd little different to those who still claim that the earth is flat.

Posted by: Ramel | August 17, 2009 10:56 PM

115

Well, now that we're reduced to invective and personal attacks...

This is how creationists and other con-artists admit they've lost an argument: by pretending they've heard nothing but insults, even when it's obvious their arguments have been conclusively addressed and refuted.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 17, 2009 11:16 PM

117

@Michael Heath
"I've long run out of patience fisking the ignorance and dishonesty by Creationists such as yourself; I've become increasingly jaded people like you can be rehabilitated from your delusions and the harm you cause our society, especially its children. Crack some books on science and get a clue, your ignorance and dishonesty reeks; my confidence you're able to take this advice approaches zero."

Do you ever encounter these people in real life? I never do. The only place I ever meet creationists is online. The solution to that problem is, of course, very simple.

Maybe it's the intellectually liberal area where I live. I suppose if I resided in the puportedly "backwards" South or Great Lakes, or Rocky Mountains, or anywhere else but the left coast, I'd meet more of them. If so, I'd probably exercise the U-Haul option, just because I find it easier to move myself than to move others.

I also think it's that pernicious effect of being anonymous online: It allows people to persist in their bad behavior much longer than they would if they were talking eye to eye and belly to belly.

Think about the arguments you've seen in blogs and comments. If someone spoke to me that way for that long, one or both of us would end up in the ER, or, more likely, I'd walk out of the room and the conversation would end. If the person kept hounding me, that'd be grounds for a restraining order.

It's like that experiment where people hid behind a screen and thought they were shocking others to get them to perform some task better. The data was interpreted to indicate that the test subjects would increase the voltage to very painful levels (they thought) because they didn't have to face the (actor) trainees.

Commenting online is the same way. Anyone can write the most abusive and/or insane crap about anyone or anything and it doesn't matter. There is zero consequence.

Someone can post that they are they want to peel the skin from you eyes and stuff a pike up your nose, then go back to selling flowers to grandmas after their lunch break is over. It's all pretend. The people on the receiving end of the post are imaginary, so one can imagine them to be deserving of the most vile invective and abuse, pile on that abuse and... nothing will come of it.

In other words, it ain't worth getting your panties in a knot.

Posted by: OmegAlpha | August 18, 2009 12:17 AM

119

Here's the thing Steve - either you're here to actually discuss something like an adult, or you're a troll. If you're a troll, we don't care. Trolls are pointless to discuss things with because trolls can't support any of their claims and ignore questions.

Now you've made some claims here about both science and scientists which are, at best, flatly wrong, and at worst utterly dishonest.

You have been requested to support your claims. An honest person would.

Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | August 18, 2009 2:26 AM

121

I also think that Steve's ignorance of how scientists work is tripping him up. The very concept of "monolithic" science (at least in the bio area where my research is done) is ludicrous. The whole point is to find something interesting the new to undercut the guy in the next lab. That's what makes science "fun" in a way - it's less like a priesthood and much more like a game of Killer.

I mean, consider Steve's comment

I would argue that there is indeed a sort of "monolithic science" in that there are generally accepted ways of doing things and of evaluating results and that any deviation is met with scorn (often rightfully so).

The only "deviations" that are met with scorn are those which produce no results or are identifiably "pseudo-science".

And I don't believe that body of scientific thought, methodology, purpose and structure is equipped to confront the possibility of ID.

I'm sorry, but this remark is based on sheer ignorance and confusion. Consider aphids - an experiment in stock breeding by ants. Consider crows and their tools. Consider the very topic that Darwin thought about when developing his theory - stock breeding by humans. We confront ID in science all the time. What we don't do is confront an assertion of ID without any supporting evidence. And that's what the ID movement is peddling.

I also believe there is a substantial number - probably a majority - of scientists who are personally unable to see beyond the possible religious implications of ID to honestly ask if a specific application of ID theory is plausible.

Again, your beliefs - as a non-scientist - are based on your ignorance (unless, of course, you can substantiate them with actual evidence). Most scientists have never heard of ID (in the sense that the Dembski crowd means it) and couldn't care less - what they want to see is actual, verifiable "stuff" - something the ID crowd has never, ever supplied. The few that have heard of it generally want the same, but they've seen enough vacuous claims by the ID advocates to make them wary.

Instead, they react with non-scientific (and often irrational) invective.

The only appropriate response to someone who makes vast claims with theological implications (and we know that at least the ID advocates in the states are driven by their religious beliefs) WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP ANYTHING is derision.

What would your reaction be to someone who told you that software code couldn't do certain things and the only alternative was supernatural intervention?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 9:50 AM

123

Grandaughter and dogmeatib - both excellent posts. The correct response by Steve Jones is to man-up (do the work we've done) and bone-up (become informed rather than remaining ignorant) on:

1) Scientific methodology
2) Evolution
3) ID/Creationism in light of the scientific process and the evidence against it and for evolution.

I would provide a reader's list if he was up for it. But like any good ideologue, I have little confidence he wants to actually understand what he opposes given this statement by Mr. Jones:

I may give up and retire (which would give me more time to post to ID-hating blogs)

This statement strongly suggests zero amount of evidence against ID and for evolution will persuade him, and we do have the evidence, in fact its overwhelming. It does argue he's picked his team and will defend it in spite of the vacuity of their arguments and evidence and the strength of its opponents' arguments and evidence all the while projecting his own character deficiencies onto us as he does in this statement and some others as well.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2009 11:05 AM

125

Still whining, still lying, but still not the slightest speck of evidence. Steve's just your typical creationist troll. His cult demands that he attack "darwinism" without knowing the first thing about it, so he posts absurd screeds completely devoid of evidence or understanding. Steve will keep screaming the same lies and bulshit conspiracy theories at the top of his lungs until the day he dies, and no force in the universe will ever induce him to so much as glance in the general direction of actual science. What a senseless waste of bandwidth this fuckwit is.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 18, 2009 1:32 PM

127

Has Steve hit 2000 words yet?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 18, 2009 2:04 PM

129

I'll say one thing for you folks. You never disappoint. I'm particularly impressed with phantomreader42's intellect and eloquence. As the cartoon says, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog".

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 18, 2009 2:27 PM

131

Oh steve, are you reduced to reacting with irrational (dare I say religious?) fervor, hurling insults, and holding phantomreader42 responsible for beliefs, opinions, and mental defects that exist mostly in your own imagination, unable to grasp any concept outside your little comfort zone?

It may be the internet, but everyone knows I'm a parrot!

Posted by: Ramel | August 18, 2009 2:34 PM

133

Steve - Post #124
1st paragraph. We get plenty of ID rubes blowing in and 'laying the truth' on us (as if we had never heard their tired, much debunked lies before), in the curiously similar smug, passive-aggressive way, before stamping off in a huff when pressed for evidence, shouting how bad tempered 'Darwinists' are. Been there, done that, got the leather shorts. Oh and BTW nobody believes in Darwin as a kind of god or has faith in his ideas like a dogma, that'll be the IDers your thinking of; believing in thier god and having faith in their dogmas, try 'scientist' or 'Evolutionist' if you must.
2nd paragraph. Actually the question is exactly what theory fits the data best. And on that question 150 years of experiment, predictions, data collection, gene mapping and so on leads to one conclusion: at the moment Modern Theory of Evolution fits the data best, and provides the best predictions. Science can only be a consensus, since the observations of one person is inherently biased, we collect lots of data from many persons independently to eliminate these biases. That's how it works.
3rd paragraph. Science isn't controlled by a rigid orthodoxy that stifles dissent, again that'll be religion and it's adjunct ID. Science is done by loads of people independently from each other (to eliminate bias), all over the world. Each discovery either strengthens or disproves the theory, which will be adjusted accordingly, a process that has been going on, for ToE, for 150 years. BTW Izvestia is a Russian daily newspaper, with a current readership of 234,500. Yep, it still exists! Oh and pick up a science text book written sometime in the last few years, we actually have the eye's development sussed, and plenty of fossils with transition features.
4th paragraph. Science is a search for the best approximation of reality, by making patterns from the evidence that is collected, and then trying to predict new data-points, before going off to gather more data. 'The orthodoxy' has nothing to do with it. Scientists strive to get data that falsifies there theories, and challenges their expectations. As usual you project religion onto science, falsely.
5th paragraph. Draw as big a distinction as you wish. They are probably the same thing, research the Dover case more closely.
6th paragraph. 'The Textbook Police', as you term them, are generally called 'editors' out here in the real world. What they prevent is non-science pretending it is science in science text books. Would you object to editors cutting out a discussion of the novels of J K Rowling from a text-book on Early Church Fathers?
Final paragraph. Actually evolutionary scientists would love to have their theories changed by a stronger theory. ID/creationism isn't it. It isn't a strong theory, because it has, and can never have evidence to back it up, it can make no predictions whatsoever, it has no actually theoretical framework to call 'a theory', it can never be falsified. A fail on all levels. Oh and BTW I think we have a better idea than you about how to do science We won't tell you how to write software, you keep your non-science to yourself. OK? - DJ
_______________
PS: Sorry about the monster post. Idiocy must be answered. :)
How did you check how many words it was?

Posted by: DingoJack | August 18, 2009 2:59 PM

135

Steve continues to post, but he continues to fail to support his highly contentious statements. Why, Steve? Why claim you want discussion, and then avoid supporting your claims? Why blather on in generalities that most of us (being actual scientists, unlike you) know perfectly well? Why? If you want to have a discussion: support your assertions. It's one the basic rules of civilized discourse.

No, I'm not a troll.

Given your refusal to support any of your assertions with facts, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You're behaving exactly the way all trolls do. If you want to be taken for anything MORE than a troll, you need to start acting like an adult.

I suppose my initial references to Darwinian True Believers was troll-like.

Yup.

But in retrospect it seems justified.

Nope. Your ignorance of science, and our disgust with that ignorance - an ignorance that in the age of the intertubes is utterly unjustified - makes your remark merely a trolling position.

If you don't want to be treated like a troll, then act like an adult. Support your assertions; stop ignoring questions; learn something about both science and logic (major fail on that last one, Steve).

Folks like Mr. Heath have reacted with irrational (dare I say religious?) fervor, hurling insults, holding me responsible for beliefs, opinions, and mental defects that exist mostly in their own imaginations, unable to grasp any concept outside their little comfort zone. There is Darwinian True Belief in all its ugly bigotry.

Steve, you just admitted you came on like a troll. We treated you like one. For you to feign surprise indicates either that you're lying or that you're really, really, really inexperienced with the internet and these kinds of discussions. Are you really that naive? Are you really that much of an innocent?

I was looking (trolling if you insist) for intelligent discourse on a topic none (well, few) of my critics seem able to understand.

Then stop acting like a troll, and start acting like an adult. If you make assertions, support them. Respond to questions. Recognize that most of us here know a hell of a lot more about the topic of science and about biology than you do (based on what you've said so far).

The question is not whether ID (in one or more of its many forms) or evolution (in one or more of its many forms) or some other theory yet to be proposed is a better, more plausible model for explaining what we observe in the living world. The question is whether the scientific establishment in its current form can even choose objectively among them. Judging from what I have seen and read here, the answer would seem to be No. Closed-mindedness is the most destructive product of consensus science.

That's because you're not bothering to read what's posted. As has been pointed out to you, science doesn't give a rat's ass about hypotheses without data; ID (as the Dembski crowd) proclaim it has neither theory nor data; and you haven't shown that they have. Of course science recognizes ID: I've already pointed out several areas where it's a given. But you've ignored those.

Ignoring the data given to you makes you look like a troll. Or it makes you look dumb as a post. Which do you want to be perceived as?

But I have more confidence in science than that. Rigid orthodoxies that strangle thought and innovation always fail eventually. Darwinian True Belief will eventually go the way of the Inquisition and the Izvestia of the USSR.

Since there's no such thing as DTB, your hope is already fulfilled. Go forth, my child, and stop being so downhearted. Science won! Unfortunately for you, every single piece of evidence we have; every testable theory we've developed; every single experiment conducted over the last century or so has come down on the side of Darwin.

That's the thing about science you don't understand (either because you're not a scientist or because you're a troll, I can't tell which). Without evidence there is no resolution between competing hypotheses. ID has no evidence and no theory. It can't compete. Neither can supernatural explanations: if they cannot be tested, then they cannot be evaluated against testable explanations.

I am confident that honest scientists who follow the path their research leads them (rather than the consensus path dictated by the orthodox establishment) will eventually prevail.

They already do. You really should join the 20th century.

And they may indeed find that some distant cousin of Darwin's speculations really is the best model.

Admirable. You've caught up. That's where we are now.

But with no testable examples of one species becoming another or a non-eye becoming an eye, that day has not come.

Liar. We've observed speciatiation (mosquitoes; Lenski, anyone?) We've looked at the congruence between the fossil record and genetic trees; we've looked for and found intermediates of precisely the nature we predicted (Tiktaalik, anybody?) The ONLY people who spout stuff about eyes and no species diversion are CREATIONIST IDIOTS. Are you one of them?

To reiterate, I have not defended ID. I haven't recommended ID. I am guilty of referring to the "science behind ID", although I have not particularly endorsed it. That's aroused the ire of many who seem content to define "science" by its outcome - if it promotes orthodoxy, it's science; if not, it's not.

Nope. Now you are actually, factually, evidentially lying. Show us this. Point out the precise posts and statements to back your claim up.

Didn't think ya could.

(Actually, that's being charitable. Some who have joined this discussion seem to define science as nothing more than whatever agrees with their own opinions and prejudices.)

Again, an outright lie. Show us PRECISELY who said that and where.

Didn't think ya could.

Either way, it's dishonest and illogical and probably incurable, so there seems to be little point in my disputing it further.

Running away already? Coward. That's the trouble with trolls (and by making up things that we can prove were never said, you've moved into troll territory again), they never last very long.

If you don't have the stomache for discussion with adults, you shouldn't come to sites like this. Try Theologyweb. Or try "The Intersection" on Discover blogs.

I'm also guilty of drawing a distinction - which is deep and wide - between ID and Creationism.

Since we've already admitted that conceptually there's a difference, but that the folks promoting one are also promoting the other, you are AGAIN LYING.

But since it's easier to pretend that they're the same, the non-thinkers in the audience simply attack Creationism in the futile belief that they've said something about ID. That kind of intellectual laziness/dishonesty is probably incurable too.

This is why we think you're a troll. Because you make claims that we've said things that we haven't. And those claims can be checked against this very thread. Are you so ignorant of the internet that you don't realize this?

To be honest, I sense fear in much of this discussion.

But you're the one who's refusing to discuss. You're the one who's retreating. You're the one who's making things up.

Your fear and cowardness come across very strongly from your posts. I'm sorry for you, since real scientific discussion is both fascinating and intellectually challenging, but since you refuse to engage in it, I don't see how we can help you much.

ID as you define it poses no real threat to orthodoxy.

Nobody every said it did. Until the ID folks produce real evidence, there's nothing science needs fear in the ID movement.

The ID folks are 0 for everything in the courts.

That's because the courts have recognized that the ID movement is really creationism in another guise. Something you don't seem to understand very well.

Talking heads on TV parrot the DTB/ACLU party line faithfully. The text book police are doing a great job of suppressing critical thinking on the question of origins. Why the hysteria? What are you all afraid of?

What hysteria? What fear? Why do you so much projecting. We want to keep the textbooks religion free. When ID produces real science, then they can be incorporated. Until then, we fight to keep America religiously neutral. Apparently you'd rather we incorporate religion, supersitition, and faith into science.

Why do so many of you fear religious belief - clearly on the decline in the marketplace of ideas?

My god, your ignorance is astounding. Apparently you haven't been looking at opinion polls. Or is this the old "Oh, Oh, I'm a persecuted Christian because somebody says I can't force my religion down everyone's throat!"? I'm guessing you are.

My guess is that you see better than I the cracks in the foundation of the Darwinian house you are so heavily invested in.

THEN SHOW US ONE OF THESE CRACKS. SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. BEHAVE LIKE AN ADULT AND ARGUE WITH FACTS, NOT RHETORIC.

Didn't think ya could.

If you actually had any confidence in science, you would welcome all challenges to your pet theory.

It's not a pet theory. Another lie.

Science has always advanced by taking challenges seriously and responding to them seriously.Hysteria and demagoguery only advance the egos (and book royalties) of those who practice them.

And as soon as you find actual examples of that, my child, you just point them out. Until you can support your claims, you're a liar. That makes you a troll.

If the theory is eventually displaced, it will be by something stronger.

The only correct thing you've said so far.

Isn't that a good thing?

Yup.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 3:06 PM

137

We recognize, Steve, that you will not be able to respond to any of our posts in a civilized or grown-up fashion; you are too mired in your own confusion, inability to understand, and ignorance. We post mainly for the readers, who might benefit from seeing how wrong you are (and we have addressed, so far as I can see, every one of your claims without you having made the slightest effort to engage in actual discussion).

Remember the fundamental, empirically substantiated point about science:

The folks with the facts win. We have the facts. You don't. Capice?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 3:11 PM

139

Well, you all jump up and down and get mad and all that. I'm just relaxing, following the debate, marveling at this seething stew of wisdom, honesty, folly, brilliance, stupidity, ignorance, creativity, fabrication, and blather that is the debate over origins.

Those of you who actually believe the debate is over, well, your locked-down minds are depriving you of a really interesting show. Seeing two sides requires moving your head a little. I know some of you just can't do it and some of you are afraid to, but it's worth the effort.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 18, 2009 3:20 PM

141

I'd go for a black and tan, however.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 18, 2009 3:23 PM

143

Rilke's Granddaughter - 4 so far. But it's not over till the fat troll stomps off. :) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | August 18, 2009 3:27 PM

145

"Stevie baby, you are just full of shit."

Guess that means no black and tan for me.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 18, 2009 3:29 PM

147

Ramel - IF we can drag him into the 17th it'd be just amazing! ;0 - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | August 18, 2009 3:31 PM

149

A question for the punters here (Steve, feel free to chime in, though at this point your contributions are unlikely to be taken seriously.) Do trolls such as Steve really not understand how transparent they are? Do they real not see that making unsupported claims makes them look uninformed? Do they really not comprehend the fact that they have to actually make arguments based on facts to be taken seriously?

Does Steve, for example, understand how dishonest and ignorant he appears to be?

Or are they really that clueless?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 3:39 PM

151

While there is a small chance that stevie baby is winding is up for sport, it's far more likely that he's an educated yet ignorant prat who is talking about a subject that he knows little about but is unaware of just how lacking his knowlege of the subject is. So I'm going to go with the arrogance of ignorance, and an addiction to that sense of superiority that comes from believing he possesses knowlege the most people do not have. Standard issue crank.

Posted by: Ramel | August 18, 2009 3:46 PM

153

Steve claims to be a [P]rofessor?

Yikes!

Posted by: theroachman | August 18, 2009 3:53 PM

155

Steve, it's incredibly obvious that you're not here to discuss, you're here to proselytize. And you're growing frustrated that no one here is receptive.
Here's a link for you. You'll find the majority of your arguments here, together with responses.

Posted by: Taz | August 18, 2009 4:01 PM

157

Steve, if you actually want to discuss something, then stick around. But you haven't shown any signs of doing so up to now.

Support your assertions; answer questions; use sound logic; don't project. It really doesn't take much not to be a troll. Heck, refuting you hasn't even cost me more than a few seconds of thought.

If you want to discuss something, then do so. But you'll have to stop behaving like a troll.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 4:06 PM

159

Oh, what the heck; my assays are running slowly, and the damn computer keeps locking up when I ask if the calc is done. I'll help ya, Steve.

You claimed there was science behind ID. Your statement; one of your first posts.

What is it? What science? I've read Behe; I've read Dembski; I've read (god help me) Johnson. I even read Meyers.

No science, Steve, my child. Point it out to me. Be very specific. Don't argue by links; just spell out exactly what the science behind ID is.

That's a start.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 4:21 PM

161

Ok stevie baby, here we go again...
Define supernatural. Explain how something that produces a physical event in the natural world is in fact not natural. Would a phenomenon such as radiation appeared to be supernatural if it had been detected far enough back in history? The most basic logical error you seem to make is that if something supposedly supernatural, say for example the existance of ghosts, was actually demonstrated to exist in nature then it would in fact be part of the natural order. Therefore your question is kind of meaningless.

@spawn of Rilke's spawn: you actually managed fully read dempski, behe and the rest? You really are a trooper, I usually give up around the fourth or fith logical failure.

Posted by: Ramel | August 18, 2009 4:35 PM

163

@Ramel:

@spawn of Rilke's spawn: you actually managed fully read dempski, behe and the rest? You really are a trooper, I usually give up around the fourth or fith logical failure.

They are an exercise in logical futility, I'll grant you that. What's interesting is that there is, quite literally, nothing in any of them except, "I don't believe it." Nothing.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 4:44 PM

165

If the supernatural power's intervention produced an observable event that appeared contrary to what hundreds of years of scientific observation have led us to understand, would science as we understand it today be able to determine the cause of the event? I say No, it wouldn't.

A scientist would say, "Neat-o, something I don't yet understand!" (A surprising number of scientists really do say neat-o. It's kind of weird.) They would then start formulating hypotheses about what might have caused the observed event and set about testing the hypotheses. If none of the tests bear out then one of two things would happen. If the observed event could be replicated reliably, it would be called a law. If it were something that happened unpredictably, it would be called a mystery. I ask yet again, do you have a better idea for how to evaluate such an event?

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 18, 2009 5:01 PM

167

It was a simple question. Never mind.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 18, 2009 5:13 PM

169

Well stevie baby you asked us to engage and we did. Again. Against our better judgement we gave one last try and you simply couldn't deal with it.

It was a simple question.

No, it was not. And there is where your problem lies, I seem to remember the fantasic Ben Goldacre proposing "I think you'll find it's more complicated than that" as a motto and I'm inclined to agree. The real world is always more complicated than the the imaginated worlds of idiots.

Posted by: Ramel | August 18, 2009 5:25 PM

171

There have, of course, been plenty of things we've observed throughout history that science could not immediately explain; but explanations have been found for most of those events

Although the reason behind the temporary popularity of the spice girls still eludes us after all these years...

Posted by: Ramel | August 18, 2009 5:30 PM

173

To answer Steve's questions @158:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. If a supernatural power's intervention DID produce such an observable event, then it could no longer be called "supernatural".

Steve, the problem that you are having is that instead of looking at various data points and letting the evidence guide you to a conclusion, you are starting with a conclusion (that there must be a supernatural power) and then trying to find/twist these various data points to support your conclusion. That isn't the way science works. Invoking the supernatural isn't bad science, it is anti-science... or a science stopper.

Let me postulate a hypothetical "scientific theory" (I'm deliberately using scare quotes here on purpose). Let's call it doctorgooism:

It is my belief, based on Holy Texts (that I wrote myself) that the world was created exactly 2 minutes ago by an intelligent agency.

Now is there any evidence that can be used to falsify this "scientific theory" of mine? Of course not... I can merely state that God works in mysterious ways, and that all the data points that APPEAR to falsify my theory were just planted there. Your childhood memories? Created 2 minutes ago. The fact that you were in the middle of typing in a response to Rilke's Granddaughter 2 minutes ago? The first half was poofed into existance, and you're just finishing up the paragraph that God intended you to write.

You see, by invoking the supernatural in ANY way, you are, by definition, not performing science. I encourage you to read Section 4 of the Kitzmiller decision (found here, starting on page 64 of the PDF document: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/decision.htm)

Just like doctorgooism, ID can never be disproved... any negative data that tries to disprove it can easily be handwaved aside by invoking more of the supernatural.

I wonder if your response will be something along the lines of "So what? As long as we're promoting a Christian-friendly supernatural "scientific theory" instead of something ludicrous like doctorgooism, then aren't we making the world a better place?"

Well, I say "No". First of all, it promotes a single religion over all others (a First Amendment violation)... But more importantly, by teaching such anti-science to our future engineers and scientists, we are doing them a disservice by telling them that it's okay to ignore the evidence as long as it fits the conclusion that we want to arrive at.

(Note: this is what you have been accusing so-called "Darwinists" of doing, when actually, any scientist will be more than willing to find new data that contradicts and/or adjusts the current understandings of the Theory of Evolution.)

Seriously, Steve, I strongly recommend that you read the Kitzmiller decision section called "Whether ID is Science", which starts on page 64 and ends on page 89. It was written by a Republican judge (John E. Jones III) who was appointed by GW Bush and was assumed by the ID folks to be predisposed to agree with them. And before the trial, he had no particular education in science (beyond manditory, entry-level classes that he had as an undergrad).

But he was able to understand both sides of this religious/political controversy (as opposed to a genuine scientific controversy) and come to the conclusion that "ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." As a non-scientist, he was able to write this section in a way that is VERY understandable to your average citizen who has average (or less than average) scientific literacy.

Now, you might be happy that I appear to be conceding that ID might actually be true, even though I continue to state that it isn't science... well, let me add further to what Judge Jones wrote.

We now have millions of lines of evidences that confirm the TofE. Sure, sometimes evidence comes up which doesn't just merely confirm, but acts to help clarify a lesser understood part of the theory, but there has been no evidence that exists that has lead scientists to question the central validity of the TofE.

So unless you (like the hardcore "doctorgooists" ...lol) insist on waving away all this evidence by invoking supernatural (or otherwise false) explanations... then there is no reason to assume that some supernatural Intelligent Designer is required to explain all this evidence. Occam's Razor is satisfied by having natural explanations.

Now does science explain EVERYTHING yet? Well, of course not... that's why there are still scientists out there who are studying the various intricasies on the outer fringe of the TofE. But new and exciting evidence for the TofE are popping up every year.

So just wait... the previously misunderstood details that ID proponents that claim can NEVER be explained without invoking the supernatural, have are now better understood without having to handwave away evidence with a simple "Goddidit" as an explanation.

For an example of this, please read about the alleged Irreducible Complexity of the immune system in the Kitzmiller decision (starting on the last line of page 77). Professor Behe (of the Discovery Institute, the primary pro-ID organization in the US) wrote a lot about this in his 1996 book as a typical example of something that Evolution (allegedly) would be impossible to explain.

However, on cross-examination (as you can read for yourself on page 78), Behe "was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system" that had been written after the publishing of his book.

What was Behe's response to all these new lines of evidence in support of how the TofE explains the evolution of the immune system? With mere handwaving, instead of thoughtful examination.

So this is what we end up with... if we choose to allow the supernatural to guide our understanding of the world around us, then this means that we will become satisfied with invoking "Goddidit" as a legitimate explanation. This merely serves to prevent genuine scientific inquiries that will solve real-world problems (like the evolution of a swine flu into a strain that is dangerous to humans, too).

So Steve, is this what you really want? To discourage real and useful scientific inquiry by handwaving away anything that disagrees with your religious sensitivites? I sincerely hope not!

And if you actually do this in your position of academic authority to you students, then I sincerely hope that you'll reconsider your decision to do so in light of what the consequences will be. If given the choice of invoking a supernatural "Goddidit"-type explanation versus encouraging the scientific curiosity of your students, even when it goes against your particular religious beliefs that you hold dear... well I hope you'll choose the latter path, for the benefit of your students and the welfare of future generations.

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 18, 2009 5:36 PM

175

Steve,

here's one of science's "the heck if we know" of today, open to both an (as of yet unidentified) natural as well as a supernatural explanation:
Dark matter and dark energy. We know "something" is holding the galaxies together via gravity, and we can even observe gravitational lensing from stuff that's not there. We also can see the universe expanding, despite the fact that it shouldn't do that, because something is pushing.
So please, propose the ID way of making a scientific prediction, and we will keep checking back on it until either the ID prediction comes through, or science comes up with a natural explanation.

Posted by: Mu | August 18, 2009 5:56 PM

177

Let me help you, Steve. 'cause I'd like to understand your question.

1. Is a "supernatural power" by definition unobservable?

2. You seem to be saying that if it is, we still might recognize that it "exists" (whatever that means for a supernatural power) by it's "fingerprints"?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 18, 2009 6:27 PM

179

Somebody had to step up to the plate with a plate of sarcasm. Somebody had to do it. Serving it up... for the people...

Peace an Joy and Happiness,
386

Posted by: 386sx | August 18, 2009 6:43 PM

181

"caused an apple to fall back up into the tree, would that not still be supernatural"

Are you claiming to have seen such an event? If yes then that makes you a Cathlic. If no then your only blowing smoke.

You are full of questions but zero anwsers. I good Proffesor would at least atempt to anwser questions. Do you anwser every question from a student with another question?

Dodge and weave you are darn good at that

Posted by: theroachman | August 18, 2009 8:31 PM

183

Steve @180:

About your first part... I can almost see your point. It's like the whole "Why is the water boiling in the kettle?" You can give a strictly scientific answer ("heat is making the water molecules excited, changing from liquid to gaseous state"). Or you can give a more generalized answer, such as "I wanted to drink some tea".

The problem is that even the second answer is based in the real world, and can be subjected to scientific investigation. I won't dig too far into this, but here'a a little bit: Why do many people like the taste of tea? Is there any specific reason for a preference of hot vs. cold tea? Etc.

To answer your specific question about boundaries of science, I think we can agree that anything that exists in the real world can be investigated by (and exists in) the realm of science.

Now to get to a less trivial example of what this means... I don't know your particular religious background, but I'm sure that you are aware that many Christian sects teach the mythology of a supernatural "soul". I think that this is probably more along the lines of what you were referring to as a "boundary" question, correct?

The thing about the soul, is that when religious people talk about it, they refer to it as something inherently supernatural... and therefore impossible to prove that it doesn't exist. But just like the TofE, science doesn't need to prove that it doesn't exist, just that there are naturalistic explanations that describe the characteristics of a "soul" in people... and then all that one has to do is to decide whether to rely on faith for a supernatural explanation, or rely on tangible evidence for a naturalistic one instead.

A quick search of SciBlogs here came up with this hit that touches on what I'm talking about:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/your_mamas_soul_doesnt_love_yo.php

Here's an excerpt from PZ's post that applies:

Now I know some people are peculiarly offended by the idea that something like love can be reduced to "just chemicals", but I'm not one of them. I find it absolutely wonderful that beautiful human feelings are not the product of ineffable invisible spirits, but are a consequence of our splendidly earthly humanity — hug someone, and little peptides tickle regions of their brains, and they feel good and happy, and they might just hug you back … and that's all right with everyone. Who we are is inseparable from what we are, and we're all complicated conglomerations of intricate biochemistry with a long, long history of natural change, and we should revel in that. Share some chemistry with your neighbors today!

In this first section, you also touched upon (but didn't elaborate on) ethical boundaries. Well, I'm sure that many Christians think that their religion has a monopoly on the concept of the Golden Rule. Well, it doesn't... virtually all religions have that as a basic concept. "Google "Ethic of Reciprocity" and read the wiki article for a basic explainer.) In fact, one doesn't hold any religious superstitions at all in order to behave ethically. This page is a good discussion on this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8069-Manchester-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m5d21-Ethics-without-god

Or perhaps instead of referring specifically to whether or not belief in religious mythology is required to have ethics... you were talking about the potential for science to lead to unethical quandries? Here's my response to that, too:

Like any other tool at our disposal, it can be used for good or bad. For example, you, like many others, might be concerned about the ethics of stem cell research... But I guess where a person stands on that particular issue might depend on if they, or a loved one, has a terrible disease that has the best hope for a cure in stem cell research.

I know that SciBlogs has a limit on links in a single post, so I'll write this website so it doesn't link directly:
www(dot)als(dot)ca(slash)stemcell(slash)research.aspx

But yes, I can understand how one might be torn over the implications of some scientific endeavors... but as a mere tool at our disposal, we can struggle with the decision on how to proceed with such issues on a case by case basis, while paying close attention ot the benefits and repercussions of our decisions on individuals, and on society as a whole.

As in my previous answer to your possible complaint about Ethical Boundaries... I want to point out that even non-religious scientists share the same benefits as all others when it comes to behaving within terms of the Golden Rule.

Now on to your second section... you wrote:
"If an omnipotent god actually exists and caused an apple to fall back up into the tree, would that not still be supernatural - i.e. operating outside the bounds of natural causation, particularly gravity?"

To me, this is a specific version of the more generic: "If miracles really do exist, then isn't this proof the existence of God (or the supernatural)?

The answer to this is still 'No'. Most of the times when an alleged miracle happens, there is a lot of the particulars that are unknown, and those who have their minds trained to base things on faith (instead of reality) will tend to fill in these gaps in knowledge with some version of "Goddidit"... instead of trying to figure out what really is going on.

But even in the cut and dry example that you give (apples falling up)... well, this is actually an example of how science is self correcting. If certain conditions really DID exist where objects don't just appear to defy gravity, but actually DO defy gravity... then Gravitational Theory would have to be thrown out the window, or at least seriously modified to carve out exceptions to the basic rule.

My point here is that even these miracles, if real, are also within the realm of scientific study... these aren't Boundary Questions in any way that makes sense to me.

Here's a personal example that demonstrates how my thinking (as a future skeptic and atheist proponent of the scientific method) differs from the thought processes of one of my many aunts who was fundamentalist Pentecostal:

When I was young teenager, my aunt was visiting our family, and on the news was a story about a statue of a religious statue (Mother Mary, I think) that appeared to be crying blood. Well, looking back on it, I'm sure my fundamentalist aunt was in awe of the Power of God as demonstrated by that story. I, on the other hand, immediately blurted out the first thing that was on my mind: "I hope that was pig's blood".

Well, I'm sure you can imagine how insulted my aunt was, and the fight that followed between her (trying to punish me), and my mother still trying to decide if I had an actual point to make, or if I was being rude and trying to get a rise from her sister-in-law.

Eventually, I was able to explain that I believed someone had tried to make it look like the statue was crying blood, and I was worried that if it was human blood (instead of something trivial like pig's blood), then some mentally ill person was actually hurting him- or herself as a cry for help.

Well, I know I didn't say it as eloquently at age ~13 as I wrote above, but the basics are the same, and the effect was immediate on my aunt... she backed off.

Steve, tying this back to your comment about boundaries of science... are you saying that I should have respected such an boundary for the sake of not questioning her faith? Even back then, I intuitively knew that such a boundary that you suggest would be artificial and wrong-headed.

So yes, anything that actually has an impact on the real world, or in any way happens in reality IS a legitimate inquiry for science.

Furthermore, it isn't the object of science to disprove the existence of the supernatural... at most, it only attempts to show that supernatural explanations are not required to explain the world around us.

Now if you, personally, choose to put your religious beliefs first, then that's up to you. I will try hard not to judge you too hard for holding beliefs just because I strongly disagree with them.

But I just want to point out one last time that Science, like any tool at our disposal, is only as good as it is understood. And by allowing the potential of supernatural causation (i.e. "Goddidit") to undermine real science, then you hurt the ability of society to use this tool for the common good, both for ourselves and for future generations.

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 18, 2009 9:50 PM

185

If we view science as an intellectual endeavor, it is clearly different from philosophy or politics, although all seek in their way to explain the world of our experience. We can also define a boundary in terms of the questions science can legitimately undertake. There are questions in human experience that are beyond the reach of science. Or do you think I'm wrong about that?

There are many questions outside the realm of science. Who would win in a battle between Batman and the Green Arrow? Is that painting beautiful? What is the best place to get a meal? These are untestable and subjective question with no single empirical answer. But therein lies the more important detail, there is no knowledge beyond the reach of science. Anything that cannot be tested, cannot be known. It all just opinions, feelings, choices, and ideas. Conversely, anything which can be tested, as is the case with most questions about our physical universe, is within the scope of science. That is, any question which has an answer can, at least theoretically, be found using the scientific method.

Take for example your hypothetical apple falling up into a tree. Some would guess it was the work of a deity. Others might suggest it was a localized anomaly causing time to reverse. Others might think a geological event smacked it like a cue stick hitting a billiard, and so on and so on. But without testing you'll always be stuck at that initial "what if" stage. Not all questions fall within science. But all knowledge does. Do you disagree? If so, what other method for discovering knowledge can you suggest?

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 18, 2009 10:08 PM

187

I really do not understand the need by many IDers or RW republicans to play the victim card so much.

Relating the time it took to prove plate tectonics with a theory of ID? That is completely preposterous given the fact you have not once yet showed any of your scientific theories in which one day you hope may prove you right.

Posted by: theroachman | August 18, 2009 11:02 PM

189

But the idea of such a being originated somewhere and is widely accepted, so until someone shows that no such being exists, it yields a valid boundary question - what would science do with that event?

Wrong again: unfounded supernatural beliefs -- widely held or not -- do not yield "boundary questions." The "boundary question" will arise if, and only if, an actual event is observed that science cannot explain. Again, if you can't cite even one such specific event, then you're just blowing smoke. Your reasoning is really no more grounded than a bunch of kids asking things like "What if a volcano appeared in the middle of DC?"

But - and this is what seems to set people off - there are some researchers who follow science's traditional inductive approach and conclude that ID is a reasonable explanation for the observed data.

Once again, you're bluffing -- you offer no actual example, and instead change the subject to plate tectonics.

...I'm not really an advocate of ID.

Correction: you're not a PLAUSIBLE advocate of ID. Tell you what -- why don't you get back to us when you have something more to offer than transparently stupid lies that you yourself disprove in the very same post? Does that sound like a fair proposal?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 18, 2009 11:17 PM

191

Thanks Steve, I was worried with the idea that I might have been writing all that down just for someone's trollish amusement. So I'm happy to learn that you are sincere.

If you don't have the time or energy to comment further, I still encourage you to stick around Ed's place in "lurker mode"... lol This is a good way to learn about our side of the debate.

While I cannot say for certain that we'll ever find much agreement, I hope that we can at least teach you about what our side is actually stating. While you, a newbie here, might not realize how you come across to the rest of us... let me assure you that almost all of your questions and comments have been addressed plenty of times here, and will almost certainly come up again and again.

So please, stick around! :-)

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 18, 2009 11:28 PM

193

The concept of the soul, of course, is part of that discussion, but the idea that there is a non-physical dimension to human existence (a mind, a personality, etc.) is hardly limited to religion. It is utterly pervasive - philosophy, the arts, politics, religion, ethics, you name it.

Racism and irrational sexual hangups are pretty pervasive too. There are a lot of pervasive ideas that are useful; others that are useless or irrelevant; and still others that are downright evil and destructive. Remember when geocentrism was "utterly pervasive?"

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 18, 2009 11:34 PM

195

In both my studies (I majored in philosophy for a while as an undergrad) and my experience, I have come to understand that there are other ways of knowing.

Care to provide some examples? I'm guessing one such "other way of knowing" includes subjective feelings and perceptions of a "power greater than oneself" acting in one's life; but nearly all of us have feelings like that, and none of us can test any of them to verify whose feelings are more objectively valid than others'. Those are, at best, subjective truths that simply don't stand on an equal footing with objective and verifiable truths about the material Universe.

To me, your statement is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific hypothesis. That is, "anything that cannot be tested, cannot be known" is not itself testable.

Actually, it is testable, and it has been continually tested ever since we became a sentient species. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that whatever cannot be tested, cannot be relied upon, and therefore, for all practical purposes, cannot be known. We know the laws of the material Universe because we see them tested virtually every day. We do not know whose God(s), if any, exist, because we have no way of testing any of the zillions of conflicting assertions on that subject.

Given what I take to be a fundamental characteristic of your world view...

Ah yes, the old "fundamentally different worldviews" dodge. The fundamental difference seems to be that our worldview explicitly acknowledges an objective reality that doesn't bend to individual beliefs; and yours doesn't. And our worldview is just plain truer and better than yours, because our worldview gets good results and yours just sticks you in a cul-de-sac of subjectivity, denialism, and irrelevance.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 19, 2009 9:04 AM

197

Raging Bee@195;

Dang! OK, one last post - for educational purposes only. It's called epistemology; look it up.

I know what I had for lunch yesterday, no empirical evidence required.

Posted by: Steve Jones AKA Stevie baby | August 19, 2009 9:18 AM

199

Steve Jones stated:

My only objection was that the information content of such nonsense is exactly 0 and plowing through it is a dreary business.

Bullshit. You avoided addressing the lies you told that were revealed by commenters here who provided adequate descriptions of how you misrepresented scientific methodology, its accumulated evidence, and its peer-accepted explanations. You provided us with a classic case of an ideologue who neither had evidence for their position nor will even consider the evidence his opponents possess.

What you did do is make a case to ignore trolls if they refuse to honestly engage after a round or two, something you never did in any of your comment posts. The childish response of covering one's ears and screaming "I can't hear you" when your lies were exposed was on ample display.

I strongly disagree with later posters that backed off our collective challenge challenging you to remain honest and provide evidence supporting your arguments when they were rebutted, but instead went down your rabbit hole that resulted in nothing but more sophistry and hand-waving on your part.

Science is part-process and its findings and explanations are its output. If you want to challenge such, it should be presented honestly, correctly framed, and with independently validated empirical evidence supporting your claims of its weaknesses, you failed on all counts. Instead we were exposed to rhetorical and logical fallacies, and zero citations; I'd argue because of a lack of character, perfect ignorance, an antipathy to learning, and a fierce desire to defend preconceived notions irrespective of their validity.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 19, 2009 9:53 AM

201

For both to thrive, society has to be able to trust science. Standing on the corner (or publishing books) yelling "we're smarter than you are; you have to trust us!" won't help.

Who are you talking about -- scientists or religious leaders? The former actually publish books containing real information; while the latter offer nothing but the same old groundless unproven (or disproven) assertions, backed up by nothing but threats of eternal supernatural punishment for anyone who questions them.

As for the insults and name-calling - I don't take it personally...

...says he, lapsing into a whole paragraph of standard self-important self-pity. We've heard it all before, and we know it's all a pack of lies. (Here's a helpful hint: you can't misrepresent what we said, when the comments you're lying about are all still up on the Web for verification.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 19, 2009 10:22 AM

203

Abby Normal@198;

This is like eating potato chips; I just can't stop.

You are correct. ["Anything that cannot be tested, cannot be known"] is a philosophical assertion based on logical reasoning. It is not knowledge. That's why I asked whether or not you disagreed. What's your issue with that?

No problem with it being a philosophical assertion; we agree on that. I disagree with the assertion itself. Here are some things I know that are not testable: I know I had cold fried chicken for dinner last night. I know I love my wife (the love is a feeling, knowing that the feeling exists is knowledge). I know a former colleague's face when I see it. Life would be unlivable if we couldn't trust knowledge that was not arrived at through empirical means.

As a practical matter, most of the knowledge we act on every day is not testable. If a car is speeding toward an intersection, the driver seemingly unaware of the stop sign, and it appears likely the car will hit me broadside, I don't need empirical evidence to decide whether to take evasive action. Avoiding the accident is a lot more important to me than anything either Darwin or Behe ever dreamed of.

Steve, I sympathize. But your whole case here reads to me like you're searching for an emotionally satisfying reason to dismiss science when it conflicts with your beliefs without having to take the time to evaluate the evidence.

If I were searching for some sort of emotional support here, I'd need a lot more than sympathy; hospitalization would be more appropriate.

It seems you and I can't agree on what can be known and how it can be known. Doctorgoo and I can't agree on whether there is a non-material side to human existence. As a result, we don't seem to have a common vocabulary or a common cognitive framework for discussing the kinds of questions I've raised. I'm not blaming anyone for this. It's just the way it is.

Please excuse me, I have to go get driven off again.

Posted by: Steve Jones AKA Stevie baby | August 19, 2009 4:36 PM

205

If a car is speeding toward an intersection, the driver seemingly unaware of the stop sign, and it appears likely the car will hit me broadside, I don't need empirical evidence to decide whether to take evasive action.

Right. Because you have no empirical evidence about what a car hitting someone is capable of doing to a human body (no, you've never heard of cars hitting people before, so there's no experience there; you don't know anyone who's been in a car accident; you don't understand the laws of physics and how they apply to a several-ton metal object hurtling towards your soft, fleshy body at dozens of miles per hour) and are incapable of making the rational judgment that you don't want that to happen to you.

Nope, no empirical reasoning there!

Posted by: Skemono | August 19, 2009 5:14 PM

207

This is like eating potato chips; I just can't stop.

Ha! I know just what you mean. Welcome to blog addiction.

Life would be unlivable if we couldn't trust knowledge that was not arrived at through empirical means.

Here I mostly agree. I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing we should only act on what can be empirically verified. If it was from something I said then we’ve had a big miscommunication.

Now, lets take a look at those things you say know.

I know I had cold fried chicken for dinner last night.

Not only was it possible to test that, you did. It probably went something like this. Someone told you it was chicken (hypothesis). It looked like chicken (observation found to support hypothesis). You smelled it (test found to support hypothesis). You felt it, perhaps learning then that it was cold (test with observed result leading to revised hypothesis). You tasted it (test found to support revised hypothesis). So with multiple tests you confirmed to your satisfaction that it was chicken. Congratulations, you used the scientific method without even realizing it.

Of course without more tests we really can't say definitively that it was in fact chicken. I had a sausage hero for lunch. I could have sworn I'd eaten pork. But I later discovered it had been made from chicken. What looked like knowledge was really just a belief because I didn't test rigorously enough to attain the actual knowledge. Luckily knowledge wasn't required as it was a very enjoyable sandwich nonetheless.

I know I love my wife (the love is a feeling, knowing that the feeling exists is knowledge).

You have observed you have a feeling. Whether or not that feeling is love would depend on being able to define what love is and confirm that your feeling has those same attributes. It’s your opinion that what you feel is love. But opinion is not knowledge. How often have people said "I thought I loved him [or her], but I was only fooling myself" or "I never really knew what love was before" or something similar.

Still it's something that at least theoretically could be tested. If we were to define love, say as a pattern of brain activity we could scan for it. Or if we define it as a particular set of hormones we could test for their presence. So it is at least theoretically possible to obtain that knowledge.

I know a former colleague's face when I see it.

Again, this is something you can test. So it can be knowledge. But have you ever waved at someone only to realize they're not who you thought they were? Have you ever failed to recognize someone until the remind you where you'd met before? Is this really knowledge of belief?

To the impending collision, you could let the collision happen to test it. So again, that is in the realm of things it's possible to know. Acting on your belief that a crash is about to take place does strike me as a very good idea though.

Now that you hopefully have a better idea of what I mean when I say all knowledge can be tested, do you have any examples of knowledge that can not be obtained through the scientific method?

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 19, 2009 7:44 PM

209

So much for the idea of not giving another long-winded comment again today! lol

But I wanted to add more to what our Ab(by)Normal friend stated at the end of his comment at 207.

Now that you hopefully have a better idea of what I mean when I say all knowledge can be tested, do you have any examples of knowledge that can not be obtained through the scientific method?

Simply put, all knowledge, even concepts like "love" have a basis in brain chemistry. Of course it can be tested. Do a brain scan (MRI) of people, and have them focus on mundane things (like a table) and record what happens... and then have them think about their spouse and other loved ones. What are the differences in brain activities?

Of course these can be tested. Steve, if you can think of something in the tangible world that cannot be studied within the realm of science, then please, give us an example. But I'm pretty sure you understand that there aren't any.

As for what Steve said in 203:

Doctorgoo and I can't agree on whether there is a non-material side to human existence.

My response to that is: While I cannot know for sure that there isn't a non-material (ie supernatural) side to human existence, I can say with relatively strong confidence that so far, multiple lines of science all indicate that there isn't any need to invoke the supernatural in order to understand the material world.

As a result, we don't seem to have a common vocabulary or a common cognitive framework for discussing the kinds of questions I've raised. I'm not blaming anyone for this. It's just the way it is.

By the way... this statement is one of the biggest reasons why so many people assume you are just trolling here. We keep asking you to provide specifics... to provide evidence. But by assuming the existence of the supernatural (without first providing evidence), we're left wondering if you're just here to engage in some sort of 'intellectual masturbation' here. LOL

(don't take that last part too seriously... I tease... lol)

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 19, 2009 9:07 PM

211

Knowledge of these two facts is obviously not very important - except that they are examples of factual knowledge that was acquired without recourse to scientific means and is completely resistant to scientific inquiry.

That isn't correct! Have you ever heard of an electronic tongue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tongue

Both of your examples can be studied. How did you *KNOW* it was cold chicken? You have previous experience tasting it. And by comparison (much like using an E-Tongue), you were smart enough to figure out that it's the same.

Or perhaps you are referring to the trivial problem that you did these things in the past, and therefore we cannot go back to study it now that it's the next day? Well, that's not even an issue. We can set up a study where you eat some unknown food to determine if it was cold chicken or not.

... in fact, we can calibrate the E-tongue in the lab down the hall from my office to determine with great confidence whether it was cold chicken, too.

You might not realize that you were using your brain to compare the tastes of foods, but you didn't just KNOW it was cold chicken... you used your cognitive abilities to quickly figure it out, without even actually realizing it.

As for determining what the adult beverage was? Let's use one of our LC-MS's for that.... lol

(Steve, your examples are almost laughable. It's almost as absurd if you were to state that... since your heart beats without you having to remind your heart to do so, that there must be a supernatural reason for it to happen.)

Please, try again. :-)

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 19, 2009 9:53 PM

213

damn it! That should have said under go an invasive medical procedure.....

Posted by: Ramel | August 19, 2009 10:08 PM

215

Steve, you've been back any number of times since you were asked for clarification on your questions; questions that you asked me to consider after I started where you started - with your lies and ignorance about ID.

You have ignored my questions and gone back to lying about ID and knowledge. You continue to show an abysmal lack of understanding of even basic science, the nature of "empiricism", utter confusion concerning basic philosophical concepts, and a continued refusal to engage in honest debate.

You have shown yourself to be dishonest, ideological, and troll-like. I'm glad that you find the process of your beaten intellectually beaten at every turn to be addicting. It's a sad commentary on your personality, but we've seen trolls before.

Are you honest? Or are you a troll?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 19, 2009 11:53 PM

217

Can anyone falsify my statement that I had cold fried chicken for dinner last night?

In theory, yes: if you ate with someone else, then that person could serve as a witness to verify your claims about the meal. Even if you ate alone, someone could go through your garbage and draw conclusions about your eating habits based on what is found there. And if, for example, you ended up in a hospital and your doctor needed to know for sure what you had eaten, then they could pump your stomach and analyze what came out. So could CSIs, if you ended up dead and they needed to find out how you had died. So yes, such a claim is indeed falsifiable, for those who really need solid proof badly enough to get it.

I'll go so far as to say that such knowledge is completely beyond the reach of science.

How many times are you going to repeat that assertion, after more than one respondent has explained exactly how it's wrong?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 20, 2009 12:09 AM

219

Blockquote Fail.

Posted by: Ramel | August 20, 2009 12:39 AM

221

There's another interesting trait that Steve demonstrates: a semantic fuzziness that makes it almost impossible to hold a real conversation with him. It's a good thing he's in IT; he'd never make it as a scientist. Look at the whole problem of "supernatural". Steve claims there's a commonly understood meaning of "someting outside nature". But what does it mean to be "outside nature"? Steve can't even answer that.

I did find this part particularly amusing, because it's quite typical of the troll (as I pointed out earlier; I still get the beer):

I know you'll be brokenhearted, but this really is my swan song.

An utter lie, as Steve continues to demonstrate.

It's been entertaining and informative.

We find you funny and ignorant. I guess that fits.

No, you haven't taught me how science works or what it does or anything like that. I've been a fan, reader, and occasional amateur practitioner for decades. In one of my teaching gigs I spent a year working with an organic chemistry professor, sitting in his lab developing data capture software for his research. If any of you are practicing scientists you know I couldn't get out of there without a pretty good understanding of what he was doing, how he was doing it, why he did it that way (including considerations of peer review) and why he was excited about it.

You think that writing software for a organic chem professor taught you something about science?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THAT'S THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE HEARD IN AGES.

Hey, Steve; I watched guy sharpen a knife once: I guess that means I know all about medieval warfare.

Hey, Steve; I watched a kid brush his teeth: I guess that means I can do dental surgery on you.

ROTFMLAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God damn, but you're funny, my child.

But some of you have provided useful and informative data points and pointed me to a few sources I might not otherwise have encountered.

Since you haven't shown any sign that you've profited even by what we've written here, I doubt you'll profit from sources that you don't seem to have the mental capacity to comprehend.

I have also learned that the philosophical chasm that separates a substantial part of the scientific community from the rest of the world is wider than I thought, which is kind of troubling. That doesn't bode well for either society or science. For both to thrive, society has to be able to trust science. Standing on the corner (or publishing books) yelling "we're smarter than you are; you have to trust us!" won't help.

Since you don't understand science, and apparently learned your philosophy from the same law school that provided Orly Taitz with her degree, we're not worried.

Steve, nobody cares what your opinion on this subject is because you don't show any signs of UNDERSTANDING this subject.

As for the insults and name-calling - I don't take it personally. You told some cyber-ghost that he was an idiot, ignorant, and all the rest of it.

You realize that those aren't insults. Those are factual statements that we can back up from your posts.

Understand? Your own posts shown you to be ignorant of science, ignorance of philosophy, unable to construct a valid chain of logic, and a continual liar. Your own posts. If you'd like, I can walk you through every error, every lie, every failed argument and show you why we're being highly charitable to you by merely calling you an idiot.

But see, as all trolls, you're just going to complain about bad manners without actually answering any questions or addressing any of your lies.

You are SO predictable.

It probably made you feel better and left me, the real person whom none of you would know if I sat down next to you on the bus, untouched.

I don't feel anything about you at all, Steve. You're a nothing. As soon as you showed you weren't here to discuss, and that you were willing to lie to make your points, I realized that you had no integrity. I've no feeling whatsoever for those who lack integrity. They have their own failures to deal with, and more's the pity. If we feel anything at all, it's sadness that the internet seems to swarm with folks like you who appear to lack both intelligence and integrity.

But again, excellent troll behavior - trying to play the noble martyr. Clap, clap. Well played.

There are a few people whose opinion of me matters; none are to be found here.

Do we care? Nope. Shall we play violins for you?

My only objection was that the information content of such nonsense is exactly 0 and plowing through it is a dreary business. But that's the nature of the Internet and the price of admission to a forum whose denizens are utterly certain of the righteousness of their cause. That's not a criticism, just a neutral observation.

You've never made a neutral observation. And now you'll take another two or three posts to say how mean we are.

You're just not very good at this, are you? Sad.

"I learned science by writing code for a professor"

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 20, 2009 12:46 AM

223

Steve, in #210, you asked:

Can anyone falsify my statement that I had cold fried chicken for dinner last night? If not, is it testable?

But Abby addressed this question quite nicely in #207, a comment that you implied at the very beginning of #210 had been read by you:

Abby Normal@207;

A bunch of other people went on to address #210 (very nicely, I would suggest reading all of those comments), but why did you bother to restate your "untestable" hypothesis in the first place? Abby had already nailed an answer. Didn't you read #207? I'm confused...

Posted by: Josh | August 20, 2009 6:26 AM

225

Steve, I'm tempted to say the you couldn't be more obnoxiously, arrogantly, willfully ignorant if you tried. But I know you are trying as hard as you can, with every post, to top the astounding idiocy you've already displayed. You are batshit insane. You're obsessed with using ANYTHING, even last night's dinner, as some ridiculous "gotcha" against science. What the fuck is wrong with you?

If you really despise science so much, bash your computer to bits with a wooden club and go off into the wilderness to kill your own food. You'll be dead of your own stupidity in a few days, and no one will miss you.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 20, 2009 9:30 AM

227

Stevie baby, that whooshing sound you heard? That was a dozen valid points flying over your head.

Posted by: Ramel | August 20, 2009 11:50 AM

229

Ramel @ 227:

Stevie baby, that whooshing sound you heard? That was a dozen valid points flying over your head.

I'd argue at a minimum its several dozen, if not 100+ (measuring the entire thread's valid and relevant assertions that went either unresponded to or misconstrued.

The frustrating aspect of all this is that I highly doubt Mr. Jones will realize he needs to bone-up on what science is and understands. His delusion is far more powerful than our valid rebuttals.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 11:55 AM

231

Here's the basic definition of the scientific method:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesize
3. Test
4. Observe results, which takes you back to step 1

Anything that fits that pattern could be called science. It is true that science, as an academic and practical pursuit, involves a great deal more, like refined methods, rigor, peer-review, etc. It's similar to construction. Anyone who nails two boards together is doing construction. But a professional carpenter is going to use refined techniques to get a better result than your average laymen.

Going back to the liquor, you observed the bottle, its shape, its label, and the color of its contents. From that you drew a hypothesis about what the liquid was. Now, it was possible someone had poured out the contents of the bottle and replaced it with colored water. You didn’t know what it was until drinking it confirmed the hypothesis. Had it tasted like tea instead, your hypothesis would have been falsified. You did layman level science. That you didn’t do it intentionally and weren’t cognizant of it doesn’t change the fact you went through the process.

It is a simple fact that within science, you can devise no test, no experiment, not even a hypothesis to discover what that beverage was. That is knowledge that is utterly impervious to scientific methods. Can anyone rise to that specific challenge?

I can’t think of any, no. Which is why the rest of us will never know what you drank. The best we can do is form a belief based on what you tell us. You’ve illustrated my point perfectly. Without the ability to test we cannot know. You did the test, so you do know.

Every person who dips his or her toe in the pool is testing reality. If you only want to refer to the professional level application of the scientific method as “science,” I won’t object. What you choose to call science is irrelevant to whether or not something can be tested.

Incidentally, there are a great many facts that will never be known. My cat at home is either sleeping, awake or dead. Which state he’s in we’ll never know, but the fact of his current state still exists. Just because something is a fact doesn’t mean its knowledge. I say this because I’m getting the impression that you think your drinking something the other night is a fact (taking you at your word) also means its knowledge. But for everyone else it’s just a belief.

Now, as has become a tradition for my posts in this thead, can you name anything that cannot be tested but can be known?

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 20, 2009 12:54 PM

233

Abby Normal@231;

I posted @232 before your post appeared; I did not number you among the "others". I appreciate your willingness to address the challenge as written; I have to think about what you wrote.

I am curious about some of your words in the quote below. I know the dictionary definitions, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain the distinction between "fact" and "knowledge" and the idea that what to me is a "fact" is to others a "belief".

Just because something is a fact doesn’t mean its knowledge. I say this because I’m getting the impression that you think your drinking something the other night is a fact (taking you at your word) also means its knowledge. But for everyone else it’s just a belief.

Thanks.

Posted by: Steve Jones AKA Stevie baby | August 20, 2009 1:34 PM

235

A fact is an objective thing. It exists regardless of whether or not it is observed. Knowledge is internal. I stubbed my toe on a chair this morning. Either that happened or it didn't. The objective truth is a fact. But only I have knowledge of it. You can either choose to believe me or not. But you don't know.

Put another way, knowledge is knowledge only so long as it is known. Facts are eternal. You may one day forget what you drank the other night and the knowledge will be lost. But the event, the fact, will still have taken place.

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 20, 2009 2:47 PM

237

To refresh your memories (it has been a marathon)...

Do you really think we're so stupid that you have to remind us what we're talking about? And you're complaining about US insulting YOU?

...I contend that I have successfully falsified the assertion that "there is no knowledge beyond the reach of science; anything that cannot be tested, cannot be known." If I am correct, then many of your claims rest on a foundation of sand.

The important word here is "if." We've already proven you're NOT correct, so I, for one, am not all that worried. You're bluffing, you have nothing to back up your pretenses, and you know it.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 20, 2009 3:07 PM

239

I know, but I keep running into people who insist that there are three distinct classes. I figured it was safer to write it that way (figured there would be less flack).

If these comments could be edited, you could have just gone in and marked it up.

Posted by: Josh | August 20, 2009 3:31 PM

241

(To everyone else, I apologize for feeding the troll.)

It's Ok, as long as you don't do it after midnight...

Posted by: Ramel | August 20, 2009 5:18 PM

243

Heh.

That is all.

Posted by: Ramel | August 20, 2009 10:54 PM

245

@244 - thanks for the link. Now here's the funny version, Dembski shuts his own blog post comment section down when commenters validate that Dembski's math is still wrong and he continues to misrepresent Dawkin's work. So make sure you read the comment thread accompanying the post: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-peer-reviewed-pro-id-article-in-mainstream-matheng-literature/

I assume this blog post will go down the rabbit hole soon like so many other Dembski blog posts.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 21, 2009 12:36 AM

247

Just a couple of things I forgot:

1) A second non-scientific means for gathering the example knowledge - had my wife been in the kitchen, she could have observed my actions and gained knowledge of the relevant fact that way. A third means - a couple of you almost suggested it, but I thought I should spell it out - I could simply tell you what the beverage was. Of course, you'd have to decide whether or not you trusted the information, but the fact would be available to you to accept or reject as you chose. [Abby Normal@246: You can obtain knowledge of what I drank if I tell you and you could have known had you been in a position to observe. If you contend that watching me would have been science, see #2 below.] So there are three examples of non-science knowing - experience, direct observation, and disclosure (I don't remember the correct epistemological term). Of course, direct observation is an essential part of the scientific method, so that brings up the specter of science actually incorporating non-scientific knowing as an essential element for gathering scientific knowledge. Is the single act of looking at a number on a display and writing it down really an application of the scientific method? My butcher does the same thing all the time (well, not since they got scales with printers, but you get the idea).

2) Some of you have proposed or implied a definition of science broad enough to encompass an IDiotic troll having a nightcap and a stone-age cave-dweller looking for water. A definition that inclusive would easily accomodate what folks like Behe and Meyer are doing.

Posted by: Steve Jones | August 21, 2009 7:58 AM

249

Steve: I notice you're completely ignoring every one of my comments, and repeating the same assertions I've already refuted. This pretty much proves you're unable to defend your arguments, and unwilling to hold your own in an adult discussion.

I'll repeat this one more time: none of the examples you cited constitute a "way of knowing" that is different from what science does, except in scale and rigor. All of them involve making observations of real-world events, drawing conclusions/hypotheses, and testing the hypotheses. This is what scientists do. It's a different scale of rigor and complexity, but the same underlying processes: observe an event, draw conclusions, test the conclusions. Most high-school science textbooks describe all this in the first chapter; i.e., by making long bulleted lists of observations about everyday things like candle flames, and showing what sort of conclusions or predictions might be drawn from such rigorous observations. "Other ways of knowing" don't enter in.

Furthermore, as we've all demonstrated in more-than-sufficient detail, all of the things you claim to know are testable.

Your insistent repetition of assertions that were obviously wrong from the get-go is getting tiresome. Quite frankly, I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't try to come up with an example of subjective, spiritual truth, as many reasonably intelligent theists are able to do. That speaks volumes about your grasp of "other ways of knowing."

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 21, 2009 12:35 PM

251

I can see Descartes yelling at us, "You can’t know anything beyond your own existence you morons!"

Anyway...

A second non-scientific means for gathering the example knowledge - had my wife been in the kitchen, she could have observed my actions and gained knowledge of the relevant fact that way.

I saw a man pull a rabbit from an empty hat. Should it then be said that I know people can make rabbits materialize from nothing? Observation alone is insufficient for establishing knowledge, we must also establish conclusions drawn from observations are objectively true. However, even granting for the sake of argument that she gained knowledge through observation, she didn’t learn anything that she could not also have leaned through the rigorous application of science. So even granting your assertion you fail to challenge my claim that anything that can be known can be known through science.

Your central premise is that there is knowledge that can only be obtained through means other than science. I disagree. What knowledge do you mean? What method can be used to know what is true, absent the ability to test it?

Some of you have proposed or implied a definition of science broad enough to encompass an IDiotic troll having a nightcap and a stone-age cave-dweller looking for water. A definition that inclusive would easily accomodate what folks like Behe and Meyer are doing.

What Behe, Meyer and the like are doing fails to meet even my broad definition of science because they do not allow their observations to disprove their hypothesis. They ignore observations that don't mesh with what they want to believe. This is like if you'd tasted what you thought had been liquor, discovered it tasted like tea, and insisted you'd been right about it being liquor anyway.

Here’s a flow chart to help demonstrate the difference.

If you actually do depend solely on science to inform you, then you have elected to remain ignorant of an entire domain of knowledge without ever knowing what might be in it or how useful it might be.

Where'd you get that idea. Of course I don't depend soley on science to inform me. I have beliefs, opinions, ideas, feelings, inklings, and all those other cognitive processes you do. They drive me, just as they do you. I just know the difference between those things and knowledge.

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 21, 2009 5:39 PM

253

By the way, I'll get points for this post.

Taking you at your word, the fact that you'll be graded favourably for that sorry stream of vacuous spew is really the whole point of the post.

Bonus points for drive-by commenting weeks after all the scary regulars stopped paying attention.

Posted by: Fortuna | September 10, 2009 3:36 PM

255

He cant do anything scientific like but claims he is smarter because of it. Bet his computer still uses 6 in floppy disk too.

HA HA HA!!! (rinse, wipe and repeat as needed)

Posted by: theroachman | September 10, 2009 3:51 PM

257

Though I may be poor in spelling, arithmetic, fancy acronyms, heady arguments, lopsided blogospheres and anything else that apparently doesn't maintain the arbitrary requirements of scientific sensationalistic rationales, I am well versed in theology.

Because, as we all know, theology has nothing whatsoever to do with heady arguments, arbitrary requirements or sensationalistic rationales.

Its two millennia of research,

Pray tell, what have theologists discovered recently?

archeology,

Archaeology is a science, not part of theology. Pray tell, what has theology contributed to archaeology recently?

document maintenance

Pray tell, what does theology contribute towards document maintenance that disciplines like history, archaeology, chemistry, physics, and library science do not?

and worldwide influence

Racism has worldwide influence. I don't see how that validates it.

in light of these two hundred year old arguments from more "enlightened" folks.

What proves it baseless is the success that science has had in 200 years in providing the answers and improvements to the human condition that thousands of years of theology promised but failed to deliver.

I think I outscore most who participate on this blog in one important area. I really believe my views from top to bottom.

You seem to be labouring under the painfully mistaken notion that belief is a virtue.

My studies are not in the probability of fact but rather in the discovery of truth.

You are speaking, of course, of the "truth" in the sense of things that cannot be shown to be true, and that many people (including other theologians) disagree on. An... interesting notion of truth, to say the least.

Theology has been for most of history the Queen of Disciplines.

In all places and times where it was able to suppress criticism by force, yes.

Yet now it seems true certainty is considered the sure sign of irresponsibility.

It would not be if you were actually in possession of any such thing, but you are not. What you have is a delusion of knowledge, dogmatically held - which is not at all the same thing. How responsible do you consider those theologians who claim an absolute certainty of truths that contradict your own?

By the way, I'll get points for this post.

...and, eventually, a worthless degree. Enjoy.

Posted by: DaveL | September 10, 2009 3:56 PM

259

Well, does anyone now have any more respect for Dembski or his course requirements? I certainly don't.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 10, 2009 4:20 PM

261

Tex, ID is not a made up story but a fairly new theory.

Bullshit. ID is just a retread of Paley's Watch -- except, what with lying out on the heath for a couple of centuries, the water got in and reduced the works to a mess of green corrosion, so it no longer runs. Behe, Dembski, and the DiscoToot in general just stuck it inside the empty case from a spiffy new digital clock to make it look all modern.

But it still doesn't tell the time.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 10, 2009 4:50 PM

263

So, Jordan, still no evidence? Still not the slightest speck? Nothing at all? All of theology for millennia has been a complete waste of time, because you have not come up with one iota of evidence. You've got nothing, and you know it. Your posts here are nothing more than a smokescreen to try to hide the utter worthlessness of your wasted life.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 10, 2009 4:55 PM

265

OK Jordan - Please directly respond to all of DaveL's rebuttals at comment #257, especially since your claiming some sort of victory only you can perceive. All we ask is that you merely adhere to the same standards of evidence and intellectual honesty that DaveL is known to use in this forum.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 10, 2009 5:05 PM

267

If you argue that Darwinian evolution (DE) is true because humans exist here

Heh, missed that one the first time through. Pretty funny stuff. Jordan, please give me a citation to any biologist who has written that simply the existence of humans here and now is proof of natural selection.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 10, 2009 5:09 PM

269

Many who commented on my post above have actually served the purpose of the assignment.

You're welcome. Do you think you can get us a banner icon or something? "Official Hostile Blog of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary".

Your complaints about my arguments (or non-arguments as you say) really lie within your own presupposition about facts and truth.

My presuppositions about facts and truth ought to be familiar to you: they're the same ones you use everyday to locate the bathroom in the morning, feed yourself, and make it to class.

The only difference is that I apply these standards consistently, without making special exceptions for doctrines I would prefer to believe.

So with high probability as our guide to truth lets consider the statistical chance of a meteor striking the earth. The likelihood is good that eventually this will happen. But what is the likelihood this will happen in the next ten years? There is a better chance that it will not happen. Darwinian evolution offers truth from probability, but offers no certainty.

Quite true. Here's the rub, though: your theology offers certainty, but it can't deliver. The proof lies in theology's innumerable falsified claims and internal disagreements. For thousands of years religion has failed to deliver on its promises, and now they could not ring more hollow. Science does not know everything, it's true. But theology, despite humanity's great patience, has failed to show it knows anything.

Given an infinite amount of time your theory would have a shred of hope for some form of empirical validation, but your theory has a limited time in which to be validated thus the odds are against you

I take it from this that you're completely ignorant of the empirical validation of the theory of evolution. Stick with Dembski and he'll make sure you stay that way. Funny, most people don't pay tuition for the express purpose of remaining ignorant.

Posted by: DaveL | September 10, 2009 5:15 PM

271

Jordan I'll give you the same benifit of doubt I gave Steve Jones. Explain to me this amazing new way of determining what's true that doesn't rely on evidence. I'd love to find a shortcut that worked.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 10, 2009 5:42 PM

273

DaveL: then would we agree that science is a search for truth even as religion is a search for truth?

"Quite true. Here's the rub, though: your theology offers certainty, but it can't deliver. The proof lies in theology's innumerable falsified claims and internal disagreements. For thousands of years religion has failed to deliver on its promises, and now they could not ring more hollow."

Does this imply that any less contradiction lies in the DE community. Science is not in monolithic agreement. Nor are your claims that theology has falsified claims and internal disagreements agreed upon. Explanations for inconsistencies often have strong logical arguments. The presence of disagreements and contradictions within the theological community doesn't nessecarily mean inconsistencies exist in the Bible itself.
But then your argument seems to respond with a consequentialist deduction - a deduction you reject when you say I'm ignorant of the "empirical validation of the theory of evolution." Do you argue that DE is proven through consequences or do you argue that religion is bunk based on consequential deduction?

Posted by: Jordan Wallace | September 10, 2009 5:50 PM

275

I really believe my views from top to bottom.

And this is something that, in and of itself, is supposed to garner respect why?

Posted by: Josh | September 10, 2009 6:02 PM

277

As an educator, Jordan's comments are truly quite amusing. I wouldn't grant many "points" for them, due to their poor structure, lack of logic or evidence, and inability to respond to follow-up questions or counter points, but they are amusing.

A few key points Jordan.

First, as has been pointed out, the weaknesses" you claim for evolution, or "DE" as you refer to it could quite readily be pointed towards theology with even greater impact. Unlike theology, evolution has actual evidence to support it; can be (and has been) tested; was, is, and remains successful within the framework of those tests. Theology, really all theology, is a collection of "just so" stories in which he hero, you, get to live forever in the magic man's special house in the sky. Now to be fair all theologies offer some valuable advice for life, mostly in the form of self serving "paths of the righteous," but for each of these valuable points, don't kill people for example, they provide equally disturbing, counter-intuitive points, for example, kill gay people, or avoid shell fish. Truly the sign of a demented mind.

Second, your points are patently false:

So with high probability as our guide to truth lets consider the statistical chance of a meteor striking the earth. The likelihood is good that eventually this will happen. But what is the likelihood this will happen in the next ten years? There is a better chance that it will not happen.

Actually there is a 1:1 probability that a meteor will strike the earth within the next ten years. Objects less than 10m in diameter strike the earth every year. It helps if you have a clue before you try to make an argument.

----------

Darwinian evolution offers truth from probability, but offers no certainty. If that's the case then your theory has a high chance of being wrong.

Here is where your lack of understanding of all of the concepts you are attempting to discuss comes around and bites you in the arse. First, you don't understand astronomy, 1:1 is CERTAIN probability. Second, you don't understand the concept of probability because probability as a function can lead to certainty, namely 1:1. Finally, you exhibit no understanding of evolution. The probability that creatures evolve is the same probability as a meteor striking the earth, namely, 1:1. You can argue over the mechanism, which is by far the majority of the debate within the scientific community, but the simple, (1:1) fact is, evolution happens. Even if you assume a completely unfounded 6000 year old earth with a flood, etc., it REQUIRES evolution for the animals from that mythical ark to suddenly become the modern animal species on the earth. In fact, if you advocate for a young earth, you honestly believe in a pace of evolutionary change that not only is completely unsupported by the evidence, but makes the actual evidence supported theory (DE) move at a glacial pace by comparison.

----------

Given an infinite amount of time your theory would have a shred of hope for some form of empirical validation, but your theory has a limited time in which to be validated thus the odds are against you.

Where do you get the claim that there is a limitation on time? Evolution requires time, but not an infinite amount of time. Again, you seem to misunderstand all of the elements of your argument. With the billions of planets in the universe capable of supporting life combined with trillions of building block molecule combinations that can form to ultimately make up life, over the billions of years that planets have existed in the universe, yet again, you end up with a probability of 1. On earth itself, again the number of combinations over the last billion years alone = the chances of life developing is 1.

Please, try to construct a logical argument, research the information, find evidence, have some semblance of an idea of what the heck you are talking about before you TRY to talk.

Posted by: dogmeatib | September 10, 2009 6:22 PM

279

DaveL: then would we agree that science is a search for truth even as religion is a search for truth?

No. Science, certainly, is a search for truth. Religion is not- it is a dogmatic, unjustified and unreasoning claim to have the truth.

Posted by: DaveL | September 10, 2009 6:34 PM

281

then would we agree that science is a search for truth even as religion is a search for truth?

Define "truth..."

Posted by: dogmeatib | September 10, 2009 6:46 PM

283

Jordan Wallace wrote:

Science is not in monolithic agreement.

I think that depends on what you mean by "science" and "monolithic", but mostly this is a false analogy.

With regard to evolution, the agreement that it occurred is about as monolithic as it gets. That scientists sometimes disagree about the specific details in no way negates previously discovered facts and events.

Theology does not share this trait because there are no previous facts and some of the events are highly suspect. There is only previous theology, which is complicated by the fact that the people claim to know the truth about God can't agree on what that truth is.

You can think of it like this:

You and I might disagree about the relative benefits of Macs and pcs, but that disagreement in no way negates the fact that computers exist. Any passive observer to that argument could go out and check that computers exist. While it would be a more difficult endeavor, the same holds true for evolution: you can check for yourself.

Now, what if we were not arguing about computers but, say, the culinary preferences of fairies? Where could we go to check the facts? Where could a passive observer go? Well, he or she could perhaps go to a book about fairies, probably the same ones you and I used, but does that really put the argument on the same footing as the one about computers?

I don't think so.

Posted by: Leni | September 10, 2009 6:49 PM

285

As a reminder, when I write DE I refer particularly to Darwinian Evolution. It seems some may have mistaken what I speak of as evolution. I agree that limited mutation within species is true, but claims that speciation can be proven are not valid according to the limits of scientific fact.

Posted by: Jordan Wallace | September 10, 2009 7:53 PM

287

Jordan Wallace

Simple question

Who created sceince?

Posted by: theroachman | September 10, 2009 8:13 PM

289

As a reminder, when I write DE I refer particularly to Darwinian Evolution. It seems some may have mistaken what I speak of as evolution. I agree that limited mutation within species is true, but claims that speciation can be proven are not valid according to the limits of scientific fact.

Well, we can now get down to specifics, at least. Name one prominent example of speciation, and then tell us why you reject it? What do you know that we don't, in other words?

Also, so that we don't have to spend all of our time rebutting your accusations, I will give you an opportunity to introduce evidence that will support you own position. What mechanism prevents speciation? In other words, if you accept that change (mutation, etc) happens, what prevents the changes from building up over time, up to and including the point that two new species emerge?

Posted by: Damian | September 10, 2009 8:26 PM

291

Demanding evidence for faith would be to presume that faith needed to provide evidence in order to be a valid explanation of the world and the universe. Do those things which come by faith need evidence? I would say no. However, if you presume that God is active in the universe, the designer of it, the maker ex nil, then conclusions that come from the scientific method are evidence of the creators hand. You then have an argument for natural theology.
But I do not argue that evidence of creation is needed to validate a creator. Rather I have argued that the DE position is presuppositional. You have applied a system you presuppose to be true as a mechanism to explain your position. Please define your presupositions.

Posted by: Jordan Wallace | September 10, 2009 10:01 PM

293

Jordan,

I am also a Christian. It seems to me that the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate and a-religious account of the variety of life on earth. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise. Would you tell me?

Posted by: JuliaL | September 10, 2009 10:09 PM

295

Demanding evidence for faith would be to presume that faith needed to provide evidence in order to be a valid explanation of the world and the universe.

That's not a "presumption," it's a conclusion: we have observed, time and time again, that explanations of the Universe that are based on verifiable evidence are the ONLY explanations that really explain anything. Explanations based only on faith consistently turn out to be useless, at best; therefore we conclude (not presume) that explanations without evidence are invalid. ID is just one more in a long line of such "explanations."

Methodological materialism, and the scientific method of inquiry, give us explanations of the Universe that work; religion gives us nothing comparable as an alternative.

However, if you presume that God is active in the universe...

If there's no proof of such a presumption, then no conclusion based on it is reliable.

Rather I have argued that the DE position is presuppositional.

On which "presuppositions," exactly, is evolution based? IF you can't list specific presumptions, then your argument is bogus.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2009 10:18 PM

299

Jordan,

Do they promote the epistemic nihilism that you are espousing at SBTS, or did you come up with it on your own (only if you have time - I'd rather see you answer other peoples' questions, or better yet, take Michael Heath's advice)?

Posted by: argystokes | September 11, 2009 12:15 AM

301

In reality, you're CONCLUDING your senses are giving you a reliable picture of reality, because you have OBSERVED, over time, that your senses do not fail you.

Really, the operant part of that sentence was intended to be the "objective, external reality" part, i.e. the rejection of solipsism.

Posted by: DaveL | September 11, 2009 4:58 AM

303

DJ, thanks for that link. I dunno if Jordan will appreciate it, but I sure enjoyed it.

Posted by: Josh | September 11, 2009 6:54 AM

305

Our assignment is to engage in logical argument with folks who hold DE views.

Granted I'm known as a tough grader, but I'd have to give you zero points so far, as you haven't made any logical arguments.

And if the assignment is about defending ID, then I'd still have to give you zero points, because you haven't made any defenses of it yet.

Please, Jordan, give us your best defense of ID. And if your best defense is "faith," then you've admitted, contra your teacher, that ID is about religion rather than science. And if your defense attempts to rely on evidence, then we'll whack you with your own posts denying that evidence matters.

You've already put yourself in a completely untenable position--you can't defend ID, as you're supposed to do, as science without rebutting yourself.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 11, 2009 8:08 AM

307

Ed,

Just to piss off Dembski and his student here, I think you should delete his comments right before Dembski grades him... just so that he flunks his class.

;-)

Posted by: doctorgoo | September 11, 2009 9:24 AM

309

Psst... dean what does Dumbski teach about HTML tags thier use & abuse?* :) - DJ
______________
*happens to us all (I just wish it wouldn't happen when we come up with that perfect zinger to correct the idiocy of RRR Retards!)

Posted by: DIngoJack | September 11, 2009 9:36 AM

311

Drat, I almost forgot. None of my sophomores are failing, so right now, the level of work you have completed is of a lower calibre than any single one of the HIGH SCHOOL sophomores in my classes.

If this is what qualifies as rigor at your school, until I see evidence of something better I refuse to refer to it as a college or university, I have to parrot the "move to another school, dude" comment that has been winding its way through this thread.

Posted by: dogmeatib | September 11, 2009 10:11 AM

313

Jordan Wallace, your writings seem totally surrealistic. Or rather they show a profound lack of understanding of what science is, and especially of how it works, how it thinks.

Please understand this: science, especially in the 20th century, has revolutionized the history of ideas. It has, once and for all, thrown Plato and his Ideas into the trashcan of history. I think it is important that you understand what this means. In this revolution, the role of the theory of evolution, and especially of people like Ernst Mayr, has been capital.

For this derive the answers to some of your questions (although I won't be going into details)

What is a species? Forget the idea that it is anything like a "type". You can't separate the notion of species from the notion of population.

The first life form? Ahhhh... metaphysical thinking at its worst. Can you consider, not a binary opposition between "not life" and "life", but a gradation? The progressive emergence of properties, of which only the total sum is what we consider "life"? If there's only life vs. non-life, on which side do you put a virus?

Now my turn to ask: what are those things that "come by faith"? If you have a pre-established dogma, I understand how you can call "faith" the fact of believing it without questionning it. But how could faith produce entirely new knowledge? What could be its methods for this ? I mean, there's the "WWJD?" approach, but it's extremely limited...

Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 11, 2009 12:28 PM

315

Jordan wrote:

The arguments against DE or its varients include some important questions like: What exactly is a species?

This isn't an argument. It is a question about definitions.

Where did the first life form - taking for granted the presuppositions that current observable life forms are from this common ancestor - come from and has this been adequetly tested with affirmative probabilities?

I thought we were discussing "Darwinian Evolution."

In the closed system reality of DE and naturalism in general how do you account for the initial matter?

Within that closed system, it was always there.

Why would you conclude, or even entertain, a comparison of religion and DE if religion is completely other than science?

Why would I conclude a comparison? I hope English isn't your first language. I really have no idea what you are asking here. It seems to me like you're the only one stating that religion is a method for knowing about the natural world.

If you claim your evidence comes through purely empirical sources then where is your empirical evidence for the conclusions you have drawn regarding the origins of life?

As to a naturalistic origin of life, as opposed to a supernatural intervention, it is reasonable to expect the origin of life to be material because of science's history of finding natural explanations for various phenomena. As to specific explanations, if I provide you a link, do you promise to read it?

As for ID, explain the nature of intelligence and its source?

ID does not provide answers for the person of God.

Pssst... ixnay on the odGay.

As an argument ID is not sufficient to convert anyone to belief in the biblical Yahweh. ID is not creationism. Like DE, ID seeks a presupposition from which to do science and interpret observations.

So you presume God created, and your scientific findings are that God created. With no explanation of how, when, or the nature of God. Lame.

If you acknowledge that DE is based on probability then you already allow for contenders with varient interpretations of the evidence. The evidence of DE is inconclusive in that it cannot account for the actual origin of life, for information in cellular structures, for the variety of life, for a lack of intermediary fossil record, for its own claim of fact since DE allows only for that which is probably true.

Ah, the Gish gallop. Let's see...
- Origin of life...discussed already.
- Information in cellular structures...you'll have to get a wee bit more specific here. I put the odds that you do so beyond the Universal Probability Bound.
- the variety of life... There is a really famous book about this. The Borigin, no, The Florigen, damn, what is it?
- lack of intermediary fossil record...If I provide a source which discusses many fossil intermediates, do you promise to read it?

Christianity has a stable paradigm.

Which is why it has never changed over 2000 years. Oh wait.

It has conclusive answers for the origin of life.

Then why do Christians disagree, even on matters as to the Biblical description of the origin of life?

Informs the academic disciplines of its faithful.

I like that you admit that Christians get to have an alternate reality.

Provides a historically defensible record.

Of what? And what is the subject of this sentence?

Acknowledges error in human understanding but ultimately rests not on human understanding but divine revelation.

I think that with Jordan's claim of 100% certainty, this implies that Jordan believes himself to be not human, but divine.

Provides for the source of intelligence.

For some more than others, it seems. Jordan, I think it's time start answering other peoples' questions. Be careful, you might actually learn something.

Posted by: argystokes | September 11, 2009 12:43 PM

317

Jordan, as one idiot to another,

The evidence of DE is inconclusive in that it cannot account ... for information in cellular structures ...

Please define "information." This is one thing that Mark Chu-Carrol and others have tried to get Dembski to actually address, but Dembski hasn't.

Christianity Islam has a stable paradigm. It (Islam) has conclusive answers for the origin of life. (Islam) Informs the academic disciplines of its faithful. (Islam) Provides a historically defensible record. (Islam) Acknowledges error in human understanding but ultimately rests not on human understanding but divine revelation. (Islam) Provides for the source of intelligence.

Do any of those sentences convince you of anything? If so, then you'd better get down on your knees and prostrate yourself facing Mecca pretty darn quick. If not, then why not?

Posted by: Shawn Smith | September 11, 2009 1:57 PM

319

Jordan parroted thusly:

ID is not creationism.

Then please explain the origin and significance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists."

Oh, and, as I predicted, you never gave us a list of those "presuppositions" on which science is allegedly based. Which proves once again that your arguments are nothing but bluff and word-games.

As for who Jordan may really be, I'm guessing, from that empty little catechism at the end of his last post, that he's just another self-important choirboy spouting canned affirmations and pretending he's winning every argument because the script his minister handed him says he is.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 11, 2009 2:48 PM

321

ID does not provide answers for the person of God.

Indeed. ID also does not provide answers for the person of DaveL. It does, however, provide a handsome living for the person of William Dembsky off the backs of the gullible.

Like DE, ID seeks a presupposition from which to do science and interpret observations.

You really don't know anything about evolution, do you? Darwin started his studies with the presupposition of a Special Creation by God. Just about everyone in his social context did, including his scientific peers. What happened was that the evidence revealed itself to be indicative of something different - of common descent guided by natural forces. I don't see how Darwinian evolution could be any less of a presupposition.

Posted by: DaveL | September 11, 2009 3:31 PM

325

for a lack of intermediary fossil record

1. There is no lack of intermediary fossil record. There simply is not. This is an empirical fact. The only people who would assert otherwise are those who are either so ignorant of paleontology that they shouldn't be pontificating about paleontological matters, or are those who are deliberately lying.

2. The nature of the fossil record has at least as much to do with taphonomy, sedimentology, and geochemistry, as it does with evolution. To piss and moan about the quality of the fossil record while ignoring these other disciplines (i.e., focusing only on evolution) is to be intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Josh | September 11, 2009 6:21 PM

327

Yet another creationist jumps into a thread that's obviously long dead, and pretends he wants a "reasoned debate." Wotta joke.

I look at these blogs I see little argument but a lot of ad hominem personal attacks.

This ignorant statement proves you haven't looked at anything other than the script your fundagelial handlers gave you. If you REALLY looked at the blog, you'd see innumerable references to factual Web sites that would easily have explained evolution and refuted all of the idiotic claims made by the cdesign proponentsists.

I want to play in your sandbox and dive deeper into the debate but do it with respect.

You make it sound downright...erotic. Even including the standard plea for us to be gentle with you...

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 20, 2009 4:55 PM

329

Dave L: You wrote this earlier in the month "Darwin started his studies with the presupposition of a Special Creation by God. Just about everyone in his social context did, including his scientific peers. What happened was that the evidence revealed itself to be indicative of something different - of common descent guided by natural forces." Just got done with a biography of Darwin that indicated his grandfather was a rabid atheist and that Darwin was always sympathetic to that view. Direct me where your information came from.
Thanks.

Posted by: Scott Nickels | October 20, 2009 6:09 PM

331

Scott,

Well, there are several parts to my statement. As for Darwin's early views, his grandfather may well have been an atheist but if we examine the many other influences on Darwin's boyhood a far different picture emerges.

Wikipedia summarizes:

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and become filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3] On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion

For example, his diary from HMS Beagle includes references to "centres of creation"

26th& 27th I industriously collected all the animals, plants, insects & reptiles from this Island. — It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or "centre of creation" the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1925&pageseq=388

Again, from the same source:

Europæan one. — Now what would the Disbeliever say to this? Would any two workmen ever hit on so beautiful, so simple & yet so artificial a contrivance? It cannot be thought so. — The one hand has surely worked throughout the universe.2 A Geologist perhaps would suggest, that the periods of Creation have |695| been distinct & remote the one from the other; that the Creator rested in his labor. —3

Posted by: DaveL | October 20, 2009 6:33 PM

333

My intent is not to argue you out of your ideology but to learn where I can. Is this only a hard science blog or can one wander into philosophy (Aristotle et al)? IF ID is off limits I shall stay away.

First of all, are you admitting that ID is NOT science? If so, then I'm in complete agreement. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a philosophy unless it's qualified as a "religious philosophy".

Again, I think you are lying when you claim that you are here "to learn where you can"... unless of course what you mean is that you want to learn how to twist an unwinnable debate on the alleged "science" of ID or the alleged "fatal flaws" in the TofE into a vacuous and pointless discussion (read: wankathon) on whether or not ID is possible given unproven, unlikely and scientifically invalid assumptions.

(In other words, the only way that the religious philosophy of ID makes sense is if you start with the premise that there is one or more gods to actually be the Designer. So in this case, it is a wankathon to debate this topic at all, because your premise -- that such a god, the Christian God, exists -- has no basis in reason or factual evidence anyway.)

Posted by: doctorgoo | October 20, 2009 7:28 PM

335

As a Christian I'd like to dive into the deep end of the pool and have a reasoned debate with the naturalist side. I came from that side for mamy years until recently when I began investigating the Intelleigence Design movement.

but wonder about the worship of science (been there, done that)

Let me guess- "I was once an atheist"?

You do understand that's a standard script for Christian apologists, right? In my time on the internet, I've met hundreds, possibly thousands of atheists. I can count on one hand the number that I've known as atheists who later converted to some form of god-belief, and in most of those cases that form was either deism or pantheism.

Somehow, however, a good 60-80% of the Christian apologists I've encountered claim to have once been atheists. All of those, without exception, have proceeded to disburse the same tripe that's been refuted a thousand times before in every atheist blog, forum, club, and book in existence.

How could this be possible? Here's how: these apologists, at least most of them, are lying. Many times I have had such apologists admit, after some questioning, that when they say they were an atheist they mean they believed in God but didn't go to church, or went to the wrong church, or led a morally bad life, etc.

So what's your story?

Posted by: DaveL | October 20, 2009 8:03 PM

337

Wow. This subject is "settled science" on this site. When I was a graduate student many years ago (it was an MBA so please discount appropriately) I used to debate the Roman Catholics for hours about their errors as I ran away from that upbringing. But I never thought that you couldn't bring anything to the debate other than the one side.
If y'all read your posts dispassionately you would detect the vitriole driving your arguments.

Michael - I appreciate the tutorial on where to go and what to read...I will follow up as my workday permits.
There does not seem to be room for open debate but that just makes my assertion for me. Philosophy is out...and science is worshiped. Can/would the scientists on this posting submit an argument in support for the great theistic scientists? Even if you do not agree it would make great reading and learning for me. Otherwise I shall move on and search this blog thing...including the Panda one recommended.
DaveL: Thanks for the fast follow up. I will compare those items with the my other readings.

Posted by: Scott Nickels | October 21, 2009 2:25 PM

339

Scott, here's the bottom line: Can you offer the tiniest, most microscopic speck of evidence to support the existence of any god, or for any of the crap you and your fellow IDiots spew?

If so, do it, present your evidence honestly, let it be examined honestly, make world history by being the first creationist on the entire fucking planet to so much as TRY to offer evidence, and quit whining about how people keep calling the leaders of your dishonest cult a pack of liars for refusing to support their claims with the slightest speck of evidence. If you have evidence, bring it out, and let the facts speak for themselves. If the facts are on your side, there's no need for you and your cult to keep lying.

If not, shut the fuck up. You've got nothing. Philosophy without evidence is pure sophistry, mental masturbation with no connection to the real world. It's worthless.

So put up or shut up, Scott. I doubt you have the integrity or intelligence to do either. I've never seen a single creationist who did.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 21, 2009 2:46 PM

341

There does not seem to be room for open debate but that just makes my assertion for me. Philosophy is out...and science is worshiped.

Once again, Scott, you prove both your dishonesty and your closed-mindedness by repeating the very same assertions that we have already explicitly refuted; and by fatuously pretending that everything we say to disprove them somehow magically proves them in your own little mind.

And as for "room for open debate," there's as much room for open debate about ID as there is for geocentrism -- and for the same reason. If we're closed-minded about your religious belief (which, I must add, is flatly rejected by HUGE numbers of Christians), it's because you bring absolutely no proof or logic to back it up.

Posted by: Raging bee | October 21, 2009 3:18 PM

343

Scott, assuming you're still around, said

You are making my point. I am trying to understand whether you are (a) for science and against theism or (b) whether you can combine the two.

Of course you can combine the two - but keep in mind that theism has a bad habit of making verifiable statements about reality that science has a bad habit of disproving. Stuff like a Flood (for Christians) or Mohammed splitting the moon (for Muslims), etc. Aside from various political facts (the existence of Jericho, for example), theism has a lousy track record.

I have read the science --as a layperson,not a scientist as yourself -- but wonder about the worship of science (been there, done that) that exists, at least in the blogosphere.

There is no worship of science in the blogsphere; none. Perhaps you're reading Christian sites? Of course, claims like that one carry a lot more credibility if you can support them... can you?

My intent is not to argue you out of your ideology but to learn where I can.

We have no ideology, so it will be hard to argue us out of it in any event.

Is this only a hard science blog or can one wander into philosophy (Aristotle et al)? IF ID is off limits I shall stay away.

You can go anywhere you want, but I caution you, you are among people who know the science extremely well and the theology as well. Thanksfor the response.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | October 21, 2009 6:05 PM

345

See, science is always open, but it requires evidence to overturn well-established theories that are well-supported by prior evidence.

And what we're getting at when we say things like this, Scott, is that if ID is going to assert that it is the better theory (versus evolution) to explain how life has changed through time on Earth, then it must actually do that. That is to say, it must explain the observations that we see better than the ToE does, as this is what scientific theories do.

For example, Typhlichthys subterraneus is a North American freshwater fish that lives in caves. Like most cave fish, T. subterraneus is blind. But unlike some of the other cave species, T. subterraneus doesn't lack eyes. Rather, like Amblyopsis rosae (the Ozark cave fish), it possesses rudimentary eyes that don't function.

These fish live in the dark. They don't particularly need eyes. But they do not lack eyes. Instead, they have them; the eyes just don't function.

The ToE has an explanation for this observation that is congruent with the theory and with the other observations that the theory explains.

What explanation does intelligent design offer for this observation? And why is that explanation better than the one provided by the ToE?
In short*, why did the designer give these fish eyes that don't work?

*Of course, if we're treating ID as science, then "how do you falsify the concept of the designer?" is implied here as well, but we can ignore this for the moment...

Posted by: Josh | October 22, 2009 1:18 PM

347

Well, I'd argue first we need evidence of designer, then we'd require evidence this designer actually did this particular design,

I agree with you 100%. It's just that it seems like every time I ask that question of an ID supporter, they come back with some version of "But the structure shows design--IT'S the evidence of the designer. That's where the evidence is. In the creation. That's all we need." You know, they play that wiffle-waffle game of "we don't need to know anything about the designer (wink wink) in order to postulate intelligent design."

Posted by: Josh | October 22, 2009 2:32 PM

349

Dawkins discussion about the Cambrian era was extemporaenous, characterizing what science collectively thinks regarding the Cambrian era a "mystery" is an overstatement. Not too many people can instantly recall all detailed hypotheses about every aspect of evolution in a verbal joust (I assume your referring to Dawkins' interview with Hugh Hewitt). Especially Dawkins since he's not well informed on creationist arguments and in no way a talented debator.

For a nice treatise on the Cambrian radiation - a more accurate label, Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" provides nice coverage. This was a book I already suggested reading. I personally swing towards the known empirical evidence regarding the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere as a primary causal reason for this radiation, which doesn't negate other hypotheses such as the two Dawkins presented in that interview.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 22, 2009 6:28 PM

351

Calling me a stupid being chasing after myths seems to be over-the-top for a rational scientist. I sort of took that personally.

So what did you think about Expelled trying to blame mainstream biology for the Holocaust?

I would appreciate your best thinking on the Cambrian thing.

Perhaps it would help if you would first explain why you think the "Cambrian explosion" presents a problem for evolution?

Posted by: DaveL | October 22, 2009 7:56 PM

353

Beyond the wedge document, which the creationists never even followed given they avoided research altogether and instead focused merely on public relations, political lobbying, and book publishing of false unscientific claims, they've done far worse. In fact Meyer's record of outright fraud has been well covered in this forum by Ed regarding the Sternberg publication. Meyer doesn't even have any education in the relevant fields of science nor has he ever practiced in a relevant field - why someone would consider him relative to what actual practicing, publishing, scientists think is beyond me.

This piles on to my point, it's a waste of time to read creationist arguments until one fully understands scientific methodology and is cognizant of science's findings and explanations. Otherwise you'll spend countless hours having to repair your own understanding given all the falsehoods they perpetuate, falsehoods nearly anyone cognizant of the science can refute on their own. I think even Dembski and Behe's math, mutational rate, and IC claims that were falsified with evidence prior to their even making their claims can be falsified by the general science reader if they have a solid understanding of science and its findings first.

I continue to observe the goings on at Uncommon Descent, what a pathetic experience; sad really. Their hand waving gets feebler and feebler as science continues to pile the evidence on that discredits their arguments, so much so they pretty much avoid discussing findings at all anymore, rather than having to come up with another lame-ass excuse misrepresenting the actual findings of working scientists.

It reminds me of people who think the rapture is a mere weeks or months away. All the signs are evident, its inevitable, blah, blah, blah - a total avoidance of reality.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2009 8:01 AM

355

My bona fides -I am neither a scientist nor a philospher. Just a 50+ business man sitting near the front of my church because I need it more than most.

If that's really what you need, then go ahead and take what you need. And if you need the religion more than the science, that's okay too -- as long as you admit where your priorities really are, and leave the science to those who know it better than you.

Just seeking after the truth and skeptical when folks think religion/science/philosophy is "settled."

But you're not at all "skeptical" when folks think all those claims of a supernatural Creator are "settled?" That kind of "skepticism" is inconsistent, which leads us to doubt its sincerity.

It's easy to pretend you're a "rebel" or a "skeptic" merely by rejecting or ignoring an overwhelming concensus on what is real. Homeless lunatics do it all the time.

How about all that round-Earth stuff? Are you "skeptical" when "folks" think that's "settled?"

There are thousands of scientists --including men and women who teach at the local universities -- who are committed christians.

And that kind of proves our point: those committed Christians are able to do good science without having to abandon their beliefs. And none of them seem to have a problem reconciling evolution with Christianity. (And, for the record, there are plenty of mainstream churches that explicitly support evolution, and honest science in general, and reject creationism; the Catholics and Lutherans among them. Also, many conservative evangelical Christians are publicly rejecting creationism too.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2009 9:59 AM

357

Great info on {the topic of the blog}. It will guide many of the readers.

GCSE coursework

Posted by: coursework writing | October 26, 2009 2:29 AM

359

More whining about tone, still no substance, still no answers to questions asked.

Again, in your own words, how is the Cambrian Explosion supposed to present a problem for evolution?

Posted by: DaveL | November 2, 2009 3:49 PM

361

Here's something to shoot at: The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move the goal posts by redefining atheism or evolution, or the word "species." From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. They confuse science with their philosophy of science.

We can read Darwin's own explanation as to why there is no empirical evidence for his theory. Darwin says that millions of fossils (what he referred to as "innumerable," are missing. After 150 years of desperate searching, the missing links are still—missing.

Posted by: Scott R Nickels | November 2, 2009 4:07 PM

363

@362

To which I might add:

hominid fossils

reptile-bird transitionals

Posted by: DaveL | November 2, 2009 4:34 PM

365

Thanks, DaveL. I used up my two links on the only two I'd actually heard of. ;)

Posted by: James Hanley | November 2, 2009 4:40 PM

367

What, still arguing against the obvious?? Get over it Evolution deniers, your argument is not supported by the overwhelming evidence. Review all the evidence thoroughly then get back to us with creditable objections. Cheers. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 4, 2009 8:34 AM

369

You folks hit the trip wire: When you start talking the science of probabilities, who has the PHD? The man you enjoy to vilifying. So Dembski is a fool even though he is higher up the probability "food chain" than all of us on this blog? Or, contrarily, probability science is anethema unless it indicates directed descent and not undirected descent. Ouch.

Mr. Heath: I wouldn't have you waste time responding to me anymore either. We start out with different world views that colour our philosophies. I do, though, appreciate your time and hope you, too, will invest the time to continue tolearn in addition to lecture. I have taken the principled walk of purposely not trying to convert anybody to my (meeger) thinking; I also concede that the hard sciences have a lot to teach us about the miracle of evolution as well as its limits. I am taking your advice and learning... from both sides (there are two sides even in methadological naturalism.)

About that Cambrian Explosion...
About Gould versus Dawkins. both can't be right.I agree more with Dawkins than some of my brethren on this posting: There does appear to be directed design in our world. "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I only disagree that it "seems" to be and instead have begun to embrace those that say that if it "seems" to be then , at least, it stands on equal footing with undirected mutations that suddenly coalesce into the New York Yankees. Or my beloved Chicago Cubs.

So I, too, will move on . closing thought: Optiz and Raft note that the modern synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, "in the 1970's many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution...Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest."
And Gould was glib despite his antagonism re: theists: "But how can a series of reasonable intermediates be constructed?...The dung-mimicking insect is well-protected, but can there be any edge in looking only 5 percent like a turd?"
I have purposely not argued "for" anything to some of your frustrations. But you have sharpened my thinking for what I believe, and for helping shape my support for pieces of evolutionary thinking. Can't get there with the common descent thing for the evidence belies it. And undirected mutations have more bad karma than good karma in terms of supporting Darwin (or Dawkins et al).

Posted by: Scott R Nickels | November 5, 2009 11:21 AM

371

"When you start talking the science of probabilities, who has the PHD? The man you enjoy to vilifying. So Dembski is a fool even though he is higher up the probability 'food chain' than all of us on this blog?"
It's been a while since I've dug in to such a subject (I'd appreciate a correction if I'm going off in the wrong direction), but I'd say that he, like those around him, ignore or minimize the sheer scale of it all, both in time and in volume. It's not evolution in a petri dish over a year or two (though that has been observed). It's evolution over the whole Earth over several billion years.

"About that Cambrian Explosion..."
Yes, about that.

"There does appear to be directed design in our world."
Dolphins are shaped like fish because they evolved to an environment, not because they were majick'd to be fishy.

"I only disagree that it "seems" to be and instead have begun to embrace those that say that if it "seems" to be then , at least, it stands on equal footing with undirected mutations that suddenly coalesce into the New York Yankees. Or my beloved Chicago Cubs."
It's "suddenly" on the geologic scale, not the human one. And it's not "coalesce", it's still things slowly becoming other things.

"However, 'in the 1970's many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution...Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.'"
Hey, look, another grab from an anti-evolution site! Wee! Now, read this.
I like the end bit...

In order for ID to live up to Del Ratzsch’s expectations it needs to do a lot of work. So far it fails even the minimal qualifications of performing a ‘keeping em’ honest’ function. Let’s not hold our breath for ID contributing something substantively to science.

"And Gould was glib despite his antagonism re: theists: 'But how can a series of reasonable intermediates be constructed?...The dung-mimicking insect is well-protected, but can there be any edge in looking only 5 percent like a turd?'"
Oh, Gould, how you've been abused! Now try finding whatever book that quote is actually from, then see what Gould followed it up with. I assume it would go something along the lines of "...even a 5% turd is more likely to survive in its contented turdworld than a 0% turd..." or somesuch. Rephrasing "What use is half an eye?" still has the same answer: A little bit fitter is better than not.

...
You are being lied to. Sometimes by frauds, sometimes by useful idiots, sometimes by incompetents, sometimes by True Believers who, I think, don't even realize that they're passing on fibs, bad math and quotemines, but make no mistake, they are lying. ID is no different than Creation Science, which was no different than Creationism. You see the same people and the same arguments in each, and neither have improved with age.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 7, 2009 3:15 AM

373

About Gould versus Dawkins. both can't be right.

Does (or did, in Gould's case) either one of them think the Cambrian explosion is evidence of intelligent design? You know very well they didn't, so it still falls to you to explain how the Cambrian Explosion is supposed to present a problem for evolution. It was a simple question, and your refusal to answer speaks volumes.

There are legitimate controversies within the scientific community. Whether evolution happened, and whether we need to invoke supernatural intervention to explain it, are not among them. On finer details where no broad consensus exists among experts in the field, it is perfectly appropriate for laymen to reserve judgement rather than take a side. Once again, this is not the case with creationism (which is what ID is, in case you'd forgotten).

Posted by: DaveL | November 7, 2009 7:33 AM

375

Jordan Wallace - you're asking the wrong question. how does god (or intellent design) explain things like beauty, art, creativity, etc? That's the more interesting question. One that Dumbski's student don't ever seem to want (or have the ability) to answer. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 10, 2009 11:58 PM