…and this is a 
The real expulsions
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 19, 2008 7:59 PM, by PZ Myers
A fair number of creationists must be leaving a certain propaganda movie and getting on to the internet to find targets of their ire, because I'm getting a little surge in hate mail — mostly short, petty whines and accusations. For any who find this site in addition to my email address, I have two suggestions for you:
Look up the actual stories of the "expelled". It seems their martyrdom has been grossly exaggerated.
Then compare those stories with more serious case of religious persecution against those who favor evolution.
Creationists, much as I'd love to smack down every one of your silly arguments, I can't possibly do it one by one. Hang around, ask questions in the comments, and take your turn: we'll eventually get around to dismantling your ludicrous claims.
Comments
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:03 PM
Oh, oh. PZ just said, "Bring it on!"
Posted by: Ted D | April 19, 2008 8:07 PM
I bet there'll hardly be any comments in this thread. *shifts eyes*
Posted by: Dave C | April 19, 2008 8:10 PM
LOL, Ted. You're just trying to incite a swarming mob of creationist antics, aren't you?
Posted by: syntyche | April 19, 2008 8:11 PM
This'll be fun.
/grab popcorn
Posted by: Mercurious | April 19, 2008 8:18 PM
Maybe we can lure them here with the tales of us eating babies, and our wanton sexploits.
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:19 PM
As long as they're here praying for PZ's conversion from atheism (although they'll spell it "athiesm") and the salvation of his soul (and ours!), they won't be doing any actual mischief anywhere else. Or perhaps instead they'll be ignoring the Biblical injunction "judge not, lest ye be judged" and condemning PZ to hell for his lack of faith. That's fun, too. No doubt there'll be some collateral condemnation from the sanctimonious shrapnel. Incoming!
Posted by: Matt | April 19, 2008 8:21 PM
Right.
Who's first?
Posted by: AllanW | April 19, 2008 8:24 PM
Oh man, this is gonna be good. I may pull an all-nighter to watch this in realtime :) (puts a bucket of coffee on to help stave off sleep).
Posted by: MikeM | April 19, 2008 8:25 PM
This was inevitable, wasn't it?
Lots of these people never heard of you until last night, now they think they know everything about you. I'm sure you're the devil to them.
I think you should post some of your more ludicrous responses, and I bet it won't be easy for you to pick, say, a top 5.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 8:29 PM
Margaret Cho did a great bit in her "Assassin" routine about gaining the ire of the Right. She said her mail went something like this: "GODDAMN FAGGOT DYKE GOOK COMMIE FAGGOT DYKE. YOU SUCK. JESUS SAVES!"
Sound familiar PZ?
Posted by: Derik N | April 19, 2008 8:37 PM
The movie's every bit as terrible as advertised.
Of course, these are the same fools that are convinced by a Kent Hovind video...so what do you expect intellectually.
Posted by: Brian K. | April 19, 2008 8:37 PM
I like your "take a number" approach, PZ. There must have been a lot of people going to see 'Expelled," as it opened at #8.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-04-18&p=.htm
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:42 PM
Derik is right. I totally agree.
Posted by: Derik N | April 19, 2008 8:44 PM
I actually paid to watch another movie, then snuck into this one after mine was over.
Yeah, I know I know, but I couldn't bring myself to actually spend money supporting/watching this garbage.
Posted by: room101 | April 19, 2008 8:47 PM
Planet Killer........come out to playyyyyeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!
Posted by: Bifrost | April 19, 2008 8:49 PM
Zeno said... atheism (although they'll spell it "athiesm")
You are implying that "i before e except after c" is only a THEORY instead of a LAW. Help me Jebus.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 19, 2008 8:53 PM
Bring on the comic sans!!!
I don't suspect the sheep that are bused to the movies to be bathed in the inanity and droning of Ben Stein will be very interesting.
Does the 3 comment rule still hold?
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 8:56 PM
Actually, Bifrost, I think it's worse than that: "i before e" is a social construct, nothing more than a convention. But not to worry: this problem will go away. When our current generation of msg txtrs grow up, vowels will be vestigial or vanished.
Posted by: tacitus | April 19, 2008 8:56 PM
Oh, you are *so* going to Hell because of that, Derik.
Posted by: raven | April 19, 2008 8:58 PM
Blake Stacey's blog has a good essay on scientists being persecuted and even killed by creationists. Unlike the made up cases in Expelled, these are people getting fired, beaten up, and threatened for real by religious bigots. Well worth the read.
One such horror story out of 12 is below. Really, what kind of animal beats up on a female college professor for teaching evolution.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:02 PM
I don't know where this movie is even playing. They don't seem to have a link to it on Fandango and that even lists the drive in theaters in my neck of the woods.
Posted by: James Briggs | April 19, 2008 9:04 PM
I only have one question Dr. Myers. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution. In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat. This is only an example I just want to be clear that I do not mean cross breeding between dogs or cats but actually new species. If so I would love to know when and where this happened, and where I might be able to see the evidence, so that I might look at that information.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:06 PM
. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution.
sure, it's quite easy, all you have to do is move the "i" after the "c".
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:08 PM
I'll let my more knowledgeable pharyngulites deal with the yutz @22.
However Zoologix has an interesting article up about rapid reptile evolution (please disregard the poking-fun-at pictures below the fold) Italian lizards
Posted by: James Briggs | April 19, 2008 9:08 PM
Sorry for the typo my friend. However it doesn't change my question.
Posted by: Stanton | April 19, 2008 9:10 PM
I doubt that Planet Killer can hear you, what with that tremendous plank still stuck in his eye.Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:11 PM
James, are you truly serious?
Do you honestly believe that evolution is the metamorphosing of one distinct species into another? Do you not understand what evolution is and how it works?
Posted by: William Paley | April 19, 2008 9:11 PM
Riddle me this, O compatriots in reason! What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God? That is, what are the general features that indicate design? Are they not complexity, utility, and organization? Do we not find these in nature? Why then, companions, are we not justified in making the inference to design? Do not spare me your thoughts. Pray tell me.
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:12 PM
Yikes.
That's... wow. Impressive juxtaposition. And, sigh, it's hard to smack down every last argument. I mean, yeah, the arguments themselves are stupid, but there's so many of them and it's hard to logically counter the completely illogical.
If the person reading this would like to make an argument for creationism or ID, please please please do us all a favor and go here first to see if your argument's on the list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:12 PM
James Briggs, it is difficult to observe this because there is not an agreed on definition of "species". If you say that a species is a population that can only breed with itself because of gamete(Egg and sperm) incompatibility then yes this has been observed. Look at the wikipedia article about "hybrid species" It has been observed that animals like mules,domestic horses, wild horses(including weird pygmie horses of mongolia and indonesia) and Zebras can sometimes reporoduce and create offspring that can reproduce only with hybrids like themselves, not either of their parent's species.
The biggest barrier to observing evolution in action is that diverse speciation take a long time to happen. Many intermediate generations need to be born and reproduce in order to be selected into different forms.
So the question is: is a Zebra the same as a horse?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 19, 2008 9:13 PM
@ James Briggs.
I'm not the authority on this, but I think the answer to your question is no. And the reason for this is simple. We have been around as a species for, maybe 100K years. We have had writing for only the last 7000-ish years. Evolution is a slow process--to slow for anyone one person to see a radical dog-to-cat change, let alone even a civilization.
Of course, there is plenty of fossil evidence of just this kind of change. And we see evolution all the time. Just look at the flu virus. Different every year.
(And just to preempt here: the distinction drawn by ID fans between micro and macro evolution is a false dichotomy. They differ in degree only. There's not some magical chasm between them--as Behe would like us to believe.)
Posted by: Mena | April 19, 2008 9:14 PM
James Briggs #22:
Of course it has. You guys just call it "microevolution", thinking that it's a gotcha. Things take time. By the way, acting smug about that cat evolving into a dog argument is going to get you reamed. It's what we like to call a "tired canard". Dogs may change into something else over TIME, so may cats, but no one is directing cats to turn into dogs or vice versa. Quack quack, yawn.
Posted by: Christian | April 19, 2008 9:15 PM
@James Briggs
Why do you actually expect that an extant species evolves into an other extant species?
Posted by: JJ | April 19, 2008 9:17 PM
James - yes, it has been observed.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 19, 2008 9:18 PM
Ummm. Mr. Briggs.
You are obviously not well versed in the science of evolution.
You should pick up a book on evolution by Dawkins or Gould, there's a lot of them out there.
Or just get the basic by looking up speciation on wiki or talkorigins.
Then come back if anything has confused you.
And a quick answer to your question is, YES speciation has been witnessed in the wild, but not as you misunderstand it.
Posted by: James Briggs | April 19, 2008 9:19 PM
Flame 821,
I will begin by admiting that I am not a Scienctist. I have take science classes but have not degrees. I am merely an individual who seeks answers.
When I say Evolution I am not refering to the microevolution that comes from a species changing to better suit its environment. I only meant what I would consider Macroevolution which would need to be distinct species to distinct species for Darwinism to be true. The original Single celled organism could not always remain a single celled organism. If I am wrong please educate me to what is right.
Thank you
James Briggs
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:20 PM
Riddle me this, O compatriots in reason! What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God?
what are you, a fucking comic strip villain?
anywho, let me answer your question with another question:
How does an anthropologist go about determining whether a particular artifact is man-made?
If you spend a little time figuring out what the answer is that question, your original question will also be answered.
Now, when you have that figured out, come back and tell us how we can determine how a deity of your choice actually acts in the world, and then pick a random organism, and we can get started hypothesizing whether said deity did or did not have a hand in its "creation".
simple.
Posted by: Christian | April 19, 2008 9:23 PM
And then there's also the problem that if you witness the change you'll run into this.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 19, 2008 9:24 PM
Paley.
An organism that is genetically impossible to have evolved from any current life form or share an ancestry with a previous life form.
Like a human with wings, and perhaps a nice halo around it's head.
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:24 PM
James:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
William:
There is no proof against the universe being designed. There *can* be no proof against it. You are fully justified in believing that the world was created last Thursday if you so wish. Now, we all have memories of last Wednesday, but those could have been implanted by an omnipotent creator, now couldn't they?
ANYTHING could indicate design. That's the fundamental reason it's not within the boundaries of science. Science can *only* deal with the natural world; it's part of the definition. So, while many many scientists hold personal religious beliefs, no actual scientific hypothesis can depend on the supernatural or divine. ESPECIALLY not when we have valid, workable models with tons of evidence to support them that point to a materialistic solution.
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:26 PM
More for James:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 9:29 PM
Because I *know* it's coming soon, and I'm going for food, here's "irreducible complexity":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
Posted by: PatrickHenry | April 19, 2008 9:31 PM
To James Briggs, re #36, where you said: "I only meant what I would consider Macroevolution which would need to be distinct species to distinct species for Darwinism to be true."
James, macro is nothing but a whole lot of micro. It takes time. It can be seen, after the fact, in the fossil record. Properly understood, it's like a time-lapse movie, but with a lot of missing frames.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM
In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat.
well, I've seen a cat-dog; does that count?
http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/cat_dog.jpg
Posted by: Damian | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM
James Briggs said:
James, take some time to read these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Observed Instances of Speciation
In fact, take a good look around the Talk Origins site. :)
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM
James Briggs, I thought of another example of evolution that has been observed. It's not as dramatic as my "Zorse" , "Hebra" and "donkey" example.
Some fungi and bacteria are one celled and are found in environment "A". Lets say that environment "A" is slightly acidic and rather moist. the fungi/bacteria in environment "A" reproduce by each cell dividing itself asexually.
The same species of cells are found in enviroment "B" but "B" isin't as acidic and drier. The cells in environment B only survive if they cluster together and share moisture.
If the conditions are right the cells in the "colony" will specialize. The ones on the outside will be selected to be more resistant to water loss or UV light. The ones on the inside might specialize in making sure that a beneficial acidity is maintained in the colony or some other homeostatic condition.
That can be observed in a laboratory. Over time these colonies will increase in specialization to the point that the cells will take on different forms, maybe even start to diverge genetically but share the same environment.
Posted by: James McGrath | April 19, 2008 9:33 PM
I would like to draw attention once again to the irony that my complaint about my own experience of being expelled from Uncommon Descent is still posted in that part of the Expelled web site. :)
Posted by: raven | April 19, 2008 9:34 PM
Rapid species to species changes have been observed. There are many, a long list.
Two familiar ones. YOUR DOG. Dogs are descended from wolves and fairly recently. Some dogs look a lot like wolves. Some don't. Does a chuhuahua or pekinese look like a wolf?
Corn. Corn was derived from teosinte and almost within historical time frames. We've even been able to trace the mutations that change teosinte into corn. An ear of corn and the seed stalk of teosinte don't resemble each other very closely.
Tasmanian facial tumor. A dramatic evolutionary jump from a tumor to a transmissable disease that happened a few decades ago. Some call this the creation of a new phylum.
I don't believe you are interested in learning. Your question is a creationist fallacy that was answered a century ago. Just a trolling creo.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 9:36 PM
well, I've seen a cat-dog; does that count?
Nothing, however, compares to the glory of the Jackalope. Wall Drug Forever! (god I hope to never end up in that part of SD again).
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:37 PM
James, I think the primary problem is that damned fish to man poster. There is NOT a straight line from a one cell organism in primordial ooze to us via the way the poster shows.
It is a tree with many branches, many dead branches. Some species survived, adapted, evolved and reproduced, most did not.
The 'dogs evolving to cats' question you posed is very much like the 'if humans came from apes, why are there still apes' comment we hear quite often.
We didn't come 'from' apes, we share a common ancestor with them, they are our cousins not our grandparents. Many of our other cousins didn't survive because they couldn't adapt or evolve quickly enough, we sometimes find their fossilized bones and that, along with Dr. Myers evo-devo studies, is how we learn their history and pieces of our own.
Please, if you are TRULY interested in learning about the basic concepts of evolution go to talk origins and follow the links that Falyne has provided. They can explain things much better than I can.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | April 19, 2008 9:39 PM
James@22
Others have addressed the concept of species and the saltational requirement of your question, so I'll travel a different route.
Why do we need to directly observe one species giving birth to another to have knowledge that it happened? Is the evidence from the fossil record, homologous traits, molecular evidence such as shared ERVs, shared 'broken' genes, and so many others, not enough for us to conclude common descent?
If that is the case - that we require direct observation in all things - then many sciences, and those nice people on CSI, are in deep shit.
Posted by: swill | April 19, 2008 9:39 PM
Well...baby is in bed and the wife is away. Looks like I've found my entertainment for the evening.
Thanks Fundy Claus...just what I wanted!
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | April 19, 2008 9:40 PM
James Briggs: Ring species provide examples of gradual transition from one species to another before our very eyes. Read the full article for details, but briefly, population A interbreeds with population B, which interbreeds with population C, which interbreeds with population D, but populations A and D, althought they may overlap geographically, cannot interbreed and are legitimately considered separate species.
Speciation over time is simply this same process write large.
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 9:40 PM
Mr. Briggs,
No. Noöne has ever seen a dog change into a cat or vice versa. Nor would we expect them to. In fact, such a (well-documented) conversion would be solid proof that something is very very wrong with the way we understand the world. You might even call it a miracle.
But we have seen dogs speciate, for instance. I dare you to bread a Chihuahua with a Great Dane.
It might be enlightening to look at Australia too. There we've seen marsupials change to fill ever niche that are otherwise filled with mammals on the other continents.
The Tasmanian tiger or wolf (&c &c) are not in any way closely related to felines or canines, but they have evolved to pursue similar lifestyles and as a result they've come to look (a bit) like their mammalian namesakes. It's an example of convergent evolution in that these diverse species have ended up with similar 'designs' - this in turn tells us that these shared aspects of their appearance must be near-optimal for their ways of life.
On the other hand - canines and felines are obviously different but fill similar niches (both are obligate carnivores for instance). Thus we can learn a lot about what aspects of their anatomy are important to their shared way of life by finding their shared traits.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:41 PM
Rapid species to species changes have been observed. There are many, a long list.
based on his original post, I don't think the responses he's been getting will answer his question.
Think in terms of baraminology.
He's asking if a cat has been observed to evolve into a dog, and because of the utter BS he has been fed previous to coming here, is thinking that it's a necessary precondition for the theory of evolution to be applicable.
He's confused about how life itself works, at a most basic level.
those that respond to him have to address the idea that barminology is false to begin with; there are no "kinds".
then you have to explain the general idea of common ancestry.
seriously, this boy needs a basic biology course, and the best thing you can do for him is simply to tell him to read a good biology text, and spend some time at TalkOrigins or, perhaps better still for basic understanding, here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Posted by: Sigmund | April 19, 2008 9:41 PM
A 'species' is often defined as a group of organisms that can interbreed. As such the formation of a barrier to interbreeding, such as chromosomal alterations, can lead to seperate populations - that will, in turn diverge due to genetic drift. This is quite common amongst isolated mouse populations - such as those on islands. Heres a link if you are really interested in scientific evidence.
http://tinyurl.com/6zjuda
Alternatively, if you're not ....... http://tinyurl.com/5u6nn9
Posted by: dkew | April 19, 2008 9:42 PM
Hold back, Glorious Atheist Cabal for the Propagation of Immorality! So many wasted electrons for the first trolling nitwit! Save some for the rest of the herd of totally non-evolving scrapie-lesioned sheep.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:44 PM
@ Christian #38
That's exactly the point. Short of a "soul" the idea of species is totally subjective. When does a horse's children stop being "horses"? Well it doesn't matter unless your a taxonomist
Posted by: amk | April 19, 2008 9:46 PM
William Paley,
Can we not also infer design in the designer? Does it not also display complexity, utility, organisation?
So that leaves us with...
Nature had a designer.
The designer had a meta designer.
The meta designer had a meta meta designer.
The meta meta designer had a meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta meta designer.
Etcetera etcetera.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | April 19, 2008 9:47 PM
James Briggs:
The dog to cat/cat to dog analogy is a common misunderstanding of evolution. These two species along with humans have a common ancestor, a mammal.
Posted by: Nerdette | April 19, 2008 9:47 PM
@ 49 -
I agree with you partially. Wall Drug was depressing to say the least, but I had to do a lot in the name of the infamous UChicago Scav Hunt (including ride a Jackalope). But I would revisit the Black Hills and Badlands in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 9:49 PM
Save some for the rest of the herd of totally non-evolving scrapie-lesioned sheep.
well said.
don't fill up on appetizers.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 19, 2008 9:50 PM
"Expelled" gets a negative review from the Waco Tribune. Do you happen to know this "P.Z. Meyers" they mention?
Posted by: flame821 | April 19, 2008 9:50 PM
Actually, if things had an intelligent designer, I would expect the world to look much more like IKEA.
Simple, clean lines. No excessive and useless garnishing, no junk DNA; just clean and sparse with no left over, useless (vestigial) parts (like the appendix) ...
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 9:53 PM
Re: dog-cats. We have those in Danish actually.
It's only because 'female' and 'dog' sound alike, though - /hun/ and /hunʔ/ respectively. But it does mean that in Danish a female cat is a 'hunkat'.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | April 19, 2008 9:54 PM
Raven@48
Just to waylay the typical creationist response that the artificial selection of dogs by humans has not produced a new species of dog in all the years we have been intelligently designing them, the selection process we use, just as in nature, is not designed to produce novel features but to restrict the variance in a specific breed. Only occasionally will a mutation produce something of interest to a breeder (munchkin cats), or will a breeder attempt to produce something new, and even then changes are small and targeted.
The vast majority of dog breeding (and cat breeding) is designed to limit change, not produce it.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:55 PM
What's "bitch" in danish?
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 19, 2008 9:56 PM
Please PZ do take some care for your self and your families security. If that news article about you was released here in redneck of the woods, Oregon and you lived here - you would be in the crosshairs.
Having said that, I'll now retire to my corner, lick my chops, sharpen my claws and purrrrrr over the feast to come.
Posted by: harmfulguy | April 19, 2008 9:56 PM
The meta meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta meta designer.
And from there, it's turtles all the way down.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 9:59 PM
In the beginning, God said "Let there be turtles!"
And it was good.
"I like turtles"
Posted by: michael fugate | April 19, 2008 10:00 PM
James,
Look at the work of Loren Rieseberg on hybridization in sunflower species. He and his collaborators have been able to recreate the hybrids that form new species in the lab.
This is truly speciation in action and is documented genotypically and phenotypically.
Posted by: Dan | April 19, 2008 10:01 PM
Damn! I'd kill for a good Danish right about now. I think a cheese Danish and a nice cup of tea, and then wait for the inevitable onslaught as that clown-car of a movie lets out.
Posted by: sidelined | April 19, 2008 10:05 PM
I have enjoyed watching the parade of silliness on the part of the "friends of Ben" episodes that have played out on the net,however, I seriously have no more left brain cells left to dole out either rational thought or even civil tongue to these people anymore.
I will take any further enjoyment of this simply in following the events that may appear in the courts over the theft of copyright and simply ignore the rantings of those that,having viewed the film, feel they are now qualified to make statements out of ignorance.
To those that feel they will ever be able to remove the foundations and structure of the theory of evolution I can only say... Molon Labe.
Posted by: JRQ | April 19, 2008 10:06 PM
Paley:
"What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God?"
Perhaps if you explain how exactly God creates, and how exactly his methods of creation differ from well-known, well-described mechanisms of biological evolution, we might know what to look for. Until then, we don't really have enough to go on.
"That is, what are the general features that indicate design? Are they not complexity, utility, and organization?"
Well if they are, then I'm afraid the "god" hasn't done anything to distinguish himself from plain-old naturalistic, mutation+selection, which most certainly does generate these features.
Here is one you can answer for me:
If I can have complexity, utility, and organization without "God", what bloody use is he?
Posted by: Paul Burnett | April 19, 2008 10:07 PM
James Briggs asked: "Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution. ...I would love to know when and where this happened, and where I might be able to see the evidence, so that I might look at that information.
This may help you, James: Please read http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp - the transcript of Dr. Padian's testimony and his slideshow provide answers you may be able to understand. Please let us know what you think after you have looked at this material.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 19, 2008 10:07 PM
Expelled, refreshingly, does not focus on the question of whether it is neo-Darwinism or ID that accurately describes the origin of the species. It's about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins.
There was an unfortunate period (and a brief one) in the history of religion where religion and philosophy were at odds with science and philosophies rooted in empiricism, and religion arguably played the part of the bully (owing mostly to the influence of heretical sects). We have entered a new unfortunate period where religion and science are again at odds, and, not surprisingly, the heretical sects are still doing the persecuting.
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science, and its truncated understanding of human nature and human possibility is dangerous. We have seen historically what happens when scientific materialism triumphs over a belief in the soul. It leads to great tenderness and love for humanity. And as Walker Percy has noted, tenderness leads to the gas chambers.
So good luck with that, gents.
Posted by: Psycho Atheist | April 19, 2008 10:09 PM
To this day I am still amazed that individuals can sit at a computer and type such uninformed drivel as James. Do Christians (TM) have some sort of theistic firewall* that prevents them from actually accessing the myriad of information available on the WWW that would educate them and just possibly bring them into the 21st century?
*Of course I know that people like James are born with an inbuilt theistic firewall kindly provided by their 'Intelligent Designer'.
Posted by: cff | April 19, 2008 10:16 PM
#75 must be a hoax, right? But, it does remind me of how even Kepler, who had really wacky views about religion, still had to, perhaps anachronistically, divorce those views from his calculations. Science is best done independently of religious conviction, whatever the motivation for doing the science may be.
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 10:18 PM
Posted by: iwdw | April 19, 2008 10:19 PM
#75 needs to try harder to troll. You can't get serious responses by going that far off the deep end.
Posted by: Corey | April 19, 2008 10:20 PM
@ Loudon is a Fool:
1. There is no such thing as "dogmatic" atheism. Atheists have no dogma. Atheists think the dogma of religion is incorrect, but this is hardly dogma itself.
2. "It's about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins." -Intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance are four words I would use to describe religious fanatics, not Dawkins or Myers.
If you consider science's rejection of ridiculous ideas to be intolerance, you need to remember that science is not operated as a democracy. Good ideas survive, and bad ones (intelligent design) are dismissed. With good reason.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:24 PM
In the beginning, God said "Let there be turtles!"
And it was good.
"I like turtles"
actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 10:25 PM
actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles.
I was thinking bacteria.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:26 PM
There was an unfortunate period (and a brief one)
yeah, right, tell it to the people trying to get the legislatures in Florida, Kansas, Ohio, and Texas (among others) to actually change the definition of science itself so that "astrology" would be considered science too.
can you morons do anything but project?
Posted by: Kia D | April 19, 2008 10:27 PM
#81 "actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles"
or nematodes - lots and lots of nematodes...
Posted by: john abbott | April 19, 2008 10:27 PM
Thanks for the link to sunclipse.org; hopefully that info will be incorporated into the expelledexposed.com WWW site as well.
What a long and sobering list.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 19, 2008 10:27 PM
James Briggs wrote:
No, "we" haven't, because none of us live for hundreds of thousands of years.That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though, does it?
No one alive to day saw the Battle of Gettysburg or the War of Independence. Does that mean they never happened?
Are you claiming that if we ourselves do not observe something directly, it does not exist?
I do not expect an answer, by the way.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:29 PM
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science
no, it isn't.
you at least have to start off with what the movie purports to represent if you wish to be taken at all seriously.
there is NOTHING in the movie that shows atheism working against good science.
not a goddamn thing.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 19, 2008 10:31 PM
"I only have one question Dr. Myers. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution."
They are so desperate for evidence when it comes to evolution, so unconcerned about evidence when it comes to "God".
Posted by: Aegis | April 19, 2008 10:31 PM
"we'll eventually get around to dismantling your ludicrous claims."
PZ, this is pretty big of you, since you seem to give them hope that this hasn't already happened! Every ludicrous claim has already been dismantled, and has been for decades or more. They just haven't the education and/or intelligence to know it yet.
Posted by: William Paley | April 19, 2008 10:33 PM
Ichthyic writes:
Oh, but I anticipated this in my original post. Complexity, utility, and organization are the signs of design for an anthropologist. We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.Steve_C writes:
Is that the way you always use to infer design, Steve? You see whether a thing is impossible to have arisen from a previous design? Seems unreasonable (and disingenuous) from the start.Falyne writes:
Really? I'm justified, am I? So you're saying there's no way to argue against the design inference? So it is meaningless for me to infer from its complexity that my computer was designed, is it? And from the lack of complexity in rocks that they weren't designed? That is not reasonable to you?Well, that's what I'm asking you: What signs in the natural world indicates design? Now do we find these signs in nature? Yes or no?amk writes:
What's this? You've found the designer?! Then by all means, let us investigate his parts and determine whether they are designed! Where can I investigate this designer you have found? Seriously now.JRQ writes:
But I don't know. What I am asking is, How do we generally infer human design in the everyday world? Then, let us apply the same principles to the natural world and see whether it is not reasonable to make an analogous inference. This seems a plainly scientific venture, wouldn't you say?To answer, allow me to restate your question: If you can explain all of civilization by appealing to natural processes, what bloody use is it to invoke the existence of humans to explain civilization? The answer in both cases is, Well, perhaps none..., but the question remains, Are we getting at the truth?Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 19, 2008 10:33 PM
As posted by harmfulguy on April 19, 2008 9:56 PM
Nice - but I think it might be "And from there, it's Meta+...+Meta Designers" all the way down.
My Meta-Designer is bigger than your Meta-Designer! :P
JBS
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:38 PM
Complexity, utility, and organization are the signs of design for an anthropologist. We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
*buzz*
that's only PART of the answer.
here's why...
We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
If i see a dam across a river, am I to infer that humans built it?
why or why not?
How does an anthropologist determine whether something has utility?
well?
I know I can get you there eventually.
Posted by: gleaner63 | April 19, 2008 10:39 PM
As a former history teacher at the high school level we would sometimes discuss the topic of why historians got things wrong. For example, why were the Hitites of the Old Testament once considered mythical when now they are accepted as historical?
Secondly, why do people themselves sometimes misread what now to us seems so obvious? During one class, the students were divided into American and Japanese military leaders leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. "Intelligence" reports were then given to both sides. To the group that played the Americans, none of the information given to them led any of them to finally suspect an attack on their naval base. The point is that people make mistakes and perhaps more intriguing is why. During our Pearl Harbor class the Americans misread all of the intelligence and the "Japanese" side didn't beleive a surprise attack was workable.
Here are two recent examples to ponder; a Boston University geologist, Robert Schoch, believes the Sphinx is far older than originally assumed. A well known Egyptologist responded that this was impossible; "...there are no surprises left for us to discover...". Item 2; there has been much controversy over something referred to as the "Topper site". It's an archaelogical dig on the SC/Ga border and deals with the earliest inhabitants of the New World. The lead archaeologiost at the Topper site, Dr. Goodyear, thinks his discoveries may push back the dates of the peopling of the Americas back tens of thousands of years, well past the "Clovis Horizon". When another archaelogist was asked how any such information could have been overlooked, he simply responded; "...because nobody looked...". The point I'm trying to make by all of this is we often learn more about things when we fail than when we are successful. My respectful question to those who are evolutionists is this; if, for the sake of argument we grant that the creationists are correct, there is no common descent and the earth is young, where, in retrospect, would the advocates of evolution had made their greatest mistakes? Methodology? Bias? Misreading of data? Comments please.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 10:41 PM
Actually, Aegis I've noticed a strange new type of ID argument lately that I haven't heard before and actually has me stumped. It goes something like "What if nested hierarchies didn't exist?" Would evolution still be valid?
or "what if the planets were arranged in a perfect cubic grid" would gravity have been united by newton?"
My mind can't bend like that since I don't take LSD anymore. I just can't answer questions like that because if one thing in the natural order of things was different, wouldn't the ratios of the forces of nature ALL have t be different to keep matter and energy from just flying apart?
I just see everything that's observed as being a manifestation of the laws of physics.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 10:41 PM
What I am asking is, How do we generally infer human design in the everyday world? Then, let us apply the same principles to the natural world and see whether it is not reasonable to make an analogous inference. This seems a plainly scientific venture, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't say so. You're extrapolating human design to non-human processes and potential designers, and there's no reason to engage in such anthropomorphization. Additionally, complexity isn't a useful hallmark--ever seen chopsticks or a fork or a good knife? Useful, but hardly complex.
nature isn't an engineer.
Posted by: iwdw | April 19, 2008 10:44 PM
#93:
If, for the sake of argument, you beat your wife, where would you hit her? The face? The stomach? Would you break her arm or her leg? Please, tell us.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:44 PM
But I don't know.
and there lies the rub.
until you DO know, we can't even begin to formulate a testable hypothesis as to whether or not projected deity might have had a hand in something.
An anthropologist has living examples to work from.
so, the idea of supernatural design is an entirely vacuous non-starter.
Now, the moment Mr. Spock comes down to inform us how aliens have adjusted biologic processes, or Zuess appears to inform us where and when and how he created pegasi, or your judeo-xian projection manifests and explains how it works in the world, come back and ask your question again.
but then it will be science.
Posted by: APJ | April 19, 2008 10:45 PM
@ John B Sandlin
How does an anthropologist go about determining whether a particular artifact is man-made? If you spend a little time figuring out what the answer is that question, your original question will also be answered.
Oh, but I anticipated this in my original post. Complexity, utility, and organization are the signs of design for an anthropologist. We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
I don't believe that you did anticipate this at all you glib ninny.
To whit: An anthropologist finds an artefact.
Complexity, utility, and organisation are the signs of design for an anthropologist.
The artefact shows complexity, utility and organisation.
Therefore the anthropologist knows that the artefact is designed.
You claim that nature is designed. Because nature shows complexity, utility and organisation.
How then can an anthropologist tell an artefact from a natural object?
He cannot using your criteria...
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:47 PM
what bloody use is it to invoke the existence of humans to explain civilization?
simple:
we exist.
Posted by: APJ | April 19, 2008 10:48 PM
Ooops,
# 98 should start @ William Paley.
Now who's a ninny?
Posted by: Aegis | April 19, 2008 10:49 PM
Wow, Will Paley! I would have thought that after being dead and all (and possibly in the realm of the holy spirit or what have you) that you might have obtained a better argumentitive position by now. In any case, welcome back from the dead.
In any case, this is hilarious:
"So it is meaningless for me to infer from its complexity that my computer was designed, is it? And from the lack of complexity in rocks that they weren't designed? That is not reasonable to you?"
...since you seem to imply with this that god/designer/whatever designed only "complex" things. In actuality, he would have had to designed a rock as carefully as a rhino, if not more so. In fact, "designing" a set of universal laws that would allow energy to condensate into matter, forming stars needed to form even heavier elements that form eventual 'rocks', which in turn contain the elements that are used to make further designs, seems quite a bit harder to me - not to mention needing an explanation for the designer to begin with, which is always hand-waved away by creationists.
Luckily, we don't have to worry about that, since ID is non-intellectual, shallow rubbish.
Posted by: pcarini | April 19, 2008 10:53 PM
Anyone who says rocks aren't complex hasn't looked at one closely enough.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 19, 2008 10:54 PM
"So it is meaningless for me to infer from its complexity that my computer was designed, is it?"
It is, actually. We infer such facts because of our preexisting familiarity with its history, use and manufacturing process, all of which were created in comparatively recent history by humans. You infer nothing from its "complexity".
It's also worth mentioning that such devices are distinct from biological organisms in very important ways, such as the fact they do not reproduce (on their own) or inherit traits from their ancestors.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 19, 2008 10:54 PM
#91 where William Paley on April 19, 2008 10:33 PM said:
Where you see complexity, we see 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trial and error experiments.
By the way, I made that number up. We don't actually know the number of trial and error experiments. But given 4,500,000,000 years (x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds x however many reactions per second * the number of simultaneous reactions possible.... and so on) - it's bound to be a really large number. There isn't a one and done or anything like it. Of course during the time I wrote this, there have probably been a few billion more trial and error experiments around the world.
Now, the reason we don't see a designer in all this complexity? Maybe because we'd give that designer a failing grade for work presented if such a designer turned our genome in as homework.
JBS
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 10:56 PM
where, in retrospect, would the advocates of evolution had made their greatest mistakes? Methodology? Bias? Misreading of data? Comments please.
holy crap, but that would be a fucking LONG list that included things like:
mineralogy
geology
radiometrics
genetics
physics
chemistry
....
note I'm not even including things related to biology itself.
In short, you'd have to scrap about half of everything science has learned in general over the last 500 years.
does you question seem silly at this point?
if not, go here before you ask again:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
Posted by: raven | April 19, 2008 10:57 PM
That is just silly. Evolution is consistent with all other sciences whereas creationism conflicts with all of them, physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology etc.. If we got it all wrong, we would still be living in the Dark Ages and dying at 40.
Science works whether you believe in it or not. Your car starts, the computer boots up, antibiotics work, your tap water won't kill you in a few days, space ships still launch into orbit, pathogens and pests evolve resistance to whatever we treat them with.
Posted by: russell | April 19, 2008 10:58 PM
@93
sorry, there's no reason to grant that creationists are correct because there is so much evidence to the contrary, hence this is not a line of thought worth pursuing.
One might as well discuss "for the sake of argument let's assume that the moon is made of green cheese, which bacteria caused the cheese to become green and how many mouse-years would it take to convert it into murine waste?"
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 10:59 PM
JBS, I'm actually quite satisfied with my own genetic complexity. I give god a B+
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:00 PM
If, for the sake of argument, you beat your wife, where would you hit her? The face? The stomach? Would you break her arm or her leg? Please, tell us.
Is Paley still beating his wife?
tsk, tsk.
Posted by: semi | April 19, 2008 11:00 PM
#93
They weren't considered "mythical" in the sense that a unicorn is consider mythical. There were no scientists claiming that the Hittites never existed. Science, through the field of archaeology, demonstrated their existence. When evidence surfaced, science accept their existence.
The Topper site is far from accepted in mainstream archaeology. The so-called evidence is very weak. Nothing has been positively demonstrated.
Ah, I was wondering when you'd get to the money question. This is a stupid hypothetical. The question you should be asking is "which theory has more evidence in support of it?" Nothing else matters.
You'd might as well ask, "But what if the moon was REALLY made of green cheese, wouldn't that be a problem for our astronauts if they don't wear cheese-proof boots?"
or
"What if gravity just suddenly turned off? Would that affect property values in my neighborhood?"
Posted by: Aegis | April 19, 2008 11:01 PM
Amplexus (#94)
The reason that you are stumped is likely because the arguments are so fatuous. The Obvious answer is that wonderful Dawkins summation of all such arguments:
"If things had been different, then things would be different!"
Sometimes, an argument is so insipid that it just shocks an intelligent person. If the Orbits were cubic (a ridiculous concept anyway), then Newton wouldn't exist, or anything else resembling humans for that matter. If 'nested hierarchies' didn't exist, and we saw dogs giving birth to fish, then evolution would be proven false. We never, ever see this, so it can be dismissed (like all of ID) out of hand.
Why not ask them this question back: If I had blonde hair, would I still then have brown hair?
Posted by: semi | April 19, 2008 11:02 PM
Damn, Russell...you beat me with the moon cheese analogy!
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:03 PM
The reason that you are stumped is likely because the arguments are so fatuous.
I find myself posting this a lot this week:
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: russell | April 19, 2008 11:05 PM
and I was about to ask you, semi, to join me in spreading the green cheese theory of lunology. Actually, let's call it a law instead of a theory. sounds better.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 19, 2008 11:05 PM
#100 as posted by: APJ on April 19, 2008 10:48 PM said:
I wondered how I got attached to that - since 1) I didn't quote Ichthyic, and 2) my response to W. Paley came later that yours...
So, are we getting so dyslexic we're trying to disprove doG, yet?
JBS
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:08 PM
I'm rather fond of this, myself.
Posted by: rmp | April 19, 2008 11:08 PM
What type of crackers are best served with green cheese? Should it be warm or cool?
Posted by: Ooparts | April 19, 2008 11:09 PM
This hasn't been said yet in this thread, but it should be noted that weakening one position does not automatically strengthen another position.
More specifically, even if the creators of Expelled and those of like minds succeeded in eroding the theory of natural selection as a means for the development of diversity of life on this planet through their shallow pokings based on limited understanding and personal biases, their counter-proposal of "magic man dun it!" would not become any less ridiculous.
Posted by: APJ | April 19, 2008 11:10 PM
@ John B Sandlin
I've got no beef with doG, as long as he keeps his (wet sniffy) nose out of my business.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 19, 2008 11:10 PM
"if, for the sake of argument we grant that the creationists are correct, there is no common descent and the earth is young, where, in retrospect, would the advocates of evolution had made their greatest mistakes? Methodology? Bias? Misreading of data? Comments please"
If, for the sake of argument we grant that the moon is made of cheese, what kind of cheese would it be?
To answer more seriously: there would have to be multiple errors on a massive scale in varying fields like genetics, paleontology, geology, astronomy, radiology, etc. That's precisely why evolution is such a well-established theory; there's not just a lot of evidence for it, there's a lot of separate sources of evidence.
And "bias" just doesn't cut it as an explanation. There have been, what, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe more, scientists in these fields who would LOVE to upend the scientific consensus. Some of them would want to do so for religious reasons, some for self-interested reasons (getting published, getting tenure, winning prizes and fame and fortune), some for the sheer thrill of discovering something new.
Posted by: Reginald | April 19, 2008 11:11 PM
James, it's really very common to have questions about evolution! At it's deepest it's a very complex science with very specialised information. But as complex as it gets, I like to think it's still very simple to understand the basic underlying principles.
For example, let's take this whole macroevolution/microevolution thing creationists love to bring up. Now creationists like to say they accept microevolution, small changes, but not macroeveolution - big changes. They are, actually, one in the same.
Think of it this way. Say you have a blank mr. potatohead, now add a plastic ear - Creationists accept this small change. Add another ear - creationists acccept this small change. Add eyes - a small change that creationists accept, and finally a hat and some feet. Creationists acccept that each minor change can occur, but we're at a drastically different species than what we started with! Of course, evolution doesn't work quite so cleanly or simplistically, but you get the point.
A person starts at one side of the yard and in the snow takes 10 steps to another side of the yard. Creationists accept that each individual footprint in the snow occured, but won't accept that the person who walked is now in a different place from where he began.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:12 PM
and I was about to ask you, semi, to join me in spreading the green cheese theory of lunology. Actually, let's call it a law instead of a theory. sounds better.
google fu says:
http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/cheese.html
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:13 PM
What type of crackers are best served with green cheese? Should it be warm or cool?
I'm fond of some simple cracked pepper water crackers. I think that if you first coat the cheese with herbes de provence, and then wrap it in phyllo and bake it for about 10 or so minutes at 350....well, you'll have a very nice time.
If you serve it cold, I'd recommend apple and pear slices, and a few fresh berries.
And always a nice red wine.....and avoid creationists for a particularly nice evening.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 19, 2008 11:17 PM
Hmm... seems that while I was typing my response, the question was answered. Green cheese.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:18 PM
More specifically, even if the creators of Expelled and those of like minds succeeded in eroding the theory of natural selection as a means for the development of diversity of life on this planet through their shallow pokings based on limited understanding and personal biases, their counter-proposal of "magic man dun it!" would not become any less ridiculous.
from the wedge document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 19, 2008 11:18 PM
@118
Exactly. Prime example of the False Dichotomy fallacy.
Even without their destruction by the evidence (which is thorough), most ID arguments fail the tests of plain old logic.
Posted by: semi | April 19, 2008 11:20 PM
There's plenty of cheese to go around! Screechy Monkey joined the party too.
Posted by: rjb | April 19, 2008 11:21 PM
@93 (gleaner63)
In an attempt to seriously answer your question, evolutionary theory IS constantly being questioned. Right now, as we speak, while this thread is going on, there is a conference at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at Santa Barbara that has brought in lots of people to discuss the underlying principles behind the evolution of the brain. Having spoken with individuals attending the conference, I can assure you that there are TONS of people questioning different evolutionary ideas. People thinking WAAAAY outside the box of the current thinking of evolutionary biology are there tackling some very difficult problems (how, and why, did a very large brain evolve?). There are spirited debates, disagreements, new ideas, and all sorts of inquiry ongoing. So your question makes no sense.
Evolution did not stop with Darwin. We know so much more now than we did then. The difference between the questioning that is going on at the Kavli Institute, and the so-called questioning that is going on regarding intelligent design, is that the questioning going on in the scientific community is based on data, analysis, evidence, and interpretation... NOT dogma.
Oh, and to show you that this doesn't happen in some sort of wierd secret society, these talks are all available as podcasts online below:
http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/activities/auto2/?id=836
Posted by: thalarctos | April 19, 2008 11:22 PM
Speaking of food, I miss your blog, Jeff--I was going to try some of your canning recipes, but didn't get to it before you took it down. :(
Posted by: russell | April 19, 2008 11:26 PM
Thanks Ichthyic!
semi, our Law not only has Evidence, but it is gaining in popularity!!! In just a few minutes rmp, Ichthyic, and Screechy Monkey have recognized it!!!!! But the best is that even MAJeff is on board!!!!!!! He's got a Molly, so we MUST BE ON TO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I'll stop hijacking the thread now. :)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:27 PM
Sorry thalarctos...I decided that in order to devote more time to finishing the dissertation I just needed to be rid of it, and deleting it altogether was the best way to accomplish that. I did make some chipotle-corn soup a couple weeks ago, and am thinking about a saag paneer-style spinach soup in the next week or so, and I'll probably need more tomato-fennel (I'm always amazed that I managed to create a recipe that good). There's no contact info on your blog, so I can send 'em to ya.....
Posted by: pcarini | April 19, 2008 11:28 PM
So many predators, so few prey ;(
William Paley, if you're still around, what do you think of this quartz crystal designed?
By your criteria:
1) Complexity - It's definitely complex, it's created out of countless atoms of Si and O. The shape is remarkably complex.
2) Utility - It's pleasing to look at, and I've heard the ID argument that a painting implies a painter, so I'll take it. It probably could be used as a weapon or a tool in a pinch..
3) Organization - Big wins here, a countless number of Si and O atoms have to first combine to create molecules of SiO2, and then line up just right in order to get that crystalline structure.
So, Mr. Paley, is that crystal designed or did it just form that way "completely at random" as you IDists like to say?
Posted by: Stanton | April 19, 2008 11:29 PM
Green cheese, crackers, and red wine?Posted by: Sastra | April 19, 2008 11:29 PM
"It's about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins." ...
They compared religion to KNITTING!!! And said God was "highly improbable!"
O the inhumanity!!! It's another HOLOCAUST taking place right before our eyes!!!!
Posted by: rmp | April 19, 2008 11:30 PM
Hey Screechy Monkey, what was your nom de plume before the framing from hell thread over at 'the intersection'? You not an existing Molly winner trying to collect yet again are you?
Posted by: sangfroid | April 19, 2008 11:36 PM
@94
The problem with this is that it dabbles with hypothetical universes. These universes may or may not have been designed, and since they don't actually exist we can't demonstrate it either way. And also, since these are constructed hypotheticals that obviously go against the real world, they have no bearing on evolution/abiogenesis/cosmology.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 19, 2008 11:37 PM
#108 as posted by: Amplexus on April 19, 2008 10:59 PM where they did say:
I may be somewhat biased in my grading.
I have a chronic genetic disease that has no cure - it's a race to see which kills me first, the disease or the drugs to treat the symptoms and perform the functions my body doesn't want to do on its own. Hopefully the disease was caught early enough that the irreversible damage to my body is minor and I can look forward to another thirty years or so before I completely fall apart (that would be living a normal life span). If I'm really fortunate, a cure will be found by biologists (well educated in genetics and evolution) in the next few years and I can get off the drugs. Then they can start working on reversing the irreversible damage :-)
JBS
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:38 PM
He's got a Molly
*sniff*
so do i...
Posted by: Adrienne | April 19, 2008 11:39 PM
@119: "Hell, if I were dyslexic, I'd even hate Dog too."
Posted by: rmp | April 19, 2008 11:39 PM
JBS, always remember that it's a loving god.
Posted by: Sastra | April 19, 2008 11:40 PM
In your scenario, I think the biggest mistake the advocates of evolution would have made was in being tricked by the space aliens into thinking the virtual-reality hologram world they had been secretly trapped in was the real planet earth.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:41 PM
and am thinking about a saag paneer-style spinach soup in the next week or so, and I'll probably need more tomato-fennel (I'm always amazed that I managed to create a recipe that good). There's no contact info on your blog, so I can send 'em to ya.....
I have good spam filters, and I can forward it on to her (as well as enjoying it myself!):
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:41 PM
But the best is that even MAJeff is on board!!!!!!!
For cheese? Fuck, yeah! Just don't pasteurize my brie!
Posted by: Derik N | April 19, 2008 11:42 PM
I predict about 1k comments for this
Posted by: craig | April 19, 2008 11:43 PM
Helpful hint: criticizing someone's ideas is not bigotry. It can be incorrect, or it can be correct, or it can be a matter of opinion depending on the particulars. But it's not bigotry.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 19, 2008 11:45 PM
"He's got a Molly"
We wouldn't have this problem if people would wear their "OM" tags...
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:45 PM
So many predators, so few prey ;(
a little surprising...
I'm betting it will draw a bigger crowd tomorrow... after church.
However, I've been thinking I need to go on a diet lately anyway.
creationists are so full of sweet irony I'm worried about getting type II diabetes, too.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:45 PM
Ichthyic,
There should be a recipe in your mailbox
Posted by: thalarctos | April 19, 2008 11:45 PM
SQQUUUUEEEEEE!!!!
researching.massage AT gmail DOT com
/SQQUUUUEEEEEE!!!!
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 11:46 PM
Yes.
Yes, if you're willing to accept supernatural explanations, you are justified in any and all lunacy.
Correct, once we venture into the supernatural, science is invalidated.
Complexity is really quite irrelevant as to whether a computer was designed; the important matters are the amount of evidence that points to human construction and the lack of an alternate theory.
Complexity is also quite irrelevant to the 'design' of rocks; the fact that there's no scientifically valid way for them to have been designed and the existence of naturalistic processes that would arrive at the same result IS!
And, no, this whole debate isn't reasonable at all.
Posted by: William Paley | April 19, 2008 11:47 PM
APJ writes:
Easy: By distinguishing between God and humans. Are you suggesting that one cannot tell apart different authors of design simply because the criteria of the design is always the same? Surely you realize that the method for determining whether an object is designed is different from the method used to determine a creation's designer, don't you?Ichthyic writes:
Indeed, your answer is simply... Because it clearly begs the question. In the analogy, we are trying to infer whether civilization was created by intelligent designers or caused by natural processes, and you go straight to the conclusion that the inference was supposed to show. To make it more realistic and understandable, suppose that while travelling space together we were to come upon some abandoned civilization on another planet. We never see the creators of its cities, buildings, roadways, etc. But are we not still justified in making the inference that they indeed had designers? Or would you rather that we avoid the conclusion simply because we can create a narrative in which nature herself formed together the buildings and roadways?Aegis writes:
No no, I am not taking it for granted that God designed anything, let alone rocks or the laws of the universe. What I am asking is, When is it reasonable to infer that God designed some thing? It seems to me that complexity, organization, and utility of function are good signs of design. Is that so unreasonable?pcarini writes:
Rocks have nothing like the complexity of life. That is my point. But let us even say rocks are complex; they still don't meet the other two qualifications for a design inference, which are 1) honed utility for some specific function, and 2) organization.Tyler DiPietro writes:
Well, I should have added "organization" and "utility" to "complexity" as criteria, but your point is taken. But then, what if we are not familiar with an object's history, use and manufacturing process at all? Take the case above (of discovering an abandoned civilization on another planet): are we not justified in inferring a designer simply because we aren't familiar with the history of the buildings, or the alien race that ostensibly produced them? What is the difference between this case and the case of our looking out into nature for signs of design?John B. Sandlin writes:
Are you suggesting that since you personally aren't satisfied with the quality of the design, that therefore there was no designer? Do you also expect teachers who do indeed give papers a failing grade to infer that those papers were therefore spun together by natural processes?pcarini writes:
I agree that it has organization, but I think it fails at meeting the criteria of complexity and utility. Yes, it is "useful" and "complex" in the senses that you mention, but those are true of all things. The utility that suggests a designer is one that is honed for a specific purpose, and the complexity that leads to a similar inference is one that includes multiple parts that work together to form some sort of mechanism. For those reasons, I think it is reasonable to avoid inferring design in the crystal.Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 19, 2008 11:47 PM
Eh, crap. I'm in the wrong friggan thread.
Ignore comment number 146...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 19, 2008 11:48 PM
So that's why I suddenly had 2000 visits and a pile of comments.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:48 PM
We wouldn't have this problem if people would wear their "OM" tags...
but then I would be using an inconsistent pseudonym, and would be labeled a troll by Greg Laden!
:p
besides, it's not like it's hard to figure out who has one around here (there's that big linky thing on the top o the page).
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:49 PM
You too thalarctos.
Posted by: Sili | April 19, 2008 11:49 PM
Well, Ichtyic,
If the diabetes gets you fast enough, you needn't worry about being eaten first at least.
I'm sorta looking forward to this. I've been here long enough that I feel a bit of responsibility in having to help clear the house of infestations. And I hope I've picked up enough knowledge to be able to do so.
Of course, all you so much wittier and cleverer people are hard to compete with.
Posted by: rmp | April 19, 2008 11:52 PM
William Paley
"Are you suggesting that since you personally aren't satisfied with the quality of the design, that therefore there was no designer? "
Just that it was a poor designer!
Are we now arguing about god's competence?
Ok, maybe he's not a great designer but hey, give the guy a break, this is his first universe.
Posted by: Adrienne | April 19, 2008 11:53 PM
William Paley wrote:
What is the specific purpose of rocks, then? Or crystals for that matter? Here you are arguing crystals aren't designed, yet presumably crystals are part of the natural world that you are claiming could have been designed by a a "Designer", yes?
Crystals are made up of multiple parts, in a lattice of atoms that can be pretty darn complex, actually.
So you are shooting your own theory in the foot, then, essentially, claiming something that occurs naturally wasn't "designed". But if there is a Big Designer, shouldn't he/she/it have played a part in designing crystals too? And rocks? Other things without a "finely honed" purpose?
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 19, 2008 11:54 PM
#125 where by Ichthyic posted on April 19, 2008 11:18 PM and said:
Thank you, Ichthyic, that probably needs to be said a lot - I may have to add that to my blog, too.
To my view, if there were ever a pronouncement that should lead to atheism, this is it. If the faith cannot survive the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, then such a faith is useless. The Discovery Institute is essentially claiming that God does not exist because the Theory of Evolution is so powerful no god or faith in a god can withstand it. I posit that a true faith and a true god would not only survive it would flourish.
My reasoning? Simple - they're quite fond of saying "The Truth shall set you free." Since it is quite obvious from the geologic, genomic, and any other pertinent record, that Evolution does occur (whether the current Theory of Evolution is fully adequate to explain it or not), then that is a truth - and will set us free. If the Christian faith (at least that which requires a literal interpretation of Genesis) cannot abide the fact of Evolution... well that speaks for itself, doesn't it.
JBS
Posted by: Stanton | April 19, 2008 11:54 PM
Ichthyic, thalarctos, would it be possible if you could forward my recipes for squid and goldfish to MAJeff, too?
{/off topic}
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | April 19, 2008 11:55 PM
Note that originally, greene cheese was a reference to an unripe cheese, which would have been white in colour.
There, now the information resistant evolution doubters may have encountered something here that can get past their faith filter.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:56 PM
Because it clearly begs the question.
are you sure you understand what that means?
here, let me help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
you really are a comic strip villain, aren't you.
In the analogy, we are trying to infer whether civilization was created by intelligent designers or caused by natural processes, and you go straight to the conclusion that the inference was supposed to show.
no, one YOU were.
two, it wasn't an analogy.
three, it wasn't even the question you asked.
move goalposts much?
Well, I should have added "organization" and "utility" to "complexity" as criteria,
you did. it still doesn't help.
But are we not still justified in making the inference that they indeed had designers?
what you miss is that NOW you are inferring the design based on your own personal knowledge of HUMAN architecture.
why is it so hard for this to get through that thick skull of yours?
Last chance:
If you ran across a dam of logs across a river, what would you infer as to how they got that way?
why?
How could you tell if your inference was accurate?
Posted by: Sioux Laris | April 19, 2008 11:57 PM
This thread looks pretty clean, but could I suggest an honor system promise not to attempt any parodies of the chockfullo'nuts crowd on this sort of "invitational" thread?
Posted by: russell | April 19, 2008 11:58 PM
Sorry, Ichthyic, I know you do and you even got it first. I realized it right after I hit post. I need to be more thorough in my research before I publish. Although that might inhibit the spread of the Law, so perhaps I'll just skip the research. Seems to work so well for others....
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:58 PM
Ichthyic, thalarctos, would it be possible if you could forward my recipes for squid and goldfish to MAJeff, too?
not a problem on my end.
Posted by: Derik N | April 19, 2008 11:59 PM
"Ok, maybe he's not a great designer but hey, give the guy a break, this is his first universe."
Nuh huh, you can't prove it was his first!
Posted by: Falyne | April 19, 2008 11:59 PM
More here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:59 PM
Squid?!
As long as I don't have to clean it...
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2008 11:59 PM
I need to be more thorough in my research before I publish.
no, not at all. I think pure gut instinct will further the cause of Green Cheese just fine!
carry on.
:p
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 12:00 AM
@ William Paley
Your "argument" is rubbish:
1. I propose that this item is too complex to not be designed.
2. Therefore it had a designer.
3: The "design" is clearly not human
4: Therefore the designer was not a human.
5: Therefore Goddonit.
6: Therefore there is a God.
7: QED
Or does it go more like this?:
1: I believe in God.
2: Therefore I must try to discredit all theories that don't need God.
Posted by: Stanton | April 20, 2008 12:01 AM
Obviously, you don't know me very well...
Hehehehehe...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 20, 2008 12:02 AM
got the goldfish and squid recipes :)
This is turning into a bizarre thread; and I've developed this weird role here. I start by creating some drinking festivals and am now a recipe center. Well, i suppose there are much worse ways to spend life.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:03 AM
If the diabetes gets you fast enough, you needn't worry about being eaten first at least.
I don't.
I worry about NOT being eaten first.
:)
I wonder if the diabetes would make me taste sweeter?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 20, 2008 12:04 AM
You wouldn't be operating on complete ignorance. When talking about an "alien civilization" you merely stretching out already familiar, anthropomorphic concepts, not the highly generalized notion of "design".
Two reasons:
1. Because the "design" you speak of is too highly generalized to make specific predictions about what would be found.
2. Because in most obvious cases you are drawing false inferences. The objects you are talking about do not reproduce, do not inherit traits from their ancestors and are subject to no natural selection pressure, where the opposite is true of biological organisms.
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:05 AM
OK, all this talk about cheese and squid recipes is driving me crazy. What are these recipes (skip the goldfish).
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:07 AM
If the faith cannot survive the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, then such a faith is useless.
hence why the Catholics are busily writing new apologetics on a monthly basis trying to reconcile.
...and YES I even mean Ken Miller, but that's a story for a different thread.
Posted by: Falyne | April 20, 2008 12:08 AM
MAJeff, I wish I had your recipes, too. Unfortunately, my email address is pretty obviously name- and school- based, and I'm, heh, still desirous of maintaining pseudonymity. I'll post it for a few minutes over at my place so I can delete it, I guess. ^_^
Posted by: Stanton | April 20, 2008 12:08 AM
Actually, the recipe is for shrimp dumplings that are shaped to looking celestial-eyed goldfish... The Chinese stopped eating (domestic) goldfish centuries ago.Posted by: Sastra, OM (ok I put it on) | April 20, 2008 12:08 AM
Paley's analogy simply doesn't work. How do you tell the difference between an artificial man-made rabbit and a natural rabbit? You look for signs of artifice and intentional design: are there stitches holding the fur on, is it filled with organs or with cotton, and so forth. We know what natural rabbits look like, and what artificially constructed ones look like. If we have an object which could, on first observation, be either, we look at it more closely to see which category it falls under.
You cannot then go on and use the same criteria on the original natural rabbit we knew wasn't artificially constructed to see if it is really an artificial natural rabbit. Artificial Natural?
We have no examples to work with in the third "artificial natural" category, and no idea what the heck to look for.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 20, 2008 12:09 AM
"besides, it's not like it's hard to figure out who has one around here (there's that big linky thing on the top o the page)."
That would take way too much energy for me.
:P
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:09 AM
Well, i suppose there are much worse ways to spend life.
certainly less productive.
e.g., bothering to respond to someone calling himself "Paley".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 12:10 AM
Hey, I hope you guys don't mind, but I closed comments on my "expelled for being an evolutionist" thread and directed everybody back here. I just don't have the time or the energy to mediate troll-heavy discussions right now. In fact, what I'd really like is a week's vacation from science blogging. Ben Stein and his craptacular movie couldn't have come at a worse time for my personal schedule. . . .
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:11 AM
now your telling me the recipe includes shrimp, fsm, I must know this recipe!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 20, 2008 12:11 AM
OK, a couple people have asked about it, so here's the tomato-fennel soup recipe I mentioned. If you can, like I do, put it in pint jars and process at 10psi for 15 minutes.
[/obsessive off topic foodie]
[return to creo-bashing]
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:13 AM
That would take way too much energy for me.'
what's the point of getting a "major award" (hearkens back to the plastic woman's leg-lamp in "Christmas Story") if one can't force the peons to do some extra work?
:P
Posted by: thalarctos | April 20, 2008 12:13 AM
Well, you know how they used to diagnose it pre-blood tests, and why they call the diseases "diabetes mellitus" and "diabetes insipidus" respectively, right? So the answer would seem to be yes.
(if you haven't encountered this, briefly, doctors used to taste the patient's urine--sweet urine meant diabetes mellitus [from the word for "honey"]; relatively tasteless urine was "insipidus".)
Posted by: Falyne | April 20, 2008 12:14 AM
Hooray for MAJeff!
Posted by: JakeS | April 20, 2008 12:14 AM
I picked a good day to start reading Pharyngula again...
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:17 AM
What the easiest/soonest way of determining the opening weekend success (or lack thereof) of the movie?
Posted by: molliebatmit | April 20, 2008 12:18 AM
rjb, #128:
Holy cow, that talk schedule looks totally awesome. I'm going to have to watch some of those lectures, and I'm going to have to share the link with my labmates.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 12:18 AM
My only excuse is that I have no brains on the weekend.
I only just twigged who "William Paley" was following Ichthyic's comment at #181.
The watchmaker guy...
Christ. Our "William Paley" has taken the baton from the original WP and is running with it. But where is he running?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 20, 2008 12:19 AM
#151 William Paley on April 19, 2008 11:47 PM did post:
Actually, I'm suggesting no intelligence was involved.
Also, one need not infer a designer when natural processes are sufficient. You claim it's too complex for nature. I claim it isn't. I claim no intelligence was involved in creating the complexity. If a paper is turned in by a student that then receives a failing grade, does that not imply intelligence was not involved in creating the paper (or at least insufficient intelligence).
So, our creators, who are outside the universe, hollow be their name, are supposed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. So why such poor work on the various credited designs? I only see sufficient complexity to be accounted for by trial and error, no specific design, no intelligent plan, no vast and powerful creation - just nature taking its course.
Now, the Big Bang and the alignment of all the proper specific constants of the universe - that might have a chance in my grading system. Might. I'm an agnostic on that, however.
--
If I survive a car accident - how am I lucky? I'd have been much better off if said accident never happened! If I'm in a plane crash where 20 people died and I'm the lone survivor - how am I lucky? We'd all twenty one of us have been better off if the plane had not crashed! If I beat the odds and am one of the few to have a specific genetic disorder how am I lucky? I'd be better off never having the disease to begin with!
Evolution isn't about luck. Evolution isn't about chance. Evolution isn't about miracles. Yes there are things that happen randomly - but the non-random factors drive the apparent complexity, the against all odds results. Your god is an awesome god. Mine is awesomer.
JBS
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 20, 2008 12:19 AM
"Oh, and to show you that this [serious discussions of evolution] doesn't happen in some sort of wierd secret society...."
for that matter, some of my favorite parts of Dawkins's book The Ancestor's Tale were the ones that discussed some of the "live issues" being debated (e.g. bipedalism). I think one of the reasons I've become more interested in science in recent years is that I have a better appreciation for science as an ongoing process rather than just a textbook full of facts and equations.
@rmp: I used to go by "jdb," which I was never very happy with as there appears to be a "jd" and a "jb" around here as well. So I was pleased to grab my new monkey moniker.
Posted by: Master Mahan | April 20, 2008 12:20 AM
Well, that second list looks decidedly more substantial, but then I freely admit my strong bias against self-deception.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:21 AM
(if you haven't encountered this, briefly, doctors used to taste the patient's urine--sweet urine meant diabetes mellitus [from the word for "honey"]; relatively tasteless urine was "insipidus".)
ah, so then that 15 year old in R. Kelly's apartment was doing.
She was just testing him for diabetes...
http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaftMlk.html
Posted by: Dan | April 20, 2008 12:22 AM
Moon-Cheese simulpost, FTW!
I never thought I'd see it here. I think I can now die a happy man.
Posted by: semi | April 20, 2008 12:25 AM
Here's a pretty good site:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm
Posted by: William Paley | April 20, 2008 12:25 AM
rmp writes:
Alright, fair enough. That is a subjective opinion with which I am comfortable for the moment. All I am arguing is whether there was a designer. I'm not arguing anything about that designer's ostensible qualities yet.Adrienne writes:
No, I'm not arguing that point yet. I'm just wondering whether the design inference is not justified in the case of living things. Fair enough. I would call that a high degree of organization, but I understand what you mean. I'm using the term "complexity" as referring to an object's possession of mechanisms, specifically.It's a good point, but you're getting ahead of the argument. For now, I'm just trying to focus on whether the design inference is justified in the case of living things. Again, I'm not taking it for granted that God designed everything. So we can come to rocks and crystals later.Ichthyic writes:
Fair enough, I will take it that my original point was not clear. I raised the civilization example as a way of trying to infer the existence of humans by looking at civilizations. I apologize for not being clearer.Very good! So why can I not make a similar inference of design in nature from my personal knowledge of human machinery?I would infer design from my knowledge of human dams. I would know it was an accurate inference if it was the best among competing explanations. And I would know it was "best" by whether it explained the most with the most parsimonious set of assumptions.APJ writes:
Alright. Are there any conditions in nature that you can conceive of that would convince you that some being designed life on Earth? If not, then how do you infer that anything is designed? Or do you always avoid this inference?Tyler DiPietro writes:
Alright, fine. So why are we not justified in doing the same thing in nature?I don't understand this. Why is it invalid to make an inference based on a generalization? Can you explain this?This seems in my view only to reinforce the design inference, not weaken it. Besides, computer processes have all the traits you mentioned (they reproduce offspring, inherit traits from their ancestors and are subject to genetic algorithms), and those are clearly designed, right? (If you're not familiar with how computer processes do this, I can explain.)Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:28 AM
What the easiest/soonest way of determining the opening weekend success (or lack thereof) of the movie?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.php
Posted by: Tapetum | April 20, 2008 12:29 AM
Mr. Paley - if utility is the sign of a designer, what, pray tell, is the utility of life?
A multitude of philosophers await your reply.
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 12:30 AM
Ok, so you've moved the goalposts on 1) from "utility" to "honed utility for some specific function", and you concede organization for crystals later on. I'll still play, though. Is a painting "honed" with "utility for some specific function"? It's certainly man-made but I can't really say its functional beyond being something to look at.
Lets compare a painting with, say, a geode that I found already broken open. They're both complex and organized (or can be), and equally functional, from an artistic perspective. As an outside observer who knew nothing of paintings or geodes, how would I tell that one was "designed" and the other just formed that way?
It seems to me that the only way I'd realize that the painting was an artifact from a human culture is my previous knowledge of humanity. Without that I'd probably choose the geode as more functional, since it's less likely to break when I use it to, say, smash a lizard's head in.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:32 AM
I raised the civilization example as a way of trying to infer the existence of humans by looking at civilizations.
IOW, you raised the issue of inferring the existence of civilization... by referring to civilization.
wait, who was doing the question begging again?
Very good! So why can I not make a similar inference of design in nature from my personal knowledge of human machinery?
because a fish is not a mousetrap, you gibbering, smarmy ass.
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:33 AM
OK, I gotta admit I didn't see it coming that someone might acknowledge that god isn't a very good designer. I don't know how to respond. arrrrrrrrgggh.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:34 AM
I would infer design from my knowledge of human dams.
and if it just happened to be the case that it was a natural log jam?
what if it was constructed by beavers?
how would you eliminate these possibilities?
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 20, 2008 12:35 AM
Wow MAJeff your advice on herbs de provence was spot on. As a 3rd generation farmer growing the stuff - kudos! Have you tried baby red potato's & lavender, or corn bread baked with lavender and lavender honey? (Sorry my apron is showing...)
Hey Ichthyic, you're mythic tonight. *grin*
I can't wait for the Saucy Hell-Hated Minnow & Bride of Shrek to wade in.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:36 AM
This seems in my view only to reinforce the design inference
projection's a bitch, ain't it?
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:37 AM
Screechy Monkey, much more memorable than just using your initials. Now I've got to come up with something.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 20, 2008 12:37 AM
"Alright, fine. So why are we not justified in doing the same thing in nature?"
Because it is by no means immediately obvious that the same conclusions apply in non-familiar, non-anthropomorphic environments.
"I don't understand this. Why is it invalid to make an inference based on a generalization? Can you explain this?"
I never claimed such, I said that if something is too highly generalized to make testable predictions (read: ad hoc) it is useless for making such inferences.
"Besides, computer processes have all the traits you mentioned (they reproduce offspring, inherit traits from their ancestors and are subject to genetic algorithms), and those are clearly designed, right?"
Two problems:
1. The body of software itself does not reproduce in evolutionary computation, certain components are iteratively subject to variation and selection in hopes that one can converge upon a solution to a predefined and enumerated problem. Substantially different from that which I mentioned.
2. They are only "clearly designed" because we have, once again, written them so that they can be understood as such. By no means does such apply in biology.
Posted by: molliebatmit | April 20, 2008 12:38 AM
But it's relevant that genomes don't look designed because no designer would be that stupid and sloppy.It's at least a little reasonable to use the argument from incredulity, as creationists do, when you're looking at a whole organism. It's big, it's complex, it looks pretty well put-together. But when you closely examine the genome, you see that it's a hodge-podge of disorganization: introns, exons, defunct transposons and other parasitic sequences, pseudogenes, duplications -- it's an utter mess on a genomic level, not to mention on a transcriptional level.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:40 AM
I don't know how to respond.
how about:
what use is a sloppy engineer?
Posted by: Block_Stacker | April 20, 2008 12:40 AM
God: "I give unto you the Geode, my greatest design, so that Thou might have something cool for Show and Tell."
Posted by: Janus | April 20, 2008 12:40 AM
Even if there was zero evidence for evolution, it's not logically possible to explain organized complexity by saying it was designed by an intelligent being, because if a being is intelligent it's an instance of organized complexity.
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 12:44 AM
Ichthyic @ #202:
Ah, but a cat is a mouse trap! Thus Goddidit. QED.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 12:48 AM
"Rocks have nothing like the complexity of life. That is my point. But let us even say rocks are complex;..."
[yawn]
Have you considered renting yourself out as a soporific?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:49 AM
Ah, but a cat is a mouse trap! Thus Goddidit. QED.
oh, very clever, ya run rings around me logically!
Now it's time for the penguin on top of your television to explode.
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:50 AM
Ichthyic, I'm afraid that this might be a whole new line of argument. We're not saying god is perfect, just saying that something did it. This is almost a back door into my religion of the month, Pantheism. Personally I think if you take equal parts of dark matter and dark energy, you get a soul.
Posted by: A. Rice | April 20, 2008 12:50 AM
William Paley,
So that were all on the same page, would you please define some of your terms: complexity, utility, organization and designer.
Please be as specific as you can.
-A. Rice
Posted by: ShemAndShaun | April 20, 2008 12:51 AM
I have been watching this issue over the past week or so, and I can't help feeling that this exercise in polarization is going to back-fire.
I am bemused by the debate myself, as I have never been exposed to any arguments against the theory of evolution. I was aware that there were people in the USA that questioned it, but this is the first time I have actually explored the issue. I mean no offense, but I find it all truly bizarre and strangely fascinating.
Posted by: semi | April 20, 2008 12:51 AM
Maybe we can classify this as the Argument from Mediocrity. If something looks like it was poorly designed, then you can automatically assume a bad designer. If this is the case, then the dodo is proof positive of a supernatural, underachieving being.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 20, 2008 12:52 AM
"Personally I think if you take equal parts of dark matter and dark energy, you get a soul."
Via the same process, I think you get butt seks.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:53 AM
er, I guess there ARE some who wouldn't have a clue what an exploding penguin looks like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnObI25aN1k
Posted by: semi | April 20, 2008 12:54 AM
Look at the bones!
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 12:55 AM
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science
--Loudon is a Fool
no, it isn't.
you at least have to start off with what the movie purports to represent if you wish to be taken at all seriously.
--Fishything
No doubt, Ichthyic, you were seething throughout the film and had difficulty digesting the point. Were you calm, probably still you would have had difficulty given that your mind appears to have all the nuance of a country cured ham sandwich washed down with a warm can of Olympia.
I'll speak with fewer syllables that you might understand.
Hatred blinds. Your hatred of God (no doubt stemming from a difficult relationship with your father, regarding which I am very sorry) would, had you a scientific inclination, make your science suspect. It would not only be outcome determinative. But your atheistic outlook would predispose you to be unable to take data as it comes. It's odd, because typically an orientation towards skepticism (properly understood) might incline one towards thoughtfulness. But ye God-haters are not skeptics. You're dogmatic. You might reject such a label. But I would encourage you to look at the evidence. Read through this thread.
The bad news is, as Ichthyic noted at 125, the issue of evolution has been elevated from a conversation among nerdy, beard-wearing evolutionary biologists (who, if we are to be frank, are not in the fore of technicians who are providing shiny new products for the betterment of our lives), to a fight between "science" and the many. Given that some 70% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ not only lived but is in fact God, science (properly understood) will be the casualty of your childish spat with the Almighty. It's a simple matter of boots on the ground. And your side is disadvantaged because you spend Saturday nights blogging, rather than dating. That is unfortunate. But I guess it's natural selection. And ye boors will have only yourselves to blame when scientists are viewed with the same revulsion as the leech-wielding barbers of yesteryear.
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 12:55 AM
ShemaAndSharon, as you follow this thread/issue, make sure you differentiate the god/atheist argument as different from the evolution/YEC argument. There are more than a few theist evolutionists out there. Maybe not here exactly, but out there nonetheless.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 12:55 AM
As an outside observer who knew nothing of paintings or geodes, how would I tell that one was "designed" and the other just formed that way?
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 12:30 AM
Easy - through enough observation, you could come up with preliminary hypotheses about how each came into existence, then perform experiments to try to understand the processes which might have caused them to exist. Once those are done you could refine your hypotheses to fit the evidence. And, once the studies of both items had advanced to the necessary level, you'd be able to scientifically affirm that the geode was a natural occurrence, while nature could not produce on its own anything like the painting. Which, of course, should lead you to the conclusion that nature did not make the painting. (But this is where the deception lies with the ID movement. It seems to play off of a false dichotomy that if we can't currently explain how nature created something, supernatural agents or causes are at work. This claim is misleading at its very core, because at one time - based on the limited nature of human travel of the globe and communication across it - the Earth was believed to be flat. Only until we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt - through natural means, not through guesses at supernatural influence - that it was not flat was this fact accepted as canon. The same will no doubt eventually prove true for our current gaps in knowledge, as long as we stick to the impartiality of the scientific method.) And this is all completely beside the fact that paintings are usually representations of things seen in the world, so - even absent knowledge of humanity - it would probably be somewhat recognizable as a two-dimensional reproduction - or attempt thereof - of something seen in the natural world.
In short, the easy way to tell is to apply the scientific method to the study of both of them. That's the neat thing about the scientific method - if you use it correctly it can answer these same questions that keep getting asked time and time again concerning the argument from design.
Posted by: Falyne | April 20, 2008 12:55 AM
Personally I think if you take equal parts of dark matter and dark energy, you get a soul.
Erm. Herm. Ok, rmp, once again, I can't disprove this, but, uh, it seems a little... woo for my tastes. I'm going to be nice and leave it at that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:56 AM
you get a soul.
and if you take a catfish, fillet it, coat in cornmeal, and deep fry, you get soul food.
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 12:58 AM
Oh I knew, but it's been some time.. I remembered the Mary Queen of Scotts bit more than the exploding penguin, though.
Back on topic, Occam's Razor treats your mediocre designer the same way it would treat a perfect designer. Since we can explain the complexity of life just fine w/o a shoddy designer, who needs one?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 12:58 AM
The logic against God (or any other designer), used by everybody from Hume to Dawkins.
Occam's Razor: discard all unnecessary premises. Or, if presented with two explanations for a phenomenon, choose the one that entails the least assumptions.
If the present world could have come about through natural processes, there is no reason to infer a god. Search the literature (for creationists, this means read more than what the DI and Behe put out) and you will find god is most unecessary. Thus, though one cannot disprove god's existence (neither can we disprove the FSM) we can be reasonably sure there is no such entity and thus carry on with lives as though he/she/it/them did not exist. (See Russel's Teapot)
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:59 AM
Were you calm
LOL
yeah, tell us about how calm the writers were as they strung together visions of holocaust Europe intermingled with interviews with scientists.
get lost, dillweed.
Posted by: Falyne | April 20, 2008 12:59 AM
Louden:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzjbV-yTomY
Posted by: Amplexus | April 20, 2008 1:00 AM
@RMP- So the souls of people are manifest as quantum entanglements with predetermined outcomes? And when we die our dark matter/energy souls leaves our body and flies around the cosmos?
Beautiful idea!
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 1:02 AM
Falyne, please don't take me to literally. It's just my little story that I tell myself to reconcile my 48 plus years in the Lutheran church with my brain. I think it's a reasonable compromise.
Not that I want it to be part of a Science curriculum.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:03 AM
God: "I give unto you the Geode, my greatest design, so that Thou might have something cool for Show and Tell."
LOL
actually, that does bring back some childhood memories.
I still have those geodes, even.
Posted by: molliebatmit | April 20, 2008 1:04 AM
#223, Loudon is a fool
And, yet, puzzlingly, the graduate student who shares a bay with me in the lab is a devout Catholic. We use the implications of evolution in our lab (which studies repair of the central nervous system) every day.
Evolution isn't about the rejection of religion. Evolution is about biology. That's all.
Posted by: Falyne | April 20, 2008 1:05 AM
Heh, whatever floats your boat. A little woo, but then again, I have a weakness for cryptozoology myself. ;-)
And now I can't stop watching my own video! Yay image macros put to German nerdcore, at least at 1 am. Internet, LOL Internet...
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 1:06 AM
"The bad news is, as Ichthyic noted at 125, the issue of evolution has been elevated from a conversation among nerdy, beard-wearing evolutionary biologists..."
Actually, Loudon, the bad news is that for all your posturing and name calling, you have actually just proved the point (not that you're the first, by any means) that if ID belongs in school, it belongs in a philosophy class. It seems that every time one of your fellow believers gets angry, out comes the "spat with the Almighty" rhetoric, laying bare the inseparability of ID from religion.
And your further points show how unqualified you are to speak on anything involved in science. The fact that you equate a theory's scientific efficacy and accuracy with the simple numbers of those who believe that theory is perfectly hilarious, and bad science all the way around. Whether or not Jesus lived cannot - and likely will never - be verified with any sense of certainty. It is, and always will remain, a matter of personal faith.
And I don't have a spat with any Almighty -- just people who claim to know that there is one, and that they know his(her) wishes.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 1:07 AM
"But ye God-haters are not skeptics. You're dogmatic."
Guilty! It's hatred of the stupidity of people like you that drive me. I admit it.
"Given that some 70% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ not only lived but is in fact God, science (properly understood) will be the casualty of your childish spat with the Almighty."
Fortunately, we have a system of education that still cares about standards, despite the best efforts of ignorant people like you who want to undermine it from within and without.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 1:08 AM
@ William Paley
Alright. Are there any conditions in nature that you can conceive of that would convince you that some being designed life on Earth? If not, then how do you infer that anything is designed? Or do you always avoid this inference?
You put the cart before the horse. You have first postulated the existence of a designer, and then you wish to find evidence for the existence of such a designer.
I would require a demonstration of why all the masses of evidence that we currently have for evolution was in fact completely wrong before I would be able to give any weight to new evidence that another process (or mythical being) was responsible for the diversity of life that we observe on earth.
Your god is not necessary in our explanation.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:09 AM
And I don't have a spat with any Almighty -- just people who claim to know that there is one, and that they know his(her) wishes.
funny, but that's exactly why I've always wondered why xians don't claim intelligent design is heresy.
there's no way to hypothesize about design without knowledge of the designer, and, IIRC, doesn't the book of Job rather warn against such heresy?
*shrug*
OTOH, far be it from me to accuse the religious of being consistent.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 1:09 AM
and if you take a catfish, fillet it, coat in cornmeal, and deep fry, you get soul food.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:56 AM
bravo, ichthyic -- that one was priceless...
Posted by: Falyne | April 20, 2008 1:10 AM
[cynic]
CalGeorge: we do?
[/cynic]
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:12 AM
"based on the limited nature of human travel of the globe and communication across it - the Earth was believed to be flat"
Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round...when it was penned 3,000 years ago. Perhaps those "flat-earthers" should have pick themselves up a copy?
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 20, 2008 1:14 AM
#223 where "Loudon is a Fool" on April 20, 2008 12:55 AM spewed:
Why is it assumed that Evolutionists hate God? Do you also assume we hate the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Maybe you think we hate Speed Racer... or perhaps it is Satan we hate. Think about that for a minute. That may not be long enough - thinking might be difficult for you. I'll give you a week to think about it. But honestly, think about it!
I don't hate Zeus. I don't hate Saturn. I don't hate Quezecoatal. Why should I hate your God? Mayhaps we have thought about the evidence, looked skeptically at it - and still came to the conclusion that Evolution happens. Why are you so closed minded?
If you respond sooner than a week, I'll know you are a troll - since you couldn't possibly have thought it through that quickly.
JBS
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:14 AM
#235, Your lab partner is increasingly in the minority, in large part because of the hostility shown by the likes of Myers, Dawkins their ilk as presented in technicolor on this blog.
Neo-Darwinism, the dogmatism attacked in Expelled, is about the rejection of religion. Read the words of your compatriots. Would the devout Catholic who shares your bay view your friends as men of reason?
And I don't quite understand how the random Godlessness of the universe informs your understanding of the nervous system in a way that is helpful to scientific inquiry. But maybe you mean something else by evolution.
Posted by: JRQ | April 20, 2008 1:15 AM
All I am arguing is whether there was a designer. I'm not arguing anything about that designer's ostensible qualities yet.
But don't you see? it is only by specifying some qualities that "designer" becomes an explanation at all....it is precisely the qualities of the designer (and their consequences) that would do the explaining.
The reason one can infer design in human-made artifacts like watches is because we know something about the qualities of human designers, and the mechanisms they employ in watchmaking. We can identify a human signature because we know how with great precision how the signing is done.
Posted by: rmp | April 20, 2008 1:15 AM
OK ichthyic , now I want some recipes from you as well.
Actually, I'll check for them in about 8 hrs. I'm shot.
Good night everyone!
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 1:16 AM
brokenSoldier @ #225 (observation, scientific method, etc.)
I appreciate your post, but I wanted to clarify mine... I wasn't suggesting that there would be no way to tell which of those objects was a human artifact and which wasn't, I was simply trying to point out that W. Paley's criteria aren't sufficient.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 1:17 AM
All I am arguing is whether there was a designer. I'm not arguing anything about that designer's ostensible qualities yet.
Argumentum ad not yetum?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:17 AM
for the recently arrived, here are some things that will help you quote others more clearly:
every time you see [ or ] substitute an angle bracket instead (the shift of the , and . keys, respectively).
[i] = italics
[b] = bold
[blockquote] = will indent and highlight text
examples:
[i]italic[/i] gives you:
italic
[blockquote] isn't this tedious? [/blockquote] gives you:
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:18 AM
Brokensoldier,
I certainly do not believe that in numbers lie truth. But in a democratic society you can't fight the numbers. So, although you deserve to lose, you will not lose because you deserve to lose. But you'll lose nevertheless, which is good enough for me.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 1:18 AM
In #239 I said "...postulated the existence of a designer".
I of course meant "...accepted without question the existence of a designer".
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:19 AM
"Whether or not Jesus lived cannot - and likely will never - be verified with any sense of certainty"
Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible. Seriously, ask your local atheist historian. No doubt their face will contort, but they will admit its the Bible. So who is ignorant? There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:19 AM
OK ichthyic , now I want some recipes from you as well.
I make a mean chicken florentine, sound good?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:22 AM
Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round
hmm, I do believe at least one translation has it as "circular", which could be a flat disk.
care to elaborate?
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 1:24 AM
"Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible...There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?"
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:19 AM
Okay, seriously...I'm going to consider that statement a clear example of Poe's Law. Because otherwise, someone has been getting their facts from a Discovery Institute pamphlet.
Posted by: Ted Powell | April 20, 2008 1:25 AM
A Real Expulsion--from a Texas restaurant
Some good ol' boys who didn't appreciate the Berkeley Unix "daemon": http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 1:25 AM
He lived.
We know next to nothing about him.
Except that a bunch of bullshitters sought to make him into a saint.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 20, 2008 1:25 AM
Why would a book claiming to be the word of god make any comment on things that might be found out later? "Circle of the Earth"
Lack of foresight?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:26 AM
Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible.
ooops....
http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/Itemid,61/id,16/
better known as:
"How Archaeology Killed Biblical History"
care to continue flaunting your ignorance of how accurate your favorite bed-time story is?
Posted by: Block_Stacker | April 20, 2008 1:27 AM
From an engineering standpoint, any design is created first and foremost to perform some function. In engineering, as in mathematics, a function is defined as process which receives one or more inputs, and generates a different output.
Simplified examples: Input gasoline into a car and it will output your ride to work. input light into a camera and it will output a picture.
For a design to be considered functional, all instances of the design must produce the desired output given the correct inputs.
Thus, assuming a class of similar objects, for instance human beings, have been designed, the purpose of said design may be derived by examining the outputs and inputs of the same.
The inputs and outputs of human beings differ greatly from human to human. Some people output art or literature, others output only meaningless blather. Some people input only plants and minerals, others input large amounts of toxic substances.
There is however, one output that every living human regularly produces given a few basic inputs. I submit that if humanity were designed by a creator, we were designed chiefly to perform that basic function that is common to all instances of humanity.
Therefore, if there is a God, and humans are his greatest creation, then he/she is primarily concerned with the performance of this one fundamental function.
Behold! I have read the Mind of God! The Lord demands your Dookies!
Posted by: Janus | April 20, 2008 1:27 AM
Eh, don't get too heated up, I'm pretty sure Loudon is an atheist trying to have fun at our expense.
It's mostly true that it's impossible to distinguish between creationists/fundamentalists and parodies of them, but in this particular case I think we can. Real fundies will at least try to make it look like they have some understanding of science and its method, but Loudon is going out of his way to show that the opposite is true in his case. The demonstration of stupidity is too thorough and too blatant to be real.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:28 AM
Mr. Sandlin,
If you have thought about this issue at any length, I am surprised you would make this argument. Maybe you should take some more time. Or bounce your ideas off a friend. Maybe this is a case of two minds (one not being your own) being better than one.
Dawkins did not write The Grass Delusion. I am sure (net, net) he is ambivalent about grass, having no strong feelings one way or the other. So he didn't write a book about it. Protests about your really not caring about God are less convincing in light of the continued protests.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 1:30 AM
@ 254
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I just checked my Yahrzeit Calendar, and the date is 15th of Nisan, 5768.
Which calendar do you use most often?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:32 AM
Protests about your really not caring about God are less convincing in light of the continued protests.
ever thought that the protests relate to YOU personally?
some of us are just highly amused at complete idiots that can do nothing but communicate via projection.
OTOH, the amusement tends to wear off quickly.
tomorrow is another day, and hopefully there will be fresh meat.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:34 AM
You use this word (projection) a lot, Ichthyic. I don't think you know what it means.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 1:35 AM
Hat tip to Ichthyic #251:
I gave up when [quote][/quote] didn't work.
[blockquote][/blockquote] duly noted.
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 1:37 AM
Loudon is a Fool @ #@264
OK, that solves it for me.. Loudon is obviously trying to yank our collective chain.
Posted by: tosser | April 20, 2008 1:37 AM
For young earth creationism to be true, the scientific method would have to be entirely useless. Creationism is truly anti-scientific, and believing in creationism entails believing in what can only be called magic, even if most creationists won't phrase it this way because they know how silly it sounds.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:39 AM
I realize I am an ignorant Christian, but I am struggling to understand something. Can you enlighten me?
As evolutionists, you may only believe in the material world. You believe in natural selection removing the weak in all species. You believe that no moral authority or morality for that matter exist (you can't in a material world). The concepts of equality, truth, and purpose also cannot exist (don't press this point, even your beloved Hawkins freely admits).
And I arrive at my question!
Do you believe all men are created (I mean evolved, sorry!) equally? Let me pose it another way, did all races evolve equally?
More specifically, Are blacks and whites equal? After all, Africans have contributed very little to science, technology...really little to the advancement in any arena of science, culture, or civilized government. The African continent has always been awash in brutal infighting and war. Little production of anything relevant has escaped the continent. Also, the white Europeans conquered black Africans and used them as slaves and only gave up slavery by choice (not because Africans gained an advantage and used superior force to free themselves). Is that natural selection?
Following the logical conclusion of Darwinian theory, whites are then naturally superior to blacks, right?
Let me answer for you.
Either you answer as you must and say yes, based on the imperial evidence of history, whites are indeed superior to blacks. This conclusion would make you a Racist. Or option two, you say that indeed all men evolved equally...and thereby admit Darwinism is false.
So what have-you? Racist or Wrong?
Or you could just ignore my post...who wants to be caught in such an uncomfortable predicament!
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 1:40 AM
Loudon is a Fool on Amazon, reviewing Candide:
This is a french book. French books are, of course, often french, but this one is frencher than most. Ah, Pierrot! Reading this fine french book makes me the sad clown of life. Could Voltaire be any frencher, you ask? I doubt it. I am a sad clown, I say. Even when he criticizes the French he does so in a, how do you say, french way. Oui, oui! So come, bring along your Jerry Lewis video tapes and we will read this very french book together. It is frencher than a Quebecer at a Steisand concert. Frencher than Little Richard at an amfAR banquet. Frencher than Richard Simmons at a french pride parade. Read Candide and you too can be a very french sad clown. Sacre Bleu!!!
http://www.amazon.com/review/RX3PX4CQZDIZ4
Ugh!
Posted by: $ | April 20, 2008 1:42 AM
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3390/By_Steve_Camp
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 1:43 AM
If you take equal parts dark energy and dark matter, you get a block of what looks like empty space. Neither feels the electromagnetic force, so there's no way they can perturb the delicate chemical interactions which underlie neural processes. Dark matter only interacts via gravity (and, possibly, the weak nuclear force), so all it does is clump together and, well, play like it's a lump.
Posted by: Damian | April 20, 2008 1:43 AM
Ryan said:
At this moment, most serious scholars do indeed believe that Jesus was a historical character. However, it looks like there is a debate to be had, once again, after Earl Doherty produced, "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?"
While not scholarly in its presentation, it is one of the most thorough and historically accurate explorations of its type. The question is most certainly not answered, conclusively, that's for sure.
Most atheists don't care whether Jesus existed or not. You have still got all of the work ahead of you, even if he did. Unless, of course, you expect us to believe that all historical accounts of magic men are true?
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 1:44 AM
Loudon is a Fool (Plano, TX) on Amazon, reviewing Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
The men supporting the claims of this book come from a wide range of political views and economic strata. They share, not a distaste for Democrats and their policy goals (in fact, O'Neill has contributed three times as much money to Dems as GOPers over the course of the last 30 years), but a distaste for a man: John Kerry. And that distaste was born through interactions with John Kerry during his short four months in Vietnam in which time he proved to be an arrogant, immature, undisciplined, and incompetent leader. A combination of characteristics which caused him to be a danger to the men he served with, and a holy terror to non-combatant Vietnamese who happened to wander across his path. And when this woefully deficient sailor returned to America, rather than being humbled by his incompetence in serving, he strutted onto the political scene, crowing about his heroism and declaiming his fellow sailors and soldiers to be war criminals. No wonder these men dislike John Kerry. They know him. Do you? Read this book.
You're right. He is pulling our leg. No one could be this stupid.
Posted by: Martin | April 20, 2008 1:45 AM
Ryan began:
Congratulations, that's the only thing you got right in your whole dipshit post.
Come back when you have some better straw men to kick around.
Posted by: sabrina | April 20, 2008 1:46 AM
For Ryan:
Yes, you are very ignorant, and very, very racist. Here's a list of black scientists who made HUGE contributions to science.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmscientists1.html
Your ignorance of science and history is staggering. Africans had great civilizations, before they were colonized by European powers, and kidnapped to be slaves. Africa is in the state it is in because of wealthy European nations trying to steal as many natural resources as it can. I can't believe you wrote that post. The list of incredible black statesmen, diplomats, scientists, and authors are staggering. It was in the northern regions of Africa that algebra was first developed. Read a book beside the bible you racist (insert bad word here)!!
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 1:47 AM
Ryan (#271), you claims are absolute bullshit. Modern science has done more than anything else to definitively debunk racism. The Human Genome Project has shown that there is no genetic marker for race. Race is an abstract construction, made by human beings.
As for equality and truth and all the rest, why is the existence of the supernatural a necessary precursor for their existence? It is a non sequitur to say that naturalism/materialism must lead to nihilism.
The "darwinistic" defense of racism you offer is not Darwinian. It's a cheap manipulation, fabricated by someone who obviously doesn't really know the theory.
I'll freely admit that justice and freedom are ideas we made up (or are products of our brain chemistry). This does absolutely nothing to lessen their worth. Equality and freedom have value because we value them. Having a celestial Big Brother enforce these doctrines does not empower or improve them. In fact, by making their fulfillment chore instead of self-imposed duty, Big Bro cheapens them as only the divine can.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 20, 2008 1:48 AM
#264 one "Loudon is a Fool" on April 20, 2008 1:28 AM pronounced:
I certainly did not expect such a quick response. But the speed of the response is reflected in its quality.
I've never read Dr. Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and do not require his atheism to inform my opinion of the Theory of Evolution. Your assumptions are premature.
The continued protests result from the continuous assault. One does not stop complaining about the fly in one's soup until the soup has been replaced. One does not stop promoting the Theory of Evolution until the assault by the devious Discovery Institute ends.
Perhaps we should stop the assault on childhood diseases because everyone is weary of the fight. Perhaps we should stop standing up for what is right because so many are opposed to it. Perhaps we should allow the United States to descend into the Dark Ages because everyone hates science.
Or perhaps not.
I don't give up because others are too ignorant to understand. I don't give up because I'm called names or cursed at. I don't give up because IDiots think I should.
JBS
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 1:49 AM
"I appreciate your post, but I wanted to clarify mine... I wasn't suggesting that there would be no way to tell which of those objects was a human artifact and which wasn't, I was simply trying to point out that W. Paley's criteria aren't sufficient."
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 1:16 AM
- My apologies - I let my tired eyes commit the sin of omission while reading through the posts. I see where I was way off base concerning your point.
hmm, I do believe at least one translation has it as "circular", which could be a flat disk.
care to elaborate?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:22 AM
Just to elaborate a bit, I believe first you have to choose WHICH of the two contradictory creation stories within Genesis (1st account - Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, 2nd account - Genesis 2:4-25) to begin with. But it's not even worth addressing unless Ryan cares to cite the passage in the Bible that he is talking about. (That's the general practice when offering something up as support for your point -- you at least have to tell everyone else what it is that you're referencing. Even aside from that, I have read the Bible many times over and know for a fact that it does not - anywhere within - assert that the Earth is round. But even if it had, those "flat-earthers" you so condescendingly called out were Christian theocrats in the first place, who definitely had a better understanding of the text than you display, yet still maintained the position that the Earth was flat.
I certainly do not believe that in numbers lie truth. But in a democratic society you can't fight the numbers. So, although you deserve to lose, you will not lose because you deserve to lose. But you'll lose nevertheless, which is good enough for me.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:18 AM
Science is not a democratic society - it is an empirical, methodological search for information that explains the natural phenomena we see in the world, and it is best represented and best performed while its pursuants are protected by the freedoms of a democratic society.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:49 AM
Admittedly the review of Unfit for Command is not my best work. But steer clear of my review of Stranger in a Strange Land, CalGeorge. I don't want to shatter your science fiction dreams of nerds getting the ladies in the end.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:52 AM
"Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round
hmm, I do believe at least one translation has it as "circular", which could be a flat disk. care to elaborate?"
My response. Good question, my text says round, which is the NIV translation. I cannot address your answer accurately without reviewing the original greek text. I don't have a copy so I cannot answer you.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:53 AM
Brokensoldier,
Admittedly the humanities are challenging. Their mastery may be beyond your mechanistic skill set. But I would ask that you at least attempt to read before you respond.
Posted by: Ted Powell | April 20, 2008 1:53 AM
#272 Ryan
So far, at least, the strawman champ of the evening. If he really believes any of those things, I pity him.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:55 AM
I saw the film "Expelled" this evening. When Ben Stein asked Dr. Hawkins where the origins of life came from he said the most logical explanation is SPACE ALIENS! (the seed theory) I kid you not!
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 1:56 AM
Either you answer as you must and say yes, based on the imperial evidence of history, whites are indeed superior to blacks. This conclusion would make you a Racist. Or option two, you say that indeed all men evolved equally...and thereby admit Darwinism is false.
So what have-you? Racist or Wrong?
Or you could just ignore my post...who wants to be caught in such an uncomfortable predicament!
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:39 AM
False Dichotomy = unsound argument. Next?
Posted by: semi | April 20, 2008 1:56 AM
Ryan #272
Ok, based on this question, I know what conclusion I have come to.
I have concluded that you are a moron.
Your question is simply a false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Where did you learn logic? At Sunday school?
Posted by: sabrina | April 20, 2008 1:57 AM
Hey Ryan, you nitwit, Dr. Dawkins was inferring that space aliens were just as likely as a creator as "god". Considering you are a racist windbag, I imagine that may be over your head.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 1:59 AM
@ Ryan.
Expelled?
What's that.
Seriously, dude. We know all about the aliens business. It was said in response to the question "Is there any situation where ID could be possible?" The response you've quoted was followed by "Of course, then those aliens would have to be designed, or arise by natural processes."
Context is fun.
Posted by: Martin | April 20, 2008 2:00 AM
Welcome to the world of creative editing, Ryan. The producers of Expelled punk'd Dawkins, and they've punk'd you. Here's Dawkins on the interview:
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:00 AM
#286
Ted, I appreciate your point to "pity" me if I did believe what I laid out in my argument. As a biblical Christian I believe that God created all men in His image equally. My point was, at least I think, a good one. Darwinism, when followed to its logical conclusions, leads to ugly places.
Will you allow me my point?
Posted by: semi | April 20, 2008 2:02 AM
Ryan, I am having a hard time just keeping up with your stupidity.
It's Dawkins not Hawkins, you idiot.
And Dawkins was probably referring to the theory of Panspermia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
You know, if you would read more instead of drumming your fingers on your keyboard, you might actually learn something.
Posted by: ajani57 | April 20, 2008 2:02 AM
"if, for the sake of argument we grant that the creationists are correct...
For the sake of argument let's say that god really did do it. He created everything and caused everything 6000ya. Proven beyond all doubt. Everyone alive accepts this as fact.
Now what? Do we replace the math and science textbooks with bibles praise jesus? Probably not a good idea because I assume that harmful diseases will still exist, and we will still want our computers and toilets to work, so we will want people to figure out the biology and physics. So do we put goddidit in every sentence? Are all science test questions now in three parts?
Part one: What causes diabetes?
Answer: God.
Part two: Why does God cause diabetes?
Answer: We are sinners.
Part three: How does God cause diabetes?
Answer:
In our little scenario, the answers to parts one and two will always be the same so couldn't we, as a species, just get on with part three? The science-y part? Why do you want to waste so much breath, time, and ink on something you are already very sure about? Also, what difference will it make if the cure for a disease YOU have comes from an atheist, a muslim, or a voodoo lady in Haiti? Do you currently research all your medicine to make sure only godly christians were involved in its inception, funding, creation, and distribution? I hardly doubt you checked on the church habits of the thousands of people who brought you your advil, so you must agree that science is science. Advil works even if nary a christian worked on it.
Next time you are sick, go to church and thank god if you want, but also thank a scientist for the cure. And if there is no cure, instead of helping the group that only wants to focus on parts one and two, try helping the group who wants to work on part three.
Posted by: RebekahD | April 20, 2008 2:03 AM
William Paley said, "What I am asking is, When is it reasonable to infer that God designed some thing?"
When "God" is defined and its design mechanisms are described; when a workable hypothesis is produced and tested which ends up showing that this "God" and its mechanisms are the best explanation of what we see in nature, then it might be reasonable to infer that "God" designed some thing.
Just defining "God" would be quite helpful, since it would allow us to avoid the false choices in Pascal's Wager by letting us all know which "God" is the one we should be giving design credit to and worshipping! As it is now, there are so many "Gods" to define, each of which, presumably, has so many different design mechanisms, that you creationists should probably start by narrowing down the "God" possibilities. I suggest you get together with representatives of all the available "Gods" and hash that definition part out first. That might take a while. Then get back to us and we can guide you on the next step.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:04 AM
#291
Wrong. His answer regarding seed theory was a direct question about the origin of life, not about ID. That question came afterwards. Have you seen the film?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:05 AM
No, Ryan. That's exactly the point. You're not following Darwinism to its logical conclusions. You're going way beyond.
The logical conclusions of Darwinism are "life arose by natural processes." That's it. From that statement neither racism nor equality follows. It is up to us, men and women, to figure out how to conduct ourselves. And we damn sure don't need a celestial overlord who slaughters women and children (except the virgins, of course) and convicts us of thought crime.
By the way: those are Numbers 31:17f., Matthew 7:21f.
Posted by: jsn | April 20, 2008 2:06 AM
I logged on a few minutes ago, looked at the thread title and the # of comments. 260!!!
I thought, "AWRIIIIIGHT, the shit is ON."
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn....
No crazy-ass trolls, just a couple of young'uns without much dogma free schoolin' and an obstinate guy who just doesn't want to let go no matter how articulate and measured the responses.
All this heavyweight intellectual fire power wasted on a mere apologist. Maybe it's a ruse, perhaps the IDers are creating a diversion and are attacking elsewhere. Oh well.
Good recipes though...
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 20, 2008 2:06 AM
Hi Ryan, I'll give you a little tip. Every organism alive on this planet right now, is just as evolved as you are.
If that doesn't make sense to you, you should reconsider if you know anything at all about evolution.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:07 AM
Stand corrected. Dawkins and not Hawkins. It's late.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:07 AM
We've done you one better, Ryan. We've got the eye-witness account of the man in the interview. Here.
Posted by: sabrina | April 20, 2008 2:08 AM
How exactly does a scientific theory lead to ugly conclusions? Do you have so little faith in humanity, that if everyone believed in common descent, we'd start killing people? I think the bible and other religious texts can prove a lot more harmful that scientific theories.
I don't really expect a competent answer from someone who thinks black people haven't contributed anything to the world. I guess you never had a blood transfusion, or received cortisone. Again, read a book, get back to us.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 2:08 AM
Sabrina,
If that is Dawkins opinion, it differs from the clear presentation of the design theory he found "interesting" in the film. His argument was that if it is found that design is present in the human organism, it would be plausible that the presence of design is evidence of panspermia. Mr. Stein did not press to discover whether Dick is an advocate of directed panspermia.
Better yet was the theory that life was created by Shirley McClain and a pocket full of crystals. Perhaps after she was visited by space aliens. It was all very scientific.
Posted by: Martin | April 20, 2008 2:12 AM
Ryan:
Only to inform you it's full of BS.
Natural selection only refers to the process by which organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to have successful offspring and survive.
There's no real "logical conclusion" to this that you could paint as "ugly," unless you were prepared to warp it beyond all recognition...which is what you anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-intellectual types are all too eager to do, of course.
There's a big difference between the process of natural selection, which is a simple fact of biology, and some crazy ideologues using misguided ideas they think represents "Darwinism" as some kind of moral imperative, to justify doing something bad that they were prepared to do anyway.
In short, whether "Darwinism" inspired racism or not -- and it didn't; the ugly scourge of racism has been with us throughout the whole history of civilization, and the Church has been carrying out all manner of vile pogroms against the Jews going back centuries before Hitler -- that would not have any bearing on whether or not it was true.
And the Bible has been used to justify atrocities down through history, too. Now, would you say that's the Bible's fault...or the fault of the people using it to their own ends?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:12 AM
@ Ryan.
The argument you offer ("the ugly conclusions of this theory") places no faith in humanity whatsoever. As you are an admitted Christian, and therefore I assume believe in original sin and some version of total depravity, I guess I'm not surprised that you think we'd all be killing and raping each other if it weren't for that darned God-given moral code.
More specifically: anyone who says "without God I wouldn't know right from wrong" is fucking nuts. Everyone, not suffering from brain damage, knows right and wrong. Murder, theft, perjury, infanticide, genocide, rape, etc.--all these are self-evidently wrong to functional homo sapiens.
Interesting to note they're also all on Jehova's resume.
Posted by: Ted Powell | April 20, 2008 2:13 AM
284: "Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round..."
"I cannot address your answer accurately without reviewing the original greek text."
Original Greek text. Of Genesis.
I suppose one could be charitable and speculate that he meant the earliest of the various translations of Genesis into Greek, but that would raise (not "beg"!) the question: why would such a translation be any more accurate than a modern translation into English?
Enough. I'm going to go and watch a movie that is advertised as being fiction.
Posted by: Autumn | April 20, 2008 2:14 AM
I am a dogmatic non-stamp-collector. Today I will not collect stamps really, really, hard.
I hope this pisses off the foolish stamp-collectors.
(satire... I am adding this addendum just in case a Young-Earth-Stamp-Collector feels the need to go ballistic on my anti-stamp stance)
Posted by: Damian | April 20, 2008 2:14 AM
Ryan said:
Read this: Appeal to consequences
And this: Expelled Exposed
You can be a "biblical Christian" if that is what you want to be. But be warned, you reflect badly on all Christians, and the religion in general, when you make appallingly ignorant arguments.
Also remember that the decision to refer to yourself as a "biblical Christian" has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of a proposition, including whether life evolved. Evidence decides that, and if you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution, I fail to see in which sense you can claim to be living a life of truth.
Posted by: sabrina | April 20, 2008 2:14 AM
Loudon, have you ever heard of editing? Also, Dr. D. was lied to about what the film was about, and was taken aback at the questions. Plus, evolution has nothing to do with how life began!!!
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:14 AM
I am taking some good shots hear. Some deserved, some not. Stimulating to say the least. Let me address the historical accurateness of the Bible. I'm not talking about inspiration but the historical reliability.
The bibliographical test for text accurateness of antiquity documents is the measure of the number of copied manuscripts in existence (MSS)and the time interval between the originals and the extant copies. There are 24,970 original copies of the Christian New Testament within 350 years of Christ's death. The second most accurate antiquity document is the Lliad by Homer with 643.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:17 AM
Very...interesting, Ryan.
But what does that to do, in any way, with the ongoing discussion?
Regardless, all this proves is that people made and preserved lots of copies of a book. There's many more than 25K copies of the Da Vinci Code. By your argument, we must now concede it is divine truth.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 2:18 AM
"I don't have a copy so I cannot answer you."
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:52 AM
You're one step away from the correct statement - that you do not know the answer.
"Admittedly the humanities are challenging. Their mastery may be beyond your mechanistic skill set. But I would ask that you at least attempt to read before you respond."
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:53 AM
Since you referenced nothing that I posted in that last one of yours, and instead simply resorted to the tired tactic of 'insult, then claim victory," then I shall spell it out that when you argued for the inability to fight against numbers, you were very clearly stating that - though you somehow don't believe truth lies in numbers - truth is irrelevant because numbers always win. I won't even go into the logical fallacy farm that was the remainder of that post, but I will agree that the humanities can be difficult - but before even scratching their surface, you have to possess a working understanding of the tenets of logic, which your post severely lacked.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:18 AM
It's the Illiad, btw.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 2:19 AM
I recommend you watch the film, Sabrina. Dick's representation of the interview is inconsistent with his demeanor on the big screen. I don't want to suggest he is now lying in his reconstruction, but he is an atheist. So . . . .
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:20 AM
#284
Ted, I am being fair. My the version I am looking at is the NIV which is a "thought for a thought" translation. There are other more accurate translations such as the NASB which is a "word for a word" translation directly from the greek. Because translations from one language to another can be awkward the technical accurateness can be lost in the NIV. Therefore, I am saying that although my English version says "round" I agree that it is possible the Greek word (whatever it is) might more accurately be translated as circular. I can't know based on my English translation.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:22 AM
And you know us Atheists, no morals. We just love to pillage and rape and lie because we can, and there's no god to stop us.
I see your bullshit and raise you Sweden. 80% nonreligious, some of the lowest crime rates and some of the highest charitable giving in the industrial world.
So what was that about atheism leading to immorality????
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:23 AM
I can't believe the Christians can't get this right...
GENESIS WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW.
NOT GREEK.
Posted by: Reginald | April 20, 2008 2:24 AM
Ryan 272:
Actually, evolutionary theory would more likely conclude that a greater diversity is a better condition of survival of a species. Genetic similarity equals death. Hence, many races is a good thing. That said evolution doesn't go towards one supreme goal. It just occurs, and there is no such thing as a 'master' race - just organisms better suited for a particular environment than others. That can change at any moment if the pressures on natural selection change.
Please do not call me a racist because I am a scientist. That's very un-humane and unabashedly divisive for no rason but to score political points. I am most assuredly not white and I get a little upset when people purport to tell me who the racists are.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 2:25 AM
Uhhh, Joshua. I'll see your Sweden, and raise you . . . Sweden.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:27 AM
#312
I am not asking that you accept the bible as divine truth, just that it is accurate to its original as it was first penned. Plus the dead sea scrolls preserved a good chunk of several Old Testament books. Our modern day texts are true to those manuscripts, which predate Christ.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:29 AM
OK. It's accurate to the original. So what? All your work is still ahead of you. So far you've got a well preserved bronze age book.
What does any of this have to do with Darwin or Expelled?
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 2:29 AM
@312
You can copy a made-up story as many times as you like.
Doesn't change the fact that it is made up.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 2:31 AM
dammit
#323 should read:
#321
You can copy a made-up story as many times as you like.
Doesn't change the fact that it is made up.
Posted by: Damian | April 20, 2008 2:31 AM
Ryan said:
"There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament [...] The number of variants is as high as 400,000."
- Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
Admittedly, many are not important, but it hardly instills confidence in the accuracy of the current copies of the New Testament, does it?
Posted by: SKFK | April 20, 2008 2:32 AM
"Plus the dead sea scrolls preserved a good chunk of several Old Testament books. Our modern day texts are true to those manuscripts, which predate Christ."
So Ryan is now saying that Judaism is a truer religion than Christianity, right?
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:34 AM
#319
Reginald, please accept my apology. I recant..I am not calling you or anyone a racist. But nor was I talking about diversity. Maybe I have a pea brain as many posters have eluded. However, I once heard an evolutionist make that argument. That africans, as explained by Darwinism, were inferior to europeans. And honestly, besides attacking my apparent logical fallacy, I have not heard anyone answer the question.
Have all men evolved equally?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:35 AM
@ 326
Well, it came earlier, and since they love their (misunderstood) Second Law of Thermodynamics, since Christianity came after Judaism, Judaism must be better. Otherwise that would evolution--and that violates the aforementioned rule?
Course, then Hinduism wins, being far older.
Posted by: Arion | April 20, 2008 2:35 AM
Actually, evolution is proven by an old creationist video, the one about the banana. In the beginning, it was nothing like it is today, but, through hundreds (if not thousands) of years of 'selective' breeding, became the fruit w see today. No it's not one species turning into another but, by definition, it s still evolution.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:39 AM
@ Ryan (#327)
Evolving equally is a loaded term. Equality doesn't arise from evolution. Equality is something we have chosen to value and thus we work to make it a reality. The only role evolution has in that is shaping our makeup (particularly our brains) which allow us to even conceive of "equality", let alone fight for it.
No. Of course all men (and women, which Christians always manage to forget) did not evolve equally. We're obviously not uniform species. My room mate is some kind of Baseball prodigy. I can barely run.
But again, none of that has anything to do with equality. Equality, as an idea, comes from people. Equality, as reality, will only come from people.
Evolution is how we got here. It does not absolutely determine where we are going.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 2:39 AM
I am not asking that you accept the bible as divine truth, just that it is accurate to its original as it was first penned.
Its pieces were penned over a very long time by very many people. Also, the "Bible" as we know it was assembled by people with an agenda.
What are you trying to say?
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:40 AM
#326
I guess I'm not the only dumb one here. Jesus was a Jew. According to Christianity, He came to fulfill the Jewish Law, or the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. And the Old Testament is in the back of the Christian bible. Continuation.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 20, 2008 2:42 AM
Ryan wrote:
There are two possibilities here, either you are ignorant - whic is the more charitable assumption - or you are lying.
Yes, it seems that the preponderance of academic opinion is that there was a preacher called Jesus who lived at that time and in that place.
But there are no contemporary references to him. According to the Bible, he was a very prominent figure, yet we have no mention of him from anyone who was alive at the same time - not one.
As for few other events or people for which we have, as yet, no evidence:
- The creation of the Universe somewhere between 6000 and 10000 years ago
- Adam and Eve
- The Garden of Eden
- The Great Flood
- The enslavement in Egypt
- The Exodus
- Saul
- Solomon
- The Great Temple of Solomon
- David
Any atheist historian or (honest) Christian historian will tell you that while some Biblical accounts have been corroborated by archaeological evidence, it is absurd to call it "the most accurate historical text ever written". I am assuming you are aware it is not a single text by a single author but a compilation of many different texts written at different times and in different places?
Your problem, however, is that you are relying on the very same scientific method to find evidence supporting the Bible as has already provided overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. You cannot admit one and deny the other, not if you are being honest.
Posted by: Damian | April 20, 2008 2:43 AM
Ryan @ 327
Please, please, read this: How Biology Refutes Our Racial Myth
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | April 20, 2008 2:44 AM
#272 the singular Ryan posted this on April 20, 2008 1:39 AM:
I'll give it a shot. But you will only get out of my response what you take from it. I can not provide enlightenment where the mind's eyes are blind.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
You mangled the precepts of the theory.
1) I am allowed to believe in an immaterial world. I may not bring that belief into the world of science as it works to explain what we see around us. There is a difference between this and what you claim..
2) There are other mechanisms at play, and it isn't always the weakest that are "removed." The theory says the genes of the individuals that pass those genes to the most decendents will exist in the largest portion of the population. If I have 20 kids and die of a genetic disorder, and everyone else only has 1 child - my genetic disorder will have a disproportionate representation in the population (especially if that disorder also involves my decendents having more children). This is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most fecund. This is only part of natural selection, however.
3) Your assumption for no moral authority is also baseless. It is the same moral authority that informs all human documents, that produced the "Golden Rule" (and no, not the one that says "He who has the gold makes the rules"). People have been refining civilization for thousands of years. There are key concepts that allow society to work, to improve, and some that do the opposite. These evolved into the "Don't Kill, don't steal, don't cheat, don't lie" that underlie most religions - and lead to, "Do for the people you meet as you would have them do for you." That is the moral authority we all operate by.
4) And who is Hawkins? Do you mean Dawkins? He is not my beloved. I haven't read his books and know very little about him.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Good a question - I have answers - though I warn you, I might just make them up from whole cloth... you should do some research and read some books on ethics and evolution and atheism, and a whole host of other topics. I'll start you off by pointing you at Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World."
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Yes. All humans have the same rights as all others. Based on the assumption that any other human is a moral operator, then I must treat all humans as equals. To do otherwise is unethical.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Africans haven't what? Look up African scientists. Heck, look up African-American scientists. They are quite well represented in the patent office, in literature, in any area that matters, the people you consider the "blacks" have made important contributions. Were I to use the ethics I mentioned before I would have to conclude White's have behaved quite badly - and I have to wonder what mindset, what frame of reference, what theology, allowed them to do so. You are attempting to use a paradigm that does not exist in the Theory of Evolution to discredit the Theory of Evolution.
By the way, slavery predates Darwin. Darwin also spoke against slavery.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Wrong. The Theory of Evolution concludes that because humans came from Africa that humans came from Africa. It makes no moral assumptions about those that continued to exist there. For all you know, those are the most evolved humans (as if there could be a more or less evolved, but that is a different argument...). You very obviously do not know anything about the Theory of Evolution - or at best you hold the same misconceptions the Eugenics advocates did.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
I'm glad that you don't answer for me. That would lead to grave tragedies and injustices in our world.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
You create a false dichotomy. You can't possibly understand the concepts of Evolution if you can believe the scenario you've built. An understanding of the Theory of Evolution leads one to conclude there are no difference between the "races" and that all humans are, in fact, human. Except Creationists - they don't believe in evolution and strive mightily to not be included in it's conclusions. They might be considered a sub-species - but I digress.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
You are the one wrong. I have to wonder what frame or mindset you come from, what philosophy allows you to believe such incredibly wrong ideas. It is a mindset we obviously do not share. All humans have equal rights - and that is the heart of basic human philosophy - which the Theory of Evolution is a part of. We share this planet, our fates are tied - we must follow the Golden Rule.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
I can only ignore your post if it would do no further damage, if it would lie peacefully and quietly in the dark. It does not. Many will read your post and if it goes unanswered would believe you are correct. You are not, and so I cannot ignore your post. I would think you, posting in the lion's den, would be in the uncomfortable predicament. Regardless, you have much to learn about the Theory of Evolution.
JBS
Posted by: Lulu | April 20, 2008 2:45 AM
Ryan, your question was answered in #279 and #280. The Human Genome Project concludes that there is NO GENETIC MARKER FOR RACE. Race is just a construction: humans don't evolve according to race. Give it up. Jesus. We're not social Darwinists. We just think that life evolved. We still care about being moral people, we have concern for the poor and differently abled, etc.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:47 AM
#330
Thank you for the response. However, our desires for equality and the conclusions of natural selection are different. And to me frightening. At least according the Ben Stein, many Nazis were Darwinist and used that belief system to ride the world of the weak, and exterminate 6 million in the process. Just a thought.
Posted by: Colugo | April 20, 2008 2:49 AM
John Derbyshire making sense over at the National Review.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzkzMzk3OGJkNjJkM2YyZjJjYjlkMzM5NjBjY2FmZDQ=
"As so often with creationist material, I'm not sure what the point is. Darwin's great contribution to human knowledge, his theory of the origin of species, is either true, or it's not. ... It is a true fact that E = mc2, and the Iranians are right at this moment using that true fact to construct nuclear weapons. If they succeed, and use their weapons for horrible purposes, will that invalidate the Special Theory of Relativity? ...
And, as always when the Darwin-Hitler business comes up, I note that guilt by association cuts two ways. Islamic fundamentalists are Darwin-hating creationists to a man."
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | April 20, 2008 2:50 AM
Ryan - text accurateness has nothing to do with factual accurateness. Factual accurateness is where the bible fails and fails miserably as archeologists are continuing to discover. I will leave it those here who are more vesrsed in middle eastern archeology than I to point these out. However as an engineer I can assure that the idea of building a wooden ship that could accomdate 2 (and sometimes 7) of every animal species is absolutely ridiculous.
Louden is a Fool -
As an engineer I can easily determine the characteristics of intelligent design (unnecessary complexity isn't one of them) and living organisms do not exhibit them. Simplicity, not complexity is the hallmark of design. Compare a high performance glider to a bird - the glider is much less complex. Living organisms are massive kluges.
Posted by: sabrina | April 20, 2008 2:51 AM
Oh, poor Ryan, he must live in a world without google, or history textbooks. Ryan, seriously, the Nazis were not Darwinists; most were seriously religious, which is why they didn't like the Jews. Read some books on Hitler, and how much he referenced God in his speeches and writings, read how he thought secular schooling was the worst thing you could do to a society, how he thought religion was the base for morality. You know why they killed the Jews, apparently they thought they killed this guy called Christ. Perhaps you've heard of him.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:51 AM
(Bold, mine)
And there's problem. Why is Ben Stein the expert on Nazism? Why is an ACTOR the voice of authority? Read historians, read holocaust surviors, watch this video to figure out what really drove Hitler--it wasn't Darwin.
Hitler used the word Darwinism, just like you have, without really understanding it. He took it out of context and used it to empower the antisemitism already available.
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
Ryan @ #272:
Many, many people of all faiths, including many scientists, have no trouble believing in both modern science and their faith. Don't continue to conflate atheism and evolution, it makes you look like a hopeless moron. Many of the posters on this board are atheist or agnostic, but not all.
Ryan @ #272:
Not quite.. the current understanding is that mutations create changes in individuals of a species. Weakness or strength doesn't factor into an individual's survival, only suitability to the current environment. Some luck also, but luck isn't a heritable trait.
You're still conflating evolution and atheism. One's views on the evolution don't necessarily have any bearing on their religious/moral/philosophical views. From a strictly materialistic viewpoint: as social animals we wouldn't still be around if every individual acted with complete disregard for the group.
There are no atheist prophets. I'm free to disbelieve your, and everyone else's, gods regardless of whether I agree or disagree with Hawkins, Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens. I don't have to give a flying fuck what Hawkins has to say about equality, truth, and purpose.
Ryan @ #272:
Equal in what respect? I'm not dissembling or being snarky here. If you mean equal in "worth", that's a moral concept that can't be determined genetically. My personal take is that a person should be judged by his/her actions, not by any biological criteria.
If you're talking about genetic equality, there is none. Each member of a species has its own distinct genotype. Most people are fit enough to survive in their current environment, and modern technology has given us the ability to ensure that many who wouldn't be still survive.
Genetically different, by definition, but otherwise equal.
The fuck man? And you're about to accuse evolutionists as being racist? I'd really like to see which data you think support this, along with a better explanation of how you feel it proves that Africans haven't contributed to the arts, sciences, and humanities.
Again, back up your assertion about the production of "anything relevant" from the African continent. Any advantage the European slavers (and later colonizers) had was due to better technology, not fitness for survival in any evolutionary sense. I hope I'm not being too subtle when I add that this technological advantage was directly due to an increased emphasis on education and science among the Europeans, at the expense of ignorant obedience to the priests and their stone-age god.
Nope, and fuck you.
No thanks and fuck you.
I believe I've adequately explained why your dilemma is stupid, boneheaded, and about as tangible your big daddy up in the clouds. Also, did you really just type "imperial evidence"? That's the best laugh I've had all night!
Posted by: tes | April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
Ryan, what would happen to you, your social standing, your relationship with family and friends etc, if you should have some similar experience to the one cited below?
"In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theory, not because I knew anything about it (I didn't) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true that you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciences -- geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology -- demonstrating that evolution happened." Michael Shermer.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html
Are you actually free to change your view? How much have you got to loose? I know this is one thing that keeps some people from checking out the facts. Being caught actually studying the enemy standpoint could be socially unacceptable... Loosing friends etc is no fun.
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
"Darwinism is against slavery"
How? You presume morality. A higher moral authority. Where does that come from? Where do right and wrong come from?
If we all came from primordial gue would not our only aim in life be like every other species...survival and reproduction?
In what part of the evolutionary process did love develop? Sadness? Joy? The sense of right and wrong? Why is it acceptable for certain species to eat their own, but is considered "wrong" by humans?
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
"I can't know based on my English translation."
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:20 AM
- Almost there... The answer is that you do not know. Whether that can be remedied by a reading of a different translation or not (something I also doubt) is immaterial - you made a statement that you can't show support for, therefore you do not know the answer to the question of whether or not that is actually posited in the bible's text.
"I am not asking that you accept the bible as divine truth, just that it is accurate to its original as it was first penned. Plus the dead sea scrolls preserved a good chunk of several Old Testament books. Our modern day texts are true to those manuscripts, which predate Christ."
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:27 AM
1. Even if you could somehow verify its composition when "it" (a collection of books written across the span of a millenia) was first written, that would still offer no evidentiary value towards its historical accuracy, which has already been discredited - see for yourself the contradictions and inconsitencies laid out verse by verse:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
2. The Dead Sea scrolls did not preserve Old Testament books - it added to the books that were already canon, and in doing so caused a major controversy over their true origins and the manner in which they were hidden. While SOME of the works predate the time of Christ, it is wildly misleading to characterize the entire set of documents that way because the majority of them were written after the time Christ was said to have lived. And our modern day texts are not faithful to the Dead Sea scrolls, because the entirety of this set of documents - by necessity of their being hidden away from the world - was excluded from canon in all three major Abrahamic faiths, aside from the few sections of texts that were copies of then-existing passages. And even just considering our canonical books, both the Catholic Church's Council of Nicaea of 325 AD (which began the practice in Christianity of bishops determining canon, then selecting which texts fit that canon - this was the method which the Catholic Church used to decide what got into their bible and what did not) and the Anglican Church's separation from Rome and subsequent publication of the King James Version of the bible, still further pared down to fit someone else's perception of what should be included or excluded. This is hardly the solid foundation that a historically accurate document - much less "the most historically accurate text ever written..." The claim is simply false.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 2:56 AM
"At least according the Ben Stein, many Nazis were Darwinist and used that belief system to ride the world of the weak, and exterminate 6 million in the process."
They should have consulted with Hitler:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 20, 2008 2:57 AM
One wonders if some people never ever look over their own fences. They would know to avoid the whole religion is good for morality BS if they knew the actual statistics.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 20, 2008 2:59 AM
It is a non sequitur to assume a moral authority must be higher.
Morality comes from natural processes. It's evolutionary benefit is demonstrable.
If you'd like a scientific explanation of just that, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
Posted by: Wanglese | April 20, 2008 3:00 AM
Ryan, many NAZI's were Christians, and wore "Gott Mit Uns" on their belts. Google it.
Additionally, they used their interpretation of Christianity to do the horrendous things you accuse "Darwinists" of.
Now no-one is equating Christianity with Nazi philosophies.
It's prety obvious creationists want to equate Evolution with Nazis. Now why, do you think, would that be?
Just a thought.
But I doubt you will understand it.
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:01 AM
Ian - you wrote:
" Yes, it seems that the preponderance of academic opinion is that there was a preacher called Jesus who lived at that time and in that place.
But there are no contemporary references to him. According to the Bible, he was a very prominent figure, yet we have no mention of him from anyone who was alive at the same time - not one."
If there is an academic consensus on the question, then what it your point? Anyway, there are letters from Pontius Pilot mentioning the man and the trouble he was causing.
Posted by: Damian | April 20, 2008 3:04 AM
Ryan @ 337
From, Hitler & Eugenics
Posted by: raven | April 20, 2008 3:05 AM
The movie was one Big Lie. Even the newspapers and some Xian organizations got that one right. Ben Stein is a right wing kook liar who wrote speeches for Richard Nixon.
Who killed the Jews? German Xians. Most real historians, Jewish and Xian identify German variety Xianity as one of the main reasons. Martin Luther was a notorious antisemite who advocated the destruction of the Jews 200 years before Darwin was even born. Telling lies repeats nothing. It does prove you are a creationist though. When your world view is a lie, lying just seems normal.
Posted by: sabrina | April 20, 2008 3:07 AM
Hey Ryan, actually your bible advocates for slavery; it even lists the prices you should pay for slaves. Heck, you can even sell your daughter as a slave. So, where do you get your morals again?
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:09 AM
Brokensolder - you wrote:
"And even just considering our canonical books, both the Catholic Church's Council of Nicaea of 325 AD (which began the practice in Christianity of bishops determining canon, then selecting which texts fit that canon - this was the method which the Catholic Church used to decide what got into their bible and what did not) and the Anglican Church's separation from Rome and subsequent publication of the King James Version of the bible, still further pared down to fit someone else's perception of what should be included or excluded. This is hardly the solid foundation that a historically accurate document - much less "the most historically accurate text ever written..." The claim is simply false."
Sounds like peer review to me.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 3:09 AM
@344
You just made that quote up!
Darwin was against slavery.
There is no such thing as Darwinism.
It's not a religion you know.
The theory of evolution is an idea which was developed by a man named Darwin to explain the natural world.
It's a good idea because it has proven to have much explanatory power, and has not yet been replaced by a better idea.
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:12 AM
APJ - you wrote:
"There is no such thing as Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins uses the term. What's up with that?
Posted by: Leigh | April 20, 2008 3:13 AM
Ryan @337, Stein's understanding of history is as poor as his grasp of science.
The big majority of Nazis were Christians. Is it therefore true to say that they used that belief system to rid the world of Christ killers?
Wait. I take that back. That's exactly what they did do, following the lead of that notorious antisemite Martin Luther.
See where this line of reasoning takes you? Do you really want to go there?
Or would it make more sense to say that the Nazis perverted Christianity as much as they did science?
Posted by: Leigh | April 20, 2008 3:17 AM
Raven @352, post 357 was written and posted before I read your comment.
Note to self: REFRESH before commenting.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 20, 2008 3:19 AM
#344
This should be obvious, but then some people are pretty thick.
In what part of the evolutionary process did love develop? Sadness? Joy? The sense of right and wrong?
Quite a while ago, given that even my dog has those emotions covered.
Why is it acceptable for certain species to eat their own, but is considered "wrong" by humans?
If you hadn't exiled yourself to the barren moral wasteland known as theism you would know what it means to be human and not asked such a pretentious and silly question.
Posted by: APJ | April 20, 2008 3:19 AM
@ 356
My lack of knowledge of philosophy has let me down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
I don't like the term. It makes respect for the theory of evolution sound like a personality cult.
from Wikipedia:
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:19 AM
Damian - you wrote, quoting Darwin:
"Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."
How can our nature be characterized as noble if there is no free will, as the materialists here would say? Or did he really mean expedient?
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 3:20 AM
Obviously I am out numbered. Further, this discussion has degenerated into name calling. I'm sure you would all like to fire bomb my house.
The truth is I was once an intellectually satisfied atheist. Through most of college, actually. I began reading about science and the bible...astronomy, etc. I concluded there is far more evidence to support creationism and Christianity than Darwinism. I never found a remotely plausible explanation for the origin of life. Micro-evolution of species, of course, but not the origin of life. Although I have not laid out a good argument in support, because I am too tired to page through books, their is massive support for biblical accuracy, inspiration, and revelation. There is significant biblical archaeological evidence especially for the old testament. The book of Acts alone...the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate (John 5:2), the pool of Siloam (9:1-7), Jacob's well at Sychar (4:5), Solomon's porch in the temple precincts (10:22-23) have all been found.
But alas, we all make a choice. Probably the most significant evidence I have found is having witnessed Jesus Christ change lives. Testimony is powerful.
We all make a choice.
Posted by: gleaner63 | April 20, 2008 3:21 AM
Hi Leigh,
You said; "The big majority of Nazis were Christians.". Could you please provide us with some support of that statement? It is very difficult to reconcile what the Nazis did with the version of Christianity that I am familiar with. When you say that the Nazis perverted Christianity that seems a lot closer to the truth. The Nazis used parts of Christian belief to help them accomplish their immediate goals. This seems to be a normal thing for politicians of all stripes.