We won a big one today! Intelligent design stays out of science class. Post your thoughts here!
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
Wow, there?s quite a lot to respond to.
?I’m really beginning to see why most folks here get sick of discussing these issues w/your sort.
The flagrant dishonesty, the pretentious casuistry, the mental gymnastics of the TAGer’s.
I’ll gladly reimburse you for the grease you’ll need to buy, to put on your ears.?
Personally, I do not feel that I?ve done anything to incur this level of hostility. If you don?t want to respond to my posts, you certainly don?t have to, that?s fine if you?d rather not. But I see no cause for you to essentially call me pretentious, and dishonest. I have not done the same to you.
I think that you?re honest, and sincere and also intelligent, which is why I personally enjoy debating with you.
Having said that, I also don?t agree with you. I think you?re wrong. And I see nothing, scientifically, or logically, or morally, wrong with disagreeing with a theory. So with that, I suppose I?ll start at the beginning.
?What does microevolution validate, then? Anything??
Microevolution validates microevolution.
?Well, since according to you, there are no random acts, how can you use any sort of yardstick for the word ?random???
I certainly never said there are no random acts. And I reread my posts.
?’Intelligent design’ infers there IS no randomness whatsoever.?
I don?t think it infers that, you?d have to explain to me how it infers that. After all, the inverse could be applied to evolution. If the origin of life was a great cosmic accident, does that mean that there are only accidents? If the origin of life was out of chaos, does that mean there is only chaos? If the origin of life, was produced without intelligence, does that mean that there is no intelligence?
Saying that the origin of life was guided does not mean that there is no such thing as chance.
?What folderol. Every auto maker puts their brand name on the car. Lame analogy.?
So, it?s imponderable that an auto maker wouldn?t put their brand name on a car? Okay, typically (at least it would seem to me) the branding of the car would occur at the final stages of the assembly line. Does that mean that up until the car was branded it was the product of purely naturalistic processes? The lack of branding does not indicate lack of intelligence. In fact, several of the artifacts we?ve unearthed like arrowheads or clay pots are not branded. They don?t say ?made in China?, but we certainly wouldn?t claim they are the result of natural processes. Instead, we infer from their design (which indicates intelligence) that it was made by someone. How is intelligent design any different?
?I?ve never heard of either of these gentlemen. Argument from authority?
So because you?ve never heard of them, it?s an appeal to authority? I?m sure there are a plethora of scientists that neither of us have heard of, but are in fact, experts in their fields. I?ve certainly never heard of Mark Isaak does that make your link an appeal to authority?
As to my comments regarding scientists, frequently using ?Mother Nature?, you said:
?I?d like a quote, links, sources, etc. for this claim, please?
Very well, this is from physicist Peter Vukusic.
“Nature has had to come up with very elegant and ingenious design protocols in order to achieve a significant control over the flow of light,” Vukusic said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1117_051117_leds_2.html
Linked.
It?s more than just a simple expression, it is communicating an idea that is not consistent with the evolutionist model. If I were to say, of a boat ?She?s beautiful?, that?s a clear anthropomorphism, nothing wrong with that. But if I were to say of a boat, ?She?s beautiful, look at her breasts?. You would look at me funny.
Saying, ?Mother Nature is amazing,? I have no problem with. Saying, ?Mother is amazing, look at her ingenious qualities?, that?s something else. Boats don?t have breasts and coincidental events are not ingenious.
?Scientists disagree sometimes. It doesn?t invalidate the theory?
Which theory for the origin of life are you talking about? The quote I gave you was ?No generally accepted theory exists?. You mentioned abiogenesis, which is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. Great. But that doesn?t tell me what the process is. You changed the word but we haven?t moved forward at all, And it?s still unobservable.
?Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past?.
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
?You did indeed infer Java Man, and Archaeopteryx were frauds and fakes (by association).?
Again, I didn?t infer that Java Man and archaeopteryx were fakes. What I said was:
And the evidence that once was the cornerstones to Darwinian evolution have recently been either discredited or hotly contested. Such as the Miller Experiment, Darwin?s Tree Of Life, in relation to the Cambrian explosion, Haeckel?s embryo?s, Java Man, the Archaeopteryx, as well as the numerous frauds and fakes like the archaeoraptor, or the peppered moth.
Some in the list, I think have been discredited like the Miller Experiment, and the Tree Of Life. And others are contested, like Java Man, and archaeopteryx, while other evidences are just plain fake or great blunders like the archaeoraptor or the bambiraptor.
?The Cambrian explosion is a fraud? How so??
If you look at what I actually wrote, you would see I said, ?Darwin?s Tree of Life, in relation to the Cambrian explosion?. What I was suggesting was that the evidence from the Cambrian explosion indicates that Darwin?s Tree of Life is outdated, and incorrect. So I certainly wasn?t saying it?s a fraud.
?Then you trot out a 19th century hoax. (newsflash: 21st century, here).?
But Haeckel?s embryos appeared in textbooks even as late as 1999.
?The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.?
Refer to Haeckel. It?s not one-sided.
As for the peppered moth, I?d be willing to admit it wasn?t a fraud. But Kettlewell?s experimentation was certainly dubious.
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne said that the pepper moth story, was the ?prize horse in our stable?, and that it ?has to be thrown out?.
And Dr. Majerus, who you even cited, criticized Kettlewell?s research technique when he said, ?He stuck them on low branches because he wanted to sit in his hide and watch them being eaten. They actually seem to rest in the shadows under branches, which makes even the black ones difficult to spot by birds?.
But even, just hypothetically, if the peppered moth experiment was all true, what would it mean for evolution? Well according to evolutionists, not much.
The distinguished biologist, L. Harrison Matthews wrote in the foreword of the 1971 edition of Darwin?s Origin of Species, that the peppered moth example showed natural selection but not ?evolution in action?.
Richard Dawkins, referring to the peppered moth questions said, ?Nothing momentous hangs on those experiments?.
The link you put on the last post is an interesting one. But here?s what it says:
?The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically?.
But that is precisely what intelligent design does (or at the very least tries to do). It takes the natural, observable evidence from cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics, etc and uses that to support the notion that an intelligent being created life.
But the reason it?s rejected is a priori. And the reason I say that is because the idea that life began out of purely naturalistic processes is as unobservable as a supernatural being.
nigelstone:
Well, I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction. I’ve seen these tactics used before. Inglesia ni Christos – 1 of their main methods for gaining members is to slam the Catholic Church. Not a fan of either, but MO is, that if a pivotal point of the comparison is negative=them, positive=us, well, I find that particularly dishonest. Maybe it’s just me.
There is a difference between comparing theories, & slamming 1 to bolster another. It just seems your side is doing the latter.
Just so we’re on the same page, definition of theory, from answers.com (#1) – “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
So, yes, by that definition, nothing wrong at all.
No, but you did say:
& I restate my supposition here: the very concept of ‘Intelligent design’ infers, by its ramifications, that there are indeed no random acts.
Unless you could provide me w/some sort of designs specs, for randomnicity, or even a few examples. That’s how I see it, at least.
That might qualify. I don’t see the ‘mother’ in that, but not going to split hairs on it.
I still think you’re using that out of proportion.
Big difference between giving something a title, & anthropomorphizing it. Might be out of context.
More examples, please.
Never answered my question, I note: that is, what personifying label are y’all using to designate the ‘designer’?
Still a lame analogy. I’d like to see 1 auto manufacturer whose name isn’t plastered across the factory, or meet 1 worker who shrugs, & can’t tell me who they work for.
No, not imponderable. But if I walk up to a car manufacturer, the name is Ford, I’m hardly likely to think that they’re making Chryslers in there, am I?
That’s a much better analogy.
The problem is 1 of scale.
You can compare the entire universe to an arrowhead, but seeing as we have no proof of the designer, let alone a name, it becomes a bootless exercise.
When the parameters aren’t: where was the arrowhead found, what evidence of what tribes lived (or still live) in the vicinity, but rather the entire reality surrounding us, then it becomes philosophic ramblings.
Where, & how often?
Well, ANY theory. Misspoke myself. Apologies.
Einstein disliked quantum physics. Ended up verifying it.
Will need the data 1st. That site I referred you to has links that are still up (some are quite amusing: “This is the bulldozer driver. This is the bulldozer driver pointing.”)
Perfect example of real science in action.
It don’t fit? Toss it out.
I’ll let the ‘frauds & fakes’ inference go (albeit you connected the 2 sentences w/a comma, it’s not germane).
Let’s cut to the chase.
It’s perfectly valid to criticize & find flaws in scientific theory. It’s part of the empirical method.
However, when the preponderance of evidence is decidedly large, & vastly outweighs the strikes against it, that’s when the scale tips in favor.
Not to mention the results produced.
So until ID can provide verifiable results (paleontology, forensic medicine, flu shots, the list, it do go on), or provide some sort of proof of the ‘intelligent designer’, I’m just gonna have to go w/evolution.
Otherwise, it’s just philosophical ramblings, quibblings, hair-splitting & semantics.
& I live in the real world, where the proof is in the pudding, not in the speculations of which recipe was used.
?I’ve seen these tactics used before. Inglesia ni Christos – 1 of their main methods for gaining members is to slam the Catholic Church. Not a fan of either, but MO is, that if a pivotal point of the comparison is negative=them, positive=us, well, I find that particularly dishonest. Maybe it’s just me.?
Pardon my ignorance, but I have no idea what you?re referring to here. Please explain further.
?There is a difference between comparing theories, & slamming 1 to bolster another. It just seems your side is doing the latter.?
I would agree. But where do you draw the line between slamming and legitimately critiquing or questioning? I would say that a critique is a thoughtful analysis of a theory in light of the evidence. Slamming is criticism of a theory without regard to the evidence or logic behind it. I would challenge you in your assertion that intelligent design is the side of slamming.
Intelligent design stipulates that, based on the evidence, based on the complexity, and the apparent appearance of intelligence behind the natural world, an intelligent being is a better explanation than random chance.
A typical retort from Darwinian evolutionists that I have experienced is: ID isn?t real science.
You need only browse through this very thread to see that.
From rainbows4dinosaurs, ?Id is not science- it is religious pseudoscience?
Karen says, ?ID is simply NOT science.?
Alexgator1 says, ?ID is not grounded in any sort of science?
While ntercaus says, ?Myths are great when they are kept in context. And taught in a class about myths not science?
Do you honestly believe that these criticisms are based on the evidence that intelligent design has put forth, or are they simply ?slamming 1 to bolster another??
The rejection of intelligent design isn?t based on scientific evidence, it?s based on a philosophy of what science should be. Geneticist Marxist Richard Lewontin, (who is obviously no supporter of intelligent design) acknowledges this rejection of intelligent design based on philosophy, when he writes, ?It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door?.
If there is one side that is slamming, I believe it falls on your side more often than on mine. Of course, I?m not suggesting that intelligent design supporters, don?t slam, they certainly do. And I am also not suggesting that there haven?t been many evolutionists who legitimately criticize intelligent design based on evidence and scientific reasoning. However, there are also a good deal of Darwinian evolutionists who criticize intelligent design without regard to the evidence it brings, simply because of their devotion to the philosophy of materialism.
I would certainly adhere to the definition of ?theory? that you provided. But theories, because they?re simply theories, can, and often are wrong.
?the very concept of ‘Intelligent design’ infers, by its ramifications, that there are indeed no random acts.
Unless you could provide me w/some sort of designs specs, for randomnicity, or even a few examples. That’s how I see it, at least.?
I believe the burden is on you to demonstrate how exactly intelligent design infers that there are no random acts. As I already stipulated, the inverse could be applied to evolution. If life was created out of chaos is there only chaos? If life was created with no intelligence, is there no intelligence?
But, I?ll take your bait. How about a slot machine? A slot machine is intelligently designed but incorporates ?randomnicity?.
?Might be out of context.
More examples, please.?
Well, I gave you the link, so you can tell me, is it out of context or not?
Okay, here?s a few other examples of people claiming Mother Nature is ingenious, ?Mother Nature devised numerous ingenious sleights of hand to thread the baby through the ?eye? of the a mother?s birth canal? ? Dr. Leonard Shlain in his book Sex, Time and Power: How Woman?s Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution.
And, another nod to the ?ingenious? qualities of nature, ?Nature has already found many ingenious solutions to problems that materials science has yet to overcome?
http://www.iterations.com/protected/research/biomimicry_biblio.html
?Never answered my question, I note: that is, what personifying label are y’all using to designate the ‘designer’??
I?m not sure as to the label, but the characteristic that we are attributing to the ?designer? is intelligence. A trait that would be fitting for all the ?ingenious? qualities in nature.
?You can compare the entire universe to an arrowhead, but seeing as we have no proof of the designer, let alone a name, it becomes a bootless exercise.?
Anything that is designed has a designer. If the arrowhead, or clay pot manifest signs of design, we conclude that there must be a designer. If the universe manifest signs of design we must conclude that there is a designer.
As to your contention that there is no proof, I would strongly disagree. There is a good deal of evidence which indicates design, and if there is design, there must, by the rules of logic, be a designer.
Take DNA, for instance. DNA, as we all know contains information, and information is habitually associated with conscious activity. As George Sim Johnson put it, ?Human DNA contains more ORGANIZED information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces?.
Back to my rock pattern analogy, the sole indication of intelligence behind the formation of the rocks is information. That?s how we know intelligence was responsible. Of course information can be conveyed in many ways, like our alphabet, or smoke signals, or flashes of light, or the 1?s and 0?s in digital code. With DNA the code is chemical: four chemicals, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, or as they?re more commonly represented, in the sequential code A, G, C, and T. In order to create just one protein, you typically need 1,200 to 2,000 letters or bases. And proteins of course, are the key functional molecule in the cell; you can?t have life without them. But where does the information to build them come from?
Random chance is not a very good explanation. In order for a protein molecule to form by chance requires first that you have the right bonds between amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you?ve got to have only left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. The odds of that happening, are literally, one chance in a hundred thousand trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. And that is just for one protein molecule. A minimally complex cell needs between 300 and 500 protein molecules. The probability of that happening is beyond reason.
You?d stand a better chance of reproducing Darwin?s The Origin of Species, by randomly throwing scrabble letters on the floor, than for a simple living cell to evolve by chance.
Others have suggested natural selection as the solution to the chance problem. Although natural selection may be an acceptable theory for biological evolution it does not work for chemical evolution, because reproduction is necessary for natural selection to take place. But to have reproduction you must have cell division, and that presupposes the existence of information-rich DNA and proteins.
Another explanation is chemical affinities and self-ordering. But that theory really fails because it provides no explanation for the irregularities in the information sequence. If it was chemical affinities, we would only see repetitive sequences, which would not produce proteins, and therefore would not produce life.
There is only one other explanationknown to us for the sequential arrangement of information, and that is intelligence.
nigelstone,
What evidence? The complexity has been shown time and time again to be reducable.
This pretty much says it all. To be accepted as science, ID protagonists recongize and actively promote changing the definition of science. Or put another way, ID will be science when science is no longer science. It reminds me of Orwellian “NewSpeak”. Do you realize that if “NewScience” were to become reality, as well as ID it would include astology, spiritualism, ghosts, ESP, and anything else mystical crackpots can dream up.
Fuzzy math. Totally incorrect and misleading. The probability is in fact ONE. ie. it is extanct.
Fallacy of bifuraction. Even were evolution disproven, this would not mean a designer is the only other option. Admittedly you did say “known to us”. I would of course dispute that anything is actually known about an intelligent designer. There are not even any theories – just blind (mutually exclusive, internally inconsistent, illogical) belief.
nigelstone:
Well, short version is, the Christos church uses a method of comparison, by illustrating an opponent?s/rival?s inadequacies/negatives to bolster their own argument. Fallacy of suppressed evidence is the fallacy I believe you?re committing here.
Again, proof is in the pudding. My personal definition of science, is that if results (positive or negative), the results are evidence of a workable method.
ID is nothing more than philosophical quibbling. It?s produced nothing of note, outside of attacking evolution.
You can say that again?
How is it germane that he?s a Marxist?
Because ID doesn?t bring any evidence, would be my guess.
Here you are most definitely NOT adhering to the definition of ?theory? that I specified. Rather, you?re practicing selective perception yet again. Let me do it for you again (this is the last time, BTW):
?A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Apparently, you?re using this 1:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Burden is on me? Okay. How many architects, engineers, or any other field that requires exacting standards use randomnicity? In order to design something like the universe, how much randomnicity would be required, in your guesstimate?
The slot machine?s a decent analogy. However, show me randomnicity in nature.
No, but giving something a name isn?t necessarily personifying.
Have you read that book in its entirety? & how are these scientists supposed to phrase their sentences in a manner that would satisfy you?
We have covered this before, & you never really ceded the point.
The German language, for instance, uses definitives that assign gender. That?s not really personification. If Einstein had named time ?Father Time?, does that mean he?s putting a face, & specific human traits to it? Of course not. This is a ridiculous argument.
Nice try, no cigar.
And again, this tired old refrain.
We can put a name to the arrowhead or clay pot designer. We can, w/some degree of accuracy, figure out the who?s, the what?s, the whereabouts.
Do that w/the designer. Please.
Nice variation on that old chestnut, ?If a tornado rips thru a junkyard, the chances of it constructing St. Peter?s Cathedral are zero.?
The chances of you ever convincing me of ID is about as remote as your scrabble example.
Between the placement of insect antennae in a vulnerable spot (if clipped, said insect dies), grizzlies eating their young, testes in vulnerable spots, duck-billed platypuses laying eggs, the poor construction of the human eye, the larger feeding on the weaker, the occasional insane cruelty of our species, the horrendous construction of the penguins? mating cycle in the Antarctic, the reproductive organs being the waste-producing organs, the rending tooth, the shedding claw, the innumerable agonies of living that seem to epitomize the sadistic glee of said ?designer?, I?ll have to say this:
A. Your designer is completely incompetent, and/or insane, or
B. It?s all random chance.
I?ll have to go w/B.
A is by far too scary a choice.
P.S: despite my nom de plume, I am a complete & thorough apostate.
Come up w/a better answer to evolution. ‘Cause ID ain’t cuttin’ the ice, my friend.
RA,
I think you’ll find there are precious few penguins in the Arctic, and a general dearth of penguin mating cycles there too.
Try moving somewhat to the south.
Sorry to be picky.
Of course I could be wrong – in which case I will be eating some penguin … err crow.
HZ:
D’oh!
No, thnx for that. Antarctic, then.
I always get those confused (yeah, I stop & ask for directions, since I have trouble keeping N. & S. straight). I’ll go in & edit the post this instant.
Thnx again.
HZ:
Oh, this is just hysterical! For Tim & jcc (if they’re still lurking about):
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
Title:
They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins… And they’re not alone. –
“But the partnership of Wendell and Cass adds drama in another way. They’re both male. That is to say, they’re gay penguins.
This is not unusual. “There are a lot of animals that have same-sex relations, it’s just that people don’t know about it,” Mitchell said. “I mean, Joe Schmoe on the street is not someone who’s read all sorts of biology books.”
One particular book is helpful in this case. Bruce Bagemihl’s “Biological Exuberance,” published in 1999, documents homosexual behavior in more than 450 animal species. The list includes grizzly bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls and even several species of salmon.
“The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather,” Bagemihl writes in the first page of his book. “From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the ‘birds and the bees,’ literally, are queer.”
This in particular is for Tim:
“They got all excited when we gave them the egg,” said Rob Gramzay, senior keeper for polar birds at the zoo. He took the egg from a young, inexperienced couple that hatched an extra and gave it to Silo and Roy. “And they did a really great job of taking care of the chick and feeding it.”
Hee-HEE-hee!
Penguin pals – too cute.
Could we possibly hope for Polygamous Penguin Pals?
HZ:
I dunno – some creatures DO keep a harem. Lions spring to mind.
I hope the aforementioned theists returned. Like to see them argue their way out of THAT 1.
I can hear jcc fumbling w/his ‘objective reality of the man-woman paradigm’ w/that evidence.
“Polygamous Pecker Penguin Pals? “
How’s that for alliteration?
(apologies to any who take offense).
What evidence? The complexity has been shown time and time again to be reducable.
No, it actually hasn?t. But again, if you think it is all reducible, what is the piece by piece process for the formation of the bacteria flagellum?
?To be accepted as science, ID protagonists recognize and actively promote changing the definition of science.?
?My personal definition of science, is that if results (positive or negative), the results are evidence of a workable method.
ID is nothing more than philosophical quibbling.?
So you discredit intelligent design as ?philosophical quibbling? by philosophically quibbling over what the definition of science is.
The argument over what the definition of science is, is a philosophical argument NOT a scientific one.
?Because ID doesn?t bring any evidence, would be my guess.?
Simply saying this doesn?t make it so. In even my most recent post, I gave a detailed breakdown of the evidence of DNA. You may think that the evidence is weak, as I may think that the evidence of Darwinian evolution is weak, but to say that it is non-existent is disingenuous.
?Okay. How many architects, engineers, or any other field that requires exacting standards use randomnicity??
Your assertion was that intelligent design infers that ?there IS no randomness whatsoever.? That?s just plainly false, there a numerous things designed with random chance in mind. You mentioned architecture, clearly buildings are designed, but they are also designed with random chance in mind. Why else do you think they are made earthquake resistant? Or have fire escapes or sprinklers?
Anything that is designed is not accidental or random, but that doesn?t mean that ?there IS no randomness whatsoever?, such as statement implies that randomness doesn?t exist, and that is false. As I clearly demonstrated, even designed constructions incorporate random chance.
Fires can be accidental, earthquakes erratic, and buildings are designed with those random events in mind. In nature we see something similar ? the immune system. The immune system would then be a designed construction that incorporates random acts, like if we accidentally fell and cut ourselves. But here again, I think we see evidence of design. Blood-clotting, if you make a clot in the wrong place, like the brain or lung, you?ll die. If you make a clot after the blood has already drained from your body, you?re dead. If the blood clot isn?t confined to the cut, your entire body system might solidify, and you?ll die. If you make a clot that doesn?t cover the entire cut, you?ll die. To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. To me, that rules out the gradual Darwinian approach.
?Fuzzy math. Totally incorrect and misleading. The probability is in fact ONE. ie. it is extanct.?
What?? How is it possible that the probability is one? I have no idea where you got that, or exactly what you?re saying here. Do mean ?extant?, and if so what are you meaning? Because it exists its probability is one? That doesn?t make any sense.
?Even were evolution disproven, this would not mean a designer is the only other option. Admittedly you did say “known to us”. I would of course dispute that anything is actually known about an intelligent designer.?
What IS known is that everything designed has a designer. That is an analytically true statement. If we see evidence of design in nature, the natural conclusion is that there is a designer. Obviously, we differ as to the evidence.
?Have you read that book in its entirety? & how are these scientists supposed to phrase their sentences in a manner that would satisfy you??
How is it relevant to the argument if I?ve read the book in its entirety? Unless you?re questioning my hermeneutics, but if so, tell me exactly how I?m taking it out of context.
?We can put a name to the arrowhead or clay pot designer. We can, w/some degree of accuracy, figure out the who?s, the what?s, the whereabouts.?
Corroborating evidence is certainly helpful, no question. But if design were all we have, would that be enough? If we found an artifact (like an arrowhead), in an area of the world where we had no idea intelligent beings had lived, in a time period where we had no idea intelligent beings existed, what would our conclusion be? Natural processes created the clearly designed artifact? Or would be scrambling to rewrite the history of human ?evolution??
Design always demands a designer.
Taking it further, if say, SETI, were to receive information transmitted from outer space, what would the conclusion be? Naturally they would conclude, as many scientists would conclude that extraterrestrials exist. Based ONLY on discovery of information (because information is a sign of intelligence) even without any other corroborating evidence.
?The chances of you ever convincing me of ID is about as remote as your scrabble example.?
With such statements it strikes me as kind of ironic that you call yourself ?reluctant?.
?Between the placement of insect antennae in a vulnerable spot (if clipped, said insect dies), grizzlies eating their young, testes in vulnerable spots, duck-billed platypuses laying eggs, the poor construction of the human eye, the larger feeding on the weaker, the occasional insane cruelty of our species, the horrendous construction of the penguins? mating cycle in the Antarctic, the reproductive organs being the waste-producing organs, the rending tooth, the shedding claw, the innumerable agonies of living that seem to epitomize the sadistic glee of said ?designer?, I?ll have to say this:
A. Your designer is completely incompetent, and/or insane, or
B. It?s all random chance.
I?ll have to go w/B.
A is by far too scary a choice.?
That?s an interesting mixture of disteleology, and philosophy. I?ve never really been persuaded by the arguments of distelelology, because arguing that a design is ?suboptimal? or even ?poor? does not therefore mean that it wasn?t ?designed?. Perhaps, the designer is not omnipotent, or perhaps not omniscient, there are certainly intelligently designed creations that are ?suboptimal? does that mean they are not designed?
Furthermore, many of the claims of disteleology are simply untrue, like the myth that the human eye is poorly constructed. Responding to such claims is biologist George Ayoub, ?The design of the retina is responsible for its high acuity and sensitivity. It is simply untrue that the retina is demonstrably suboptimal, nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing its function?.
The panda?s thumb also has been attacked as being un-designed, but other experts say that it functions well for stripping bark off of bamboo. There doesn?t appear to a defined standard of ?good? design and ?bad? design, and so the argument dwindles fairly quickly.
Stephen Meyer also makes a good point, ?People claim a design is bad because they look at only one parameter and claim it could have been better designed. However, engineers know all designs require optimizing a whole suite of parameters, and so tradeoffs are inevitable to create the best overall result. You could look at laptop and say ?bad screen design; it should have been bigger.? You could look at the memory and say, ?Bad design; should have had a larger capacity.? But the engineer isn?t supposed to be creating the best screen, and the best memory ? he?s supposed to be producing the best computer given certain size, weight, price, and portability requirements. Could the screen be bigger? Yes, but then portability suffers. Could the computer have more memory? Sure, but then the cost goes too high.?
It?s a valid point, since the placement of the antennae, may be easier to break, but the placement also what makes it useful. The testes could be better protected, but the placement helps regulate the temperature so the sperm don?t die.
As to your philosophical argument:
?the larger feeding on the weaker, the occasional insane cruelty of our species the innumerable agonies of living that seem to epitomize the sadistic glee of said ?designer??
This is an argument against the designer?s character. Which is something intelligent design does not speak to. The only attribute the designer is given is intelligence. Nothing more.
But as an argument against God, (an entity with a defined character), you seem to be arguing that because the world is ?cruel? and ?unjust? that there is no God.
C.S. Lewis thought the same way so I might as well quote him:
?If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years, I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling ?whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn?t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren?t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?? But then that threw me back into another difficulty.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of JUST and UNJUST? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be a part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too ? for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist ? in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless ? I found that I was forced to assume that one part of reality ? namely my idea of justice ? was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. ?Dark? would be a word without meaning?.
I think he makes an uncomfortable but solid point.
nigelstone:
I didn?t say this: HeathenZ did.
Give me then, your definition of science.
Says you.
I?ll give you some points for that 1, as it seems honest enough.
Still waiting for natural examples of randomness, BTW. Also still waiting for examples of Haeckel being used up to the year 1999.
Not so. Actually, that speaks of a process many centuries in the making. The building of immunity, for 1. The obsoleteness of the appendix, for another.
HeathenZ said that, not I. I think he meant ?extant?. You?ll have to ask him.
Again, HeathenZ said that, not I.
It was a simple question. Something you seem to have difficulty with. Didn?t make the accusation, just asked. Avoiding my point, that simply saying ?Mother Nature? is a figure of speech, & not equivalent to personifying.
Those are logical examples, & reasonable.
However, to take the small scale & apply it to the large one seems strange. Sure enough, scientists experiment on a smaller scale, to get the bigger picture (which applies to my earlier example of microevolution). But the larger the scale, more factors are introduced. Variables if you will.
Read my intro on my site. I?m assuming this is the reason we?re having this semi-private conversation, & you haven?t joined the newer/recent thread about ID? If off, apologies.
Sure, disteleology has its uses. If you have a company, hire an engineer, engineer is very bad at his job, whadday?do? You fire him. & the human eye is sub optimal design.
?nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing its function?.
Ever hear of laser eye surgery?
Or that mammals have their reproductive organs as waste producers.
Since 1 picture?s worth a 1000 words, here?s 1 for ya: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060109/480/nyet27501091906
Exactly. Which is why evolution makes so much sense.
Interesting viewpoint, but sounds Taoist. Lao Tzu said: ?Without darkness, we would not know light. Without evil, we would not know goodness?. etc.? Heraclitus said something similar (life is a dynamic interplay of polar opposites, or somesuch).
Come join the newer ID thread. jcc is another creationist, like yourself.
Interesting blog. You have no hope, no future after this life, but congratulations then for this “victory.” Someday I hope to meet this omniscient One that obviously engineered this great place. Meanwhile, it is facinating to learn this divine technique. Because it is all that many of you will study, good luck on your “Law of Evolution.”
BudB P E,
Dude, none of us have a future after this life. If you want to live your life in a dream world, then that’s just fine with me. All I ask is you let me live mine in reality – since it is the only one I am going to get.
BudB P E:
Nope.
Better make this one count.
Make this one count? Certainly believe that I am. I have my faith, and your faith is that there is nothing. OK, but the subject at hand is that you are closing out an option to be a little more educated. For example, what we call entropy, The Engineer describes in II Pet 3:10, and what we call nuclear forces, He notes in Col 1:17. You do understnd physics, don’t you? Because there is more….
BudB P E:
Oh, this tiresome refrain…AGAIN.
I believe in people.
Well, lessee, in your own book, Col 1:15 – “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:”
Have a look see at this firstborn creature:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060109/480/nyet27501091906
Duh, no, cuz i belieb in nuttin’, don’t no no feeziks.
Get this straight: it’s highly unlikely that I’m going to take the word of a bunch of bronze age stoners.
Capish?
Oh well – no offense, but I can see there is no intelligent life on this blog. No wonder you are not interested in ID. Have a nice life.
BudBPE,
No offense taken, not from me, despite the fact you went out of your way to insult us. How godly of you.
Bud BeePee
No offense taken. As atheists, we consider the source, and we can see that as an IDer, you have no flapjacks to flip.
So you have a nice life too.
Believe and you will believe.
r4d, I owe you a royalty fee.
Natasha, karen:
I think I hurt his little feelings, w/the Col 1:15 shot.
& but of course, we’re lesser beings, since we don’t believe what he did.
I so detest patronization, don’t you?
Reluctantatheist: Apologies for not specifying whom I was referring to, hope it wasn?t too confusing.
As to your comments:
?The argument over what the definition of science is, is a philosophical argument NOT a scientific one.
Says you.?
What scientific test can be conducted that proves the definition of science? When we talk about the definition of science, we are talking philosophy, because the scientific method is incapable of demonstrating what the definition of science is.
? Also still waiting for examples of Haeckel being used up to the year 1999.?
Fair enough. Here is a list of biology textbooks that Haeckel?s embryos appeared in:
0. Alton Biggs, Chris Kapicka & Linda Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-02-825431-7
0. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece & Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, Fifth Edition (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1999). ISBN 0-8053-6573-7
0. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9
0. Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3
0. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher’s Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8
0. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
0. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9
0. Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2
0. William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3
Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X.
?Avoiding my point, that simply saying ?Mother Nature? is a figure of speech, & not equivalent to personifying.?
Saying ?Mother Nature? may simply be a figure of speech, but my real point is the added use of the word ?ingenious? (which both of my examples showed) in relation to ?Mother Nature?, and that is a clear anthropomorphism. Personification.
??m assuming this is the reason we?re having this semi-private conversation, & you haven?t joined the newer/recent thread about ID? If off, apologies.?
Actually, the reason we?ve been having a semi-private conversation is because we keep responding to one another. It would be quite cumbersome to respond to your posts in this thread by posting in another one. Furthermore, arguments build upon themselves, and it would be very tiring to restate everything I?ve already said in a new thread, with new bloggers.
?the human eye is sub optimal design.
?nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing its function?.
Ever hear of laser eye surgery??
The human eye is not suboptimal. Some people charge that the inverted retina is a manifestation of it being suboptimal. What they don?t realize is that the retina must be inverted in order for the eye to processes oxygen that vertebrates need. There is an important physiological reason for it.
Sure, I?ve heard of laser eye surgery, I?ve also heard of brain surgery, does that make the human brain suboptimal or ?poor? even? Well? some brains more than others. J
Second of all, laser eye surgery doesn?t change the design of the eye it merely repairs, or restores it. Just like removing a dent out of an automobile doesn?t change the design of the car.
?Or that mammals have their reproductive organs as waste producers.?
I suppose you?re arguing that that is poorly designed, which is a little strange to say because it sure does function well. Last I checked the human race is not having any problems reproducing or disposing of their waste.
Since 1 picture?s worth a 1000 words, here?s 1 for ya: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060109/480/nyet27501091906?
Cy, how?cute? As someone who has personally raised abandoned kittens, I?m a little bit puzzled by the photo. Firstly, baby kittens do not even open their eyes until at LEAST a week. That article says it was dead in a day. Secondly, why the heck is the eye so disproportionate?
Regardless, certainly Cy raises questions as to the character of the designer or his level of input. Perhaps the designer has a form more accommodating to the deist than the theist. However, it also reflects poorly on evolution. Cy would be yet another example of what you get through random mutation. The fact of the matter is, throughout the thousands of years of human history the empirical evidence has shown that random mutations are typically harmful, not beneficial. And the random mutations that aren?t harmful, are neutral, and do not help or hinder the species whatsoever. In fact, I can think of a rather large list of harmful random mutations, but at the present, I cannot think of beneficial random mutation that we have ever seen.
?Interesting viewpoint, but sounds Taoist. Lao Tzu said: ?Without darkness, we would not know light. Without evil, we would not know goodness?. etc.??
I actually disagree with that type of thinking, and that?s not really what C.S. Lewis was saying.
Let me try my best to explain: Light is not dependent upon darkness for us to know it, because light is not simply the opposite of darkness (although it is opposite). Light contains properties that are entirely its own, independent from darkness. For instance, light is an electromagnetic radiation that has a particular wavelength, between 390 nm and 740 nm. It consists of energy quanta known as photons that behave like wave and particles. Light has properties. Now, what is dark? Dark is the absence of light. That is all it is, it has no other properties. Therefore darkness is dependent upon light, but light is not dependent upon darkness.
In the same way, I think we can have goodness without evil. Evil, might help us know goodness, in an epistemological sense, but I do not think that goodness is contingent on the existence of evil. What I mean is, I think people can be good for the sake of being good but I don?t think they can be evil for the sake of being evil.
C.S. Lewis clarified his point by saying, ?We have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons ? either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it ? money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much?.?
But in regards to goodness:
?You can do a kind action when you are not feeling kind and when it gives you no pleasure, simply because kindness is right; but no one ever did a cruel action simply because cruelty is wrong ? only because cruelty was pleasant or useful to him. In other words badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself; badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled?.
By this reasoning, goodness is not dependent upon evil to exist, but evil is dependent upon goodness to exist.
mbna
mbna mbna http://www.fundslender.co.uk/?kw=mbna http://www.fundslender.co.uk/?kw=mbna
debt consolidation loans
debt consolidation loans debt consolidation 
…
secured loans uk
secured loans uk secured loans uk http://www.fundslender.co.uk/?kw=secured loans uk http://www.funds...
online loans
online loans online loans http://www.fundslender.co.uk/?kw=online loans http://www.fundslender.co.uk/?kw=online loans
this is very good
good related article
Black Bamboo Candles
Black Bamboo Essentials Accents Fragrance Diffusers Containers Accessories ClearanceItem Name Image Bla…
cute brunette head
cute brunette head