I AM THE LINKMASTER.

This is all I have left, people.

nah, Allah, you have plenty left. Ace is just benefiting from you getting a life or something.

It's very true that religion can forced, but faith cannot.

I just had a discussion with a commenter about the religious right in this country. It seems the media has made it seem that they wish to force religion on people. But that is simply not true. The organizations like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition were formed because they felt they were being pushed away from the table of ideas. I don't seem them wanting to force religion on anyone, just having their voice heard.

How do the rest of yall see it?

Well, yes - certainly a blog of mostly links would NEVER work.

A blog of links?

No one would go for it.

I beat you fair and square Slublog.

Yup.

Dangit.

How do the rest of yall see it?
Posted by Rightwingsparkle at December 27, 2005 03:31 PM

Very well put. But, couldn't you have worked in a Star Wars reference?

I'm afraid not adolfo, I'm not that much of a nerd...;-)

RWS, I think there is a non-trivial percentage of religious activists that want to make their religious strictures into law, but I agree that their influence is wildly exaggerated by the MSM. I really have no idea what kind of influence they have with actual people, versus their influence in the media as the go-to antagonist badguys.

Ace sez:
"The trouble is that people believe what and whom they wish to believe, and a quasi-official Islamic heirarchy condeming terrorism is unlikely to convince murderers that Islam means peace."

Respondeo:
Some anti-terror Islamic authority controlling access to the holy cities might do the trick: followers of terrorist imams could not make the Hajj. That might give the 'good Muslims' something comparable to the Pope's power of excommunication. (Which brought Emperor Henry IV to his knees.)

Cautiously Pessimistic,

Can you give me some examples of that? I mean I would like porn to be illegal. But not because of my religious faith, but because I think it is so harmful to society. But I would only want it declared illegal by the democratic process, not some declaration by an activist judge.

Those who really understand religious faith understand that it is never about what surrounds you, but what is inside you. But we also understand that social injustice as long been fought for by religious people. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. comes to mind.

RWS - I won't answer for CP, but I do think there are many who believe a significant number of Christian oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and see that as an example of wanting to turn "religious strictures into law", to use his expression.

I don't oppose it on religious grounds, but I'm sure there are many who do.

This moderate "challenge" will go nowhere. In order to reform Islam, you must reform the Koran, Hadith, and Sira but all three are immutable texts and changing them calls into question the validity of Islam (everything in the Koran and the Sunnah must be 100% literally true or else it is a false religion, Koran 4:82), hence it cannot be done. And Saint Abdullah is no moderate. He hails from such a moderate country where honor killings are common and where 0% of the population has a favourable opinion of Jews. These so-called Muslim moderates never give any specifics on how they would challenge the so-called radicals. Referring to the "tolerant" side of the Koran doesn't cut it because due to the doctrine of nask or abrogration, most of the so-called tolerant (Meccan) verses are superceded by the more militaristic Medinan verses. The last sura that was revealed to Muhammad was Sura 9, the Verse of the Sword, that enjoins Muslims to wage jihad against the disbelievers. Lack of moderation in Islam is not the problem, Islam itself is the problem.

It seems the media has made it seem that they wish to force religion on people. But that is simply not true.

As an honest Christian, I have to concede that the Christian nut-jobs that attempted to force Intelligent Design into the public schools of Dover were fairly described as trying to force religion on people.

In the process, they did a great disservice to our faith, by linking it with the stench of fraud, and by attempting to make the truths of Genesis dependant on junk science.

In my view, they were doing the work that is properly assigned to Satan.

Arch raises a very valid point: arguing for the supposedly more tolerant parts of the Qur'an is difficult because many of the gentler comments--"revealed" in the Mekkan era, when the focus of Islam was on faith--were abrogated (mansookh, from naskh, "abrogation," as arch said) by statements in the Medinan era, which was more focused on consolidating power, conducting raids, getting rid of the Jews, building an empire, and expanding influence. Plus, once the Jews and Christians in Madinah rejected Muhammad as a prophet, he basically turned against them. (And this, my dear ladies and gentlemen, is one of the origins of Islamic anti-Semitism and Islamic rejection of Christianity. Which also means it won't go away. Islam is kinder to Christians because some blind Christian is said to have recognized Muhammad as a prophet. Yeah, whatever.)

Random trivia:
The Qur'an says (verses 30-31 of the ninth chapter, Surat-at-Tawbah):

And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their mons to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but one Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

The best thing? These verses come right after the Verse of the Sword (verse 29, chapter 9, which is Surat-at-Tawbah):

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam) (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Translation and parenthetical commentary and explanations from: "Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. The Noble Qur'an. Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: King Fahd Complex For The Printing Of The Holy Qur'an, 1419 AH." This used to be the Qur'an distributed free-of-charge by the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC (whom I got it from). I'm not sure if they still give this out or if they have reverted back to Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation (which is not as blatant).

Kind of hard to throw these verses away. It's also hard informing Muslims that what the Qur'an says about Jews and Christians is, actually, false. Last time I checked, Christians and Jews did not worship their leaders, and Judaism's creed was "Sh'ma Yisrael, [haShem] Elo[q]enu [haShem] echad" ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One"). I don't see Ezra's name in there anywhere. (Seriously, I could go on and on and on and on about this. Frickin' Qur'an with its gross misrepresentations.)

As an honest Christian, I have to concede that the Christian nut-jobs that attempted to force Intelligent Design into the public schools of Dover were fairly described as trying to force religion on people.

No they weren't. Nobody was trying to force their religion on anybody. They were trying to keep their ideas from being excluded from the arena of education based on a faulty interpretation of the Establishment Clause by an activist court. So what happens? An activist judge makes a ruling (read his opinion) based on his beliefs and not the law. Whether you agree or not, what gets taught in a biology class is up to the people who live in that school district. We have open enrollment here in WI so if I don't like what a local school district is teaching I can send my kids to another one. Thats the way it ought to work.

Brew,

This just devolves into ipse dixits, but it's not science.

If you want to question a working scientific theory, like evolution, that's fair game for science class. Showing where the theory relies upon assumptions and sketchy fossil chains, for example.

But ID just isn't science. The big explanation of ID is "it's magic." There's just no fudging that fact.

ID says "Evolution cannot account for all of this" and then, rather than proposing a competing NATURAL explanation, instead resorts to proposing an supernatural explanation.

Yes, yes: Super-advanced aliens could have designed us (except they couldn't have), and maybe the designer isn't "God Himself" but merely some Super Being With Powers Very Much Like Those Ascribed To God Himself.

But please. The intelligent designer is none other than God Himself in ID, and that's just not science. By definition.

I'm not sure how you can say science can include divine creation as part of its theories.

Ace,

I actually agree with your assertion that ID is creationism in disguise. I also agree that it's proper place in the curriculum is probably comparative religion/philosophy. What I don't agree with is a federal judge making that ruling. Let that decision be made by the local school board. FWIW, I feel the same about abortion. Its a matter left to the conscience of a community, not Uncle Sam. One bit of irony that never seems to be mentioned is that the greatest scientific nation on earth became that even though creationism up until the early 1960's was a part of the curriculum in almost all public schools. My point being that we should never be afraid to discuss and learn. Anything.

I have certainly had mixed feelings on ID. For now, I feel that it shouldn't be taught in the public schools, but I am not convinced it was some diabolical plan to force religion.

I think they just wanted children exposed to the idea that God COULD have designed the earth and life. Not using the word "God" was hardly covert. It's not like we didn't know what they were referring to. I think they wanted to put it in more scientific type terms for obvious reasons.

I have had this discussion many times on my blog. And I can't get past the point that Ace made that I.D. isn't science "by definition." Well, who defined science? That would be a man. So we decide and investigate everything that is researched based on a definition that a man decided upon. Why can't science be redefined? Look how many times science has been WRONG. We all know how Doctors didn't believe in germs many years ago because we hadn't developed the technology that allowed us to see the germs. When a Doctor suggested that washing up before surgery would prevent death, they laughed at him.

My point is that we couldn't see germs, so we didn't believe in them. What else are we not seeing and not believing?

I'm not advocating I.D. here, I am just advocating an open mind that doesn't dismiss the idea of God because it doesn't fit a man's definition of science.

Of courts have read the establishment clause too broadly, but obviously the clause IS in the Constitution, and it means *something.*

If it doesn't mean that the state cannot teach what you admit are patently nonscientific, religiously-based theories as science, then what *does* it mean?

If liberals read the clause too broadly, you seem to be reading it too (ahem) niggardly.

Obviously (I think) you would say the state could not teach that all of the animals repopulated the earth after getting off of Noah's Ark. That's plainly "establishing a state religion," isn't it? So why is there a big difference here, such that we should defer to the "conscience of the community"?

The conscience of the community should rule only until it actually crosses a tripwire found in the Constitution. And I think we have one here.

Great points, RWS. There is as much dogma in the scientific community as the religious community.

RWS,

As I've argued before, even if it were TRUE and proveably so that God created everything, that wouldn't be a scientific theory, because science must exclude supernatural theories from it.

"It's magic" is not scientific, even if magic were proven to exist.

Were it the case that God created the universe and all life, then that might be true, but it wouldn't be science. Basically it would be a black scientific hole, like all metaphysics -- stuff about the soul and the afterlife -- are.

I won't recite the Establishment Clause to you because you already know what it says so let me ask you this; if it was taught in school that God created the universe, what religion would it be establishing?

There is as much dogma in the scientific community as the religious community.

That's just not true. There is dogma in science, but not as much as in religion. Religion is ALL faith and dogma, received wisdom from thousand-year-old texts.

Science is forever testing itself. There are some areas where there's little testing possible (like climate change, global warming, and yes, evolution), and in those cases science is less of a perpetually-retesting discipline and relies more on received wisdom and community consensus.

But in 95% of all cases, there's no "dogma" in the sense you mean.

Your bridges don't routinely collapse, do they? Planes don't typically break apart on take-off, do they?

That's engineering, of course, but engineering is just science put into practice.

If it doesn't mean that the state cannot teach what you admit are patently nonscientific, religiously-based theories as science, then what *does* it mean?

It means we can't have an established official church to which we are forced to tithe, provide direct support via taxes, etc...

Ace! Good Grief! What is "magic?" I am sure those little buggers they saw in microscopes the first time seemed like "magic" too. When radiation reduced a tumor for the first time, was it "magic?" When Alexander Graham Bell used the phone for the 1st and those "magical sound waves" traveled through the phone.

I don't really believe that we can "prove" God, but then...I'm not always right about everything.

:-)

I have to reluctantly agree with Ace, even though I don't want to. As long as science teachers recognize that science is not the be-all and end-all of life. In my opinion, science cannot explain everything. As Ace says, metaphysics is outside the realm of science (which is why I think people still ought to leave "faith" and "science" separate: one ought not to use one to prove the other, for example) but it is still a realm that is significant.

if it was taught in school that God created the universe, what religion would it be establishing?

It's not just what is established, it is what is denied. That teaching denies, by state authority, any religion that does not include Divine Creation, as well as any person who may believe in God, but believe in a God that does not directly conjure things into creation.

Many religious people believe in evolution. Catholics, for example, do not deny evolution (at least as far as I know). Catholics aren't (again, as far as I know) Biblical-creation-literalists.

So, what about them? Are they to be taught a religious principle which conflicts with their own beliefs? And what of Jews?

You are proposing that a tenet held by a minority in this country -- fundamentalist evangelical Protestants/born-again Christians -- be taught in public schools, with the authority of the state behind it, and that the Constitution would not be offended by this.

What about everyone who's not a Biblical literalist? Doesn't the state endorsing a Biblical-literalist view of creation conflict with some people's religion, or lack thereof?

You are right ace. My dogma comment was meant in the context of ID/Creationism vs. Evolution, not in science as a whole. My bad.

My larger point, though, still stands as regards what can be taught where in a public school system. It simply is not a constitutional (hence federal) issue.

This is my conundrum. On the one hand I absolutely agree that science and faith should be separate, since they answer very different questions.

But on the other hand, why dismiss a fascinating theory? One that says perhaps we can scientifically prove God? Why can't we explore this in a scientific way? Why does it make people so angry to simply suggest that we look into it? To suggest that we research this amazing possibility? That we ask students to consider it for future scientists to ponder?

Are we so closed minded that we can't even consider this?

It means we can't have an established official church to which we are forced to tithe, provide direct support via taxes, etc...

Does it mean that we can teach "Death is temporary; your bodies shall be reborn incorruptible through faith in Christ" in 9th grade biology class?

Your reading, then, is as long as the state doesn't EXPLICITLY say "We hereby create this Official State Religion and require all to acknowledge it as supreme," you can pretty much do anything else on an "unofficial basis"?

One that says perhaps we can scientifically prove God? Why can't we explore this in a scientific way?

I'm not sure this is possible. I think God exists out of science, which is what necessitates faith. I mean, if we could prove He exists, what's the point of Hebrews 11?

Ace,

It is true that Catholics do not deny evolution nor are we Biblica literalists. Which does make it a bit easier not to jump on the I.D. bandwagon.

There is a difference in creationism and I.D.

I.D. focuses on the beginning of life in a scientific way. Creationism involves the age of the earth and the time it took to create it.

But on the other hand, why dismiss a fascinating theory?

It's not that fascinating. It's pure crank. We could also teach kids about the "science" of psychic phenomenon.

One that says perhaps we can scientifically prove God?

When the proof is hand, get back to me.

We don't have it yet, or anything vaguely close to it. We can't teach "maybe, could be, perhaps we can prove God someday down the road" as "science."

Again, why not teach that we maybe, could, possibly, perhaps build perpetual motion machines?

Your rejoinder is "we can never know." True enough. That's part of the catechism of science. But just because things are unknowable doesn't mean you're free to teach anything no matter how unscientific and no matter how it conflicts with available evidence.

We can never KNOW we don't have psychic powers. Just because it doesn't SEEM like we do doesn't mean that a fuller understanding of the human mind won't one day reveal we have such powers, if only we train ourselves to use them.

But, as of the moment-- there is no evidence to support psychic abilities. And no evidence of God.

Except for faith.

Which isn't evidence.

Slublog,

But you see...you are "not sure this is possible." Well how many things have we not been sure were possible????? My point is not the exact scientific teaching of I.D. but the complete refusal to even consider it.

It's not just what is established, it is what is denied.

As I perceive you as somebody with some legal background or training, I have to think you pulled this out of your ass. What kind of interpretation is that?

What about everyone who's not a Biblical literalist? Doesn't the state endorsing a Biblical-literalist view of creation conflict with some people's religion, or lack thereof?

The debate is not about replacing the teaching of evolution with creationism and you know that.

Catholics, for example, do not deny evolution (at least as far as I know). Catholics aren't (again, as far as I know) Biblical-creation-literalists.

The Roman Catholic church does not teach evolution. My understanding is it allows its members to accept evolution without risk to their eternal destiny. Big difference. You're also forgetting that all the major religions teach creationism so who is exactly being offended? Atheists?

"Does it mean that we can teach "Death is temporary; your bodies shall be reborn incorruptible through faith in Christ" in 9th grade biology class?"

Well, why not? Unless they mention a specific denomination.

After all, you can always homeschool. ;)

Oh Ace, do I really have to say this?

You want evidence of God? Geeze. Check out the sea, the mountains, the breeze, the soft hand of a child.

Evidence is everywhere.

They were trying to keep their ideas from being excluded from the arena of education based on a faulty interpretation of the Establishment Clause by an activist court.

Brewfan, I regularly talk to godless hell-bound atheists (Politburo Diktat, World Wide Rant), and not one of them thinks that ID is ineligible as a subject for discussion in public schools. They just maintain, reasonably enough, that it should not be mandated as a part of the science curriculum. Bring it up in a philosophy course, or a class on world religions. From a radically different perspective, I agree with them.

I think they just wanted children exposed to the idea that God COULD have designed the earth and life.

Me too, so I sent my kids to Sunday School. What I don't want is for my kids to think that their faith is dependant on junk science.

[Here's a copy of my comment at Politburo Diktat tonight, where the Commissar observed the fraud of the Dover ID activists. I'm sort of the resident acceptable Christian at that site.]

Michael the Thumper Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 5:45 pm

Every time a “highly motivated” Creationist/ID activist conceals or denies his/her motive publicly, it causes the public to lose trust in Creationists . . .

You hit the nail on the head, Commissar. The result, as Pixy points out, is that Christianity is tainted with the stench of fraud. And in the process, Creationism becomes linked to, and intellectually dependant on, junk science, placing many souls at risk. As I have previously opined here, I consider this the proper work of Satan.

What the hell are they trying to accomplish? Will souls be saved for Jesus because some vacuous, nominally agnostic, watered-down creedless version of the creation story is taught in public schools? Not likely.

Increasingly, I am coming to the conclusion that the motive is personal. I suspect we’re dealing with people whose faith is so fragile that they cannot deal honestly with science, and they cannot abide the many mysteries and paradoxes of their religion. Thus, driven by fear, they seek the “official” endorsement of some lame version of creationism being taught in public schools. Otherwise, they really don’t know what to tell their kids.

Here’s a tip for any Christians who may visit this site: If you are emotionally commited to the idea that your local school board must ratify the possibility that Genesis might be true, you are in deep spiritual trouble.

Happy New Year to all.

Does it mean that we can teach "Death is temporary; your bodies shall be reborn incorruptible through faith in Christ" in 9th grade biology class?

Strawman alert!!!

Because I tell you one thing. It is easier to believe that God made all the things I mentioned than to believe that it came from the soupy goo that some scientists would have us believe.

RWS -

As Ace has pointed out, using your criteria of (1) fascinating (2) can't be proved impossible you can start teaching damn near anything as science.

You happen to be fascinated by ID because of your religious beliefs. Can we teach the use of sacrificed animal organs as auguries because it is fascinating and can't be demonstrated as false?

So the US can establish Christianity as the state religion, so long as it doesn't pick and choose between the different denominations thereof?

I suppose it could establish Lutheranism as the state religion, as long as it was careful not to favor one branch of Lutheranism over another?

Remember back in the '70's the big thing was to find the "missing link"?

Whatever happned to the search for the missing link -- the half-man, half-ape?

They put it on the back burner because it wasn't PC -- for obvious reasons.

Evolution is interesting, but there isn't any concrete evidence to support it. And that's a fact, Jack.

You send your kids to Sunday School to learn about faith.

Looking into a theory that some things are too complex to be explained except by a designer that created the basis of all it is not religion. It asks for no reverence, no relationship, no worship.

You're mixing things up here.

Maybe the guys behind I.D. are just scheming to get to those little scientific souls, who knows? But it is just as wrong to me to dismiss something that does ask interesting scientific questions (if not answer them).

Here’s a tip for any Christians who may visit this site: If you are emotionally commited to the idea that your local school board must ratify the possibility that Genesis might be true, you are in deep spiritual trouble.

So, if you discuss atheism in church does that mean your church is 'ratifying' it? Give me a break with your 'tip'.

So the US can establish Christianity as the state religion, so long as it doesn't pick and choose between the different denominations thereof?

Steve,

I am not asking for it to be taught! I said I don't believe it should be! I am just amazed at those who dismiss the idea of even looking into it. I bet none of you have even read a scientists view of I.D. You are dismissing it based on nothing more than the media's view on it.

While we're on hypotheticals, though... Ace, how does your position not reach Newdow's?

It wasn't a strawman, Brew. Someone says we can teach about being reborn in Christ in the afterlife in biology class, so long as we don't endorse one particular denomination of Christianity.

I'm not pulling my definition from my ass. When I read the constitution forbidding the establishment of a religion, I read as also forbidding the establishment of several closely-related religions, which, if one wanted to play games with semantics, could be said to be one "Big Religion."

Isn't Christianity just one big religion with multiple different versions, differing in only fairly small details?

If you're hung up on the "establish ONE religion thing," again, there are hundreds of different forms of Protestantism; are you really claiming I can, in schools, teach basic Protestant beliefs, and furthermore teach them as SCIENCE, so long as I do not favor one particular strand of Protestantism over another and thereby establish ONE discreet religion?

As Protestantism doesn't have a rigid hierarchy, one could say that different forms of the religion are taught by every reverend. So by establishing the relgion of Protestantism generally as the state religion, I wouldn't run afoul of the Establishment Clause because I hadn't specified which particular variation of Protestantism was THE state religion?

This is where you guys start scaring Jews, agnostics, atheists, etc.

So the US can establish Christianity as the state religion, so long as it doesn't pick and choose between the different denominations thereof?

Nobody said this. The Establishment Clause forbids this power to the government. What we're discussing is is the teaching of religious ideas the establishment of religion. Obviously its not or you wouldn't be able to have philosophy or comparative religion classes in school.

Incidentally, I think ID is pretty silly. But unconstitutional? That's something else.

This is an excellent article on the combination of faith and evolution

http://www.techcentralstation.com/081005A.html

Do not be afraid! Read it!

While we're on hypotheticals, though... Ace, how does your position not reach Newdow's?

Because I believe in something called "de minimis" entanglements. Look, someone mentioning God before a graduation, or a coach mentioning God before a game, is, if you want to get silly, the state "endorsing" the idea of God, but it's so ticky-tack as to be harmless.

Teaching -- in biology class, no less! -- that Christ will provide you incorruptible bodies in Heaven is something a bit more, isn't it?

You're saying "it's a difference of degree." Well, differences of degree count in life. A papercut and a cut jugular are both "lacerations" but obviously pretty different in terms of impact.

Um, I have a question. How are ID and evolution incompatible? I thought they were compatible; I thought IDers are basically saying: "Yes, evolution exists, but it's not random: God (or the Intelligent Designer) is behind it all." Am I missing something?

(BTW: many Orthodox Jews and Muslims are creationists. It's amusing to see how Muslims bend over backwards to "disprove" evolution/Big Bang. But I wonder in the noice created by creationists, how much Jews and Muslims are contributing. Jeez, if Jews control everything, you'd think they'd be able to get our education system to teach the Torah. "B'reshit bara Elo[q]enu et hashamayyim v'et ha-aretz...Vayomer Elo[q]eny yehi or vay'hi or vayar Elo[q]enu et ha-or ki tov.")

It was a strawman because we are discussing whether you can teach in a public school that God *may have* created the universe. You arbitrarily introduced other doctrine to be taught *as fact* in science class. Nobody here is arguing that point.

RWS -

My office mate is (1) a physicist by education (2) strongly Christian. Over the past three years we've discussed ID several times. He is an informed, logical (very good programmer), and deeply religious.

Despite our differing lifestyles and value systems we were very close and had deep respect for each other. I can hardly think of a better advocate than him to persuade me.

Frankly, I still believe that ID was his convenient mechanism to believe both in God and science. I always respected his right to just say"I believe", however, he was never able to convince me it is science.

In short, I am not just going along with what the media says it is.

Here is that link.

Ace,

You are listening to the commissar too much! One minute we are looking at Intelligent Design to consider where complex organisms came from and the next minute we will have FORCED BAPTISMS in class!

Please.

Someone is. Scan up.

It's not a strawman if someone is actually arguing in favor of the point.

Teaching -- in biology class, no less! -- that Christ will provide you incorruptible bodies in Heaven is something a bit more, isn't it?

Not gonna give up that strawman too easily, are you? :)

Let's try this again. Is it ok to teach (in a comparative religion class) that some people believe God created the universe?

Um, I have a question. How are ID and evolution incompatible? I thought they were compatible; I thought IDers are basically saying: "Yes, evolution exists, but it's not random: God (or the Intelligent Designer) is behind it all." Am I missing something?

No, that's what I first thought it was. As Steve suggests, that's sort of the old "watchmaker" view of God, a God who has a plan and creates a world knowing (with his inifinite foresight) how the whole puzzle will come together down the road.

That idea is a hundred years old and unobjectionable. As Steve says, it's a way to bridge a belief in god and natural processes creating life.

ID says that natural processes could not have created life. Certain key bits of life's machinery -- the eye, say, or some metabolic pathways -- could not have been created through evolution (God lurking in the shadows or not), but must require the direct, hands-on intervention of God Himself.

The key "proof" of ID -- that certain biochemical pathways are too complex to develop without an outside intelligent force creating them -- are in fact bunk, and well-refuted.

Millions of years of evolution, yet it is odd that historical records suddenly appear within the last 10,000 years.

It begs the question:
What the heck were those people doing for all those millions of years? Talk about under-acheviers.

BrewFan -

I'm an athiest, but not one of those assholes who gets worked up about the pledge of allegiance, money, graduation prayers, etc. I accept my views are in the minority, so i dont sweat the small stuff. Frankly, I don't even notice because it's not a big deal for me.

I don't care if ID is discussed in a religion or philosophy class. I would object if it was moved in to a science class.

Memo to self: it is impossible to play Halo 2 and keep up with ID debates.

I assume you all have seen this article from Opinion Journal.

And that whole "proof" proves how unscientific this all is, anyway.

Science looks at something difficult to explain -- like how a wing could have developed -- and asks, "Okay, this is a tricky one, but how could natural laws and processes have shaped this remarkable limb?"

Science does not throw its hands up and say, "It's too complex! It must be magic!"

Even if ID's proponents were correct -- that certain metabolic pathways are too complex to have assembled by natural processes according to how we know them now -- the scientific question SHOULD have been, "Well, how can we refine our understanding of the NATURAL universe to account for this paradox?"

Not: "Okay, I give up on my first try. It's magic."

What the hell kind of science is that?

Imagine such a "scientific" approach to the phenomenon of lightning, taken 300 years ago. Had "It's magic; it's God's will" been the go-to explanation, would we have advanced in our understanding of lightning and weather at all?

of course not. Real science provokes further questions, not a dead-end of "God did it, so that pretty much wraps up my work here."

The reason why the commissar so generously gives us the option of teaching I.D in religion class is because THERE IS NO RELIGION CLASS IN HIGH SCHOOL. And a handful take a philosphy course.

So his kids are safe from the scary believers.

Where is Stephen? Usually these discussions conjur him up.....;-)

I don't care if ID is discussed in a religion or philosophy class. I would object if it was moved in to a science class.

If you scroll up you will see I agree with you. But I contend that teaching that people believe God created the universe is not unconstitutional and for that judge to rule that way was a misinterpretation of the constitution.

Good Grief Ace! The complex question has NOT been debunked by anyone but people like the comissar. Here is a pHD Scientist that says different.

BrewFan -

Sorry - haven't been keeping my scorecard up to date ;-)

Frankly, I have zero knowledge of Constitutional law. I was drawn in to this discussion concerning whether ID is science and why we shouldn't pursue this interesting theory in science class.

"Death is temporary; your bodies shall be reborn incorruptible through faith in Christ"

I trust that you recognize we are on the same page here.

It is easier to believe that God made all the things I mentioned than to believe that it came from the soupy goo that some scientists would have us believe.

I agree. I'm with St. Paul on this issue. Believing in the soupy goo requires a willful act of disbelief.

Paul says it this way (and sums up my view of evolution):

(Rom 1:25 NIV) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised.

So, if you discuss atheism in church does that mean your church is 'ratifying' it? Give me a break with your 'tip'.

No, Brew, of course not. But "discussing" is a lot different than endorsing as official science. I don't want my kids to have a faith that is dependant on junk science.

If you visit atheist websites with an open mind, it doesn't take long before you figure out the intellectual flaws of ID's most prominent proponents (Dembski, Behe). The "irreducible complexity" of a flagellum is actually reducible. The "specified complexity" of DNA doesn't survive the observation of nylonase-eating bacterium. And so forth.

Here is the money quote from the scientist in the article I linked:

"Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone."

Not magic.

Sorry for repeating but nobody reacted and I think its important because the 'slippery slope' doctrine is lurking in the background here (i.e., 'if we let those bible thumpers have their creationism pretty soon we'll have a theocracy!') The greatest scientific achievements were made by people who got taught creationism as kids. In fact, many of those great scientists learned to read by reading the bible.

You know what kills me? Is that I argue with creationist too!! In fact I had an argument with my 7th graders Science teacher (he goes to a Lutheran school) about how he could possibly believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

I argue with them and I argue with you guys. Because everyone is so steeped in their own belief they can't open their mind and look at this in a different way.

Which, I might add, is the basis for scientific research, is it not?

I have a theory that life on earth began when Jesus landed in a spaceship and farted into the primordial soup. I think it squares the circle.

As Spinal Tap so memorably sang, "Out of the emptiness, sal-va-tion!"

But "discussing" is a lot different than endorsing as official science.

Not one person in this thread has advocated that position

I don't want my kids to have a faith that is dependant on junk science.

You may not agree with Behe, but to classify his work as 'junk science' strikes me as dogmatic. Are you saying its junk science because you disagree with his conclusions or his methods?

I have a theory that life on earth began when Jesus landed in a spaceship and farted into the primordial soup. I think it squares the circle.

The cynical atheist chimes in and contributes...mockery. Nice. Guess this thread is dead.

Funny how the non-religious mock others for their faith, yet they easily place faith into the Big Bang theory. By definition, Big Bang should not even be called a theory. It has not and can not be tested.

The cynical atheist chimes in and contributes...mockery. Nice. Guess this thread is dead.

This thread has been dead for a long time, Brew. If you think it's tough for liberals and conservatives to change each other's minds, good luck with a debate between Darwinists and creationists.

My curiosity piqued by your discussion, I just cruised over to Hewitt's "One True God" blog to find this question posed. My answer? You look the guy right in the eye and say, "Mr. Pibb's plus Red Vines equals CRAZY DELICIOUS."

This is the last thing I will say on the subject. (I promise!)

I have read and read both sides of this "issue" and my problem is really not with any of the arguments that the I.D. crowd makes or the ones the other side makes.

My problem is the total DISMISSAL of the evolution side in even considering looking at anything that doesn't support this evolution type belief. (I would have a problem with a belief that dismisses the evolutionary process too, but I don't see I.D doing that)

I don't mean they have to study I.D. as it is presented today, but to dismiss a theory that at least asks some interesting questions that evolution has not answered, is to dismiss the very intellectual exercise that gave us so many incredible discoveries.

BrewFan -

I have not resorted to a "the sky is falling" theocracy arguement.

Using the criteria put forth thus far for ID to be "discussed" in biology does that mean we also have to mention

- that some higher power could have designed the process that creates stars in Astronomy

- that some higher power could have influenced the arrow that supposedly took Harolds eye out at Hastings in History

- etc

I'm not making a slippery slope arguement that ID in Biology WILL or COULD lead to the above. I'm asking how the logic is different.

What the heck is Red Vines?

LOUD! NOISES!

What the heck is Red Vines?

Go in peace, my son.

Slublog -

A red licorice candy created by a selection process designed by a confectioner designer

A red licorice candy created by a selection process designed by a confectioner designer

The designer? A magical talking lion. Who died for your sins.

Where's Monty?

I think he and I are supposed to be having flying-monkey discussions right now.

They're still looking for the flying-monkey missing link, you know.

Here's an oldie but a goodie;

My monkey, 'tis of thee
Foul-winged grotesquery,
Of thee I sing.

Hand with poo curled inside,
And that you fling with pride,
O ho-ow you swoop and glide
On leathery wings.

Some people think that flying-monkeys are evolved from regular monkeys, but the scientific record does not support this.

After all, how can a mammal go from four limbs to six in such a short time (1938 to 1939)?

No, clearly they were created.

Slublog,

Which is their way of putting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la la, I can't hear youuuuuuu."

It's VERY mature.

;-)

Can we teach the use of sacrificed animal organs as auguries because it is fascinating and can't be demonstrated as false?

Exactly. The technical concept of "falsifiablity" is fundamantal to science, and basically irrelevant to faith.

I suppose it could establish Lutheranism as the state religion, as long as it was careful not to favor one branch of Lutheranism over another?

OK, now we're talkin' about the kind of theocracy I can support!

Um, I have a question. How are ID and evolution incompatible?

They aren't, if you accept that ID is not science. I think ID is incompatible with both creationism and science. That's my problem with ID.

But it is just as wrong to me to dismiss something that does ask interesting scientific questions (if not answer them).

Do your homework. They are not asking interesting scientific questions, in the strick sense. Trust me, I've tried to defend them.

It was a strawman because we are discussing whether you can teach in a public school that God *may have* created the universe. You arbitrarily introduced other doctrine to be taught *as fact* in science class. Nobody here is arguing that point.

I didn't introduce anything. That is exactly the point that the Dover School Board was arguing. It was not a "straw man." They wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars defending this point.

One minute we are looking at Intelligent Design to consider where complex organisms came from and the next minute we will have FORCED BAPTISMS in class!

Nope, the Commissar is not worried about forced baptisms. He's just worried that ID will be mandated as science.

Let's try this again. Is it ok to teach (in a comparative religion class) that some people believe God created the universe?

Of course, Brew. I've never bumped into an atheist who would disagree with that.

Not: "Okay, I give up on my first try. It's magic."

Exactly (but I'm a sycophant, according to Velma).

I have not resorted to a "the sky is falling" theocracy arguement.

No, you have not. But there seems to be an undercurrent in the evolutionist side of these discussions that this is indeed the outcome. I'm merely suggesting that history proves that wrong.

You were something else too, oh what was it? Damn, can't remember.

But is Red Vines, when mixed with Mr Pibb, truly "crazy delicious?"

Brewfan,

Yes, the outcome does always seem to be the same.

When there is nothing of substance to say, resort to the "Kos 3rd grade make fun of who they are and their beliefs" type of argument.

I prefer "I don't agree with you on this" type of argument. But perhaps I am asking for too much

Constitutional analysis c/o your friendly streetwalking hooker:

Certainly the state hasn't established a religion here, but, in a classroom where science is the seeking of the truth via the scientific method, talking about a religious "[non] theory" in this context is defining it as something learned by the scientific method. So when the state government says a religious theory merits mentioning in a classroom where the things taught are as a result of research and replication, it is saying that it holds the same credibility as other arguments arrived at in this way. i.e. It could be "the truth" just as much as the scientifically testable theory of evolution is.

Mighty close to the state saying a religious belief is the "truth" (aka "science") though.

And that whole "ban porn" thing of awhile ago?

Rightwing, I dunno if you're going to be let back in here ever again after that proposal. Just sayin'.

Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast!

Because everyone is so steeped in their own belief they can't open their mind and look at this in a different way.

Which, I might add, is the basis for scientific research, is it not?

Nope. Sorry, RWS, but science does not look at things "in a different way." It looks at things in accordance with a highly disciplined process that is fundamentally different from "knowing" as a result of divine revelation. And yes, "science" has often been proved wrong. That's part of the process.

It's a fool's mission to attempt the reconciliation of science and religion. They just don't roll the same way.

The common usage of gravity to show how theories are used in science is bogus.

Man went to the moon and proved the workings of gravity. The same cannot be said about the monkey-man.

~Cornelius

I didn't introduce anything. That is exactly the point that the Dover School Board was arguing. It was not a "straw man." They wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars defending this point.

I didn't say you did. That was addressed to ace :)

Now, apologize to me like you did Velma!

Not that anyone cares, but I have to partially agree with Rightwingsparkle -- science is far too dogmatic in their study of the natural world.

No one studies so-called 'magic' aspects of life, like ghosts, precognition, etc. things that many have experienced and may be scientifically provable. If anyone attempts to research these things, they are automatically rejected, much as Galileo was, or germs were, by the prevaling beliefs at the time.

I'm not comfortable with teaching unknowns in science class, but I would like to see science open its collective mind a bit and stop acting like fundie materialists.

Feisty,

I know! And no one said a thing!! I was shocked!

I think they are all hoping for a dark side of me to emerge. One with racey pictures.

Or maybe one night of BWI (blogging while intoxicated)

At least I know Michael is....;-)

When there is nothing of substance to say, resort to the "Kos 3rd grade make fun of who they are and their beliefs" type of argument.

The only one goofing on religious folk here is me. Ace and the rest of the gang are perfectly willing to engage you. Don't use me as an excuse to duck their questions.

When one side offers concrete evidence and the best the other side can do is talk about a magical lion, well, I hate to tell you, but you're going to come in for a bit of mockery.

Am I the only one here who suspects that Feisty is a virgin?

Concrete evidence, my ass.

Allah,

Where have I ducked their questions??? I mostly agree with them.

I'm not using you and you weren't the only one. I just think you are way too intelligent to argue in such a fashion and not care if you offend people about something that is very sacred to them.

I would never do that to someone who held different beliefs than me. If you disagree, then fine. Do so. No need to offend.

That's just me.

RWS -

I don't believe that I resorted to "Kos 3rd grade make fun of who they are and their beliefs". I merely argued it is not science. Obviously a whole hell of a lot of what is good in life is not rational science, so I hardly think that is an insult.

Oh Michael, cum over here and let me prove YOUR theory wrong. Mmmmm....so hot. So naughty. So....scientific.

Hottest testable theory action....ever.

That Allah, always making the Baby Jesus cry...

What? The supposedly 40,000 year-old skeleton of the short guy with buck teeth found in the Alps is evidence?

Try again, Holmes.

I'll bring RWS with me so she can learn a bit about...um...the scientific method.

steve,

No, I wasn't referring to you. Mainly to Allah, as you can see.

No problems...;-)

Fistey, you do realize I am here, don't you?

Don't push your luck with the "I'm a girl" thing.

Now, apologize to me like you did Velma!

Y'know, I apologized to Velma and she wouldn't even acknowledge it. Much less accept the invitation to give me a well-deserved decent spanking. So fuck you, anonymous.

Hey! I don't think anyone needs to teach me about that scientific method. I'm pratically Einstein on that one...thank you very much!

;-)

I'm proud of you fellas. You all kept your head on a swivel, and that's what you gotta do when you find yourself in a vicious cock fight.

I'll bring RWS with me so she can learn a bit about...um...the scientific method.

Bart, I don't care if Feisty's a girl. If she can recruit RWS to further my "scientific" education, I gotta tell you, I'm packing my Batman suit and heading for the airport.

So...how about those fatwas?

So...how about those fatwas?

LOL!

You have to admit, Slub, that a unique feature of this blog is that any single commenter, upon getting bored, can change the topic to sex.

Excuse me while I watch the end of the Spurs game.

"So...how about those fatwas?"

Well, when mixed with Mr Pibb, truly "crazy delicious?"

Hey, RWS, all the religioso chicks that I know can't get down with the dirty. It's sad, really. It's okay to admit it and there's help for hot chicks like you who were plagued with shame. Feisty's here for ya.

I can guarantee you that you're missing out based on what you've said. It's axiomatic.

So, accept Michael's offer to go to the science convention is his bedroom.

You have to admit, Slub, that a unique feature of this blog is that any single commenter, upon getting bored, can change the topic to sex.

It is pretty amazing.

Buncha horny b'stids.

Unfortunately "the science convention is his bedroom" is bacterial in nature.

Well, steve, I'm proposing a throwback to the days where God caused disease and not germs. Bacteria? What's that?

oh gee Feisty, I don't have shame. It's all about who one gets down with the dirty with.

And as wonderful as I am sure you and Michael are, I have had my down and dirty dance card filled for quite a while now.

But I do appreciate the offer....;-)

there's help for hot chicks like you who were plagued with shame

this is an amazing, and resilient country.

Final score: Spurs - 99; Pacers- 86.

Feisty -

"I'm proposing a throwback to the days where God caused disease and not germs. "

As long as you don't also advocate a return to once a year bathing. I'm picky and like my women feminine - once a month bathing is mandatory.

I just think you are way too intelligent to argue in such a fashion and not care if you offend people about something that is very sacred to them.

The most annoying thing about the ID/evolution debate is how one side -- the side with no actual evidence to support its conclusions -- gets to play the hurt-feelings card when things start to get heated. People's political beliefs are also deeply held, RWS, but you and I would laugh if a lefty came in here and claimed that Ace's mockery of his progressive nonsense left a big ol' wound on his heart.

I don't dislike religious people. I think Christianity is a force for good. But the Christian narrative is completely preposterous. If a group appeared today peddling the same line, we'd dismiss them out of hand, rightly, as lunatics. Which is why I find it incredible that intelligent people accept the same narrative as truth simply because it happened two thousand years ago. Consider how ignorant people were back then about natural phenomena; consider how many other preposterous stories, Gilgamesh and the like, have come down from antiquity that aren't taken literally; consider the fact that our own legal system, in most cases, refuses to admit evidence that's more than a few years old on grounds that testimony becomes less reliable over time. How can a thinking person contemplate all that and still conclude that the events in the gospels are true? It's willful blindness.

Then again, there is some physical evidence of the divine. It's not much, but it's something.

Back in ten minutes.

That girl has a sharp little chin - 3rd pic down. Get some whalebone and you could use the chin to carve scrimshaw.

The most annoying thing about the ID/evolution debate is how one side -- the side with no actual evidence to support its conclusions -- gets to play the hurt-feelings card when things start to get heated.

Shouldn't you be working on your link-blog?

Which is why I find it incredible that intelligent people accept the same narrative as truth simply because it happened two thousand years ago.

Your ignorance about Christianity is profound. I have never met a Christian whose faith is based on the aniquity of the creed. You should be working on your link-blog.

How can a thinking person contemplate all that and still conclude that the events in the gospels are true? It's willful blindness.

In a way you do not contemplate, it is indeed "willful blindness." Christianity is not based on the antiquity of our sacred texts, nor on the scientific validity of our creation story. It's based on a "willful blindness" that comes from personal experience in the present time. We do not attribute this blindness to any personal attribute or virtue of our own. To use Christian jargon, it is the consequence of divine intervention, the work of the Holy Spirit.

So, aren't you supposed to be working on your link-blog?

I just think you are way too intelligent to argue in such a fashion and not care if you offend people about something that is very sacred to them

hah. you blew that call.

ok, seriously, are you saying ID is "sacred"? Surely not. That would be a problem.

So, if there's evidence that biological systems show design, doesn't that put the designer into the realm of the natural? As in not supernatural?

Quantum physics sounds like a bunch of voodoo to me--doesn't make it unnatural, though. String theory and infinite parallel Universes which select for our logical, designed-looking and remarkably un-accidental appearing Universe also sound like handwaving of the first order. Still not unnatural.

My favorite part of ID is how it drives some people--who claim to be driven by reason and logic and... (dramatic pause) SCIENCE--to become unhinged lunatics who lunge at Christians and believers in general like chained dogs. "THEOCRACY! grrrrrr! JESUS IN THE LABORATORY! grrrrrr! CREATIONISM IN DISGUISE! barkbarkbarkbarkbark!" They also routinely use some of the most egregious logical fallacies to buttress their attack on ID: slippery slope, non sequiturs and strawmen.

Tell you what. Put non-flagellated bacteria in an environment with a pressure like a current. Run through multiple generations and show the bacteria evolving flagella. Not a bump, or a weak spot that you wave a copy of Origin of Species over and pronounce, "and in a thousand years, it will be a flagellum!" Build one of these tiny, simple, but irreducibly complex organs through natural selection and mutation. That will put a stake in the heart of ID, and we'd learn some SCIENCE! as well.

Yet, to my knowledge, it's never been done.

But the Christian narrative is completely preposterous. If a group appeared today peddling the same line, we'd dismiss them out of hand, rightly, as lunatics. Which is why I find it incredible that intelligent people accept the same narrative as truth simply because it happened two thousand years ago.

Consider what your saying for a moment, and don't think we all know and agree with exactly with what you're saying...except for the fact that...we believe that narrative to be true. And why shouldn't we? The actions of those who witnessed the resurrection was tremendous and testifies to itself, but more importantly, not a single of the 12+ recanted. In the face of quite substantial persecution. Did they just dream it up? Why wasn't Christianity destroyed in its infancy.

Joseph's Smith's golden tablets are hidden away in a vault few are allowed to see, Mohammed's writings were always in the hands of just one man. But a conspiracy of 12+ independent men. One who later persecuted the christians but came to Christ on the road to Damascas seeing Christ risen. Why? because the tent business was slow? It doesn't seem like the church planting business was big bucks, but I mean hey maybe, but then why didn't one of the other 12 cry BS?

People of today have a tendancy to view our forebearers unfairly, we treat them as fools, when quite evidently they were extremely capable, think of the 7 ancient wonders of the world, the building the innovations that came out of people from 4000 years ago.

Perhaps the problem is with declaring such stories "preposterous" from the outset, Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, and the Aenead were all forms of art, and quite impressive at that. Not all of it was meant to be taken as true, parts yes, but not the whole.

Incidently Sumerian have a history that matches up pretty well with Biblical history, except that, the sumerians are off by a base 60 amount, as though the Sumerian history was mistranscriped from a biblical type source. The creation of the world to a great flood, has the same number of generations. Numerous civilizations have flood stories remarkably similar to that of Genesis. Yet none of this is ever seen as "evidence." It's all just quaint like, "well yeah local floods are common." The similarities are glossed over, dismissed, because they have to be, because the truth is too frightening.

The Greeks had an ancient legend about a son driving the Sun around one day like crazy, the Jews have the story about the day the sun stood still, the Chinese have a story about how the sun stayed setting for a long time, and ancient american civilizations have stories about an unusually long night. Of course, this would seem to confirm the account, but we dismiss the evidence we rationalize it away, because the thought of it for science is too frightening.

I'm sorry, but the truth is there is a good deal of evidence that supports so much of the Bible, while evolution has dressed up inferences upon inferences of short term behavior. Creationists don't deny speciation and mutation, but they recognize that there is a limitation to such speciation. Even our short term evolutionary observation seems to better support the idea that in-species adaption can occur relatively quickly, but species to species adaption goes unobserved save for interpreted fossil evidence. I'm sorry if I'm going to question the wisdom of the interested interpreters.

It is foolish to assume folly on the part of the ancients and ascribe great wisdom to the people of today. Evolution is as old as the golden calf, the idea that man should bow down before the animal, or as Paul writes in Romans "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. "

Evolution is as old as Creation, but like every generation before it, you have to choose what to believe.

Oh, rho, you have to give that experiment at least a few million years. Buy why bother? If you are interested in the origens of life, just blather on about self-replicating amino acids (which are not life), and you can comfortably ignore the issue.

I don't know about his link-blog, but I think he's working on his pink-log.

Lord Floppington -

"but I think he's working on his pink-log"

I doubt its pink - more like angry red and sore from repeated, relentless self-abuse.

Not that anyone cares, but I have to partially agree with Rightwingsparkle -- science is far too dogmatic in their study of the natural world.

Such as?

No one studies so-called 'magic' aspects of life, like ghosts, precognition, etc. things that many have experienced and may be scientifically provable.

Actually, lots of scientists have studied these subjects.

And not one, not one of them has come up with any evidence that any such things exist.

If anyone attempts to research these things, they are automatically rejected, much as Galileo was, or germs were, by the prevaling beliefs at the time.

Since such studies have in fact been carried out, this statement is clearly false. Since none of the studies have come up with any positive evidence, the inference is rather that no such thing exists.

Naturally scientists are dismissive of "magic", since despite innumerable claims, no-one has ever produced any evidence whatsoever. That's why there is a standing $1 million prize payable to anyone who can demonstrate proof of any magical ability. Which, I might add, no-one has ever won.

The actions of those who witnessed the resurrection was tremendous and testifies to itself, but more importantly, not a single of the 12+ recanted. In the face of quite substantial persecution.

Truth in numbers, Joel? C'mon.

We do not attribute this blindness to any personal attribute or virtue of our own. To use Christian jargon, it is the consequence of divine intervention, the work of the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure the Branch Davidians would say something similar. So would the members of Aum Shinrikyo. So would the followers of any religion. If all your argument boils down to is, "I know it's true because I really feel it," then, no offense, but that's not much of an argument.

I'm retired from religion.
That is to say, I'm agnostic, with an atheist for a wife.
However, Saint Thomas Aquinas said (in reference to the origin of the universe) "From nothing, nothing comes."
And those who pose the Big Bang haven't gotten any farther than that.
Note: Newton, Einstein, Sagan- all religious, believers in a higher power.
Personally, I'm a big-banger.
Indeed...

What is truth?

This thread jumped up a notch!

"The most annoying thing about the ID/evolution debate is how one side -- the side with no actual evidence to support its conclusions -- gets to play the hurt-feelings card when things start to get heated."

The problem with that statement Allah is I'm not on the ID side. So there goes that point.

If it takes a few million years to evolve the humble flagella, then I suggest that the fossil record is not the best evidence of evolution going. You only have a few tens of millions of years to evolve many different body types and creatures in the Cambrian period.

But, of course, it's a lot easier to simply imply ignorance and disinterest on the part of your opponent.

Religion is the belief (dogma); a knowledge, which is gained and accepted from the spiritual leaders without questioning.

Science is the knowledge fundamental to empiricism, experimentation, and methodology in order to find a truth.

Is science threatening the biblical-based view? Is ID becomes an option?

Why religion accepts some scientific discoveries while others are dismissed?

Why someone’s view has to be imposed on the rest? Do I have choice? Yes, I do. My belief is my own choice. My choice is my own belief.

Church is separate from the state. Answer there and people should stop swaying and using religion to their advantage.

Sparkle:

Not using the word "God" was hardly covert. It's not like we didn't know what they were referring to.

Uh, that just means that they're bad at being covert. See the judge's ruling for a discussion of this; they are not only bad at hiding their true meaning but actively dishonest. Not opinion, fact.

And I can't get past the point that Ace made that I.D. isn't science "by definition." Well, who defined science?

Philosophers.

That would be a man.

Well, men, plural, but that's not important.

So we decide and investigate everything that is researched based on a definition that a man decided upon.

Actually, no. The definition came after science was established as a going concern. The definition merely formalised the process of science.

Why can't science be redefined?

Because no other definition is possible.

Science is a systematic process for determining the way the universe works. Such a process is only possible under metaphysical naturalism.

There is only one Science, just as there is only one Mathematics and only one Logic. You can't redefine it because no other definition works.

Look how many times science has been WRONG. We all know how Doctors didn't believe in germs many years ago because we hadn't developed the technology that allowed us to see the germs. When a Doctor suggested that washing up before surgery would prevent death, they laughed at him.

Yes.

Which is exactly the point. Science is a system for knowing when you are wrong. Of course it is wrong, that's the whole point.

The difference between science and other systems of inquiry is that Science provides an infallible mechanism for knowing when you are wrong.

The mechanism is this: Try it and see.

If you try it, and it's wrong, well, then it's wrong. Good. You know something you didn't know before.

If you can't try it and see, then it's not science. ID is not science. Evolution is.

The point is not so much that evolution is right and ID is wrong (though this certainly appears to be the case) as that if evolution is wrong, we could actually find out that this was so. That is simply impossible with ID.

Dave in Texas,

No! Certainly not. I was NOT saying ID was sacred. I don't even really agree with it! I meant people's faith.

Not to piss in the punch here but all of this arguing is wasted because there are no gods.
Never have been, never will be.
It's just us. Sorry.

Rho:

So, if there's evidence that biological systems show design, doesn't that put the designer into the realm of the natural?

No. Why should it?

Also, there is no such evidence.

In all seriousness, it seems to me that ID is a sign that religion has lost -- accepted the "truth" of science as the only significant one, and trying to win its battle there. Vanity.

Better to stand up for the coexisting truth of faith.

"How can a thinking person contemplate all that and still conclude that the events in the gospels are true? It's willful blindness."

This truly does show an ignorance of the Christian faith. You realize that people believed in Christ long before the Bible was put together. Our faith is not about "events' but a spirtual relationship with God that is as real as the computer you are staring at.

From religion to ID to sex and now back to religion.

What a great blog.

I don't think faith has to have an emotional component to it. I'm a Christian, but get twitchy around people who are constanly claiming to "feel" the presence of God. Maybe it's because I'm uncomfortable with emotional expressiveness, or perhaps I'm just not good at this faith stuff.

Do I always know my religion is true? No, not really. I have doubts, wonder where God is sometimes and have felt more than once that this whole Christianity thing just isn't for me.

At the same time, though, there's something about Christianity that draws me and keeps me in the fold, so to speak. That's what I figure faith does for me - it doesn't entirely calm my doubts, but it gives me a way to stop thinking about myself so darn much.

I know, that's long winded and probably crappy sounding, but it's where I am in my belief.

Not to piss in the punch here but all of this arguing is wasted because there are no gods.

"Daddy, why did God let all those people die in the Holocaust?"
"Because it was part of his plan, honey."
"Why did his plan need them to die?"
"Because his plan fucking sucks, honey."

Sparkle again:

My problem is the total DISMISSAL of the evolution side in even considering looking at anything that doesn't support this evolution type belief.

Such as?

If anyone actually comes up with any evidence contrary to evolutionary theory, biologists will be extremely interested.

No-one has.

The reason evolution is considered such a reliable theory is that no evidence has ever been found that disputes it.

Heh.

I would be remiss if I did not declare that I suspect Allah is circumsized and not very happy about it.

Actually, lots of scientists have studied these subjects.
And not one, not one of them has come up with any evidence that any such things exist.
Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2005 11:45 PM
Preview Comment

I'm not aware of many scientific studies into the afterlife, although about 60% of widows claim to have had contact with their dead husbands and around 10% of resuscitated patients claim to have had near death experiments.

Human cultures throughout history have been built, largely, on beliefs about life after death- most humans on the planet today believe in it. Meanwhile, very few scientists bother to search for evidence, almost universally they write off widespread experiences as hallucinations or wishful thinking.

I don't want to get in a big argument about it, but if I'm wrong, feel free to point me toward the respected scientists or colleges even entertaining the idea of scientific research into the afterlife.

You know, Timmy. For a homophobe, you sure talk about dicks a lot.

Just sayin'.

At the same time, though, there's something about Christianity that draws me and keeps me in the fold, so to speak. That's what I figure faith does for me - it doesn't entirely calm my doubts, but it gives me a way to stop thinking about myself so darn much.

Absolutely. It's a great narrative with tremendous moral lessons. Jesus must have been a remarkable preacher. Of all the cults that might have gained global hegemony, we could have done a lot worse than this one.

By the way, T, I'm just lightly flaming you. I'm tired and somewhat grouchy from a very long day, so excuse me if that came out wrong.

Timmy has a fear of sameness?

Allah,

Lets look at your "thinking person" argument. Let's see....Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Pasteur, Kant, Pascal, Rousseau.

All believed in God. All were brilliant thinkers.

Guess you know more than them though.

Sorry, I'm using "homophobe" in the totally gay sense of the word here.

STONEWALL!

Sparkle serves, and I volley.

Geeze Allah, This is why you dismiss God? Because of evil in the world? The holocaust was not God's plan but Hitler's plan. Let's be clear on that.

You are certainly free to believe or not believe as you see fit, but your arguments against it so far are pretty weak.

Volley all you wish. I never said that athiests were not intelligent. Which is what you were implying with the How can a "thinking person" believe this. I just proved that many great thinkers can and have.

Heh. That site includes Billy Joel and Dave Matthews between people like Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein.

On the one hand, "Piano Man" and "Crash into Me."

On the other, American independence and relativity.

I'm not aware of many scientific studies into the afterlife, although about 60% of widows claim to have had contact with their dead husbands and around 10% of resuscitated patients claim to have had near death experiments.

Studies into communication with the dead have been done.

None - or rather, none with proper experimental design - have ever shown any evidence of such a thing.

Similarly, for near death experiences, not only do reports of such events offer no objective evidence of being anything other than a convincing dream, but such experiences have been generated experimentally by simple stimulation of the brain.

Human cultures throughout history have been built, largely, on beliefs about life after death- most humans on the planet today believe in it. Meanwhile, very few scientists bother to search for evidence, almost universally they write off widespread experiences as hallucinations or wishful thinking.

Exactly right. Because no-one has ever provided any evidence that any such thing is true.

If any evidence is forthcoming, scientists will swarm all over it. But scientific experiments and studies have indeed been done on virtually every aspect of magic or paranormal or supernatural belief. This was very common from the 1930s through to the 1970s or so. After five decades of negative results, though, almost everyone gave up.

Unfortunately, the remaining researchers are almost universally hopeless at designing proper experiments. PEAR (the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program) is a good example of this. They have repeatedly run studies, excitedly reported the results, had people point out obvious errors in their experiments, and on re-running the experiments correctly found that the "evidence" had disappeared.

I don't want to get in a big argument about it, but if I'm wrong, feel free to point me toward the respected scientists or colleges even entertaining the idea of scientific research into the afterlife.

Respected? Now you're being picky. I can certainly point you at disrespected researchers, but as I said, everyone honest and competent gave up thirty years ago.

RWS, with all due respect you may be missing the point. It doesn't matter who believes in god.
No such thing.

When people are turned to the religion?
Some are taught in early childhood and other turned to faith during the major cataclysms, diseases, threat, and in good times.

When mystery happens and people do not have answer they start questioning later. Absence of the answer from science turn people search an answer.

Curiosity leads to science (prove or disprove hypothesis) whereas fear and an absence of knowledge to the presence of super power, a magic? Human psyche?

feel free to point me toward the respected scientists or colleges even entertaining the idea of scientific research into the afterlife.

Duke, I believe, has some sort of paranormal research department, forced on them as a condition of accepting Mrs. Duke's largesse. Or whatever her name was. The rich crazy woman.

You are simply wrong that no one has experimented with such things. Many people have. Including scientists. Real ones.

And including our own CIA and Army Intelligence, who did, yeah, investigate the possibility of remote viewing and telepathy.

No evidence for any sort of paranormal phenomenon has ever been adduced.

With respect to your mentions of "near death experiences..."

Undoubtedly there is such a thing... when you nearly die, you experience something. But I think the "roseate light" and "tunnel" visions are probably very similar to the "shrinking red tunnel" phenomenon fighter-pilots experience when they pull too many G's and are about to black out due to oxygen deprivation to the brain.

I think that's rather more plausible than that they're seeing Heaven.

Seeing Heaven under such circumstances doesn't even make sense... if you believe in an Omniscient God, how the heck could he get something major like Death wrong, and begin beckoning someone down a roseate tunnel when they're acutally about to recover and live?

As for widows feeling they're in touch with their lost husbands... well, whatever gets them through. But old widows also tend to believe in Tarot cards and John Edward's powers, so, you know, your "evidence" proves too much.

A lot of people believe in a lot of kooky ideas. Like liberalism. Surely you're not suggesting that just because someone "feels" something to be true that's scientific (or even less rigorous) evidence, do you?

the irreducible complexity part of ID maps very well to the 'punctuated equilibrium' part of evolutionary theory
both attempt to describe how speciation occurs, neither is falsifiable except with million-year long experiements
yet one gets the fig leaf of science denied to the other
that sure smells like dogmatism

You are certainly free to believe or not believe as you see fit, but your arguments against it so far are pretty weak.

My arguments are weak? The best I've gotten from you guys is Michael saying he knows it's true because he knows it's true. Stupendous.

My point about intelligent people not believing in the gospels was a response to your point that I'm too intelligent to argue as I have. I don't think intelligence has much to do with either, frankly. Credulousness or optimism, perhaps.

If all your argument boils down to is, "I know it's true because I really feel it," then, no offense, but that's not much of an argument.

No offense taken. The explanation from experience is not actually "I really feel it" (except perhaps for some pentecostal sects), because we don't think the experience is just emotional manipulation . Still, you make an important point.

You are entirely correct in suggesting that Christianity does not have much of an "argument". Despite the efforts of Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and others I suppose, I don't think anyone has accepted Christianity on the basis of a rational "argument" in the classical sense.

Typically, atheists want to "debate" religion, as if the outcome depends on who has the best rational "argument." Their (rather naive) assumption is that left-brain-dominant linear thinking is the only way of "knowing" the truth, because that is all they know.

Unfortunately, many stupid Christians attempt to engage them at this level. It doesn't work. (I include the former Dover School Board majority as "stupid Christians".)

harrison,

Well, I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on that one.

RWS, that's cool.

Not to piss in the punch here but all of this arguing is wasted because there are no gods. Never have been, never will be. It's just us. Sorry.

Well, heck, how does that make it a waste? If we are the result of billions of years of evolution, our social patterns and inherent desire for spirituality, indeed, our tendencies to have coversations like this one all through human history, have come to be as they are for a reason. So it couldn't be a waste at all.

Not to piss in your punch bowl, but do you hate science or are you just some sort of weak evolutionary throwback who's bound to get naturally selected out of the gene pool by the dominant bible-thumpin' families?

nd including our own CIA and Army Intelligence, who did, yeah, investigate the possibility of remote viewing and telepathy.

:) USSR vs USA

but public will not know until.......

By the way, re: Isaac Newton -- the only thing he was more passionate about than Christianity was ... alchemy.

The best you have gotten from me on what? My belief in God? I don't think I have even presented it.

If you are referring to I.D. Perhaps you aren't listening...I don't think it should be taught or have they convinced me that it's science.

Let's keep this to one argument at a time please and refer to which one you are discussing so I will know.

A religious person can be a great scientist to the extent his religious beliefs do not affect him as a scientist.

When they do, well, he might be a Great Person or Super Genius or Pious Man, but he's ceased being much of a scientist.

It's silly to say there's "dogma" about evolution like there's dogma about religion... I'm perfectly willing to jettison evolution as a theory the moment someone suggests a natural explanation for the rise and differentiation of life that accords with what evidence we have.

The position many seem to take is: Natural, supernatural, tomato, tomatoh, what's the difference?

Well, there's a very great difference, the same as there's a difference between chemistry and alchemy and astronomy and astrology.

Typically, atheists want to "debate" religion, as if the outcome depends on who has the best rational "argument."

Newly-minted (or stupid) atheists do commonly do this, yes.

More experienced ones tend to kill any such debate by asking that the theist define his terms.

The holocaust was not God's plan but Hitler's plan.

Allah,

Heh. you have been googling every name I gave you haven't you???

It's KILLING YOU! Yes, highly intelligent men who gave us incredible scientific discoveries believed in this "fairy tale." Gee. It's gotta hurt.

;-)

Yeah, but what about Kraftwerk?

I would totally go to the bathroom on those guys.

But they already have people.

This debate has de-volved into a pissing match.

When Dick Cheney's cock is taught in both biology and theology classes, the understanding of both disciplines will be enriched by the discussion. If Dick Cheney's cock remains excluded from biology classes, however, rumors of it will continue to be distributed as samizdat among an audience eager to know what is being withheld. Do your worst, sciencologists!

"inherent desire for spirituality"

Or inherent desire to attach a god to anything not understood? Man's been doing it since we crawled out of the pond.

"are you just some sort of weak evolutionary throwback who's bound to get naturally selected out of the gene pool by the dominant bible-thumpin' families?"

Wha?

both attempt to describe how speciation occurs, neither is falsifiable except with million-year long experiements

No idea what you're talking about. The big idea of ID is that certain structures cannot possibly have been created by natural forces, no matter how long a time period they're given, even in principle.

Hence the need for God's Magic. Wait-- I mean, "an Intelligent Designer who is not necessarily God but seems to have almost all of his powers, just as Shazam seemed to have most of Superman's."

It's KILLING YOU! Yes, highly intelligent men who gave us incredible scientific discoveries believed in this "fairy tale." Gee. It's gotta hurt.

Uh... No.

It's KILLING YOU! Yes, highly intelligent men who gave us incredible scientific discoveries believed in this "fairy tale."

It's not killing me. There are a lot of highly intelligent men and women in America today who believe in a fairy tale called "progressivism." Does that mean progressivism is The Way, too?

Heh. Allah, mind saving some words for the blog? Or is this a form of "priming the pump"...

There are a lot of highly intelligent men and women in America today who believe in a fairy tale called "progressivism." Does that mean progressivism is The Way, too?

ID is the definition of bad science -- a "theory" constructed of selective (and, actually, debunked) evidence assembled to prove what the "scientist" already "knows in his heart."

Again, even assuming the ID proponents are right about the irreducible complexity of the eye (although, you know, they're... not), shouldn't an actual scientist then seek to better understand natural forces to explain such a paradox, instead of rather-quickly embracing Magic as the answer?

Again, if some believe that Magic -- and yes, God's power to suspend or rearrange the forces of the universe at will IS "magic," or "divine power," or whatever you want to call it -- is not only compatible with science, but in fact a necessary study of the discipline, well, we seem to be using entirely different definitions of "science."

Similarly, for near death experiences, not only do reports of such events offer no objective evidence of being anything other than a convincing dream, but such experiences have been generated experimentally by simple stimulation of the brain.

I would differ with you here. The Skeptic's Dictionary states that many NDEs lead to the patient hearing and seeing events outside of their bodies, though they don't mention the cases of people reporting distant events, in the next room or farther. Scientists have theories, but none have been able to explain this aspect of naturally occurring NDEs.

As to pilots and neural stimulation, I recommend that you read the Skeptic Dictionary entry on it. Even that site concludes that there are many uncertainties in the research, what little there is, on both sides.

Respected? Now you're being picky. I can certainly point you at disrespected researchers, but as I said, everyone honest and competent gave up thirty years ago.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you pointed at several institutions and individuals who have done research, I will happily look them up and read what I can.

A lot of people believe in a lot of kooky ideas. Like liberalism. Surely you're not suggesting that just because someone "feels" something to be true that's scientific (or even less rigorous) evidence, do you?

Good point, but, without getting too personal, I had an NDE, hospitalized, resuscitated, the whole thing, including awareness of a conversation several hundred yards away that was later verified. I didn't see heaven, or God, and I obviously didn't survive permanent death, but I don't see how the current, and sketchy, science in this area can explain away my own experience.

oops, that was me.

Ace,

Hmmm.. well I read a beautiful quote from Galileo once. And I paraphrase here. That science is the canvas upon which God paints the world. He believed that science answered the questions of how God did things.

This is Galileo here. Probably the greatest scientific mind EVER. He had every reason to not believe. He fought his Church and discovered things never thought of before. But his faith held strong.

Faith does not interfere with our knowledge, but simply gives us a greater appreciation of the gift of that knowledge

I think what this comes down to is that American Christians seem to require validation for their beliefs from the state. Whether it be prayer in school, intelligent design in the classroom or the insult we take when someone says "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," Christians have developed a reputation for being thin-skinned gadflys in the public square.

I believe what I believe. I disagree with those of you who think Christianity is a fairy tale, but don't really take it that personally, nor do I consider it an affront to God or to my faith. A lot of these debates are caused by people taking things way too personally, I think.

RWS,
How does someone believing in a god make that god exist?

I think what this comes down to is that American Christians seem to require validation for their beliefs from the state.

Excellent point. Although it doesn't really apply to Hewitt. He requires validation from a magical talking lion.

"Daddy, why did God let all those people die in the Holocaust?"
"Because it was part of his plan, honey."
"Why did his plan need them to die?"
"Because his plan fucking sucks, honey."

You should read Romans, Allah. As a former Pharisee, Paul agonized over the fate of the Jews. He pretty much agrees with you.

The Skeptic's Dictionary states that many NDEs lead to the patient hearing and seeing events outside of their bodies, though they don't mention the cases of people reporting distant events, in the next room or farther.

Yes, people do report this.

But (a) hearing is not necessarily shut down during an NDE, and (b) there is not a single verified case of anyone seeing or hearing anything they could not have seen or heard from inside their body.

In other words, there is no evidence that NDE is anything other than a vivid dream.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you pointed at several institutions and individuals who have done research, I will happily look them up and read what I can.

That was tongue-in-cheek; there are very few respected researchers in the field today because, as I said, all the competent and honest ones gave up or died, years ago.

Dr Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona is a good example of an incompetent and dishonest researcher into communication with the dead. You might want to read his exchanges with James Randi, which illustrate Schwartz's incompetence with painful clarity.

Allah,

You are jumping around here. I am not saying that intelligence MEANS that one must believe.

You were the one implying that no "thinking person" would believe such nonsense. I believe I have proven you wrong on that point.

Pixy,

Not to be rude, but was I talking to you?

Yes, and Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe."

A belief in God is not incompatible with science. I haven't claimed it was.

I am claiming that those who seek to "prove" the existence of God through science are by definition not even scientists, because science is (again, by definition) an attempt to explain the universe through natural forces.

Not supernatural ones.

RWS, seriously, if you go to a mechanic and ask him to fix your car, and he just says a prayer and says "It's in God's hands now," do you think he's a good mechanic? Do you feel you've gotten your money's worth?

Why is it that everyone concedes that we need actual science for stuff like bridges, automotive repair, chemistry, electronic engineering, physics, etc., and then the moment we get to one scientific discipline -- biology -- suddenly "science" isn't such a big deal a bit of magic and Supernatural God Power is a nice little addition to the mix?

Shall we also toss supernaturall explanations into physics? If not, why not? Surely if God makes His presence known through his work in biology He must also leave some evidence of His existence in high-energy physics.

Maybe neutrinos are created by magic, too.

I don't mean to make fun-- I am trying to illustrate the absudity of going down this road, of introducing magic into science.

Allah's picking on RWS because of her list of God-believers, then throws out a list like this:

Dave Matthews, Gloria Steinam, Karl Marx, Marilyn Manson, Kurt Vonnegut, Napoleon Bonaparte, Margaret Sanger, Marquis de Sade . . .

I don't know about God, but I'd take Billy Graham over these pricks any day.

RWS, seriously, if you go to a mechanic and ask him to fix your car, and he just says a prayer and says "It's in God's hands now," do you think he's a good mechanic? Do you feel you've gotten your money's worth?

Crap. I just wasted 150 bucks...

More experienced ones tend to kill any such debate by asking that the theist define his terms.

Pixy, I've read a lot of your comments, and you've got my respect as a more experienced atheist.

I suppose you realize that the debate gets killed because the "definition of terms" presupposes a common vocabulary, which does not exist.

"Go forth and multiply. And confirm Harriet Miers."

harrison,

It doesn't. God would exist whether I believed in Him or not.

Sparkle:

Not to be rude, but was I talking to you?

Not to be rude, but PPPPPTTTPTP!

Not to be rude, but was I talking to you?

He's the host of this blog. You know, this blog? The one you're commenting at? He doesn't need your permission to rebut you.

And about predetermined conclusions...

Creationists and ID'ers only challenge those theories which are incompatible with God's literal, direct creation of life.

Name a single area which doesn't impact creationalism in which they've critiqued the current theory.

They don't.

They challenge only those inconvenient bits of science (like carbon-dating, for the 6000-year-old-Earth-ists) that conflict with their religious beliefs.

It's also not "science" when you've already determined your destination point before filling up your first beaker. Sure, scientists begin with a working hypothesis, but the key word there is "working," as in "subject to modification or abandonment," not a perpetual hypothesis or divinely inspired one.

He's "priming the pump" again? No wonder it's angry, red, and sore.

Actually, Ace is the host of this blog, since he's more like the homeowner.

I guess that would make Pixy the lending company.

Okay, bad analogy.

Michael:

I suppose you realize that the debate gets killed because the "definition of terms" presupposes a common vocabulary, which does not exist.

Or more precisely, there is no common epistemological foundation. So the theist cannot define his terms in a way that has any meaning to the atheist. Most often, the theist cannot define his terms at all, which derails the argument rather quickly.

Or inherent desire to attach a god to anything not understood? Man's been doing it since we crawled out of the pond.

Certainly, I wasn't disputing that. Maybe you're just not smart enough to follow along.

Let's call human spirituality our inherent desire to attach a god to anything not understood. We've been doing it since we've crawled out of the pond, and we're still doing it today.

The fact that we are, in such great numbers, strongly demonstrates that, far from being wasteful as you claim, it's a superior evolutionary trait. Religion and ritual have solidified human society from its inception and given great practical benefit to those who participate. Such that these traits still dominate the vast majority of humans all across this world.

Non-religious societies have not only been unable to compete, but in their short time on this earth they've given the religious societies a run for their money in terms of human death and genocide (Don't tell Walter Duranty).

So. Do you hate the idea that these "wasteful" conversations are being held by creatures currently holding a higher rung on the evolutionary ladder than you, or are you just blissfully ignorant of that?

I'm just touchy about anyone sassing my husband, Slu.

ID is the definition of bad science -- a "theory" constructed of selective (and, actually, debunked) evidence assembled to prove what the "scientist" already "knows in his heart."

Just for the record, in case I have not been totally clear, I'm a hard-core creationist that totally agrees with Allah on this point.

Ace is the $5 hooker, Pixy the seedy motel owner.

It's also not "science" when you've already determined your destination point before filling up your first beaker. Sure, scientists begin with a working hypothesis, but the key word there is "working," as in "subject to modification or abandonment," not a perpetual hypothesis or divinely inspired one.

With the exception, of course, of many who are engaged in global warming 'research.' I think a lot of them have predetermined notions and their research is skewed by their near-religious belief.

I guess that would make Pixy the lending company.

I like to thing of myself as a slumlord.

Or maybe a slurmlord. More profitable.

Good... I think you get the basic point that "science" is not perfectly analogous with "truth."

If it were proveably true that Thor, God of Thunder, made lightning, that would be the the TRUTH, but it would not be science, which would have to propose a natural explanation for lightning. The natural explanation would, in this hypothetical, be perfectly scientific, and also absolutely wrong.

Science doesn't, and can't, do magic. Tests cannot be run on Thor, unless he agrees to come into the lab, which seems unlikely.

Mmm. Slurm.

Ace,

Come on! Building bridges is one thing. But science is not exact. I'll repeat what I said before. We thought the idea of germs was "magic" once. What are we not seeing now that we don't believe????

I'm not saying we can or should try to prove God scientifically, and I don't agree with I.D. But some of the questions that are asked in the debate are certainly worth looking at. Trying to discover how life began on earth is certainly a line of thinking we should encourage, don't you think?

Pixy is the host of this blog?

With the exception, of course, of many who are engaged in global warming 'research.' I think a lot of them have predetermined notions and their research is skewed by their near-religious belief.

Yep.

I have no particular love of evolution, but it's the only NATURAL explanation for life that we have in hand. If another natural explanation is offered, we can have a genuine scientific debate.

But no magic. I must insist on no magic.

Trying to discover how life began on earth is certainly a line of thinking we should encourage, don't you think?

You know, I don't think anyone who has problems with ID would disagree with that.

It's more that they're trying to point out that ID isn't going to get you there. And I think they're right about that.

I'm just touchy about anyone sassing my husband, Slu.

Thank you, dear. (I'd forgotten that.)

But no magic. I must insist on no magic.

How about juggling? Or mimes?

Cripes, I'm getting punchy. I need to go to bed.

I'll repeat what I said before. We thought the idea of germs was "magic" once.

Uhh, yeah, RWS, you keep saying that. They were quite wrong. They thought demons infected people's brains to cause insanity and a lot of other ridiculous things.

It was only once they accepted that NATURAL FORCES WERE AT WORK could science progress and the actual causes of these things be determined. And, of course, along the way medicine saved the lives of millions of people.

And before they accepted that natural forces caused disease? They saved no one at all, because magic and the supernatural do not admit of any possible scientific scrutiny.

That last one to Ace was me.

Sparkle, I run mu.nu, so although Ace is the host of this blog, I host Ace... So to speak.

Anyway, no hard feelings?

And Slu, mimes are to be impaled on the holy horn of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH).

As a scientist, ID has never had much appeal, but I do think it's healthy to challenge scientists concerning weaknesses and glossed-over parts of their theories. That said, I don't think ID or creationism are teachable without undermining the fundamental principles of science.

ilyka,

Ever since you became a man you haven't been very nice.

;-)

As a scientist, ID has never had much appeal, but I do think it's healthy to challenge scientists concerning weaknesses and glossed-over parts of their theories.

Oh, absolutely.

Unfortunately the IDists do a rotten job even at this.

Pixy, you've just given me something to put on my birthday wish list.

But (a) hearing is not necessarily shut down during an NDE, and (b) there is not a single verified case of anyone seeing or hearing anything they could not have seen or heard from inside their body.
Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2005 12:49 AM

We can assume, together, that there is not such a case published in a scientific journal, but I contend that's because scientists don't spend much time in that area. So far, I've found mentions of two such studies that offer supportive evidence of NDEs:

A study by our group examining 63 cardiac arrest survivors on the coronary care and emergency units of Southampton General Hospital, which was published in the medical journal 'Resuscitation' demonstrated that approximately 6-10% of people with cardiac arrest have NDEs and out of body experiences. There was no evidence to support the role of drugs, oxygen or carbon dioxide (as measured from the blood) in causing the experiences. In another study just completed in Holland, 344 cardiac arrest survivors from 10 hospitals were interviewed over a 2-year period, and 41 or 12% reported a core NDE. Patients with NDEs were then followed up for a further 8 years following the event and reported less fear of death and a more spiritual outlook on life. This study by a cardiologist Dr Pim van Lommel, is due to be published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet either at the end of this year or early next year.

and at least one college doing scientific research in this area, but not nearly enough, in my opinion, to conclude that there is no evidence behind such a common event.

Once Crawfish, Swan and Pike
Set out to pull a loaded cart,
And all together settled in the traces;
They pulled with all their might,
but still the cart refused to budge!
The load it seemed was not too much for them:
Yet Crawfish scrambled backwards,
Swan strained up skywards,
Pike pulled toward the sea.
Who's guilty here and who is right is
not for us to say-
But anyway the cart's still there today.
Krylov

When people define their own belief and faith and end projecting their personal opinions on other than we might find peace.

Once upon a time we believed the planets were actually the gods travelling through the sky.

So, does that mean we should be open to all sorts of supernatural explanations for the workings of the world? Should we postulate that perhaps gremlins cause aircraft breakdowns, because we don't know everything and therefore can't rule out anything at all?

That seems to be the argument -- we don't know everything, at one time we were wrong about this and that, therefore virtually anything is possible and we should be pretty much open to any crank supernatural theory that's offered.

Why stop with biology? Why don't ID'ers investigate God's machinations with respect to chemical bonding?

Or more precisely, there is no common epistemological foundation. So the theist cannot define his terms in a way that has any meaning to the atheist.

Bingo. And extra points for bringing epistemology into the discussion. You're about to displace Stephan as my favorite hell-bound atheist. If you mention cladistic relationships in the fossil record, or a Precambrian rabbit, I'm going to swoon.

Most often, the theist cannot define his terms at all, which derails the argument rather quickly.

All right, I've already admitted that there are a lot of stupid Christians who get engaged in these debates, so I'll give you this one too.

Ace,

So we are all knowing now? I don't suppose 200 yrs from now they won't be laughing at something we believe scientifically?

I give up.

I don't want you to believe in I.D. I don't want you to believe in God. I don't want you to do anything but be OPEN to the notion that we don't know everything yet and looking into the beginnings of life on earth MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.

Pixy,

Well, I bow before your mu.nu greatness....;-)

I never have hard feelings. Debate is why we love blogging so much, right???

I don't want you to do anything but be OPEN to the notion that we don't know everything yet and looking into the beginnings of life on earth MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.

I like to call this idea "science", myself.

I am funny that way.

So we are all knowing now? I don't suppose 200 yrs from now they won't be laughing at something we believe scientifically?
I give up.
Posted by Rightwingsparkle at December 28, 2005 01:15 AM

Well said, RWS. I think that's the problem many people have with this debate. As someone said before, quantum theory is 'magic' that no one would have considered a hundred years ago. We have no idea what science will look like a hundred years from now. Nobody on either side of the debate should get too cocky with their limited knowledge.

Now, can we please have a gay themed thread? It's been, like, almost two days since the last one.

adolfo -

NDEs are real, no question. And reasonably frequent.

And no-one has ever presented any verifiable evidence that they are anything other than dreams.

Why do you think that is?

If NDEs were alone in this, we might be well advised to take a closer look. But there is a vast litany of similar claims (you visited SkepDic; just look at their table of contents), and not one of them has ever presented any verifiable evidence either.

Which lead scientists, after several decades, to largely dismiss the entire field until someone does produce evidence.

Unfortunately, this has left the field to the unscrupulous and the incompetent.

So we are all knowing now?

Nope.

I don't suppose 200 yrs from now they won't be laughing at something we believe scientifically?

Actually, scientists tend not to "laugh" at previous beliefs... most historians of science are quite reverential to the Ancients and early scientists who were wrong, but at least engaged in the process of discovery.

But yeah, I'm sure we've got some things wrong now.

One thing I don't think we'll be abandoning for 200 years or more is the basic core idea of science that the universe -- the physical parts of it, anyway, as distinct from the metaphysical -- can and should be explained by natural forces.

If something comes up that can't be so explained, or proof of God is adduced, sure, science may adjust.

Why do you want to do that adjusting before the proof?

I don't want you to do anything but be OPEN to the notion that we don't know everything yet and looking into the beginnings of life on earth MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.

I think science has this one covered. So does religion, actually. Either is good.

Both together? Not so much. You cannot seriously talk about magical forces and expect to have these taken seriously as "science."

I'm open to any explanation of life that doesn't involve magic, as long as we're talking about scientific theories.

If you want to talk about explicitly non-scientific, magical, religious beliefs, I'm fine with that too.

But the latter is not the same as the former.

Why stop with biology? Why don't ID'ers investigate God's machinations with respect to chemical bonding?

You can’t stop curious people. There were and always will be no matter if they had to be executed or burned by inquisition or stopped by shortage of financing. Discoveries over the centuries span are evidence of later.

well, science certainly does not have the beginnings of earth covered. Which is why this whole debate rages.

I, for one, have never mentioned "magical forces" so I am not sure what you mean by that.

What you should be open to is any explanation of life that makes sense enough to look into more.

Why you think scientific theories are some sort of gospel ( if you will excuse the pun) I have no idea. They have been proven wrong over and over again.

I have great respect for science, but even more respect for those with an open mind about it.

I have no particular love of evolution, but it's the only NATURAL explanation for life that we have in hand.

Strictly speaking, evolution offers an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. Evolution assumes the existence of life. It does not offer an "explanation for life." The science regarding this (abiogenesis) is in its infancy, and does not really pretend to offer a coherent explanation for the origen of life.

So we are all knowing now?

Hardly.

Remember what science is? Science is a reliable mechanism for working out if you are wrong.

I don't suppose 200 yrs from now they won't be laughing at something we believe scientifically?

Probably not.

Modern scientific theories are rigorous and founded on evidence. We know where evidence is lacking; we know where theories are limited. We are much much better than our predecessors at finding and defining our areas of ignorance.

We know, for example, that neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics are complete theories or fully consistent with reality, no matter how successful they are in their specific domains. We already know that they are wrong. That's why scientists 200 years from now won't be laughing.

I give up.

Don't give up.

Pay attention.

Science is not revealed truth.

Science is not a vast warehouse of knowledge.

Science is trying ideas and throwing out the ones that don't work.

I don't want you to believe in I.D. I don't want you to believe in God. I don't want you to do anything but be OPEN to the notion that we don't know everything yet and looking into the beginnings of life on earth MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.

As Sortelli said, that's what science is.

Sparkle:

Why you think scientific theories are some sort of gospel ( if you will excuse the pun) I have no idea. They have been proven wrong over and over again.

Of course they have. Because that's what science does.

And because we've thrown out so many of the wrong ones, what's left is - if not entirely right - at least far less wrong than what went before.

And no-one has ever presented any verifiable evidence that they are anything other than dreams.
Why do you think that is?
If NDEs were alone in this, we might be well advised to take a closer look. But there is a vast litany of similar claims (you visited SkepDic; just look at their table of contents), and not one of them has ever presented any verifiable evidence either.
Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2005 01:20 AM

I glanced at another popular topic at Skeptics (UFOs) and the article was much stronger against. Skeptics, in my opinion, was unable to conclude one way or another on NDEs.

I agree with you that those who believe in NDEs must be the one's to prove, that science has largely given up on the area for lack of proof, but I don't think they should. The scientific study of NDEs has really only been around for the last forty years, as far as I know, but it's been lumped in with a bunch of seemingly fraudulent stuff.

Normally, I would be on your's, and science's side, but having experienced an NDE myself and, having convinced the hospital staff that I witnessed events distant from my body assures me that evidence should be available, if science would look for it.

Of course, my experience can in no way sway you, but you can at least see why I'm so resistant to your claim that there's nothing there.

Of course, my experience can in no way sway you, but you can at least see why I'm so resistant to your claim that there's nothing there.

Fair enough. I agree, of course, that NDEs are real experiences, but disagree on the nature of the experience.

The problem is that every single one of those claims on SkepDic has supporters in your position and a history of negative findings from scientific inquiry. Most also have a history of fraudulent claims; I'm not aware of such in NDEs, at least.

Let's review Pixy,

We both agree that science get's it wrong over and over and throws out what doesn't work.

We both agree that looking into the beginnings of life on earth is a good idea and is science.

What we don't agree on is that I don't think you or I know what scientists will be laughing at 200 yrs from now. (and by laughing I don't mean giggling, I mean they will shake their heads on how we ever believed such a thing) and we don't agree on the notion that just because something doesn't fit our present idea of what is scientific, then we shouldn't even bother looking into it.

As I said before. I have great respect for science. But more respect for an open mind regarding it.

I, for one, have never mentioned "magical forces" so I am not sure what you mean by that.

What do you think ID is, RWS? It is an expressly magical explanation for the beginning of life and speciation.

The whole theory is that natural forces could not have caused this, thus, there must be a supernatural intelligent designer.

It is PRECISELY what we're talking about. A lot of people don't like saying "magical forces" because they wish to fudge or finesse that. But that's what we're talking about. Magic. As "Science."

What you should be open to is any explanation of life that makes sense enough to look into more.

Trouble is, it doesn't, at least from a scientific perspective. If you find Genesis or whatever more satisfactory on a personal or spiritual level, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with a scientific explanation.

Why you think scientific theories are some sort of gospel ( if you will excuse the pun) I have no idea. They have been proven wrong over and over again.

One thing that hasn't been "proven wrong over and over again" is that there is a natural explanation for all the workings of the universe. Science has a perfect batting average on that score.

The only area in which this is even contested is with regard to the two or three points of science that conflict, or are taken to conflict, with a literal interpretation of Genesis. No one postulates "magic" as the cause of star formation or "God Wanted It That Way" as the most likely reason electrons orbit a nucleus at certain valences.

And even so-- no proof that there is anything going on in the physical world that cannot be explained by natural forces. There's still a lot we don't know, but nothing has suggested we need magic to account for anything.

The problem is that every single one of those claims on SkepDic has supporters in your position and a history of negative findings from scientific inquiry. Most also have a history of fraudulent claims; I'm not aware of such in NDEs, at least.
Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2005 01:36 AM

Fair enough, I can live with that.

I'll let RWS carry on the debate about scientific dogmatism vs. the open mind. I've got to get to bed before my wife realizes how late I've stayed up.

***sound of whip cracking***

Michael,

I guess you're right on evolution "assuming life," but what theories we have about the actual creation of life are informed by the theory of evolution.

To me it's the same dealio. I don't know if you're right in a strict semantic sense.

Either way, the same people who have trouble with evolution are going to have trouble with a natural explanation for the beginning of life.

What do you think ID is, RWS? It is an expressly magical explanation for the beginning of life and speciation.
Posted by ace at December 28, 2005 01:39 AM

One last thing: I think a point RWS has been trying to make, that you've been overlooking, Ace, is that there may be no such thing as 'magic'. God may be a perfectly natural part of the universe, who designed things and acts within natural law. According to Christians, he invented the laws, why should he break them. Even miracles might one day be explained by science - no magic necessary.

Truth is born in difference of opinions, views, and perceptions.
So, all contributed:)

I will STATE again that I don't believe in I.D. so it wasn't me talking about this 'magical force"

Although the I.D. crowd has not convinced me that what they have is "science" THey have proposed some very interesting questions. I remember one article I read that compared the DNA code to a computer program saying that a computer program must have a programmer.

Makes sense to me. I'm not afraid of looking into these things and asking the questions and finding that the I.D. crowd falls short. But I am interested in looking for the answers. While you guys are just interested in not asking the questions.

But the latter is not the same as the former.

See, Ace, you really should not waste time offering such obvious common sense. Your commenters will handle this.

There are Thai hookers waiting for your attention. There is a two-thirds-empty bottle of Val-U-Rite Vodka that feels neglected. Plus, if you have been monitoring your other threads, you may have noticed that you are about to lose your Allah 2.0 RSS Aggregator and might actually have to start reading some shit in order to come up with links.

As I said before. I have great respect for science. But more respect for an open mind regarding it.

An "open scientific mind" cannot be open to non-scientific, magical, supernatural explanations.

Science is about natural explanations. Again: it's the definition.

Your idea of being "open minded" of science seems to include being "open minded" about changing that definition. You can construct any worldview you like, but a scientific one will restrict itself (again, as far as the physical, observable world) to natural explanations.

Michael: I'm guessing that part of the Brokeback Mountain deal involved frequent and unprotected linking to/from Allah's new blog...

RWS,

If you want to beleive that credulity is the same as open-mindedness, that's fine. We seem to be getting into the personal area all these arguments are doomed to, where you're basically claiming you're superior for "being willing to challenge" scientific "dogma," while us blinkered dummies just can't see the light.

I'm sure I've come off as equally superior-sounding to you.

So I'm done, more or less... I'll just mention:

THey have proposed some very interesting questions. I remember one article I read that compared the DNA code to a computer program saying that a computer program must have a programmer.

Makes sense to me.

It really shouldn't. I could compare the solar system to a child's mobile or something silly like that and say "Just as the mobile had an intelligent designer, so too did the solar system."

Do you believe that something as grand as the solar system could form simply due to natural forces-- accumulating dust and star-jettison coalescing into planets around a central star? Or are you open to the idea, too, that the solar system must have been "intelligently designed"?

Again, if you want to believe that, that's fine, and it doesn't make you dumb. It does, however, sort of excommunicate you from science.

What we don't agree on is that I don't think you or I know what scientists will be laughing at 200 yrs from now.

But why do you think that?

We know what makes a scientific theory. That was only fully defined in the last century.

We know where the flaws are in our theories, where the framework does not hold together, where evidence is missing.

We know, to put it simply, what we don't know.

What's more, there are very few scientists who are laughed at by the present generation. Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics and the Phlogiston Theory of Combustion were certainly wrong, completely and utterly wrong, but that doesn't mean we laugh at Lamarck or Priestly.

The ones we tend to scorn are the anti-scientists, the crackpots and frauds.

And it will be the same in 200 years.

Ace,
See? That is the kind of thing that keeps me turned off of your side. (just as there are many things that turn me off the I.D side) but you just toss around the word "magic" and that is suppose to make your point. Well it doesn't. It just makes you look like an anti-God type.

I am willing to be a case of beer that you didn't read the link I provided by a PHD Scientist at Tech Central Station. Not some rightwing religious site. Why? Because you are so convinced you are right you aren't even bothering reading the other side. Well I read the other side and the guy has valid points that I don't think you can dismiss with "magic." That might work with a scientific dummy like me, but not with a scientist. here. is the link. How about an open mind here?

This is why I.D. continues to be looked at. Because guys like you smugly dismiss it instead of facing it.

I guess you're right on evolution "assuming life," but what theories we have about the actual creation of life are informed by the theory of evolution.

No, evolution does not "inform" theories about the creation of life, which at the moment are pure speculation.

Either way, the same people who have trouble with evolution are going to have trouble with a natural explanation for the beginning of life.

You are certainly right about that. But, at the moment, there is no "natural explanation" for the beginning of life. Go read talkingpoints.org (as my atheist friends have repeatedly urged me to do). The best they have is self-reproducing amino acids and a lot of conjecture.

I'm not saying that a "natural" explanation for the origen of life is inconceivable, or inconsistent with my faith. I'm just saying I haven't heard one yet.

We know what we don't know

How do you know that?..heh.

Ace,

I am in no way implying that I am superior in any way! Do I think you are being open minded about I.D.? No. I think you will agree that you are not. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. You could be completely right. You just haven't convinced me yet.

You'd win the case of beer, because I didn't read your link. (In fact, I didn't notice it until now.)

But I don't have to. Because the last time we (by which I mean "this site and its readers") went 'round on this I read up on this nonsense. I don't have to keep reading a reiteration of the same crap over and over.

And, by the way, most of the complaints about evolution are precisely the same complaints that creationalists had 20 years ago. I read them all then; I don't need to go through them all again now.

The problem here is that people like this guy want to poke holes in a scientific theory and conclude, "Therefore God Exists. Q. E. D."

Not science. Theology.

It's like you saying there is "evidence of God everywhere, in nature, in childbirth," etc.

Well, that's not really evidence of God in a strict sense.

God may or may not exist, but the failure to find all the fossils needed to show the evolution of the horse won't prove he does.

I am not willingly to BE a case of beer, rather BET a case of beer. Just so ya know.

The best they have is self-reproducing amino acids and a lot of conjecture.

Yeah, I know, they don't know really how it happened, but it seems to involve amino acids, a spark of lightning, and some nice warm mud to stew in.

They only have conjecture, but obviously their conjectures are along natural paths, not God creating a microbe.

I remember one article I read that compared the DNA code to a computer program saying that a computer program must have a programmer.

Since this is not true, the entire argument falls kind of flat.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, well.

What do you know about computer programming? About genetics? About the various mechanisms for mutations? About Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity?

The argument is designed to make sense to you. To me, and even more so to trained biologists, it's utter nonsense.

I'm not afraid of looking into these things and asking the questions and finding that the I.D. crowd falls short.

We've looked. ID is a load of absolute drivel.

That's the thing, Sparkle. WE HAVE LOOKED. It's all crap.

But I am interested in looking for the answers. While you guys are just interested in not asking the questions.

The questions have been asked. The questions have been answered. ID is a pile of crap. We're not interested in asking the questions again, because we've been through it a thousand times.

ID? Crap.

I think RWS is getting hung up on missing one thing.

"Not science" != "not true"

No, evolution does not "inform" theories about the creation of life, which at the moment are pure speculation.

It does inform their speculations. The basic idea is that some complex bits of pre-life were, like actual life (which would come later), better at reproducing themselves through purely chemical reactions. Like a protein coat would encase some amino acids and that protein coat would serve as the template for free, drifting proteins forming around it to stick together and therby create a new protein coat, etc.

Or so I've gleaned. But I confess it's been a while and I never knew much about this anyway.

Pixy,

You can certainly make fun of my limited scientific knowledge but I never claimed to be a scientist. I am just your regular college educated girl that likes to look at an issue from all sides.

Now, I disagree with a great deal of the I.D. argument, but when guys like you just say "It's a load of crap" and yet I read highly intelligent educated people who say different and they don't use words like "magic" and "crap" to make their points, but clear theory. Then I tend to listen to them.

As long as people such as yourself and Ace seemed to not even want to bring up one single solitary point the scientist in the tech article makes, but rather dismiss those questioning like myself, then I will continue to look at both sides.

If You guys have so much confidence in being right, then insults shouldn't be part of the argument.

Just sayin...

Michael: I'm guessing that part of the Brokeback Mountain deal involved frequent and unprotected linking to/from Allah's new blog...

Yeah, you are probably right. I'm guessing Allah got the reach-around from Ace.

Hey Pixy, what's your opinion regarding bbeck's tits? Are they impressive, or what?

*testing Michael's theory that any single commenter on this blog can change the topic to sex*

they don't use words like "magic" ... to make their points...

Because they're dishonest.

RWS, if I exclude natural explanations for the diversity of the species, what, praytell, is left?

This is where ID gets very dishonest (actually, most of their "evidence" is pretty dishonest too). But let's just take this point: They don't use the word 'magic' because they realize when people read it they'll realize they're not talking about science.

So they just avoid the word.

But if natural explanations are excluded, supernatural ones are the only ones left.

Do you dispute this?

The basic idea is that some complex bits of pre-life were, like actual life (which would come later), better at reproducing themselves through purely chemical reactions. Like a protein coat would encase some amino acids and that protein coat would serve as the template for free, drifting proteins forming around it to stick together and therby create a new protein coat, etc.

That's speculative chemistry, not evolution.

Now, can we get back to bbeck's tits?

I think adolfo already did:

"One last thing: I think a point RWS has been trying to make, that you've been overlooking, Ace, is that there may be no such thing as 'magic'. God may be a perfectly natural part of the universe, who designed things and acts within natural law. According to Christians, he invented the laws, why should he break them. Even miracles might one day be explained by science - no magic necessary."

Well I read the other side and the guy has valid points that I don't think you can dismiss with "magic." That might work with a scientific dummy like me, but not with a scientist. here. is the link. How about an open mind here?

Sparkle, the guy's argument is complete and utter crap. It's one of the worst articles on the subject I've ever seen.

I can tear it apart piece by piece if you want. It's all been done a million times before, but just for your amusement:

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years.

A PhD scientist, eh? In what field?

Meteorology

So why is he pointing out that he's a PhD scientist? When it comes to evolution, he's got no claim to being better informed than you do.

And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact"

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Evolution the fact is the observation that new species have arisen. This is incontrovertible. It happened.

Evolution the theory is an explanation of how this happened.

Spencer's conflation of evolutionary theory and fact is utterly dishonest. Either he knows better and is perpetuating a fraudulent argument, or he doesn't, and he is incompetent to argue the point.

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

First, intelligent design is an appeal to supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process, and therefore intrinsically unscientific.

Second, the writings of all of the proponents of ID make clear that it is indeed a religious undertaking. (See the findings of the Dover Trial which prove this beyond any doubt.)

Third, "evolutionism"? We're still in the first paragraph and he's slipping in slurs. It's Evolutionary Theory to you, numbnuts.

In the scientific community, I am not alone.

No, there are many scientists who know nothing on the subject who are eager to make fools of themselves. The argument that you are not the only such doesn't really add anything to your prior statements.

There are many fine books out there on the subject.

I'd challenge him to name one such.

Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

And let's see how well he has learned to apply those tools, shall we?

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.

Yadda yadda...

True evolution, in the macro-sense

Phweet! Foul! There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Evolution is evolution. Micro means a small amount of evolutionary change. Macro means a larger amount. The artificial distinction is a characteristic and utterly fraudulent argument of creationists.

has never been observed, only inferred.

Falsehood. Observed speciation events.

A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths.

Phweet! Moving the goalposts! One moment he's talking about speciation events, the next he's jumped up three levels (species->genus->family->order) to Order Lepidoptera, demanding the evolution of non-moths from moths. Not in your lifetime, sonny-Jim. Evolution doesn't work that fast, and no-one ever claimed it did.

A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria.

Phweet! Complete falsehood. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is exactly an illustration of evolution. What's more, demanding an evolution to non-bacteria is an even more absurd requirement, necessitating the branching out of an entire new phylum at the least. By comparison, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including us, are all part of the one phylum, Chordata.

Do you want me to go on? Sparkle, this is A-Grade Bullshit in a twenty-pound bag.

RWS -

It seems like you are geting hung up on the word magic - as if it is an insult. It is not. Ace is just using it to describe something that can't be described/explained by science and doesn't follow natural laws. Surely some divine power being able to create the universe, life, perform miracles, etc is "magic".

I don't believe he is trying to compare your belief in this diety to a belief in dime store tricks and tarot card scams.

It's either bbeck's tits, or . . .

Batman quotes.

Or I finally manage to get banned here. Thus joining the sainted Cedarford in the Banned By Ace Society™.

You all know this is not an idle threat.

The craze spreads.

I don't believe he is trying to compare your belief in this diety to a belief in dime store tricks and tarot card scams.

True. I'm using the word for its shock value to make people understand what they're saying-- that "science" should embrace the supernatural.

Because ID'ers are cute on this point, I'm trying to drive it home. You're talking about magic. You're talking about a being simply conjuring things into existence and suspending and rearranging the laws of the universe at his whim.

Which isn't a big deal for someone who believes in God, because that's God's schtick. He does things like that.

But I would think that people could understand why such a "theory" can never be a part of actual science.

Batman: "There's an eclipse of the sun due."
Robin: "But that's only for half a minute!"
Batman: "That's all we'll need, if my calculus is correct..."

Robin (about Mad Hatter): "But when you testified against him at his last trial, he said he'd get you if it was the last thing he ever did."
Batman: "Few men die of threats, Robin."

One last thing: I think a point RWS has been trying to make, that you've been overlooking, Ace, is that there may be no such thing as 'magic'. God may be a perfectly natural part of the universe, who designed things and acts within natural law. According to Christians, he invented the laws, why should he break them. Even miracles might one day be explained by science - no magic necessary.

May be? Is this what science is now? It could be that such and such might possibly be the case?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," sure, but we're not there yet.

Let me suggest you are both, let us say, overly eager to rush to paranormal explanations on a rather slender body of evidence. Shouldn't mundane causes be ruled out first before concluding, scientifically!, that God created all the animals and plants by hand?

If you are suggesting that God simply had a plan for all life to flourish, and he put in motion the events of the universe that would, over time, according to natural laws he designed, bring all plants and animals into existence, well, that's fine, and that's the old 'watchmaker' view of God, which is non falsifiable and nonobjectionable.

it's also not ID, which specifically states that natural laws could not, themselves, create life, even if God set the initial rules of the universe so that natural forces would do just that. ID postulates a hands-on creator, not someone who just sets up the Laws of the Universe and lets the Great Clock tick forward.

By the way, the Great Watchmaker theory is itself a magical one, as it requires God to toggle off the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle at will (otherwise random events would demolish his plans down the road; it is impossible even in principle to figure out where every atom will be ten minutes from now, let alone ten billion years).

Still, as far as that theory goes, it's pretty cool and doesn't really conflict too much with science.

ID does. ID is not content to have a Great Watchmaker letting natural forces he created do their work through natural means. ID says, sorry to repeat but this is big, that it is impossible even in principle for natural forces to create life without the immediate, direct intervention of an intelligent designer.

So those who think this is just the Great Watchmaker theory in new clothes are wrong. This is Creationalism, Young-Earth-ism in new clothes, and it's as crank and bunk as it was 20 years ago.

Re: bbeck's tits

They're real, and they're spectacular!

Thank you, Flop, but Ace must be corrected.

Radio announcer: "If someone wishes a message broadcast, like 'Many are called, two are chosen,' I assume it's religious and that's all."
Batman: "I don't think we should treat religion lightly, Mr. Gore."

Remember the star trek episode where they find the hologram message from the Intelligent Designer race of the Star Trek universe?
The one's who designed and seeded the DNA that grew up to the various races of the federation. That wasn't magic, that was merely a much older race giving evolution a helping hand through genetic engineering, which is pretty scientific.

Just like the Celestials guided evolution on earth in the Marvel Comics universe

Personally I think the coding came from Tnuctipun genegineers programing the junk dna in slaver food yeast to help force evolution to reproduce themselves after galactic genocide started the evolutionary game again

Criminy, don't you people need sleep?

Err Head - yup. That was basically their explanation for how all the aliens in Trek looked like people with cheap rubber makeup :-)

This thread's reminded me of an immutable fact of blogging: only Goldstein has his head on anywhere close to straight about this ID business.

I obviously didn't survive permanent death

that was funny. I mean, not your experience adolfo, just the expression. kinda like "if you want to have a good day don't wake up dead".

ace, re: praying mechanic. Do you feel you've gotten your money's worth?

Do you get full value for your money? Do you?

Is there a short evolutionaly explanation out there for life to have split into a male and female species?

Sparkle,

You're stuck on this 'why can't we change the definition of science' to include stuff that cannot be tested.

You never answer whether or not we should include astrology and other non-testable stuff in "ElasticScience?"

If not, why not?

>>"the more systems will slip through your fingers."

She said that to Tarkin, not Vader.

They have never found the missing link becuase there never was one

Sorry about the length of this one.

This debate comes down to two things - the purpose of religion and the purpose of science.

What is the purpose of scientific research? Maybe this definition is simplistic, but I think it's to learn more about the natural world through a process of theory and experimentation.

What is the purpose of religion? Again, a simple explanation would be the edification of human beings through a belief in something larger or more transcendent than ourselves.

The Intelligent Design debate centers on how we all got here – whether we are the end result of a process that began in the primordial soup, or the creation of a higher power. Both sides seem to have some sort of stake in ‘winning’ this debate, but the proponents of intelligent design are especially adamant, as the belief in a creator leads to the idea that we’re here with a purpose – that life is not an accident and the higher power that put us here has some idea what we should be doing with our time. Science-minded people engaged in this debate are interested in preserving the integrity of their field, believing that the inclusion of intelligent design in the field of life origin studies unnecessarily muddies the waters. At least, that’s what I’m seeing on this thread.

Now, does intelligent design harm the integrity or veracity of scientific research? Well, yes, if those trying to prove a particular point cannot separate the evidence given to them from their belief. As has been said, in this case scientific study becomes a means to an end and as with climate research, a lot of shortcuts can be taken to ‘prove’ the existence of something that I don’t think can be proven using the scientific method.

Does science negate religion? Let’s get particular here. If God kick-started an evolutionary process that led to where we are today rather than actually physically formed man, does that mean the Bible and Christianity are nothing more than feel-good fairy tales meant to help us sleep at night when thoughts of death and eternity come knocking? Personally, I don’t think so – Christianity is not about how we got here, it’s what we do with the life we were given.

I happen to believe God created life. Whether He did it through an evolutionary process or not is a question I’m completely uninterested in. What interests me is how I spend my life, and whether I follow the dictates of the faith I’ve chosen. I can either spend all my time looking to the past and trying to ‘prove’ the existence of God through the proxy argument of life origin or I can spend my time trying to live my life according to the words of its founder – Jesus.

I know which I’m going to choose every time. That’s pretty much where I stand on this.

I think we are a bunch of fleas, standing in a forest of hair, arguing about the existence of 'dog'.

Having been involved in a number of these conversations, I always find it interesting that those who use the dishonest tactic of allowing the factual parts of evolution to lend more credence to the theoretical side, also get upset over the 'magic' inherent in ID. Apparently only scientifically accepted dishonesty is to be allowed.

I don't subscribet to the idea of teaching ID as science, until the point that it can stand up to the rigors of the scientific method. To be fair, I demand the same for evolution as the source of life on earth, or to use its proper term, abiogenisis.

So, someone explain to me why evolution should be allowed to mean whatever is most convenient at any given time, and further why it should ever be allowed to stand as the accepted source of life in a freaking sceince class?

Defense Guy, my goodness, you just made no sense whatsoever.

What if the"designer" is no more than an undetecable force, like gamma rays were, that fights the natural tendency of things to disorder? What if this (to date) undetectable force pushes as entropy pulls, resulting in a balance between order and disorder?

What if the existence of this force is what enables evolutionary change to take place, even when it would seem all the odds would be against it?

Would my belief in this be "magic"?

I don't know (or care, really) enough about this to have the terminology down, and I don't know or care that it's I.D. on the stand here. But theorizing about natural systems that may or may not exist may not be science by common definition, but's it's not supernatural either.

I don't think you can define our choices as "existing and proven science" or "magic".

well, just to be commenter 301 Feisty,

He's saying there isn't enough evidence to conclude that evolutionary theory explains the beginning of life, and also that there are enough holes in the theory to make it (maybe not as much as, but) as questionable as ID. At least, it doesn't deserve as much attention as it gets in the classroom.

I am not an apologist for evolution, or ID, but I agree with him on the first point (as have others in the thread, and I think that's a bit of a straw man), and I'm not qualified to comment on the second point.

It made sense to me. Evolutionary Theory takes the few changes we can see evidence for (different breeds of sparrows) then assumes that that proves the bigger changes (iguanas into sparrows), even when we can't find the fossil evidence of the half iguana/half sparrow mutant beasts. Frankly, the honest scientists admit that we have a few ideas, but don't really know how life came about. Or why there was a Big Bang in the beginning.

Only psuedoscientists think the answers are certain.

So, someone explain to me why evolution should be allowed to mean whatever is most convenient at any given time,

ummm - if you're using the term 'evolution' less-than-precisely you might have a point. To illustrate the issue - try using 'physics' generically and try to have it encompass everything from Newtonian to Quantum without using any modifiers.

and further why it should ever be allowed to stand as the accepted source of life in a freaking sceince class?

You've put the cart before the horse here. Everything that's alive has been affected to some degree by evolution - so evolution isn't the source, but can provide clues as to the nature and direction of the living and that which was alive.

fwiw - my pastor pointed out in my Cathecism class long long ago - "Religion answers the Who and the Why - Science answers the 'How and the When."

> What if the"designer" is no more than an undetecable force, like gamma rays were, that fights the natural tendency of things to disorder?

That's the Cosmic Benny Factor! The Underdog comics knew it years ago.

I'll use an invented example to explain the "holes in the theory" thing.

Say Michael wants to prove I'm a virgin, as he suggested around 10 pm last night. He can swab the insides, check my hyman etc. Perhaps he finds semen, a broken hyman, and a fetus in my uterus. It may not prove conclusively that I'm not a virgin since he didn't see me get it on, but the fact that I'm not a virgin is a leap one can make that is a highly reasonable one given mounds of evidence. God or alien beings could have put the baby there and spread semen in my crotch and a horseback ride gone awry could have broke the cherry, but the less fanciful answer is probably the most likely.

So simple, people. Michael can say, "Nope, Feisty's a virgin because I didn't see her get it on and that's a major hole in the theory. I will therefore disregard the semen, popped cherry, and fetus and keep an open mind on the subject."

But he would look silly, you see.

Well shit, I told you I wasn't up on this shit. Did Underdog ever decide it was magic? Why do I think I don't want to know the answer, never having been one to question Underdog.

totally OT, but the title of this thread is "threadjack",

Upton Sinclair knew Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty, and lied anyway.

Well, when you put it that way, Feisty . . . still you could have described your boobs. That would have been nice.

Thanks Dave, that will teach me to post a comment before having coffee.

Threadjacking #2

Canada blames U.S. for gun violence in Canada.

You know, maybe it's just that we're neighbors and all, but I think Canada might just be the most annoying country in the world.

oh no big deal DG, I understood what you meant is all.

Feisty is asserting there's enough evidence to keep it in the classroom. As I mentioned, what I know about evolution what what I slept through in public school, so I can't agree/disagree. I do see some measurable evidence of evolution, obviously.

And like Slub and Michael have mentioned, I don't need ID in the science classroom. I don't need the existence of God proven there. Nor do I find any inherent conflict between God and evolution (He gots His ways, as they say).

I generally agree with those who have expressed deep concerns about ID in the classroom, that it is a less than honest attempt to put God in there.

My faith doesn't require that.

I retract the suggestion that Feisty is a virgin.

May I offer the suggestion in it's place that Feisty is most certainly a dude?

Thanks Michael. I kinda liked it when you swabbed me for evidence.

I'm an unseen force of human sexuality. Not made of DNA nor flesh. Maybe I'm not really here, but you guys can feel me...down there. I'm always "here" but not mortal. I'm that tingle...I'm that lub-dub of your heart. I make all that happen and you don't even know it.

I'll seriously call in to Aceypoo's show one of these weeks he decides to have it just to get you people to shut the Hell up.

And the conversation takes yet another detour into the subject of sex.

Ace basicallys says "Why should I look at something that doesn't fit my definition of science?"

I'm just glad the great inventors and thinkers of our past didn't think that way and I hope the future ones don't either.

Good link on the Canadian anuses shifting responsibility to us, Slu.

Fistley - lousy comparison. This debate is more like if you and Michael were walking through the woods one day and stopped to admire a big, beautiful oak tree. Michael says he thinks the oak tree grew from a seed planted by a person two hundre years ago. You disagree and believe the seed, originated from one of the surrounding oak trees, fell to the ground and germinated into the mighty oak.

Who's right? Is there any evidence to support either claim? No. Is this a lousy analogy? Yes, and so was your's.

By the way, how are those penis enlargement pills working out for you?

To all you half-evolved chimps: you keep knocking ID because it doesn't stand up to the scientific standards and methods. The absence of tests and all that. Can any of you Planet of the Apes fans show me one single instance where the Big Bang theory has been tested? Can it be tested?

Has any scientist duplicated the "something out of nothing" Big Bang?

Feisty- "Thanks Michael. I kinda liked it when you swabbed me for evidence."

Q-Tip is not exactly the most generous description of Michael's . . . err . . . "Q-Tip."

RWS, I took ace's comments to mean he has already examined quite a bit of ID apologia and didn't feel particularly compelled to dig into it more, but perhaps he can clarify..

Dave,

I wasn't referring to I.D. specificallly. I was referring to anything that doesn't fit the definition (so far) of science.

I argue with the Creationists about the world not being 6000 yrs old. That's because fossils have convinced me otherwise (among other things) But no one has the answer to the beginnings of life. Science, as it is, hasn't been able to. But if we get stuck in this narrow view and never consider other ideas (not necessarilly I.D.) then we won't move forward.

That's all I am saying.

RWS et al.

I realize most, if not all of the posters here agree that ID shouldn't be taught in schools and that ID isn't science. RWS is the only straggler on this whole deal because she doesn't realize this is not "ace's" definition of science or some arbitrary thingy made up by one guy...it's a system of inquiry that is designed to lead to knowledge of naturally-occurring processes. All respectable scientists use this method to arrive at their conclusions on a scientific question. It's well ordered, it's peer-reviewed, it's published publically with the methodology well-defined, and it can be replicated by any doubters.

The reason ace and I and most people accept the scientific method to investigate scientific questions is that it's the best way to learn about the world for all the reasons previously stated. I,for one, am unwilling to investigate ID because there is no way to test for it scientifically. Simple as that. There are reasonable explanations of how species differentiated and evolved arrived at through scientific investigations.

Quite simply, ID isn't science. It's a Sunday school topic. I will be more than willing to go with RWS to church to hear about ID as a sociological, cultural or religion thing. Just not as a science thing.

Call people like me close minded if you wish, but trying to mix oil and water will only leave you frustrated.

PS Bart, pardon the analogy for I am trying to reason on Vicodin.

Feisty,

Wrong and wrong. I too agree that I.D. shouldn't be taught and that it isn't science.

I also realize the definition of science isn't just Ace's alone. I think I made that point much earlier.

Saying all "respectable" scientists is where you lose me. Just because they have a different view they aren't "respectable?"

Please.

This is how ideas get squashed. Science has been wrong over and over. Everyone agrees with that. Could it be possible that it is wrong on a bit of this?

Guess not.

Any scientist who gives a nod to a theory as a possibilty that is unable to be tested via scientific inquiry is not respected by yours truly.

No one would disrespect a scientist testing poorly understood things like psychics or fortune tellers or faith healing or whatever as long as the experiments could be repeated and the methodology was transparent.

[Actually prayer does assist in healing, but it is attributed to the placebo effect and/or the idea that an overall sense of well-being helps people].

This is how ideas get squashed. Science has been wrong over and over. Everyone agrees with that. Could it be possible that it is wrong on a bit of this?

I'm getting hung up on this, and perhaps it's just me. I am not getting your argument (granted you aren't arguing with me). You seem to be saying science has a track record of wrong, and if it were just more open-minded, other ideas would be considered.

Well, what other ideas? No one has asserted that science it right all the time, it's just a discipline for discovery. There are checks and balances, a couple that have been mentioned are peer-review and repeatable experientation results.

What ideas are being squashed that are otherwise worthy of consideration, by scientists?

RWS:Ace basicallys says "Why should I look at something that doesn't fit my definition of science?"

This is what you said; pardon me if I took it to mean that you thought Ace had a unique definition of science and that science had many different ever-changing definitions.

Certainly, science has gotten things wrong. That's part of science. Someone does an experiment, publishes their results, someone is interested in the results and tries to replicate them and is unable. Person #3 does the same and is also unable. After awhile Person #1's theory is simply disregarded and perhaps Person #2 and Person #3 have some better explanation to offer and the cycle continues. With the advent of ever-expanding technology and mass communication via the Internet and whatnot, it's possible to test and re-test things at an fast as all get-out rate.

The thing with evolution is that no one else has offered a plausibly competing scientific alternative after thousands of experiments. If someone does, designs a rigorous experiment and we're all blown out of the water, then hey, scientists will be happy to follow up on that.

Science moves FAST these days.

Science has been wrong over and over.

Don't want to join the pile-on, but you're dissing my bread & butter here. Science is a process, not an entity, and when properly applied, it is very successful at developing better models for the phenomena experienced in our world. Theories have been proposed, received some measure of acceptance, and then discarded as contrary experimental evidence accumulates. Not always a smooth or harmless process, but it has been generally successful for centuries.

So saying science has been wrong time after time would more properly be stated as: "People have been wrong time after time, and the scientific process has shown us why."

Geoff, I think I love you.

There may be a very scientific explanation for some Divinity, but we don't have enough evidence to test for it yet. We never will if those who propose further inquiry are dismissed as supernaturalists.

The Big Bang theory is as untestable and unrepeatable as these things could possibly be, but that doesn't stop folks who call themselves scientists from going around proposing it as a theory. Are they supernaturalists?

You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to support the theories put forth that sound scientific as science, but dismiss what could very well be as natural and scientifically provable someday as magic. Then you turn around and claim a lot of what's not really proven at all is science.

On a slightly different note, a lot of folks who denigrate I.D. do so by noting that those who have funded I.D. suits are closet Bible-sniffers. Anybody who thinks that proves a damn thing about I.D. as an idea is a loony. And look at what you've done--used proponents to denigrate an idea. How is what you're doing better? You're shooting down I.D. because it's proponents are religious and in the process doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

Dave: it's just a discipline for discovery

geoff: Science is a process, not an entity

Feisty: Geoff, I think I love you.

story of my life. Tell me it's just the Vicodin talking.

There may be a very scientific explanation for some Divinity, but we don't have enough evidence to test for it yet. We never will if those who propose further inquiry are dismissed as supernaturalists.

The Big Bang theory is as untestable and unrepeatable as these things could possibly be, but that doesn't stop folks who call themselves scientists from going around proposing it as a theory. Are they supernaturalists?

My god, sponge, you perfectly stated what I've spent hours on this thread trying to sputter out.

There are many things accepted by science, from sociology to aspirin, that are not understood or reproducable in a lab. Science assumes something is real, like black holes, and throws all their effort into discovering why they exist or how they work. Meanwhile, 95% of the human race believes in, and sometimes experiences evidence of, God or an afterlife, and science dismisses it as 'magic'.

geoff,

And perhaps it will show us to be wrong or right this time. But we will never know if "respectable" scientists don't even ask the questions.

Geoff, I think I love you.

mmmmmmm . . .

The Big Bang theory is as untestable and unrepeatable as these things could possibly be, but that doesn't stop folks who call themselves scientists from going around proposing it as a theory.

C'mon spongeworthy - the Big Bang theory is based on a lot of math and a lot of observation of the structure of the universe. It wouldn't have survived this long against competing theories if it wasn't consistent with our understanding of quantum mechanics and the evolution of the universe. The point is: physicists, astrophysicists, and astronomers have been working for decades trying to establish a better understanding of the early times in the universe, and they have created, rejected and modified theories as needed as part of that process.

But the biggest reason they are not 'supernaturalists' is that they don't *believe* their theories (well, the originators usually do, but everybody else jumps on them) - a theory is a tool for discovery, not a belief system.

Yeah Dave, basically you, me, and Geoff said the same thing at the same time. Geoff threw in the extra tidbit about science being his bread-and-butter.

Employment. Reason. Grammatically-correct sentence structure. TOTALLY hot.

Dave,

What I am arguing here is that the "anti God could have created the universe and what if it could be proven scientifically" people are just as stuck in their positions as the Creationists that insist the world is only 6000 yrs old.

We have proof that the Creationists are wrong, we don't yet that the anti God people are.

Spongeworthy hit the nail on the head.

"we don't have enough evidence to test for it yet"

YET! We don't have enough evidence. I agree! So that means we throw the whole thing out? How about we see if we ever do acquire enough evidence. If we don't, we don't. But not being willingly to try and aquire evidence on such a interesting theory is what I don't get.

story of my life. Tell me it's just the Vicodin talking.

Sorry Dave, must be the lab coat.

But we will never know if "respectable" scientists don't even ask the questions.

Yes, RWS, I said many comments above that I liked having 'mainstream' science challenged - I think it's healthy and can often jog researchers' minds off well-worn tracks. So in the sense that ID can sensibly challenge assumptions and conclusions of evolutionary models, it can be a useful contribution to the scientific process. But that is often not the way it is employed by its proponents, and not the way it is perceived by its detractors.

the Spongeworthy comment was me.

What question would you like scientists to test, RWS?

The key component is "test."

Not "ponder" or "think about" or "debate"....Scientists think, research previous studies on the topic, acquire grant money, then test. They have deadlines, they have rigorous peer standards. They have their reputations.

Sorry, now I have to go to bed, ya'all. I have nightly duties tonight again.

geoff,

"I liked having 'mainstream' science challenged - I think it's healthy and can often jog researchers' minds off well-worn tracks. So in the sense that ID can sensibly challenge assumptions and conclusions of evolutionary models, it can be a useful contribution to the scientific process."

*Sigh* Yes. That is all I wanted to hear.

Thanks.

And since I seem to be the only one anyone is arguing with that should conclude the show for tonight.

It's nice to leave it on a note of agreement.

Geoff threw in the extra tidbit about science being his bread-and-butter

Sorry Dave, must be the lab coat

awright, where's my freakin pocket protector?

We have proof that the Creationists are wrong, we don't yet that the anti God people are.

Well, if that's scientifically proveable, I'm willing to let science march on and prove it. Right now there's a considerable amount of missing data.

Oh, and I'm not conceding "proof" that creationists are wrong. We have "proof" that there's a rock that appears to be six million years old. Maybe it is. Maybe we ain't measuring carbon accurately.

Or maybe, when God made it, on day one it was already 5,994,000 years old. But that's faith, not science.

He gots His ways.

awright, where's my freakin pocket protector?

. . . and be sure you accessorize with a hip-mounted calculator - RPN, of course. Nothing heats 'em up like Reverse Polish Notation.

Dave, Geoff...pocket protectors are so 1970s.

What you need is one of these.

Hewlett-Packarddddd

RWS, if your point is there are some closed-minded scientists who pre-judge and try to get the data to fit the model, sure, of course there are. Proponents of global warming come to mind.

Or maybe, when God made it, on day one it was already 5,994,000 years old. But that's faith, not science.

And that's why everybody should relax - faith can always trump science, since the whole of science can be interpreted as a manifestation of God's will. I myself vascillate between agnosticism and atheism, but I don't see why science and religion should be doomed to be antagonists.

Hewlett-Packarddddd

Aye, but their modern line has gone to heck. In fact, an HP15C that I bought probably 20 years ago for $40 - $50 now sells used on Ebay for upwards of $400. But I'll never part with it. Or my HP 28S (well, maybe). Or my HP32SII (my absolute fave).

But the biggest reason they are not 'supernaturalists' is that they don't *believe* their theories (well, the originators usually do, but everybody else jumps on them) - a theory is a tool for discovery, not a belief system.

Fine. I don't have a problem with that. Just don't try to tell me the theory has some elevated reality because it looks more like science than the Bible does. It may be more intuitive but it's still a long way from fact.

I guess I don't understand your arguments as I should. You insist science is repeatable and testable but confess that much science is not, including a pretty well accepted theory of how the universe got here. But at the same time you dismiss any higher power for lack of testability. How's that work?

Well, you say, it's a theory and there's math behind it. Fine, but that doesn't make it science by your own definition.

Now I don't buy I.D. as it's being sold these days, but I do have a problem with evolved complexity. Like the skunk, for instance. Natural selection doesn't explain why they're so fucking cute yet so smelly. There may be an explanation that requires something besides natural selection that would explain the skunk, the eyeball and 35,000 different butterflies.

We're never going to find it if we dismiss anybody with a competing theory as a kook. Someday we're going to stumble onto some things we never dreamed of today--we can't afford to close our minds because we've bought into evolution as the complete explanation for everything.

Unfortunately evolution is not taught in the schools that I know of with caveats that there are many parts of the theory that are unanswered specifically the initial creation of life. It is taught as undeniable fact without addressing the unproven scientific leaps that have to be made. What is not said directly but is inferred when evolution is taught this way is that there is no supreme being. When a school lectures your children on something you adamantly disagree with, the inferred absence of a supreme being, I understand the frustration a parent can feel. The same way many probably feel when the scientifically proven Global Warming is part of the lesson indoctrination. That said, I want to make it clear that I do not want ID taught in the classroom. As Chris Rock says, I may not agree but I understand.

Natural selection doesn't explain why they're so fucking cute yet so smelly.

It is, how you say, a meestery!

but I don't see why science and religion should be doomed to be antagonists.

Galilieo felt the same way...;-)

But at the same time you dismiss any higher power for lack of testability.

Um, I'm not here to challenge anybody's concept of higher powers. I just jumped in to defend the scientific process. And if you read my other comments above, you'll see that I applaud any healthy criticism that ID or any other theory can bring to the scientific process.

You insist science is repeatable and testable but confess that much science is not, including a pretty well accepted theory of how the universe got here.

I'm sorry, but that's an abysmal characterization of my comments, and I think you've added in positions that other commenters have espoused. But I don't think it matters, since I don't really disagree with your fundamental point (scientists should be open to new ideas and constructive criticisms of their work).

Slublog,

I love the "Geek Inside" T-shirt!

It's a fun site. I own an "I'm Blogging This" t-shirt and this poster.

Slublog,

I like this one.

Michael, you still owe me an apology (see: December 27, 2005 10:31 PM). Just because I forgot to put my name on the comment doesn't absolve you of this responsibility. If I didn't know better I'd think you liked Velma better then me.

Oh, and eat me.

Sparkle:

This is how ideas get squashed. Science has been wrong over and over. Everyone agrees with that. Could it be possible that it is wrong on a bit of this?

NO.

ID is not science, for reasons that do not depend on evidence. This has been explained to you ad nauseam.

The POINT of science is to find out which theories are wrong and discard them. You cannot do that with ID; it is specifically constructed so that it is never wrong, no matter what evidence we find.

Since it cannot possibly be shown to be wrong, it is not science.

Look, Sparkle, you pointed to that article at TCS, and complained that no-one had addressed it when you thought it was convincing. I looked. It is complete BULLSHIT. Simple as that. The author is either a fraud or a moron. Yeah, he has a PhD in Meteorology. Makes no difference. There are lots of moron PhDs around.

All of ID is like that. All of it. Every last bit.

Since it cannot possibly be shown to be wrong, it is not science.

Pixy Misa - not science

Natural selection doesn't explain why they're so fucking cute yet so smelly.

Yes it does.

(There, that was easy.)

Pixy Misa - not science

Eh? Speak up, kid! You're mumbling again. I hate it when you kids mumble.

To all you half-evolved chimps: you keep knocking ID because it doesn't stand up to the scientific standards and methods. The absence of tests and all that. Can any of you Planet of the Apes fans show me one single instance where the Big Bang theory has been tested? Can it be tested?

Bart, the Big Bang theory is very simple.

Observation: Everything in the Universe is rushing away from everything else.

Inference: The Universe is expanding.

Inference: The Universe was smaller in the past.

Inference: If the Universe has always been expanding - and it is finite in size - then at some point in the past, all the matter in the Universe was piled up in one spot, which then exploded.

Prediction: Since light travels at a finite speed, we look backwards in time as we look out into the Universe, At the very edge of the visible Universe we should see radiation fro the Big Bang itself.*

Observation: Well, waddya know, that's exactly what we see.

Sorry, Bart, but if you argue about these things from a point of utter ignorance, you're going to make a fool of yourself. Again. And it doesn't help when you act like an arrogant git.

* Technically, not from the Big Bang, but from shortly after the Big Bang when the Universe became transparent. The very early Universe was so dense it was opaque. The Cosmic Microwave Background fits the predictions of the Big Bang Theory perfectly.

Sparkle!

But we will never know if "respectable" scientists don't even ask the questions.

Goddammit, WE HAVE ASKED THE QUESTIONS. And ID is BULLSHIT.

So in the sense that ID can sensibly challenge assumptions and conclusions of evolutionary models, it can be a useful contribution to the scientific process.

Except that it doesn't, so it isn't.

Except that it doesn't, so it isn't.

ID proponents have successfully prompted biologists to get off the stick and start postulating evolutionary pathways for complex organs, such as eyes. Just as creationists inspired paleontologists to hustle and fill in the fossil record. Regardless of the merits of ID itself, the external criticism does help keep scientific communities from becoming complacent group-think echo chambers.

It's all good.

ID proponents have successfully prompted biologists to get off the stick and start postulating evolutionary pathways for complex organs, such as eyes

Eh? Do you have a cite for this? Evolution of eyes is not exactly a new topic, and is blessed with countless examples of intermediate forms and convergent evolution. (And, of course, the vertebrate eye is a total screwup, being wired inside-out.)

Intelligent Design dates only to about 1991. Studies into the evolution of the eye go back a lot further than that.

It's all good.

No, it's not. ID, like Creation Science, is actively and deliberately fraudulent. It's not "all good", not by any sane standard.

ID, Creation Science, and Creationism don't ask good questions, and don't accept answers that they don't like. It's hard to pick out any positive contribution they have made, even inadvertantly.

It's hard to pick out any positive contribution they have made, even inadvertantly.

Oh, huh. How about: They made this thread almost as long as Dick Cheney's cock.

What do you mean, that's not a positive contribution?

It's hard to pick out any positive contribution they have made, even inadvertantly

You're really a fundementalist! Us bible thumpers got nothing on the Pixy.

Calm down Pixy, geoff has satisfied me competely (in the debate sense, of course!) And since this is his area of expertise, it makes it even better.

And I haven't been talking about I.D. for awhile.

If I didn't know better I'd think you liked Velma better then me.

Brew, I do like Velma better than you. You can forget about an apology.

This blog is just going to hell. In the old days, a few good Batman quotes could reliably kill a thread like this. Now, people are just out of control.

Take Pixy.

Hey, Pixy, stop commenting on this fucking blog and get to work. Like, maybe it would be cool if the HTML tag for "strike" would actually work in a comment thread. Earn your living, man!

You're really a fundementalist! Us bible thumpers got nothing on the Pixy.

So point out a positive contribution.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Calm down Pixy, geoff has satisfied me competely (in the debate sense, of course!) And since this is his area of expertise, it makes it even better.

Sparkle, geoff is a scientist; that does not make ID his area of expertise. Unless he is an evolutionary biologist, something I don't recall him ever mentioning.

The fact that he has satisfied you doesn't really matter if he was wrong.

And I haven't been talking about I.D. for awhile.

So you keep saying. You haven't actually said what you are talking about.

Hey, Pixy, stop commenting on this fucking blog and get to work. Like, maybe it would be cool if the HTML tag for "strike" would actually work in a comment thread.

Ace has control over that. He's got a magic little list of tags allowed in comments, and strike is not among them. Alas!

Of course, it shows up in the magic previewy thing and looks like its working and then it doesn't, but we all know he just does that out of spite.

Bewfan:

One thing I'll point out is that the very first step of both Creation Science and Intelligent Design is to change the definition of Science.

If you are interested in a longer explanation of why this can't possibly work, you can read my post here, but essentially, there is only one way that Science can be made to work, and so any redefinition changes it into something that doesn't work. In other words, ID is an attack on Science itself.

To paraphrase geoff, it's all bad.

To paraphrase geoff, it's all bad.
Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2005 08:32 PM

I agree that ID shouldn't be taught in school, it hasn't gone through the process to be accepted as a theory, it's no more than a hypothesis, at this point.

On the other hand, attitudes like yours risk preventing science from searching for truth - the essence of science. If the strictly materialist view of the universe is incorrect, and it is, then materialism shouldn't become dogma.

Either way, whether some school puts a sticker on a textbook or not shouldn't be real high on our list of things to worry about.

From your article:

The Theory of Spontaneous Maggotification is a scientific theory, and it is wrong. The Theory of Devilish Wormonising is not a scientific theory, because we can never know whether it is wrong.

Ok. Evolution can't be falsified. Now where do we go?

ID did happen but these judges are too dumb to know that and so are the evolutionists cracked urns pushing this darwiniam crap

ID is an attack on Science itself.

BTW, Pixy, this is crazy talk. No different then if I said science was an attack on religion.

Evolution can't be falsified.

Wrong.

I don't know where you got that from, but it's completely wrong.

There certainly possible findings that would falsify evolution:

* A creature in the fossil record with no possible antecedent, such as a precambrian rabbit.

* Living species that are biologically similar but completely different genetically, for example, if horses were closer genetically to horse chestnuts than to cows.

Of course, we haven't found any such examples, despite over a century of intense study, which is why we consider Evolution to be an extremely well-tested and reliable theory.

BTW, Pixy, this is crazy talk. No different then if I said science was an attack on religion.

No it isn't.

ID redefines Science. Read Behe's testimony in the Dover trial.

ID redefines Science such that it no longer precludes the supernatural. That makes scientific progress impossible, because you can never, not even in principle, design a control experiment or eliminate a hypothesis.

Under the ID definition of Science, Science does not work.

Now, that is an argument following from the epistemological foundations of Science, and it took me a long while to work through it myself, so I don't expect you to take me at my word. And I don't expect you to spend hours thinking about it just because I wrote a comment on this blog.

So instead, let's go to the horse's mouth:

"Five year strategic plan summary

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial , and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

...

"Governing Goals

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. "

That's the "Wedge Document", written by the Discovery Institute, the leading center of ID thought.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2005 09:18 PM

That document is troubling, because it looks like the ID movement is selling their theories, rather than proving them.

On the other hand, you must realize that ID supporters believe that they are scientifically correct, and are thus correcting what they see as an error in prevailing science.

If the strictly materialist worldview is correct, then it will survive these attacks. Truthfully, I don't care where, or for what purpose, science is challenged, as it tends to keep scientists honest and further our advancement.

Evolution proponents could end this debate tomorrow if they'd find a visible, obvious missing link. Perhaps this challenge will force them to work harder.

On the other hand, you must realize that ID supporters believe that they are scientifically correct, and are thus correcting what they see as an error in prevailing science.

That is not clear at all. What came out at the Dover trial is that the proponents of ID are dressing creationism in a science-looking framework to get it past the Establishment Clause (which had previously shut down Creation Science). Of course, we knew that, but the trial provided documentary evidence.

If the strictly materialist worldview is correct, then it will survive these attacks.

Yes.

Truthfully, I don't care where, or for what purpose, science is challenged, as it tends to keep scientists honest and further our advancement.

I strongly disagree. ID is fundamentally dishonest, and I fail to see how that can help keep scientists honest or further our advancement.

Evolution proponents could end this debate tomorrow if they'd find a visible, obvious missing link.

What?!

We have found enormous numbers of visible and obvious missing links. It happens all the time.

That makes no difference whatsoever to ID, because ID makes no prediction that missing links will not be found. Indeed, it makes no testable predictions at all. ID doesn't care about evidence, or anything else.

Ace has control over that. He's got a magic little list of tags allowed in comments, and strike is not among them. Alas!

I guess I owe you an apology (a common occurence these days). So, sorry. Here I've been blaming you, and it's that rat bastard Ace who prevents these tags from working even though they show up in the preview.

* A creature in the fossil record with no possible antecedent, such as a precambrian rabbit.

Did I not mention the precambrian rabbit about two days ago on this very frickin' thread? Yes, I think I did. The Commissar has schooled us well, Pixy. Which is kind of ironic, given that I am one of God's elect and you are on the highway to hell. But I still like you.

On a more technical note, ID actually does produce falsifiable hypotheses -- and they have been falsified. Behe's irreducibly complex flagellum turned out to be reducible. Dembski's notion of "specified complexity," using DNA chains as an example, took a big hit because it could not plausibly explain nylonase-eating bacteria, given that nylon was rather recently invented by DuPont. And so forth.

My point being, certain aspects of ID (those hypotheses that are a level down from the actual proposed existence of a Designer) are technically falsifiable and thus may fairly be considered science. So far, it's just been bad science. A precambrian rabbit seems to show up every time.

Not sure who said it, but I'd add to Pixy's work list getting this effing 'Remember personal info?' feature to work here at Valu-Rite HQ. I get tired of typing in my name every single time.

Evolution proponents could end this debate tomorrow if they'd find a visible, obvious missing link.

What?!
We have found enormous numbers of visible and obvious missing links. It happens all the time.
Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2005 10:08 PM

Perhaps I could have phrased that better. How about a visible, obvious Missing Link, as in 'The Missing Link'?

A skeleton which is a mix of man and an earlier primate that can be displayed on PBS and the covers of textbooks. I'm not a scientist, I don't play one on TV, but as far as I know, that's not been found. Even better if the primate is holding a tool. The best would be if such a primate was frozen in ice, could be thawed out, and do interviews on Letterman.

I'm with Adolfo on this one. I'll be convinced when a skeleton is found that looks like a chimp but does not fling poo.

The poo flinging is important.

Intelligent Design dates only to about 1991. Studies into the evolution of the eye go back a lot further than that.

Well yes, they go back at least to Darwin. I just recalled reading some 15 years ago a lay science article motivated by ID-type criticisms, where the author showed a speculative trail as to how an eye could reasonably have evolved. So it appeared to me that the criticisms were having a healthy impact in encouraging scientists to re-examine and defend their theories.

You're quite right that I'm not an evolutionary biologist: I'm a physics/heat transfer/fluids kind of guy. I have no love for the ID agenda - I'm just saying that controversy breeds better research, so when they launch specific criticisms at existing theories, that can be useful. But arguing that science should be replaced with a theologically-based system of natural understanding (as your quote from the Discovery Institute suggests) is indefensible.

The poo flinging is important.

I just want to be the first person to point out that Bart is a fucking lunatic.

I just want to be the first person to point out that Bart is a fucking lunatic.

Particularly when he dives into flamethreads with such relish. What was that distinguishing characteristic again?

Did I not mention the precambrian rabbit about two days ago on this very frickin' thread? Yes, I think I did.

You did indeed. But it was I who named it anomalobunnis antecambriensis. Err, not in this thread though. Until now.

What was that distinguishing characteristic again?

Very perplexing.

I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut.

Evolution can't be falsified.

Wrong.

I don't know where you got that from, but it's completely wrong.

There certainly possible findings that would falsify evolution:

* A creature in the fossil record with no possible antecedent, such as a precambrian rabbit.

I find it interesting that *not* finding something in the fossil record passes the 'science' test when you want it to: "We can't find Precambrian Bunnies" But if I say, "We can't find transitional forms in the fossil record" I just don't understand science.

We have found enormous numbers of visible and obvious missing links. It happens all the time.

You'll need to clarify this. Perhaps you can post a link to the article that describes the finding of the 'half mammal/half lizard' found in the fossil record or whatever you mean.

For the record, because these discussions often become 'heated', I want to say I have an enormous amount of respect for all the commenters here (well, except for the Josies and the trolls). I learn something new here almost every day and have a lot of fun doing it. I am also awed and slightly intimidated by how smart you people are too! If I ever get a chance to meet any of you, the first round is on me.

PM

And it doesn't help when you act like an arrogant git.

Hoo-boy.

For the record, because these discussions often become 'conciliatory', I want to say I have an enormous amount of contempt for all the commenters here. I see some new form of pathology here almost every day and have a lot of fun doing it. I am also awed, though not even slightly intimidated, by how retarded you people are too! If I ever get a chance to meet any of you, the first faceful of dirt is on me.

BrewFan,

I don't think you are reading Pixy's posts. Perhaps you're sincere. Assuming you are, here goes --

"Falsification" - the idea that a scientific hypothesis can be tested and shown to be wrong.

Now, please read carefully, because I am going to use two different forms of that word.

"Falsifiable" - i.e. an idea COULD BE tested and shown to be wrong. Thus Pixy's 'pre-Cambrian' rabbit. Therefore, evolution is "falsifiable."

"Falsified" - i.e. we tested something and found out that it did NOT explain an observation. SO FAR, evo has NOT been falsified.

Now onto ID. --- ID is not falsifiable (and that's one very important reason why it's not science) I havent read all your comments, but if you have been maintaining that ID is science, pls describe a falsifiability test for it.

*sigh* Good luck, Pixy. I admire your stamina.

Pixy,

At the risk of really ticking you off, you remind me alot of my fundie friends. They won't listen. They are STUCK in their position and won't budge even to concede a valid point they may not agree with. And even when I agree with them on 98% of the issue at hand they will beat me down for the 2%, thus totally turning me off their argument.

You guys are two sides of the same coin.

*runs away*

Don't worry too much, RWS. Frankly, we give scientists way too much credit:

"Scientists are not disinterested truth seekers," according to David Goodstein, vice provost of Caltech and an expert on research ethics. "They are more like players in an intense, winner-take-all competition for scientific prestige and the resources that follow from that prestige."

A survey of 3,247 scientists published in June by the journal Nature found that 33% admitted to engaging in some sort of questionable research practice, such as failing to present contradictory evidence or changing the design of a study to satisfy a funding source. Only 3% said they had deliberately falsified research data.

http://tammybruce.com/archives/2005/12/all_south_korea.php

400

Frankly, we give scientists way too much credit:

All too true, I fear. The old days of scientific discovery as an end unto itself are gone, as recognition and monetary reward have emerged. I could go on at length at the roots of the problems, but suffice to say that the world of science has, in many cases, lost sight of its pure origins.

Sparkle, you don't have a valid point. Sorry, but you don't. I'm not going to lie to you.

Brewfan,

I find it interesting that *not* finding something in the fossil record passes the 'science' test when you want it to: "We can't find Precambrian Bunnies"

Not finding a precambrian bunny isn't proof of anything. They might be there, but you haven't found them. Or maybe they're not there. You just don't know.

On the other hand, one precambrian bunny, just one, and evolution is sunk.

But if I say, "We can't find transitional forms in the fossil record" I just don't understand science.

Or rather, you don't understand evolution.

EVERY fossil is a transitional form. The fact that you haven't found a fossil that is transitional between two other, specific fossils only means that you haven't found it.

Perhaps you can post a link to the article that describes the finding of the 'half mammal/half lizard' found in the fossil record or whatever you mean.

Sure thing!

Transitions among fishes, and from fish to amphibians.
Transitions from amphibians to reptiles, among reptiles, from reptiles to mammals, and from reptiles to birds
Transitions among primates, carnivores, and rodents
Transitions among other types of mammals
More transitions among other types of mammals

What I don't get is this: Did you actually think that we didn't have this evidence? Did you think that biologists were making this up or something?

If you want more details, there are literally millions of pages of literature I can point you to.

The old days of scientific discovery as an end unto itself are gone

Those days never existed. Look at the behaviour of scientists in the 19th, 18th or 17th centuries, and you'll find that it was on the whole worse than in the 20th and 21st.

Scientists are people.

Frankly, we give scientists way too much credit

Credit for what, though?

Those days never existed. Look at the behaviour of scientists in the 19th, 18th or 17th centuries, and you'll find that it was on the whole worse than in the 20th and 21st.

I was thinking more of the scientific community in the 1850 - 1970 timeframe: before universities became preoccupied with IP; before conferences, textbooks, seminars, and research became big business; and before tuition skyrocketed to accommodate industry-competitive salaries. Maybe I'm looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, but the ethical decline just in my 25 years out in the world has been demoralizing.

By all that is purportedly holy! I skimmed this whole damn thread, and the only ray of enlightenment was...Pixy Misa is a he! I mean "Pixy"?! How was I to work that out for myself?

Okay, that RWS thing early on about how you can see there's a god because mountains and babyfists are really neat, that was kinda shocking.

Geoff, I'm not a working scientist so obviously I have to defer to you for personal experience.

That period certainly stands out as a bright one for personal achievements in science, but there was some pretty cut-throat competition for prestige as well.

S. Weasel

Ssssshh!!! It's a secret!

Sure thing!

Pixy, you're cracking me up.

See, between all the transitional fossils you cite, there are missing transitions!

Ha ha ha ha ha! Gotcha!

(Just kidding, OK?)

What I don't get is this: Did you actually think that we didn't have this evidence? Did you think that biologists were making this up or something?

See what I get for trying to be nice! You (or any biologist) do not have what I asked you for. You know that. Your link dump is a joke and you know it. Let me give you some advice. You need to be deprogrammed and get out of the cult you're in. You can't even admit the reason evolution is still a theory. If *real* transitional forms (class - to class would be nice but if you point me to a family to family transitional form that would be a good starting point) existed we wouldn't be having this debate, would we? RWS was absolutely correct in her observation. You may be the most religious person I have ever encountered. Next to The Commissar, that is.

You can't even admit the reason evolution is still a theory.

Cue Pixy for the lecture on the technical definition of "theory" to scientists.

If *real* transitional forms (class - to class would be nice but if you point me to a family to family transitional form that would be a good starting point) existed we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

If memory serves, we actually have amphibious transitional forms that show the ancestors of whales, originally land mammals, evolving into full-time sea creatures. But I'll defer to Pixy on this.

Michael and Pixy, will you at least admit that scientists (in general) have taken liberties to fill in the blanks for all of the researched transitional forms?

Cue Pixy for the lecture on the technical definition of "theory" to scientists.

He needn't bother; I'm aware of that obfuscation tactic too.

we actually have amphibious transitional forms that show the ancestors of whales, originally land mammals, evolving into full-time sea creatures.

So, a big whale with legs became a big whale? I'd be interested in seeing the transistional forms of that mutation.

Michael and Pixy, will you at least admit that scientists (in general) have taken liberties to fill in the blanks for all of the researched transitional forms?

Bart, you're not suggesting that some scientist would take a few small skull fragments and create an entire monkey-man out of it, are you. Oh my. Why, what next, a single tooth that proves the latest monkey man walked upright? Heaven forbid!

Michael and Pixy, will you at least admit that scientists (in general) have taken liberties to fill in the blanks for all of the researched transitional forms?

Yes. I have no problem with the notion that some scientists have been highly creative with the fossil record because they are so wedded to evolutionary dogma.

I'm aware of that obfuscation tactic too.

To be fair, it's not really obfuscation. It is attempting to address the issue with a common vocabulary. Scientists talk about a "theory" in a way that is different from its popular usage, but which actually hews pretty closely to the primary meaning of the term. I don't think evolutionists are obfuscating when they point this out.

So, a big whale with legs became a big whale? I'd be interested in seeing the transistional forms of that mutation.

They weren't so big on land. The transitional forms look more like a mammalian crocodile to me.

A quick google search yields interesting articles here, here, and here, and there are many more.

Sorry, my second whale link was the same as my first. It should have been here.

You (or any biologist) do not have what I asked you for. You know that.

Then what the hell are you asking for?

You asked for information on transitional fossils. I gave you exactly that.

Of course, all fossils are transitional. But never mind that.

What are you asking for? You wanted a half-mammal/half-lizard. No such thing existed, because lizards and mammals evolved separately from a common reptilian ancestor.

But the page I linked to cites thirty known genera in the progression from synapsid reptiles to placental mammals. Thirty!

What the hell do you want? If you want links to information on specific animals, I can do that. Pick one (or two, or three).

If *real* transitional forms (class - to class would be nice but if you point me to a family to family transitional form that would be a good starting point) existed we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

Well, obviously we would because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I GAVE YOU.

Or - Are you asking for a species that is midway between two known classes with no known transitional forms on either side? I mean, I can provide you with examples of that (I think), but I don't see what the hell it would prove. See in the list of genera, each one a clear evolutionary descendent of the previous one, occasionally there is a paragraph beginning "GAP"? That's what you wanted, right? A jump from one family to another?

All that means is that we haven't found the transitional fossils in that gap yet.

You need to be deprogrammed and get out of the cult you're in.

Look, you asked me a question, and I answered it, quite comprehesnively. Now you're complaining that the answer doesn't meet your preconceptions. I already pointed out that you don't understand evolution. What more do you want?

You can't even admit the reason evolution is still a theory.

Yes. It's a theory. Just like gravity.

Michael and Pixy, will you at least admit that scientists (in general) have taken liberties to fill in the blanks for all of the researched transitional forms?

No. That is completely false.

I'm going to start calling Pixy the Rev. Pixy Misa

I haven't seen faith in something like this since Pat Robertson prayed a hurricane away.

Uh, Sparkle, I am Rev. Pixy Misa.

(Okay, I wasn't ordained under that name, but you know what I mean.)

I haven't seen faith in something like this since Pat Robertson prayed a hurricane away.

I have no faith in evolution at all. None. Not the slightest bit.

Now, if you would care to point out anything I have said on the subject that wasn't factually correct, or any error of logic, or any misstatement on my part, fire away.

Pixy,

Wasn't it you that said "We know what we don't know."

That is simply ridiculous. There could be tons of things we don't know and aren't aware that we don't know them.

Whew. Read that slowly.

There could be a discovery next year that turns parts or all of evolution on it's head. That is what you don't seem to want to admit.

A fallan away Reverend.

I shoulda known.

There could be tons of things we don't know and aren't aware that we don't know them.

Yes, except that we know that we don't know that we don't know them.

Let's look at gravity.

Newton's Laws nailed gravity pretty well. They predicted how things would move, and they worked every time... Except for the orbit of the planet Mercury, which just wasn't right.

Along comes Einstein, and explains (among a whole bunch of other stuff) why Mercury's orbit isn't quite what Newton said it should be. And we test Einsteins theory on all sorts of stuff, and it works.

Now, Relativity doesn't mesh with Quantum Mechanics, and QM doesn't explain gravity at all. We know there's a gap there. We don't know yet what goes in that gap, but we know that it doesn't say, for example, that apples fall upwards.

Because they don't.

We know where the gaps are, Sparkle. We know how the everyday world works. We know that apples don't fall upwards. We know that atoms consist of a nucleus and a "cloud" of electrons. We know that evolution happened.

But it's inductive, not deductive, knowledge. It's not a mathematical proof. It's just that we have tried to find something that says otherwise, and never found it.

There could be a discovery next year that turns parts or all of evolution on it's head.

Sparkle, if you had read my posts, you would have noticed that not only did I say exactly that, I even gave examples.

But here's the thing: We've been looking for such a discovery for a hundred and fifty years, and we haven't found anything. Instead, everything we've ever found supports evolution.

Of course we could find that Pre-cambrian bunny tomorrow. And then evolution would go splat.

But until we do find that bunny, all you can say is that we have a mountain of evidence in favour of evolution and exactly zero against it.

A fallan away Reverend.

My church doesn't think so.

Neither does the Pope... Though for a different reason.

Yes. It's a theory. Just like gravity.

Gravity can be tested, right here, right now. Man walked on the moon and provided actual evidence about gravity. The same can't be said about evolution.

You knock ID because it doesn't meet scientific standards, yet you readily accept the extrapolation, speculation -- making predictions beyond the hard data available -- to fill in the gaps to complete the theory.

That bodes the question, If there was unlimited time, could a room full of monkeys randomly combine all the possible combinations of chemicals and create life? Much more interesting than the complete works of Shakespear.

If there was unlimited time, could a room full of monkeys randomly combine all the possible combinations of chemicals and create life?

Again, evolution presupposes life, at least a virus or something, and then offers an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life that we observe today. Evolution does not purport to offer an explanation for the origen of life.

The scientific inquiry into the origen of life ("abiogenesis") is in its infancy at the moment and doesn't have many answers, just a lot of speculation. I've never heard a responsible scientist claim otherwise.

As a Christian, I am dubious that they will ever come up with a plausible answer, but we shall see.

Criticizing evolution because it does not explain something that it has never attempted to explain is bogus.

I'm working on a new theory: the fascination with the planet Uranus is directly related to the sales of leather vests in San Francisco.

I swear on my mother's grave that I am going to stop checking this thread. If Pixy's quitting, then so am I.

Hope you check the thread again Michael as I was only trying to be funny and not trying to make a point about evolution. Trying being the key word.