Intelligent Design debunked utterly
don freeman
science over religion, I would not read the various postings he gave us
about Intelligent Design. I just couldn't see wasting my time on such
obvious hokum, and figured someone would eventually lay waste to the
silliness inherent in the concept of an Intelligent Designer . Thanks to
these two letters to the New Yorker, someone has finally laid out a
simple proof that Intelligent Design makes no sense.
This first letter explains clearly how, because of the way human lungs
have evolved, no one in their right mind would attribute the lungs to an
intelligent designer.
FROM THE NEW YORKER:
Advocates of I.D. posit that the design one finds in the natural world
is largely beyond what the trial-and-error procedures of evolution could
produce. But nature is not intelligently designed in the way a computer
chip is, and has many odd curlicues—like a Rube Goldberg machine. Thus,
DNA is full of redundancies, and sections without apparent purpose. Or
again, throughout our bodies we have proteases to digest proteins. In
the lungs, however, breaking down proteins would lead to a fisherman's
net of tissue that would not hold air. An intelligent designer would
probably have solved this problem by excluding all proteases from the
lungs. Instead, we have an anti-protease in our lungs to block the
action of the protease. Nature puts protein breakdown in the lung, and
then cancels it out. Rube Goldberg would have been proud, but God would
have found a more streamlined, less convoluted method to prevent die
breakdown of lung tissue.
William A. Pryor
Director, Biodynamics Institute Louisiana State University
AND FURTHERMORE:
The more that is discovered about sub-cellular systems, the more amazing
it seems that such complexity could have simply evolved. But the
distrust in the power of evolution demonstrated by I.D. proponents
points not to a problem with evolutionary theory but, rather, to the
inability of the human mind to fully grasp the invisible world. If I.D.
theory is correct, how does one explain the emergence of
multi-drug-resistant, pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus bacteria,
transformed over sixty years from its ancestor, which succumbed to a
whiff of penicillin? Americans who still believe in creation-ism in some
form should also recall that the technology underlying the televisions
they watch and the medications they take is a product of the scientific
method, developed over centuries of careful experimentation and
hypothesis testing. It is this same approach that fully supports the
theory of evolution.
Jonathan D. Kaunitz, M.D.
Professor of Medicine U.C.LA. School of Medicine Los Angeles
Dan Luke
"don freeman" wrote:
> Thanks to these two letters to the New Yorker, someone has finally
> laid out a simple proof that Intelligent Design makes no sense.
Yes, these are good illustrations of some of the logical flaws in ID,
but the ID proponents can argue around them.
The fatal flaw in ID is that it is not science. It fails the most
critical test of a scientific theory: that it be falsifiable.
Absolutely no observation could falsify ID because the ID proponent can
simply say, "Oh, that's just the way the Designer did it! We don't know
who the Designer is or how he does things."
That is not the case with the theory of gravitation or the theory of
evolution. If we saw an apple falling more slowly than a cue ball, or a
new species being poofed into existence from dust, those theories would
be falsified.
--
Dan
"Notice this rent in my garment; I am at a loss to explain its presence!
I am even more puzzled by the existence of the universe."
-- Jack Vance: _The Eyes of the Overworld_
Bernie Woodham
"don freeman" <dfr...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mhnRe.52406$Hk.34260@pd7tw1no...
> Ken Wilson used to get annoyed with me because, in arguing in favour of
> science over religion, I would not read the various postings he gave us
> about Intelligent Design. I just couldn't see wasting my time on such
> obvious hokum, and figured someone would eventually lay waste to the
> silliness inherent in the concept of an Intelligent Designer . Thanks to
> these two letters to the New Yorker, someone has finally laid out a simple
> proof that Intelligent Design makes no sense.
>
> This first letter explains clearly how, because of the way human lungs
> have evolved, no one in their right mind would attribute the lungs to an
> intelligent designer.
>
design.
Jason Michael
Don, here's an article from today's New York Times that will have you
gnashing your teeth, methinks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html (registration
required)
Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: August 31, 2005
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach
students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that
nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught
alongside evolution in public schools.
Divided Over Evolution
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views,
agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the
beginning of time."
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over
time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme
being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural
selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching
creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing
evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions
about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5
percentage points.
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to
see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by
conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents,
liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr.
Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that
way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a
nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the
scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of
Akron in Ohio.
Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education
and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising
because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind
of argument."
"In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them
because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do have American
culture on their side."
This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new
controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others
in the state legislatures.
President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both
evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools
"so people can understand what the debate is about."
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same
position a few weeks later.
Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is
so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.
The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary
say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers
and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should.
Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of
evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.
More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain" of
their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32
percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of
religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most of these
questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents, and the margin
of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers said.
The public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last
year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed
Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in
August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly
toward religion.
Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life,
said: "I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's very
successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the Democrats
not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some of the more
visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have reinforced that image
of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the Democratic Party, there's
a large religious constituency there."
Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals
had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that
religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45
percent).
On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing
churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to provide
social services. But support for such financing declined from 75 percent in
early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based initiative.
On gay men and lesbians in the military, 58 percent of those polled said
they should be allowed to serve openly, a modest increase from 1994, when 52
percent agreed. Strong opposition has fallen in that time, to 15 percent
from 26 percent in 1994.
Jason
jasonmichael NOSPAM @ REMOVE canada.com
don freeman
> Don, here's an article from today's New York Times that will have you
> gnashing your teeth, methinks:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html (registration
> required) > Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
No, I don't mind if the majority of Americas are religious cranks. When
you're fighting the mullahs, it seems you've got to go a bit
religous-nutsy yourself.
But I do resent people in rmd pushing creationism and/or designism. Bob
Dylan deserves better than that.
Delia
Jason Michael wrote:
> "don freeman" <dfr...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:mhnRe.52406$Hk.34260@pd7tw1no...
>
> Don, here's an article from today's New York Times that will have you
> gnashing your teeth, methinks:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html (registration
> required)
>
> Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
>
> By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
> Published: August 31, 2005
>
> In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach
> students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that
> nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught
> alongside evolution in public schools.
Well, just as you can create the certainty that there are WMDs in Iraq
even after everybody has determined that they're not, or the certainty
that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda even when all the best intelligence
says there are none, and you don't even dare come out and say so
anymore; so you can create the certainty in the majority of a poorly
educated population (most of whom don't bother to go to church, mind
you, though they won't admit it to the pollsters) that creationism just
seems more likely, and besides, believing it ups their chances of
getting into heaven, especially when they spend half their Sundays
going fishing.
>
Bernie Woodham
"Delia" <delia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125545303.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Well, just as you can create the certainty that there are WMDs in Iraq
> even after everybody has determined that they're not, or the certainty
> that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda even when all the best intelligence
> says there are none, and you don't even dare come out and say so
> anymore; so you can create the certainty in the majority of a poorly
> educated population (most of whom don't bother to go to church, mind
> you, though they won't admit it to the pollsters) that creationism just
> seems more likely, and besides, believing it ups their chances of
> getting into heaven, especially when they spend half their Sundays
> going fishing.
>
We Americans should create a new denomination: First Church of the LardAss
mcis...@umich.edu
don freeman wrote:
> >
> > Don, here's an article from today's New York Times that will have you
> > gnashing your teeth, methinks:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html (registration
> > required) > Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
>
>
> No, I don't mind if the majority of Americas are religious cranks. When
> you're fighting the mullahs, it seems you've got to go a bit
> religous-nutsy yourself.
That so many Americans cannot distinguish between 'what is science' and
'what is metaphysics' is all the more reason for I.D. to not be taught.
This lack of discernment will only get worse.
don freeman
> Yes, these are good illustrations of some of the logical flaws in ID,
> but the ID proponents can argue around them.
>
> The fatal flaw in ID is that it is not science.
But that's not a flaw in the minds of some people here. They consider
science flawed.
It's like when Galileo looked through his telescope and realized that
the Sun and the other planets didn't revolve around the earth. This
piece of scientific observation could have been flawed, because science
is an activity of man and man is flawed. However, the Holy Book stated
that the earth is the center of the universe and because the bible is
the word of G-d, it cannot be flawed.
The fact that evolution has gone in some directions that no Intelligent
Designer would possibly have chosen is an argument that only appeals to
ID proponents that have a few brain cells left.
tom .
> That so many Americans cannot distinguish between 'what is science' and
> 'what is metaphysics' is all the more reason for I.D. to not be taught.
> This lack of discernment will only get worse.
this entire debate and discussion will teach and will continue to teach
people more about what science is and what science isn't than anything
they learned in school. most kids think science is boring because
science teachers, and teachers in general, suck so much and do such a
terrible job as it is teaching kids.
so this debate is a good thing.
i think this was god's intention.
he's so smart.
.
J Buck
in schools?
Give the youngsters an extra period of subjects they can actually use
later in life, like the 3 R's. (Okay, 2, 'cos math is a waste of time)
J Buck
teachers in general, suck so much and do such a terrible job as it is
teaching kids>
Especially now that NCLB takes away all creativity from teachers.
tom .
will teach and will continue to teach?
my apologies.
that should be has taught and will continue to teach.
i take full responsiblity for the error.
.
don freeman
Yes, why teach American kids science? It's not like they're going to
need logic in their lives. As long as kids in India learn science and
math so well, our computer industry will continue to thrive.
Dan Luke
"J Buck" wrote:
> here's an idea...where is it written that either theory must be taught
> in schools?
1) ID is not a scientific theory. It is a false dichotomy to juxtapose
it with the theory of evolution in this way.
2) "It is written" that we teach children the fundamental scientific
knowledge that is the underpinning of modern technology.
> Give the youngsters an extra period of subjects they can actually use
> later in life, like the 3 R's. (Okay, 2, 'cos math is a waste of time)
Perhaps even the rudiments are wasted on some people.
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick
J Buck
<Give the youngsters an extra period of subjects they can actually use
later in life, like the 3 R's. (Okay, 2, 'cos math is a waste of time)>
Dan wrote:
<Perhaps even the rudiments are wasted on some people>
Wasn't suggesting the 'rudiments', per se. Make advanced math an
elective. How many people use algebra, trigonometry, calculus, ad
nauseum, enough to justify the time spent memorizing that bullshit in
school?
Mad Dan
You are joking of course?
J Buck
<You are joking of course?>
No, I'm not. See my reply to Dan Luke. (note to self...there are 2 Dans
in rmd now; Dan Luke and Mad Dan)
Bob Gill
Do you really agree with Bush that ignorance is preferable to knowledge?
We're already going down that road, and the only destination is disaster.
The fanatics in control right now prefer to have all decisions made by
people who don't have a clue what they're talking about (i.e., global
warming, military matters), and now you seem to be arguing that we need
more of this. I'm surprised and very discouraged to see you making such a
preposterous and damaging argument. But you have lots of company.
-- Bob G.
J Buck
<J Buck wrote: Wasn't suggesting the 'rudiments', per se. Make advanced
math an elective. How many people use algebra, trigonometry, calculus,
ad nauseum, enough to justify the time spent memorizing that bullshit in
school?>
<Do you really agree with Bush that ignorance is preferable to
knowledge?>
Bravo for trying to put words in my mouth. Read what I posted.
<The fanatics in control right now prefer to have all decisions made by
people who don't have a clue what they're talking about (i.e., global
warming, military matters), and now you seem to be arguing that we need
more of this>
I'm not arguing against more cluelessness at all. I'm arguing for the
better use of time, both for students _and_ teachers.
There will always be kids who are into math. And that's great...for
them. There is no more reason for the majority of students to take
calculus than there is for the math geeks to take advanced creative
writing or a seminar on English Lit. I'd rather see 18 y/o kids graduate
from high school knowing how to write a paragraph that makes sense, than
knowing how to unravel x=y(2z-3q)blahblahblah.
<I'm surprised and very discouraged to see you making such a
preposterous and damaging argument. But you have lots of company>
I'm discouraged that you can't understand my point. But I'll get over
that very soon. I could not care less how much company I have in what
you perceive as the wrong side of this issue. I ask everyone here
again...how many people use math in their daily lives, beyond adding,
subtracting, multiplying, and dividing?
don freeman
> I ask everyone here
> again...how many people use math in their daily lives, beyond adding,
> subtracting, multiplying, and dividing?
>
>
J Buck would through out the baby with the bathwater, just because
they're making too much irrelevant math mandatory in high school.
One excuse educators use for teaching irrelevant stuff is you never know
in the future when you're going to need something. I had no way of
knowing that I'd need a lot of geometry skills to make cd graphics on my
computer.
There are some hugely important skills in math that J Buck isn't
thinking about. Algebra is one. You need algebra to figure out your
finances, and to do basic carpentry tasks around the house. As well, you
need averaging skills. You need to know decimals too, though I suspect
you don't need to know how to calculate square roots.
Just shopping in a big grocery store, you really need your mathematical
wits about you to figure out the best unit price, or comparative
calories per serving of different foods. The more education the better!
SilkUpholsteredChair
This is the best post I've read for 3 weeks.
Dan Luke
"tom ."wrote:
No, it isn't. ID is a hoax, a religio-political effort to insert
deistic beliefs into public education's science curricula. As a result,
the quality of public science education continues to decline.
> i think this was god's intention.
>
> he's so smart.
God has nothing to do with it. Human axe-grinders are behind it.
--
Dan
Stuck Inside of Mobile
tom .
>>>That so many Americans cannot distinguish between 'what is science'
>>>and 'what is metaphysics' is all the more reason for I.D. to not be
>>>taught. This lack of discernment will only get worse.
>>this entire debate and discussion will teach and will continue to
>>teach people more about what science is and what science isn't than
>>anything they learned in school. most kids think science is boring
>>because science teachers, and teachers in general, suck so much and do
>>such a terrible job as it is teaching kids.
>>so this debate is a good thing.
> No, it isn't. ID is a hoax, a religio-political effort to insert
> deistic beliefs into public education's science curricula. As a result,
> the quality of public science education continues to decline.
hoax or not, the debate is a good thing. the discussion about why "ID
is [or is not] a hoax" is a good thing. it's a great teaching method to
explain the theory of evolution. and the science behind it.
as i said, teachers, for the most part, suck. they need all the help
they can get teaching these knucklehead kids. let the kids who are
taught intelligent design at home bring it up in class. heck, let them
try to defend it. then let the teacher explain to the class why it
isn't science.
>>i think this was god's intention.
>>he's so smart.
> God has nothing to do with it. Human axe-grinders are behind it.
says you, dan. prove it.
remember, every hair is numbered.
.
Bob Gill
> I'm not arguing against more cluelessness at all. I'm arguing for the
> better use of time, both for students _and_ teachers.
> There will always be kids who are into math. And that's great...for
> them. There is no more reason for the majority of students to take
> calculus than there is for the math geeks to take advanced creative
> writing or a seminar on English Lit. I'd rather see 18 y/o kids graduate
> from high school knowing how to write a paragraph that makes sense, than
> knowing how to unravel x=y(2z-3q)blahblahblah.
Yeah, but you're conveniently forgetting that you started this discussion
by saying they don't need science either. I agree about needing better
writing, but you've dropped science and math (beyond adding and subtracting)
from the curriculum. And before you say not all science, just the stuff that
we don't need in everyday life, would you also apply that to English, in
which case nobody needs to know any more than how to read a TV guide or
something?
I'm not putting words into your mouth, only following your original idea
to its natural and, I think, inevitable conclusion. One of our great
problems today is that we have far too many ignorant people who barely use
their brains more than a cat does, and starting down this road will just
make it worse. In a hurry.
-- Bob G.
J Buck
<Yeah, but you're conveniently forgetting that you started this
discussion by saying they don't need science either>
Thanks for the 'yeah'. Again, you _are_ putting words in my mouth. I
never spoke out against teaching science; I wondered why we were having
a debate over ID versus evolution.
Dan Luke
"tom ." wrote:
> remember, every hair is numbered.
Bullshit.
don freeman
>
> Thanks for the 'yeah'. Again, you _are_ putting words in my mouth. I
> never spoke out against teaching science; I wondered why we were having
> a debate over ID versus evolution.
>
You wondered why we were teaching evolution in the schools.
You have no idea how important a concept like evolution is in
understanding life. The whole relativity of nations and cultures,
something that many Americans have no idea of, is related to evolution.
Bernie Woodham
"tom ." <blin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43184AF7...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> hoax or not, the debate is a good thing. the discussion about why "ID is
> [or is not] a hoax" is a good thing. it's a great teaching method to
> explain the theory of evolution. and the science behind it.
>
> as i said, teachers, for the most part, suck. they need all the help they
> can get teaching these knucklehead kids. let the kids who are taught
> intelligent design at home bring it up in class. heck, let them try to
> defend it. then let the teacher explain to the class why it isn't
> science.
>
>
wrong, the said kid goes home and cries about it and then the parents sue
the school district and Bill O'Reilly gets the kids and his parents on his
show and weeps along with them, denouncing the atheists and saying things
like "Well, they don't tell the Muslims they are wrong".
Keep it all out of the school. Teach kids to cut up the frogs.
Bob Gill
> Thanks for the 'yeah'. Again, you _are_ putting words in my mouth. I
> never spoke out against teaching science; I wondered why we were having
> a debate over ID versus evolution.
Of course you did. You asked why they have to teach evolution in school,
and it's one of the most crucial concepts in all of science. That would be
a disastrous decision.
If you didn't really mean that, well, OK, but don't pretend that's not
what you said. Anybody can check back and find it.
Anyway, the trouble with saying "just teach them what they need" is that
you get caught up quickly in a downward spiral, and where does it end? Do
people *need* evolution in their daily lives? No, so let's drop it. Do
they need trigonometry? Probably not, so let's drop that too. Does anyone
really need to read at any higher level than appliance manuals? Not likely,
so forget literature. And what about history? Hell, the past is gone, so
just forget it.
Once you start down that trail in earnest, the destination is the dark
ages.
What they *should* teach in science, I think, is something more like the
history of science. Rather than just presenting these basic principles like
evolution or heredity or the heliocentric solar system, they should trace
the way they were developed over the centuries. First of all, that makes
them much more interesting; second, I think it would make them easier to
remember. And in the specific case of evolution, it might be kill this
whole pseudo-argument about "creationism" or "intelligent design" or
whatever the next code word they invent for it. Such a class would show the
centuries of observations that finally resulted in the theory of evolution
and the establishing of the Earth's age at 4.6 billion years, so they might
understand what intelligent people mean when they say all the evidence
points to the truth of these ideas _ especially as opposed to the
"intelligent design" people, whose sole evidence is a couple of sentences
in Genesis.
-- Bob G.
kfw...@yahoo.com
"intelligent design" people, whose sole evidence is a couple of sbe a
clue? Is it possoibentences
in Genesis.
I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
theory. That's where Dembski and others begin. They may then arguably
head off way off course. But it doesn't help your argument to deny the
obvious, that they are scientists trying to make sense of the facts at
hand.
And when are you guys who are so eager to take conservatives on this
issue to task for being ignorant ideolgues going to take Don Freeman to
task for being an ignorant ideologue ;-)) And Dan Luke, and Seth Kulick
and frinjdwelr . . . your anger and disdain for all things
conservatively Christian . . . could you possibly be like the Southern
white who positively wants blacks to be shiftless and dumb? Is there
any chance you can't see through your kneejerk hate? Just a thought. :-)
Dan Luke
"don freeman" wrote:
>
> You wondered why we were teaching evolution in the schools.
Buck, like most Americans, is a scientific ignoramus. He can't help
asking such stupid questions.
> You have no idea how important a concept like evolution is in
> understanding life. The whole relativity of nations and cultures,
> something that many Americans have no idea of, is related to
> evolution.
Aw shit, Freeman.
Every time I think you're about to arrive at a clue, you run right off
the rails and crash.
Evolution is the foundation of modern biology; *that* is why it is
important.
Evolution is about change in allele frequencies in populations over
generations and the effect of natural selection on those changes. It is
not about civilization, Social Darwinism, eugenics, morality,
philosophy, the origin of life, atheism, or any of a hundred other
misapplications and strawmen that various deist axe-grinders and
scientific illiterates try to associate it with.
To get you back on the track:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Try to tighten up, will you?
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Dan Luke
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
> theory.
No, there aren't. Falsehood #1.
Perhaps you'd like to list some of these supposed "huge gaps."
> That's where Dembski and others begin. They may then arguably
> head off way off course. But it doesn't help your argument to deny the
> obvious, that they are scientists...
No, they aren't. Falsehood #2.
Dembski, Behe and other ID proponents have no testable theory, do no
research, publish no peer-reviewed papers, and have nothing but an
argument from incredulity. That is, they argue that since they cannot
believe that evolution produced some complex structures, an intelligent
agent must have done it. That lame non-sequitur is the jello-like
foundation of Intelligent Design.
> And when are you guys who are so eager to take conservatives on this
> issue to task for being ignorant ideolgues going to take Don Freeman
> to
> task for being an ignorant ideologue ;-))
Many conservatives know that ID is a load of bollocks, and have written
editorials to that effect. Your assertion that recognition of this fact
depends on political ideology is Falsehood #3.
Freeman's ignorance is another subject.
> And Dan Luke, and Seth Kulick
> and frinjdwelr . . . your anger and disdain for all things
> conservatively Christian . . .
I admit to disdain for fundamentalist religion; it is a force for evil
in the world. I get angry when such ignorant nonsense is inflicted on
the public schools.
> could you possibly be like the Southern
> white who positively wants blacks to be shiftless and dumb?
No, we couldn't.
ID most certainly is shiftless and dumb, whether we want it to be or
not.
> Is there
> any chance you can't see through your kneejerk hate?
No, there isn't.
Bill Kawalec
"Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:11hksej...@news.supernews.com...
>
> <kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
>> theory.
>
> No, there aren't. Falsehood #1.
>
There ARE, and if you can seriously deny that, you are very, very
ill-informed. Evolution is no more a proven fact than six day creation is
(personally, I believe neither).
Dan Luke
"Bill Kawalec" wrote:
>>> I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
>>> theory.
>>
>> No, there aren't. Falsehood #1.
>>
>
> There ARE, and if you can seriously deny that, you are very, very
> ill-informed. Evolution is no more a proven fact than six day creation
> is (personally, I believe neither).
So let's hear 'em, Bill. Give me your list and I will then proceed to
debunk them.
Better yet, post your list on talk.origins and real scientists will be
happy to debunk them for you.
don freeman
> important.
>
> Evolution is about change in allele frequencies in populations over
> generations and the effect of natural selection on those changes. It is
> not about civilization, Social Darwinism, eugenics, morality,
> philosophy, the origin of life, atheism, or any of a hundred other
> misapplications and strawmen that various deist axe-grinders and
> scientific illiterates try to associate it with.
>
The fact that we are evolved animals and not specially created
mini-yaweh like creatures adds incredible importance to the issues of
civilization, Social Darwinism, eugenics, morality, philosophy, the
origin of life, and atheism
don freeman
>
> Freeman's ignorance is another subject.
>
>
Yes, I did make a mistake a while back about the relationship between
the French Revolution and the American Constitution. And I am very
ignorant about spectator sports and tv sit-coms.
But just what else am I being accused of here?
J Buck
<Buck, like most Americans, is a scientific ignoramus. He can't help
asking such stupid questions>
Yep, that's me. I ask one thoughtful question about whether the endless
time-consuming debate between ID and evolution is necessary and all of a
sudden I'm a 'scientific ignoramus'.
And you must be the guy who made Everest out of a molehill.
Nate Smith
Mad Dan wrote:
>
> You are joking of course?
>
...i guess he wasnt.
J Buck has flaunted his lunacy many times. this is just
another of those times.
- nate
J Buck
<J Buck has flaunted his lunacy many times. this is just another of
those times>
I wouldn't call it flaunting. For that matter, lunacy, either. But
you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Dan Luke
"J Buck" wrote:
> Dan Luke wrote:
> <Buck, like most Americans, is a scientific ignoramus. He can't help
> asking such stupid questions>
>
> Yep, that's me. I ask one thoughtful question about whether the
> endless
> time-consuming debate between ID and evolution is necessary and all of
> a
> sudden I'm a 'scientific ignoramus'.
But that isn't what you asked, Buck.
Here, let me help you:
"...where is it written that either theory must be taught in schools?"
...a "thoughtful" question that makes it quite plain that 1) You do not
understand what a scientific theory is and 2) you are not aware that the
theory of evolution is essential to understanding modern biology. That
makes you, WRT science, an ignoramus.
If you are dissatisfied with this situation, here is a place to help you
fill some gaps: http://www.talkorigins.org/
> And you must be the guy who made Everest out of a molehill.
Sorry, that credit must go to plate tectonics.
--
Dan
"Shut up! Shut up!"
- Bill O'Reilly
Dan Luke
"don freeman" wrote:
You appear to have an incomplete understanding that would permit you to
fall for an array of misconceptions, half-truths and downright lies
about evolution that have been used both to justify horrors such as
eugenics on the grounds that they are "natural," and to attack evolution
as a philosophy or even a religion.
Evolution is as politically, socially and philosophically neutral as
gravitation. It's just the way nature works, nothing more.
--
Dan
"Notice this rent in my garment; I am at a loss to explain its presence!
I am even more puzzled by the existence of the universe."
--Jack Vance: _The Eyes of the Overworld_
don freeman
> You appear to have an incomplete understanding that would permit you to
> fall for an array of misconceptions, half-truths and downright lies
> about evolution that have been used both to justify horrors such as
> eugenics on the grounds that they are "natural," and to attack evolution
> as a philosophy or even a religion.
>
> Evolution is as politically, socially and philosophically neutral as
> gravitation. It's just the way nature works, nothing more.
>
No, you've got me wrong here. I've never been in favour of eugenics or
invented spelling. However, as an high school English teacher, I was
often drawn into the issues of the evolution of language, explaining why
a title like "Elegy Writ in a Country Churchyard" was archaic, while
our use of the word "got" instead of "gotten" was not yet archaic.
Teaching the novel, The Chyrsalids, was a great lesson in evolution,
both for understanding the novel itself and for understanding the themes
the novel illuminated. This is what really showed me that those who
disbelieve in evolution are going to have a distorted view of social
issues, like gay marriage.
Bob Gill
kfw...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > the
> "intelligent design" people, whose sole evidence is a couple of sbe a
> clue? Is it possoibentences
> in Genesis.
>
> I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
> theory. That's where Dembski and others begin. They may then arguably
> head off way off course. But it doesn't help your argument to deny the
> obvious, that they are scientists trying to make sense of the facts at
> hand.
I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I don't think there are
any huge gaps. There are areas of disagreement, which is what you expect in
science, especially with such a broad subject as evolution. Certain details
that don't fit the prevailing theory are good, because they force
re-evaluations that end up with better explanations _ for instance, the
Mitchelson-Morley experiment and the theory of relativity. We wouldn't have
gotten anywhere, though, if scientists had studied the confusing results of
M-M and said, "Well, it must be magic." I think the claims of "intelligent
design" or whatever else it's called amount to much the same thing. It just
ends the discussion and leaves us knowing less than before.
-- Bob G.
Dan Luke
"don freeman" wrote:
>> You appear to have an incomplete understanding that would permit you
>> to fall for an array of misconceptions, half-truths and downright
>> lies about evolution that have been used both to justify horrors such
>> as eugenics on the grounds that they are "natural," and to attack
>> evolution as a philosophy or even a religion.
>>
>> Evolution is as politically, socially and philosophically neutral as
>> gravitation. It's just the way nature works, nothing more.
>>
>
>
> No, you've got me wrong here. I've never been in favour of eugenics or
> invented spelling.
I never said you were, of course. Please read more carefully, Freeman.
I was telling you that, unless you rally understand what evolution is,
you will be ill equipped to discern when it is falsely applied.
(Damn; this is really going to be a project).
> However, as an high school English teacher, I was often drawn into the
> issues of the evolution of language, explaining why a title like
> "Elegy Writ in a Country Churchyard" was archaic, while our use of the
> word "got" instead of "gotten" was not yet archaic.
As a high school English teacher, you should understand the metaphoric
nature of the use of the word "evolution" in connection with language
and culture. It has nothing to do with biological evolution. That was
your error in your response to Buck: you asserted that teaching the
theory of evolution was important because it was vital to the
understanding of "the whole relativity of nations and cultures,"
(whatever that means). It is not. It is vital to the understanding of
biology, but students will learn nothing about nations or cultures when
they study it.
> Teaching the novel, The Chyrsalids, was a great lesson in evolution,
> both for understanding the novel itself and for understanding the
> themes the novel illuminated. This is what really showed me that those
> who disbelieve in evolution are going to have a distorted view of
> social issues, like gay marriage.
Oh, dear. How does change in allele frequencies in populations over
time have anything to do with the themes of The Chrysalids? That novel
is a parable about intolerance, as near as I remember. It uses the
device of unnatural mutations to create the dramatic tension required to
develop the theme. It is not necessary to understand anything about
biological evolution to get the point of the story.
It is not necessary at all that biological evolution be taught in order
for students to understand that cultural things change over time. It is
necessary in order for students to understand genetics, taxonomy,
ecology, botany, paleontology, and a host of other scientific
subjects--but what the hell has it got to do with gay marriage?
don freeman
> Oh, dear. How does change in allele frequencies in populations over
> time have anything to do with the themes of The Chrysalids? That novel
> is a parable about intolerance, as near as I remember. It uses the
> device of unnatural mutations to create the dramatic tension required to
> develop the theme. It is not necessary to understand anything about
> biological evolution to get the point of the story.
>
Life is change, how it differs from the rocks.
The Chrysalids was about how man thought he was the crown of creation.
The theme of the Chyrsalids was all about where evolution would take us.
On one level, it used the mutations as a metaphor for intolerance, but
there was much more going on in the novel that tied the evolution of
humans to the evolution of the universe itself. Don't get hung up on the
intricacies of biological evolution. Not every high school student
needs to understand biology at that level. But they do need to
understand that a human is an evolved animal and that everything changes.
J Buck
<However, as an high school English teacher>
PLEASE tell us you were typing too fast and just plain fucked up. If
not....oh, the irony! LoL
M. Rick
Six-day creation is a religious myth, while evolution is rooted in the
study of the physical world. There is no equivalence between the two.
Religious believers invariably fall back on "belief" when
confronted with evidence that refutes a literalist interpretation of
their texts. Accordingly, we can compare Jesus walking on water to a
real person walking across a bridge. The believer asserts that the
foundation for the bridge is equivalent to the foundation for the Bible
account, and since neither foundation is a "proven fact", it's simply a
matter of what one believes. "I believe in Jesus," sayeth the
believer, "and I believe that God created Adam and Eve." So let's
test the theory: I'll walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, and the believer
(using the Jesus method) will walk on the East River. If the two
foundations are equivalent then the results should be the same.
Bill Kawalec
>
> "Bill Kawalec" wrote:
>
>>>> I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
>>>> theory.
>>>
>>> No, there aren't. Falsehood #1.
>>>
>>
>> There ARE, and if you can seriously deny that, you are very, very
>> ill-informed. Evolution is no more a proven fact than six day creation is
>> (personally, I believe neither).
>
> So let's hear 'em, Bill. Give me your list and I will then proceed to
> debunk them.
>
> Better yet, post your list on talk.origins and real scientists will be
> happy to debunk them for you.
In case you haven';t noticed, ""real"" scientists have a deathly fear of
saying "we don't know." It's your argument, jackass. YOU show ME the DIRECT
link from monkey to man.
Bill Kawalec
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22687-431...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
don freeman
>
> PLEASE tell us you were typing too fast and just plain fucked up. If
> not....oh, the irony! LoL
>
How else do you think I learned to communicate with people who simply
refuse to learn?
Dan Luke
"Bill Kawalec" wrote:
>
> In case you haven';t noticed, ""real"" scientists have a deathly fear
> of saying "we don't know."
A lie. You're afraid to post in a group where people who know the
subject can confront your silliness.
> It's your argument, jackass. YOU show ME the DIRECT link from monkey
> to man.
I already showed you. You ran away.
Dan Luke
"don freeman" wrote:
This is worse than I thought, Buck: I don't think he got it.
Dan Luke
kfw...@yahoo.com
> I think the claims of "intelligent
> design" or whatever else it's called amount to much the same thing. It just
> ends the discussion and leaves us knowing less than before.
I know that's a common misunderstanding. But here is the final
paragraph of an article entitled "The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist
Monopololy on Science." You'll note that last word, "science." I.D. is
accused of beginning from superstition. The irony is that I.D. is
trying to do better science by trying to get materialists to examine
their unscientific presuppositions.
"Success for the Wedge does not mean replacing one dogmatic system with
another. Our objective is not to impose a solution, but to open the
most important areas of intellectual inquiry to fresh thinking. If the
fall of Darwinism inspires materialists to develop a new theory that
can survive unbiased scientific testing, then so be it. If they can't
do that, then the world will face the astonishing truth that the
evidence of biology actually supports the popular belief that living
organisms are the product of an intelligent creator rather than a blind
material force. When that realization sinks in, the next big project on
the intellectual agenda will be to understand why so many brilliant
people fooled themselves so completely for so long. Exploring that
question will make the twenty-first century a very exciting time."
The entire article is well worth reading.
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-018-f
Dan Luke
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think the claims of "intelligent
>> design" or whatever else it's called amount to much the same thing.
>> It just
>> ends the discussion and leaves us knowing less than before.
>
> I know that's a common misunderstanding.
No, that's exactly correct.
ID says, " Some intelligent power did it this way!" That is the end of
the discussion because the hypothesis is untestable; it can account for
absolutely anything and remain immune to challenge. It is hand-waving,
it is obfuscation, it is hocus-pocus; it is not science.
> But here is the final
> paragraph of an article entitled "The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist
> Monopololy on Science." You'll note that last word, "science." I.D. is
> accused of beginning from superstition. The irony is that I.D. is
> trying to do better science by trying to get materialists to examine
> their unscientific presuppositions.
Which are what, exactly?
ID doesn't do any science at all. Its forte' is b-s'ing unsophisticated
school boards.
>
> "Success for the Wedge does not mean replacing one dogmatic system
> with
> another. Our objective is not to impose a solution, but to open the
> most important areas of intellectual inquiry to fresh thinking. If the
> fall of Darwinism inspires materialists to develop a new theory that
> can survive unbiased scientific testing, then so be it. If they can't
> do that, then the world will face the astonishing truth that the
> evidence of biology actually supports the popular belief that living
> organisms are the product of an intelligent creator rather than a
> blind
> material force. When that realization sinks in, the next big project
> on
> the intellectual agenda will be to understand why so many brilliant
> people fooled themselves so completely for so long. Exploring that
> question will make the twenty-first century a very exciting time."
Here is a classic case of assuming a conclusion: that there is going to
be any "fall of Darwinism." Until some empirical evidence appears to
falsify the theory of evolution, that is not going to happen. All of
ID's silly arguments from incredulity and ignorance are certainly not
going to do it.
> The entire article is well worth reading.
I've read it; it's a load of old bollocks.
J Buck
<Frankly, I find Buck to be one of the few non-lemmings posting here>
'Preciate the thought, Bill
kfw...@yahoo.com
>> The irony is that I.D. is
> trying to do better science by trying to get materialists to examine
> their unscientific presuppositions. <<
> Which are what, exactly?
If you read the article, you know what they are.
> ID doesn't do any science at all. Its forte' is b-s'ing unsophisticated
> school boards.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage
Next objection.
> Here is a classic case of assuming a conclusion: that there is going to
> be any "fall of Darwinism."
Don't posture. It's a classic case of making a prediction.
> > The entire article is well worth reading.
>
> I've read it; it's a load of old bollocks.
But you just happen to have not a word to say in actual rebuttal. How
can I take you seriously?
By: Guillermo Gonzalez
Des Moines Register
August 31, 2005
Letter to the editor:
In her Aug. 24 commentary, "Stick to Science, ISU," Rekha Basu writes
about an anti-intelligent design petition led by Hector Avalos, an
associate professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and
faculty adviser to the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society.
Basu noted that I'm a national leader in the ID movement who "has said
publicly he wants to find a graduate student to pursue that line of
study," based on an August-edition Geotimes report on comments made at
a Smithsonian presentation. In answer to a question about progress in
ID, I said that I hoped graduate students would take up some of the
suggested research presented in the book I co-authored. I didn't say I
was going to have a graduate student working on ID. In any case, I
don't have funding to do so.
I am often misrepresented by the press and certain ideologues at ISU.
First, I am not a fundamentalist. I don't believe the Earth is only a
few thousand years old or that a global deluge created most of the
geology we see today. I am convinced that most of the mainstream
theories in geology, physics and cosmology are a pretty good
representation of reality.
Second, ID is not scientific creationism (or just creationism).
Creationists seek evidence to prove a particular interpretation of the
book of Genesis in the Bible. They start with a specific set of prior
religious commitments and seek evidence that conforms to those
commitments. ID theorists start with the evidence of nature and remain
open to possible evidence of design. This approach is no different from
the approach taken by many of the founders of modern science.
Third, scientific theories can and do have metaphysical implications,
but those are distinct from the theories themselves. Richard Dawkins
once said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist.
That implication doesn't invalidate Darwin's scientific idea.
Similarly, ID research can have positive religious implications.
Perhaps that explains some of the animosity toward ID.
Finally, "The Privileged Planet," which I co-authored with Dr. Jay
Richards of the Discovery Institute, presents an original argument for
design based on evidence drawn from the physical sciences. We do not
discuss biological evolution in the book or in the documentary video
based on it. Our argument is testable and should be challenged on the
evidence.
. . .
-Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy, Iowa State
University, Ames.
Tell Gonzalez he isn't doing science, if you like, but you might first
go to the trouble of actually familiarizing yourself with his work. In
any case, I won't be reading.
kfw...@yahoo.com
But I forgot one last thing. I'm not arguing that Intelligent Design
will supplant Darwinism. Not at all. I'm just arguing that it ought to
be taken seriously. And I'm arguing that guys like you, Dan (and Don),
are secular fundamentalists, whose hatred of religion prevents you from
actually thinking about religious claims and, in this case, a claim
that if true would back up religion. You don't think. You react. You're
minds are made up, you're minds are closed. You're fundamentalists.
Jesse Jones
I am a church-going Christian, and I do not believe "Intelligent
Design" should be taken seriously.
Dan Luke
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The irony is that I.D. is
>> trying to do better science by trying to get materialists to examine
>> their unscientific presuppositions. <<
>
>> Which are what, exactly?
>
> If you read the article, you know what they are.
I did read the article. It does not present any unscientific
presuppositions. Instead, it whines about the failure of science to
admit supernatural forces play a part in nature. That is not something
science can ever do, because at that point it ceases to be science. If
you cannot understand why that is, then you do not understand how
science works and are therefore ill equipped to see the fatal flaw in
ID.
"...the rationality and reliability of the scientific mind rests on the
fact that the mind was designed in the image of the mind of the Creator,
who made both the laws and our capacity to understand them."
I've always thought that line pretty well sums up the whole ID
foundation: an assumed conclusion. What navel-gazing nonsense.
>> ID doesn't do any science at all. Its forte' is b-s'ing
>> unsophisticated
>> school boards.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage
> Next objection.
Please point out where an empirically testable hypothesis is to be found
anywhere in this load of hand waving and word salad.
>> Here is a classic case of assuming a conclusion: that there is going
>> to
>> be any "fall of Darwinism."
>
> Don't posture. It's a classic case of making a prediction.
Any loon can make a prediction, as can be seen in your example. So far
that prediction has fallen flat. Coming up with a valid challenge to a
well founded scientific theory is quite another matter, as can be seen
by ID's failure to do so.
>> > The entire article is well worth reading.
>>
>> I've read it; it's a load of old bollocks.
>
> But you just happen to have not a word to say in actual rebuttal. How
> can I take you seriously?
How can I take you seriously if you keep ducking the fatal flaw in ID
"theory": that it is not falsifiable?
The Wedge is a smelly old cheese, and has been thoroughly debunked by
better than I. If you want a taste, try posting your link to it on
talk.origins, where this discussion would be more appropriate. See you
there.
--
Dan
"Notice this rent in my garment; I am at a loss to explain its presence!
I am even more puzzled by the existence of the universe."
- Jack Vance: _The Eyes of the Overworld_
Dan Luke
No. I am a skeptic. I demand evidence for anything I undertake to
believe.
If you wish to believe in the supernatural, that is your business. When
you support underhanded attempts to inject such beliefs into public
school science education, it becomes my business, and I will oppose you.
--
Dan
"...nothing physical which sense-experience sets
before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations
prove to us, ought to be called into question (much
less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages."
- Galileo Galilei
M. Rick
"Unscientific presupposition" is faith-based Bible science. If we
leave out Genesis, what is the reason or evidence for claiming that man
was divinely created out of dust? What scientific basis is there to
dispute that man and monkey share a common ancestry? No
"unscientific presuppositions" are needed to see that the physical
evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. Studying the evolution
of species is as scientific as studying how the planets revolve around
the sun. I'm afraid "intelligent design" has as much place in
public school science class as Himmler's unintelligent skull theories.
Seth Kulick
: > the
: "intelligent design" people, whose sole evidence is a couple of sbe a
: clue? Is it possoibentences
: in Genesis.
: I.D. proceeds from the fact tha there are huge gaps in evolutionary
: theory. That's where Dembski and others begin. They may then arguably
: head off way off course. But it doesn't help your argument to deny the
: obvious, that they are scientists trying to make sense of the facts at
: hand.
: And when are you guys who are so eager to take conservatives on this
: issue to task for being ignorant ideolgues going to take Don Freeman to
: task for being an ignorant ideologue ;-)) And Dan Luke, and Seth Kulick
: and frinjdwelr . . . your anger and disdain for all things
: conservatively Christian . . . could you possibly be like the Southern
: white who positively wants blacks to be shiftless and dumb? Is there
: any chance you can't see through your kneejerk hate? Just a thought. :-)
I don't think I've said anything at all regarding Intelligent Design,
(although maybe I'm forgetting something), so I don't know why you're
including my name in this. I have anger and disdain for your postings,
and your latest bizarre comments regarding Robertson and Chavez.
You must be a complete egomaniac to conclude that by my comments on you
(which I try to keep to a minimum), I am somehow expressing "anger and
disdain for all things conservatively Christian". I greatly resent you
attributing such views to me. The decent thing to do is apologize.
frinjdwelr
"Seth Kulick" <sku...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:dfkhhi$7rlg$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
gets some kick out of calling me an "ignorant ideologue" out of the blue,
I'd say it mostly reflects on him alone. I don't care what he thinks of me.
And yes the Robertson/Chavez remarks were bizarre, but not nearly so bizarre
as the southern racist suggestion. The connection of that ugly dig to
anything, completely escapes imagination. Putting all this random attacking
and name calling together sure makes an interesting reflection on how a self
proclaimed "conservative Christian" thinks.
I don't feel anger over such a sad case. Disdain and pity is more like it.