Facts and false equivalence – reporting on evolution disputes
Email 
Print
British biologist Richard Dawkins, one of the leading voices of the “neo-atheist” movement, has taken the latest book-sized shot at the “intelligent design” movement. You can read my interview with Dawkins’ here about his new book: “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.”
For a scientist of Dawkins’ caliber, intelligent design is a barn-door sized target. In a nutshell, it maintains that life is so complex that it must be the work of a creator. Its boosters claim their view is based in science and not influenced by religion, but it is widely seen as a thinly-veiled attempt to give a scientific gloss to creationism. That claim to science is the key here — most religions believe that God created the world, of course, but they state this as an article of faith and not a scientific fact.
On this blog, we often report on issues related to science and religion. We have to remain agnostic on the biggest question of all — does God exist? — and take fundamental dogmas as the starting point for each faith. This sometimes strikes readers as strange or biased. Some think it already shows a prejudice against belief. But just imagine what would happen if we took sides on teachings such as the resurrection of Jesus or the divine origin of the Koran. We would not be practicing journalism anymore, but some kind of theological analysis or deconstruction, and our readers would not be getting the information they want about religion news around the world.
That said, we can’t just take everything on faith alone. As journalists, we have to stick to facts on the ground. It’s hard to question some beliefs, but we can hold people responsible for what they profess. For example, if a Catholic priest has an affair with a woman, that violation of his vow of celibacy makes his affair different from one between two lay people or two non-Catholics. And if he is prominent enough, like the charismatic Miami television preacher Father Alberto Cutié, it’s worth reporting. The same applies to Islam. The scriptures of most if not all religions can be vague and sometimes seemingly contradictory, so Reuters cannot say whether the phrase “Islam is a religion of peace” is true or false. But we can report if a Muslim known to preach that belief is found to be involved in some violent activity. In both cases, we don’t question the basic tradition or belief but we hold the believers responsible to it in their actions.
Which brings me to the question of evolution. While preparing this post, I had a lively Dallas-to-Paris email exchange with Religion Editor Tom Heneghan about how we cover an issue in which two sides are so opposed. We agree with how we’ve been doing it so far, but setting outour approach in words took some consultation. Here’s our view of the issue.
(Photo: Portrait of Charles Darwin, 12 Feb 2009/Gordon Jack)
All serious scientists accept evolution as a fact because of the overwhelming and verifiable evidence that supports it. Much of this evidence is laid out in Dawkins’ new book and a book published earlier this year by University of Chicago scientist Jerry Coyne called “Why Evolution is True.” I regard the latter, by the way, as more readable, especially for a layman. These came out now because this year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th of the publication of his major work “On the Origin of Species,” which originally laid out the case for evolution by natural selection. They have also come out because the authors are clearly irritated by the intelligent design movement.
How does that play out when we report about evolution? For example, when we write about the wildlife of Madagascar, we usually include a background paragraph saying something like: “Madagascar separated from the rest of Africa tens of millions of years ago and so its species evolved in isolation from its mother continent.” In a story about its lemurs, we don’t write: “Scientists say Madagascar broke off from Africa tens of millions of years but some people, taking the Bible as their reference, believe it can only be 10,000 years old and that its lemurs were made in their current form by a supernatural creator.” That would create a false equivalence between the two views. The scientists have empirical evidence for their view of these natural phenomena but the religious view is based on scripture and does not stand up to empirical analysis. This is a case of comparing apples and oranges.
Does this mean we have taken sides and are not being balanced? Hardly. In fact, we would lay ourselves open to that charge if we did give equal credence to arguments such as intelligent design. For instance, some boosters for intelligent design, trying to get their perspective taught alongside evolution in U.S. public schools despite repeated defeats, have shifted their approach and argued that for the sake of balance it is necessary to “teach the controversy” between evolution’s supporters and skeptics. But the world of science sees no serious issue to discuss, just a false equivalence created by campaigners trying to claim the seal of scientific approval for arguments that do not stand up to empirical testing.
So why do we “report the controversy” if we think one side has no case? We do it because creationists are numerous and politically and culturally influential in parts of the United States. They’re challenging science teaching in some states and opening museums that claim to prove evolution never happened. We also do it because their influence is spreading to other countries, most notably to Muslim countries through the work of Islamic creationists like Harun Yahya. And we do it because their arguments, flawed though they may be in the eyes of science, challenge scientists, religious leaders, philosophers and other thinkers to refine their arguments for whichever view of mankind they support. These are serious adult questions and attempts to wedge them into high school biology lessons miss the mark by a mile.
(Photo: Ken Ham, president of the group Answers in Genesis, at a creation museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, 26 May 2007/John Sommers II)
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
“Please stop the doublespeek. You said an intelligent agent is actively directing biological processes to introduce “Design” and irreducibly complex features.”I stated it past tense. Quote me where I mentioned a present-day, intervening God. OTOH, I may entertain such a belief, but it has no place within the forensic study of origins by scientific methods.”As for Behe – he’s stated openly that (1) science should be expanded to accept supernatural causation, and (2) he believes the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God.”Don’t forget Johnson and Dembski. But remember, similar to why RD’s atheist stance is a persona position rather than a scientific theory, same for a deist or theist position. Would you disqualify Francis Collins and Ken Miller (both Christians) as scientists for their personal beliefs in a creator god?”So please explain how that invisible, undetectable agent acting on the inside of a cell is a “natural” being.”For a start, if we can do it, other agent(s) can (could have) as well.”If “Design” cannot be the result of natural, random mutation guided by natural selective forces, then “Design” is not introduced “naturally”, right?”Accidental designs can well occur, but the only ones on record are ‘adaptive’ rather than novelty producing (radically different species). Answer: Right.”Supernatural = outside of nature.”Than’s one definition. The others: Attributed to a power that defies natural laws, or a deity. All religious views, and precisely why supernaturality is not proposed in the ID hypothesis. It’s not to be evasive as you claim; just not in evidence at this juncture.Proteins can be fashioned from amino acids, and is demonstratable. A much more magical scenario if you will, is the Universe coming in fruition from a small particle. I don’t see the first is being magical events.”The Discovery Institute, the leading organization promoting Intelligent Design, wants to change science to allow for supernatural expalantions, and wants to teach that version of science to our kids. You deny this, Lee? You truly feel this is not a goal of the DI?”Want to know DI’s current position on ID? Go here for a recent op ed piece from them:http://www.opposingviews.com/counte rs/who-designed-the-designer-is-a-red-he rring-objection-to-id
So you guys think in a quagmire somehow proteins are beginning to appear(which is scientifically impossible) From these protein cells are made (which is beyond of imagination). From these cells there are some entities something that has an existence) appearing. These entities have eyes ears, etc. later they build big cities like Paris and London. In these cities they build a laboratory. And these entities created him/herself??:S out of nothing (read people)are beginning to make research of themselves in a laboratory under a microscope that they also created self. And then they come together and say let’s see how it was possible that we have come so far. Let’s examine how it was possible to evolve from a atom in a quagmire to a living being like us. Let’s see how it was possible that we have gained information from this quagmire to make / protein / cells / chromosomes / DNA / RNA. ???????????HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS THINK IN A SUCH PEGAN BELIEVE???????You people say everything was a miracle. Ok I accept that. But Who let this miracle happen? Coincidence they say. What is a coincidence! Come on!!! Be reasonableHow can atoms who can’t think make such complex and self-conscious LIVING BEINGS (read MEN)So one day atoms says against each other, who do not see, not hear, not feel, not smell and who are not able to think, let’s come together and make a protein, it is very complicated and very difficult but let’s do it. And let us then make from a protein a cell. Let’s make bones and flesh around this cell and a let’s appear very wonderful system in this cell. Let’s put things as mitochondrion (energy plant of the cell) and vacuolar (protects, cleans the cell). Let’s put the chromosomes in the right place. Let’s then code millions of information in these chromosomes of this entity that we simply are creating.A man has millions of cells and each cell has millions of separate information. How can this be created from nothing! Where this atoms get this information from! How do they know to code this information? again they say coincidence!!. ??????AGAIN HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS BELIEVE IN A PEGAN BELIEVE LIKE EVOLUTION?????We can argue this for days..month.. years.. you lost accept it.. I’m sure you all know Harun Yahya. You also read his books? Or are you just know him by evolutionist and atheist people. “On his book we found a fake fly” they say. Are you people stupid? or don’t you have brains? Come on man.. you darwin worshipers use drawings for 150 years.All your evidence is self made crazy pictures you idiots. The picture on the book “the atlas of creation” is a copy of the real fly so what is the deal? And let me explain you another secret. This picture is put by harun yahya deliberately. This book is nearly 4 kilogram en has 850 pages. And yes these Darwin worshipers (read pegan monks) come up with ONE picture with no comment on the other 849 pages. You idiots are the prey on the fishhook. If you people think serious for hmm 10 seconds.. You CAN NOT base specified complexity in a living system on coincidences!!!!.. What’s coincidence? What can coincidence do? Let me answer it NOTHING…in 5 years you can find Darwin only in a museum..The evolution deceit:http://us2.fmanager.net/api_v1/pr oductDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectId=97 4Everything in these books is scientifically proved..Here you can find much more books that is very interesting: (it’s al free:))http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_bo ok_index.phpSo read and see the truth. I hope allah will show you the right path.Regards,Cengiz Eminov
Okay, Lee, let’s pretend that you’ve established design. Now, answer my question: what is the designer if not a god?
@ cheese”Okay, Lee, let’s pretend that you’ve established design. Now, answer my question: what is the designer if not a god?”Firstly, a break in the action. By whom, you ask?Aucune idée, mon ami …http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s3KS_WQ ew4Actually, given the vast time periods, the extensive variety, and the competitive and combative nature of many life forms, I lean toward surrogates (employees) acting under a higher power, angelics perhaps. Doesn’t General Motors operate in this fashion? CEO’s don’t design or build cars last time I checked. And just whom might they be? Part of our upstream lineage perhaps. (Ps. 8:4,5)I hold to dualism, based on personal experience and observations. This points toward man’s actual essence being ‘spirit based’. Good news for any who’d like to gad about the cosmos some day. But again, these are just some observations and conclusions based on a personal interpretation of data, not something taught or ordained, and have nothing to do with the ID premise.I place myself squarely within the rational thinkers mold, but work toward thinking for myself, something that some rationalists seem to have trouble with. I would be a ’2′ on Dawkins’ seven category list.
You know science is a tool, a discipline for exploring the natural world. While one must take on faith that God is the Creator, there surely is abundant physical evidence out there that demonstrates that the account in Genesis 1 cannot be ruled out. IF you haven’t closed your biased mind as has Mr Dawkins. Do you know what the first sentence of he Bible is?”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.This is often called the thesis statement of the Bible or “God calling card”. Please take a look at what it means from a scientific perspective.”In the beginning”:–at a particular point along the continuum of TIME”God created the heavens”:—SPACE”and the earth”:–MATTERIn the first sentence of the Bible, time, space, and matter are addressed, — these are the fundamental components of existence, as science LATER discovered and identified. The Bible is taking about them in the first sentenceThe Bible doesn’t begin by telling us how some god was upset and his tail slapped the water and the droplets of water falling from his tail created a chain of islands (Japan)–this is what I was taught in world religion class re: Buddhist teaching about creation–the Bible talks about TIME, SPACE and MATTER, stating that they came into existence through an all powerful God in a very logical way. That right there ought to make Mr. Dawkins stop and take pause, because at the time these words were written down there were no scientists or Antone else around who understood these concepts–and there would not be for 1000′as of years–yet here they show up in the first sentence of the Bible. This goes to the origin of the Bible as being a revelation by an all knowing God to man -who did not fully comprehend all that he was asked to write down. I believe Dawkins is so blinded by his rejection of God’s existence that he completely overlooks and misses all the scientific truth written all over the first 26 verses of Genesis. If he would suspend and withhold judgment while he looked at it, he might be able to see whats right there in front of his eyes. Pride is an equal opportunity blinder–it leaves the simple as well as the brilliant in the dark.
Cengiz EminovRather then answer your rambling, illogical post in any detail, I will just keep it simple:1. Just because you do not understand something, doesn’t make it false.2. Just because you think evolution is unlikely, doesn’t have any relevence to whether creationism is true.3. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true.4. You find it unlikely that life can evolve from primordal soup. But you believe, based on no proof, that a deity magically created life.5. Your post is poorly drafted, contains personal insults, dishonestly misrepresents evolution’s position and has no evidence to back up your claims.6. Please read up the concept of “Argument from ignorance”. Until you do, nobody will take you seriously.
LeeBowmanOnce again I ask the question:“What conclusive scientific evidence will indicate that Intelligent Design is true, or that complexity is proof of design?”.
I read that article you provided, bowman. And must say it was quite amusing.I believe it was:http://www.opposingviews.com/counter s/wh o-designed-the-designer-is-a-red-herring -objection-to-idLet us ignore the fact that Intelligent Design is based on arguments from ignorance and circular reasoning. And that it is not capable of being tested. After all, these things are well established. So let’s talk about something different.Intelligent design operates on the (baseless) assumption that all life *must* be designed. The word design implying there *must* be a designer.Which then invariably leads to the question “Who designed the designer”.ID operates on the assumption that life can only exist if created by a designer. Which means that according to ID’s own “logic”, the designer must also be alive and have been designed. Or the designer could not possibly exist.Theists (and I use the word interchangeably with ID supporters) have scrambled in their attempts to try and rationalize themselves out of the logic corner they have painted themselves into. And the article you provided was quite painful to read.In the article you mention, it is claimed that there is no need to question who designed the designer. Because the article claims the question is theological, and beyond the realms of ID.See the massive stuff-up there?Why is the question of the creation of life considered non-theological, but the question of the creation of a designer suddenly considered theological?Does this mean that the designer doesn’t require a cause? If so, then ID fails to conform even to its own logic process. If the designer doesn’t require a cause, why does life require a designer as a cause?Does it mean that the designer was created by supernatural means? If so, then ID is based on supernatural premise. The very thing it tries (very unsuccessfully) to deny.Does it mean that the designer doesn’t need a cause, because it isn’t considered “life”? If so, then once again the designer exists under supernatural premise.Or does it just mean that the concept of a designer is simply an additional level of complexity, which ID infers into the universe without evidence and subsequently refuses to explain?Take your pick, LeeBowman. But no good alternatives among them.
@ puddlejumperIf you are going to contribute to a logical debate, please do not contibute illogical arguments.1. Faith is not proof something is true.2. The bible has not been proven true.3. The bible cannot be used to prove the bible is true.4. Your entire comment assigns very specific attibutions to very vague words in the bible. It is speculation and not supported by any objective evidence.
@ puddlejumperFurthermore:5. Just because something can’t be ruled out, has no relevence to whether it is true or not. Please read up the concept “Argument from ignorance”.6. You mention that “IF you haven’t closed your biased mind as has Mr Dawkins”.Those who support evolution are ready to support a scientific theory. If scientific evidence disproves a theory, the theory will be altered or rejected for another theory which fits the evidence.Theists and creationists will never consider the possibility that their belief might be incorrect. They will not provide any actual evidence proving the truth of their assertion. And no amount of actual evidence will alter their belief in a god, because their belief is not based on actual evidence.As a result, I find that your calling evolution supporters “closed minded” or “biased” is highly offensive and grossly inaccurate.You are either a hypocrite, or intentionally dishonest.
There was no ‘Big Bang’, it was the ‘Big Expansion’.Is there place for Nihilists in this country ?
It is clear that intelligent design should be taught in schools. Does the US not have religious education classes?It is the attempt to put it into science lessons that is silly.Any by the way, the bible makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER about the age of the earth.
To all darwinists and especialy to my brother “Hmmm“1. Just because you do not understand something, doesn’t make it false.I don´t understand haa?? read the text beneath. What must I understand of all these lies?2. Just because you think evolution is unlikely, doesn’t have any relevence to whether creationism is true.my dear friend there are two ways to prove the origin of life. creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago. This leads us to one conclusion: that of creation.Many people can´t and do not want to accept this because of the philosophical and religious reasons. That´s why they choose to believe the impossible: that life was created spontaneously by chance!3. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true.see 2 and the text beneath.4. You find it unlikely that life can evolve from primordal soup. But you believe, based on no proof, that a deity magically created life.same story.. science shows us the work of god my friend. science = islam islam = science. Through science we can see the work of god, we can know god, we can learn about god, and the most important we come closer to god.5. Your post is poorly drafted, contains personal insults, dishonestly misrepresents evolution’s position and has no evidence to back up your claims.It is my opinion. Because it is a idiot way of thinking about the origin of life. It is not a personal insult. If you think it is, sorry for the insult my brother.6. Please read up the concept of “Argument from ignorance”. Until you do, nobody will take you seriouslyIgnorance you say.. who is ignorance darwinists, people who believe in CHANCE (pegan believe) or people who believe in god. hmm let me think … … … I think the first one.My best friends here are the 10 Notorius Darwinist Fabrications:1. THE LIE THAT “IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT LIFE COULD HAVE EMERGED BY CHANCE ON THE PRIMITIVE EARTH”The only evidence cited in evolutionist sources is the 1953 Miller Experiment. Yet no living cell was created in this experiment, just a few amino-acids were synthesised. It is mathematically impossible for amino-acids to form strings in the right sequence by chance and make proteins, and for these to give rise to a cell. Miller’s synthesised amino-acids are of no significance, since his experiment used gasses which were not present in the primitive atmosphere on earth. (see Miller’s Experiment http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecula r_biology_09.html) recommended2. THE LIE THAT “THE HUMAN EMBRYO HAS GILLS”This claim rests on a scientific fraud committed by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the beginning of the 20th century. In order to come up with proof of evolution Haeckel created drawings of the embryos of such living things as human beings, chickens and fish and placed them side by side. Yet there were distortions in these images. Today the whole scientific world recognises these as counterfeit. The structure shown as a “gill” by Haeckel is actually the beginning of the middle ear channel, the parathyroid and the thymus glands. (see The Recapitulation Misconseption http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryolo gy_04.html) recommended3. THE LIE THAT “NATURAL HISTORY CONFIRMS THE TREE OF LIFE”Darwinism maintains that life on earth originated and developed from a single root, subsequently splitting off into branches, like a tree. Evolutionists have struggled to make natural history fit this claim for 150 years. Yet natural history actually paints a diametrically opposed picture. The fossil record shows that there was no “tree of life” and that the basic groups of living things emerged suddenly and at the same time. Almost all the known phyla (basic groups of living things) emerged in the Cambrian period, some 530-520 million years ago. (see The “Tree of Life” is Collapsing http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_ homology_05.html)recommended4. THE LIE THAT “ARCHAEOPTERYX IS THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN REPTILES AND BIRDS”The 150-million-year-old bird fossil known as Archaeopteryx has been portrayed as “the greatest fossil evidence of evolution” since the 19th century. It has been claimed that this fossil possesses certain reptilian features, for which reason it is the “missing link” between reptiles and birds. This claim has been invalidated, however, by recent findings that prove that Archaeopteryx was a perfect flying bird. Moreover, the alleged reptilian ancestors for birds, the theropod dinosaurs, are all younger than Archaeopteryx in terms of their appearance in the fossil record; a fact which evolutionists try to hide. (see The Archaeopteryx Misconception http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_ history_2_06.html) recommended5. THE LIE THAT “THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE FOSSIL RECORD”For decades now, ‘the evolution of the horse’ has been portrayed as one of the best documented proofs of evolution. Four-legged mammals which lived at different times have been lined up, from small to large, and these “horse series” exhibited in museums of natural history. Research in recent years, however, has revealed that the creatures in the series were not one another’s ancestors, that the sequence is gravely mistaken, and that the creatures portrayed as the ancestors of the horse actually emerged after the horse. (see The Myth of Horse Evolution http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_ history_2_12.html) recommended6. THE LIE THAT “LIVING THINGS POSSESS VESTIGAL ORGANS”For a long time now it has been maintained in evolutionist sources that some organs in living things serve no function, and that these are evolutionary blind spots inherited from the evolutionary ancestors of the creatures in question. For instance, the human appendix and coccyx were for long years regarded as such vestigal organs. Yet the latest scientific findings have revealed that all these organs do actually have important functions. The “list of vestigal organs” drawn up by evolutionists at the beginning of the 20th century is now without foundation. (see The Myth of Vestigal Organs http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryolo gy_02.html) recommended7. THE LIE THAT “VERTEBRATES’ FIVE-FINGERED HAND STRUCTURE IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION”The dolphin’s fin, the bat’s wing and the human hand all contain a five-fingered bone structure. This similarity has for a long time been put forward in evolutionist schoolbooks or popular publications as evidence they all evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic research, however, has shown that these organs, which seem so alike on the surface, are actually controlled by very different genes. Evolutionists today admit that “similar organs do not represent evidence of evolution.” (see The Fall of the Homology in Tetrapod Limbs http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_ homology_03.html) recommended8. THE LIE THAT “INDUSTRIAL MELANISM IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION”Among the most frequently repeated so-called “proofs” of the theory of evolution in the world is that of the moth population in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. According to this claim, air population darkened the colour of tree bark, which meant that since dark coloured moths had better camouflage they were protected from bird predators, as a result of which the dark coloured moth population increased. Yet this is not evolution, because no new species of mothsemerged. All that happened was the population levels of previously existing species changed. Moreover, recent works on the story show that the story itself was not true at all; the famous pictures of moths resting on trees were fake and no such “industrial melanism” (darkening of colour due to industrial pollution) ever took place. (see The True Story of Industrial Melanism http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanis ms04.html) recommended9. THE LIE THAT “MUTATION EXPERIMENTS ARE PROOF OF EVOLUTION”Mutations are one of the two “evolutionary mechanisms” proposed by neo-Darwinism. It is suggested that these chance modifications to DNA caused living things to evolve. Thousands of mutation experiments have been performed to back up this claim. Some populations of living things, fruit flies in particular, have been subjected to intense mutation. Evolutionist publications portray these mutation experiments as “laboratory evidence of evolution.” Yet the fact is that far from confirming evolution these experiments have actually undermined it. In not one living thing exposed to mutation has an increase in its genetic information been observed. On the contrary, mutants (living things exposed to mutation) are always deformed, sterile and sickly. (see Mutations http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanis ms06.html) recommended10. THE LIE THAT “FOSSILS PROVE THAT APE-MEN ONCE LIVED”Darwinism’s mort prominent deception is the claim that man evolved from ape-like creatures. This claim has been imposed on society by means of thousands of fictitious drawings and models. The fact is that there is no evidence that “ape-men” ever lived. Australopithecus, portrayed as man’s oldest ancestor, was actually an extinct ape species, not so very different from modern chimpanzees. Classifications such as Homo erectus, placed after Australopithecus in the evolutionary chain, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens archaic, were all different human races. (see The Imaginary Family Tree of Man http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_o f_man_01.html) recommendedAnother important lie..Darwinists maintain that there was no oxygen in the period when life emerged, and that oxygen formed subsequently. Because the existence of oxygen will entirely repudiate all their claims about the beginning of life. Darwinists know that when an amino acid forms in the primeval atmosphere, in the way they maintain, oxygen will immediately burn it up and destroy it. For that reason, they are unable to use oxygen in experiments concerning the origin of life. And all experiments conducted without oxygen have failed. The famous Stanly Miller conducted his experiment in an oxygen-free environment, and he subsequently had to admit that his conditions did not match those of the real atmosphere.a lot of darwinists supports this deception that Darwinists have been putting forward for many years now and claims that oxygen appeared on Earth later. But this is wrong, because:- Rocks dating back 3.5 billion years have been discovered in geological excavations. That is the time when Darwinists claim that life first began. Traces of OXIDIZED IRON AND URANIUM have been found in these rocks. The oxygen level determined here is far greater than that claimed by Darwinists for the period.- In addition, research has shown that the level of ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth in that period was 10 times greater than that estimated by Darwinists. This intense ultraviolet light must have separated water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and have given rise to oxygen.- If, as Darwinists claim, there were no oxygen in the primeval atmosphere then neither would there have been any ozone layer to protect the Earth against ultraviolet radiation. In that case, it is obvious that no organic molecule could form in a world exposed to such high levels of ultraviolet. In conclusion, the presence or absence of oxygen in either case means an environment hostile to amino acids and totally eliminates all Darwinist claims about the beginning of life.The late American physicist Philip Abelson had this to say on this matter:No ozone layer. If there were no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone either. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed. Ultraviolet light. Ironically, it could do more damage in an atmosphere without oxygen. Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would be deadly! Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an hour, and many within a second or two! Not with or without. Evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen, and it could not occur without it! (Abelson, Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69, 1957, p. 275)my dear friends as you see it is hopeless to defend this pegan believe called evolution. The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.Regards,Cengiz Eminov
@ Cengiz Eminov1. “my dear friend there are two ways to prove the origin of life. creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way.”Look up the concept of “Argument from Ignorance”. It isn’t a hard concept to understand. It represents an error of logicical reasoning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A rgument_from_ignorance2. “Many people can´t and do not want to accept this because of the philosophical and religious reasons”Those who support evolution are ready to support a scientific theory. This theory is based on actual positive evidence. If scientific evidence disproves a theory, the theory will be altered or rejected for another theory which fits the evidence.Theists and creationists will never consider that their belief might be incorrect. They will not provide any actual positive evidence proving the truth of their assertion. And no amount of actual positive evidence will change their belief.If you do not understand the concept of “positive evidence” please look it up.http://www.answers.com/topic/positive -evidence3. “science shows us the work of god my friend.”No. Science shows you the facts of the universe. You then attribute these facts to god, even though there is no evidence that god is the cause.5. “It is my opinion.”Your opinion on whether something is believable, is not relevent to whether it is true or not.6. All those examples you provided.Please do not limit your research to creationist websites, especially when attempting to argue evolutionary concepts.All of the examples you provided are either:-Flawed logic,-Already rebutted, or-Have no relevence to whether creationism is true or not.Now I would like you to answer the following questions. If you answer them properly, you will conclusively end the debate to my satisfaction:FIRST”What scientific evidence would you require, in front of you, before you will accept that evolution is a fact? Please list this evidence”SECOND”What scentific evidence would you require, in front of you, before you will accept that god exists? Please list this evidence”
Theists and creationists and ID-ists fail the debate before they even start.Their argument is that evolution is not proven true, because there are still gaps in the evidence. And they are right.But the problem is that evolution is always changing to fit the evidence. For science and evolution, evidence is a case of closing the gaps.But theists believe in a designer based on no evidence at all. There is no evidence which proves the existance of a designer. All they have is the gaps in evolution, which has no bearing on whether theism is true or not.At the end of the day, a theory is a race. A race to accumulate enough evidence to conclude your theory is correct as a fact.Evolution has evidence backing it up, and bit by bit, more evidence is being found to close the gaps that exist.Theism doesn’t have evidence backing it up. And none of the evidence being discovered (even by ID supporters) has any direct proof of theism.And even when theists discover evidence which contradicts evolution theory as it is today, all that evidence does is change or alter evolution theory to better comply with the facts of the world.No matter what evidence is found, even those which question current evolution thought, Evolutionary theory only ends up stronger as a result. While theists end up no closer to proving that Intelligent design is correct, no matter what evidence is found.Evolution is running the evidence race. And it is winning by miles. All theism can do is wait at the starting line, and hope evolution doesn’t win.That is why evolution will win. Because science changes to suit the facts, and evidence only makes it stronger. Theism will always remain in the gaps of evidence, as these gaps shrink smaller and smaller with each fossil found.
Scientific Evidence of evolution:Fossil forms, genetics, snowpea flowers, natural selection, animal husbandry, blond hair, deep sea creatures, common genes, genetics, opposable digits, peppermint moths, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, vestigal organs and bones, DNA, professional dog breeding, the dodo, mutation experiments, parallel development of similar organs in different organism branches, common genetic ancestry.Scientific Evidence of design:”Argument from ignorance” fallacy, faith.
…yes Anon, and natural and artificial selection.Question: are we in an (advanced/retarded) phase of evolution in this Messy Information Age ?
While science usually ignores such confrontation, as one would the bark of a confused and frustrated chihuahua for the impossible language barrier blocking communication, we now seem to have arrived at a point of direct confrontation. Though most still deem the “debate”, if you could call it that, unworthy of their attention, some scientists are clearly worried about the implications of teaching religious ideology in US public schools.This is not an attempt to provide balance between the two versions of creation because there are hundreds of versions of creation, but only two categories to separate them into.Science and religion are incomparable, science is a pursuit of discovery, a method of gathering, testing, comparing, categorizing, storing and updating information impartially through human observation with only one goal in mind, accuracy.Religion could not be more different, it is the telling of a set of ancient stories by a heirachial organization committed to self preservation in the interest of a self defined morality. It has no commitment to accuracy or internal scrutiny of it’s presumptions.Science is responsible for almost every discovery, achievement, device and comfort known to man. Its results are concrete evidence of the effectiveness of it’s methods.The church’s campaign to teach christian genesis in public schools should not be seen just as an educational campaign it is an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. And well understood to be in response to a heavily declining interest in religion as the world moves past the need for faith and into a future of belief and proof.As this connection to reality becomes more solid and people can satisfy their need for hope through belief in ourselves and not fear our freedom of identity, reliance on religion to shield us from reality will slip away as it should. Not to say it wasn’t necessary until now, science has never accepted their authority to fill this role…What is necessary is for scientists to address the issue of atheism in science. For a community with so much belief there is an unusual lack of energy and resources being directed into life purpose and the human motivational system (thoughts and feelings), and its implications on every level of society throughout history. I think many still think it’s dangerous territory or outside the responsibility of science, and no doubt extremely complicated.I don’t think we need to worry about losing any intellectual battles with the church, but we could all lose a lot if science fails to assume responsibility, as the worlds leading critical thinkers, for all areas of life left to be discovered and if that means delving into the dangerous depths of the human heart and mind then we should all hope there are some brave non-atheistscientific pioneers left out there and support them on their historic journeys into the unknown.A believer in science and evolution should see the extension of Darwin’s theory into science itself and it’s ability to evolve as a system of thought as we do.
“Question: are we in an (advanced/retarded) phase of evolution in this Messy Information Age ?”I couldn’t say, Gaspard. That would really depend on what we actually evolve into, wouldn’t it?Call me back in a few hundred years, and I’ll know for sure.
The argument for intelligent design: “I’m too stupid to figure out how life could have come about naturally, so no one can. Ergo, it must have been God, oops uh…intelligent designer.”What do ID’ers talk about when they’re not bashing Darwin’s theory? What research are they doing about the designer that no one can see, hear, smell, feel, or even see on YouTube? As far as I can tell, the only thing they can say is “creation occurred, but we don’t know when, why, how, where, or by whom.”
“The argument for intelligent design: “I’m too stupid to figure out how life could have come about naturally, so no one can. Ergo, it must have been God, oops uh…intelligent designer.”Are you ready to have your picture snapped? Say ‘cheese’.Twisting Design Theorists’ predictions and evidentiary conclusions doesn’t cut it. Rather than ID’sts parroting ‘goddidit’ as you claim, I hear the lockstep lemmings endlessly chanting ‘mutantdidit’, one of the most arcane mantras ever uttered, and based on the simple observance of ‘adaptive’ traits, nothing more. Ever consider that adaptive evolution is itself a ‘designed in’ function to aid in survivability of species, one more evidence to back ID. I said it before and I’ll say it again for those who may have missed it:”And here is the crux of the enigma, and the reason why evolution cannot be considered to be ‘fact’ as presently defined. Speciation at the macro level has NOT been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, natural selection of random mutations acquired over vast time to produce novelty, been proven. It remains hypothetical. ID, rather than a refutation of evolution, is merely an alternative hypothesis regarding a mechanism for the acquisition of novelty and complexity, a form of genetic engineering.”Conflating ID with religion is merely a subterfuge, i.e. a tactic to confuse the real issue. Rather than ID being creationism in a lab coat, this tactic represents an attempt to place valid scientific inquiry into a robe, a vestment, a cassock worn by clergy. Intelligent Design is an old concept (Plato et al) but an emerging scientific pursuit, and not one to be shuffled under the societal rug. Rather, I view it as the dawn of a new period of enlightenment.
“Ever consider that adaptive evolution is itself a ‘designed in’ function to aid in survivability of species, one more evidence to back ID.”-LeeBowmanYou have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that adaptive evolution is “designed in.”"Speciation at the macro level has NOT been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, natural selection of random mutations acquired over vast time to produce novelty, been proven. It remains hypothetical.”-LeeBowmanDesign has NOT been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, an intelligent designer, been proven. It remains hypothetical. SEe how easy that was?Do you work for the Discovery Institute?
@ LeeBowmanI would like you to explain something for me.”If ID theory is that all life cannot exist without a designer, then the designer must also be alive and hence designed. So who designed the designer?”The article you mentioned from the “discovery” institute claimed that this was a theological question. And didn’t need to be answered by ID.Which means either:- The designer doesn’t need to be designed, meaning life doesn’t need to be designed.-The designer was created in a theological manner, meaning the designer exists under theological premise.-The designer isn’t life, which means the designer is of a theological nature.-The concept of a designer is a proposed level of complexity, inferred without positive evidence and not explained by the theory which proposes it.So which one is it, LeeBowman? And why do you think it is equal to science?
Seriously.Negative proof and arguments from ignorance are not science. It has never been science. And ID is an attempt to reduce the standards of scientific process, and have those things counted as legitimate science.Why do LeeBowman and others have so much trouble understanding this?And why do they accuse evolutionists as seeking to confuse, trick or mislead when *they* are the ones seeking to undermine scientific standards to suit their own purposes?For a theory which consists of nothing but the logical fallacy “evolution can’t explain it, so it MUST be design”. A fallacy they refuse to address.And no. Evolutionists don’t say “mutantdidit”. They say “mutation, natural selection and genetics did it”. Mutation is only a small part of evolution. Natural selection and genetics are the majority.Something that no matter HOW many times you state to an ID-ist, they will simply ignore it, and keep banging the “they say mutantdidit” drum.
@Hmmm- “And no. Evolutionists don’t say “mutantdidit”. They say “mutation, natural selection and genetics did it”. Mutation is only a small part of evolution. Natural selection and genetics are the majority.”Hey, of COURSE they don’t. It’s a parody of the purported mantra that evolution questioners trot out, “I duuno how this could have developed, so godditit.”They obviousy don’t. Now some evangelists, maybe …”Something that no matter HOW many times you state to an ID-ist, they will simply ignore it, and keep banging the “they say mutantdidit” drum.”Uh, no again. Google it and you’ll see that I’m the only one who has used that parody. And I use it for the simple reason that it’s as silly as the ‘goddidit’ idiom.I’ve also used the term fascism to depict academias prohibition of aspects of ID being seriously discussed, to the extent of firing professors and denying tenure if they display any oppenness to the subject. And not religion as you well know; just teleology as a possibility within bio system design.I’ve used the term in that context over a five year period in various blogs and forums. O’Reilly (Fox) used the term tonight during an interview with Richard Dawkins, but it appeared that he was implying that Christian views need be brought up in class. If so, I strongly disagree. To see RD’s reaction to the term, check out youtube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E CE77Imki9M&feature=player_embeddedHey, it was an entertaining interview, and Richie did well against O’Reilly. But regarding the debate, and objective science, the beat goes on …
Thanks for responding.Unfortunatly, there are many ID-ists who do keep beating the “mutantdidit” drum. And they are dead serious when they do. But that is beside the point.Now could you address the other important parts of my post? I believe it was:”Negative proof and arguments from ignorance are not science. It has never been science. And ID is an attempt to reduce the standards of scientific process”"For a theory which consists of nothing but the logical fallacy ‘evolution can’t explain it, so it MUST be design’. A fallacy they refuse to address.”Care to address?
Scientific evidence for evolution? Please give one bit of scientific evidence that does not rest on the ASSUMPTION that evolution has occurred. Dr. Francis Collins, in an address in Harrisonburg, Va. said ” They (scientists) start with the assumption that there was an initial organism that had DNA and a molecule that enabled reproduction.”Is that a scientific assumption or an admission of faith? Evolutionists “believe” that evolution has occurred: Creationists “believe” that God created. Both are positions of FAITH. There is far more empirical evidence of creation than there is for evolution. There are too many new facts brought to light that evolutionists simply cannot explain, but that point to an allwise Creator, to be ignored.Evolutionists struggle to come up with a plausible sequence for the evolution of the eye. But an eye without the neural connection to the brain is useless. And, without neural connections to the limbs and sensory organs, you have a non-functioning mass of matter. Evolution cannot explain it, but the existence of a Creator God can.
Dawkins and other disciples of Darwinism need a healthy dose of reality?It cures all mental illness.Take a spoonful of http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ with a pinch of http://www.josephmastropaolo.com/josephm astropaolo.html.
Karl Priest and creationists need a heavy dose of reality.The life science prize was a pathetic attempt to play a petty game. The concept being that a creationist and a evolutionist were to face off in a mini-trial format.The rules were simple. Only scientific evidence. And we would assume, the burden of proof would be equal on both parties.No evolutionist bothered to rise to the challange. As the scientific evidence was already available. And all the creationist would do is make “argument from ignorance”The theists concluded that as nobody rose to the challenge, this automatically meant the evolutionists had no scientific evidence (irrational logic). And that this also meant creationism was automatically proven as true fact (irrational logic).The theists, of course, based this on the assumption that creationism would be proven in that mini-trial as science and true.But the problem was that only scientific evidence was allowed, according to the very rules of the trial the creationists had insisted on.Meaning the creationists are claiming they have scientific proof that god exists. Would they care to provide that scientific evidence right now?Bear in mind that any attempt at “argument from ignorance” or other faulty reasoning will be pointed out as an act of unscientific stupidity…
ID seems dead keen on mindlessly repeating the argument that complex organs cannot be reduced.Current evidence indicates that organs such as they eye started as simple organs. And became more complex with each generation.ID-ers can’t seem to understand the concept. Probably because they think that life magically began as complex creatures. But then again, they also seem to believe their theory isn’t theological. As if saying so somehow makes it true.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut ion_of_the_eye
ID is an absolute waste. Yet I find it strangely ridiculous that scientists feel somehow threatened by it. If ID made it into schools, we’d really have no problem, would we? Evolution makes much more sense and is more widely accepted by scientists. We have nothing t fear. Not that I’m for ID being taught in schools. I’m just saying there’s no reason to fight it. Facts and scientific theories speak for themselves.
Religion has always been in a struggle against science.Religion operates on the premise that it is true, until it is proven false. While science takes the evidence of the universe, and slowly fills the gaps in knowledge.So Religion attempts to do the following:1. Censorship of science.2. Suppression of science.3. Emulation of science.4. Sabotage of science.Religion has failed in the scientific community and in the courts. Both with creationism, and ID (implied creationism). As an attempt to emulate science, it is beaten.But we can expect the followers to stick with stage 4 for quite a while yet. It is a process we are quite familiar with.
@ all evolutionists (worshippers of coincidence and matter) and especially to my brother “hmmm”Why you guys always use the words: creationists don’t want to understand, don’t want to see, they ignore evidence etc. etc. etc. Like I said before: the logic that you guys use that nothing, but only chance/coincidence, is scientific is a flawed one.If I ask you what is your prove you say “scientific research”. My friend I also use science to prove creation. If there is a scientific result (like you said “science shows us the facts of the universe” but what is the cause? You guys say ” the cause is coincidence” I use the same scientific result and I say “the cause is god” What makes your argument correct/better/more scientific than mine argument?The scientific results/researches of the last 5 years shows use the enormous and unbridgeable gaps of evolution. How more we research how more we come closer to god and the most important how more lies we discover of evolutionists. But the problem of evolutionists is they don’t want to face the reality, like you said “If scientific evidence disproves a theory, the theory will be altered or rejected for another theory which fits the evidence”. Listen my brother there is NO other theory which can fill up the gaps. creation fits the evidence not coincidence.Evolutionists always say ” if evidence disprove evolution, we will do more researches to prove it” You make fun of yourself.. evolutionists are never satisfied..you give them a clear scientific evidence that disproves there theory, no they say we will find a way. Some of the evolutionists will never be satisfied they are always in a illusion that they can prove “life” through chance/coincidence. Your religion is not science my friend. I repeat: the logic you guys are using that nothing, but only coincidence, is scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.If you want me to show you a clear miracle to prove the existence of god, I’m sorry my brother I’m afraid I can’ t show you that. The point is, you should accept the fact that the evidence we have got through science overthrow/defeats your way of thinking in all areas. If you don’ t accept this you will keep believing the impossible. You will always believe that coincidence can create life. My brother you will end up with nothing. Why are you forcing yourself to not accept god? Why you guys always want to find some explanation to prove the origin of life by coincidence even you know it is impossible (because of the scientific breakthroughs we have made in recent years)The world we are living in is only a short test. If god proves his existence through a clear miracle than the test is pointless. Science is only a tool that shows god’s creation/power. We come closer to god through science. Evolutionists always talk about blood, flesh etc. etc. they are worshipping matter. Let me tell you another secret. matter is not what it looks like. The world you see is only a projection of electric signals in your brain. who let this happen? and who sees this projection (of the world) that is created in the brains? welcome in the world of metaphysics and quantum physics my friend. Many evolutionists sees this truth about matter as a frightening fact. You can’t escape my friend. In a couple of years a lot of people will understand this truth about matter. We will know much more about quantum physics.Like I said in 5 years you can find Darwin only in a museum.Regards,Cengiz Eminov
@ Cengiz EminovScience is about taking the real facts of the world, and reaching a conclusion based on those facts. If you are upset that religion fails to meet the burden of scientific proof, it is not my problem.Please read up the concept of “Argument from Ignorance”. It is a logical flaw, which you have unfortunately seem to have based your entire argument on. And, I regret to say, your entire religion.You can find the information at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument _from_ignoranceIf you cannot provide scientific proof that god exists, then you have not proven a god exists. And this means anything you say based on the assumption that a god exists is both unscientific and meaningless in debate.Just because you believe in a god, does not make it any more likely that a god exists.The fact that you believe you have proven the existance of a god, yet cannot provide any scientific evidence that he exists, is proof of your illogical reasoning.And I will not debate with people who use illogical reasoning.
Imagine that we are on a planet.-And we find living complex creatures.-And that genetics and natural selection ensure that advantages are passed to the next generation.-And we find that these organisms share similar DNA.-And possess different, yet similar biological organs.-And fossils of older lifeforms are more simple organisms, with simple organs with similar DNA.The conclusion that SCIENCE must reach is that:”Through natural selection, simple organisms developed into the complex organisms of today”.That is a conclusions. An assessment which is based on direct evidence, and based on direct observation.But then RELIGION comes along. They take the same evidence. But they claim that nothing can happen unless a designer was behind it all.Now what they have done is taken the real evidence (as science did), and then made ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTONS which are not based on the real facts.-Complexity is proof of design (unproven relationship)-A design can be implied without proof a designer exists (circular reasoning)-If evolution cannot explain something, this means creationism is true (argument from ignorance)-There is a god (failure to meet burden of proof).It is these illogical assumptions which set religion (and creationism/ID) aside from science. And nothing that theists can say can remedy these failings.Ask “Who designed the designer?” and their logic falls apart. Ask them “Prove that God exists” and they cannot.But this was never the point.Their goal is not to justify their own beliefs. They are used to believing things without proof. And it means nothing to them that they have no evidence to prove a god exists.No. Their goal is to drag evolution and science down to their level. To drag you into the muck of illogical debates and the mud of faulty logic.Because then they can create the impression that science and religion are somehow equal. So they can shrug off the crippling humiliation that they believe something that can never be proven.Religion will always attempt to emulate science. It will always try to drag science down to it’s level. But it has failed in the courts, and the schools and the scientific community.Religion will never be science, and it will never be equal to science. No matter how it tries to wedge the issue.
To paraphrase:Evidence: Complex creatures exist.Conclusion: They are an intentional constructs.Evidence: Similar genetic code:Conclusion: Common designer(s)Evidence: Shared DNA.Conclusion: What else could the embryo process produce? But how did the embryogenesis reproduction system form? It is more complex than the life forms it produces.Evidence: Homologous organs.Conclusion: Again, common designer(s) who use what is there for alternate bio designs.”The conclusion that SCIENCE must reach is that through natural selection, simple organisms developed into complex [ones]“The data shows an ancestral lineage, but not how novel species form. It’s a case of ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ to claim natural selection of mutational (accidental folding and copying errors) is the answer. It’s fine to state RM-NS as a prediction, but it has NOT been demonstrated. Ongoing, a fervent quest, but absolutely unproven.”That is a conclusions. An assessment which is based on direct evidence, and based on direct observation.”No, it’s merely a hypothesis. ID hypothesizes intentioned coding alterations, i.e. data added rather than subtracted.”But then RELIGION comes along. They take the same evidence. But they claim that nothing can happen unless a designer was behind it all.”But what DID happen is evidence of intentioned design. Religion may take that position, but ID is not religion. Further, I’ve blogged on this subject for ~ ten years, and never once quoted scripture.”Now what they have done is taken the real evidence (as science did), and then made ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTONS which are not based on the real facts.”Religion’s assumptions are based on scripture. Care to debate that fact?”-Complexity is proof of design (unproven relationship)”Specified complexity is.”-A design can be implied without proof a designer exists (circular reasoning)”Design CAN be implied by the existence of a design. That is NOT circular reasoning, rather an evidence based conclusion. But you might term it, ‘begging the question’, since it is not proof. But nobody claimed that ID WAS truth. It’s merely an hypothesis to investigate. Abject prohibition of its consideration is evidence of the fear that it just-might-be-true, evidence that RM-NS is on shaky ground.”-If evolution cannot explain something, this means creationism is true (argument from ignorance)”There is no -ism here. That is your (and a few others) injection, and based on nothing.”-There is a god (failure to meet burden of proof).”ID does not state that, so what is your point?”It is these illogical assumptions which set religion (and creationism/ID) aside from science. And nothing that theists can say can remedy these failings.”Au contraire, it is you who is making false assumptions.”Ask “Who designed the designer?” and their logic falls apart. Ask them “Prove that God exists” and they cannot.”This question is obviously unanswerable. If the designer(s) are unknown, how-in-the-world could one answer that question? Would it be proper for me to ask you what (or who) set off the Big Bang? Or did s/he/it use a match or a cigarette lighter?The rest of your comment is more of the same drivel, let’s call it ‘circuitous logic’, i.e. the same points rephrased. But at least you’re consistent. ;~)
LeeBowmanEvolution is a simple deduction from available evidence.Perhaps you want every fossel and step in genetic diversion to be layed out in front of you, and every single step in cell evolution. I have no idea why, considering you believe in a designer with no proof, but that is not my problem.If there is evidence suggesting a branching connection between early simple and later complex organisms, the logical conclusion is that one developed from the other.Intelligent design goes one step further. It takes all the evidence that science looks at, and then asserts that it is all part of design. It is looking at the evidence with an ADDITIONAL assumption.The term “design” implies a designer. To say that something is a design, you must also be assuming there is a designer.It is not scientific to simply say that complexity equals design. This must be based on the available evidence.If you are going to look at scientific evidence based on the POSITIVE ASSERTION that complexity equals design, then you must show evidence that a designer exists.Unless you can prove the existance of a designer, there is no way to conclude that complexity equals design. You may choose to do so, but it isn’t science.So I ask you this question: “Do you have POSITIVE scientific evidence that a designer exists?”You are the one asserting a designer exists. Your entire argument is based on the fact that life is design. So prove that your assumption has scientific value.No logical fallacies. No circular reasoning. No excuses for why you think the rules of logic don’t apply to you. Just Positive Scientific Proof, please.If you want ID to be equal to science, then you play by science’s rules. You can’t drag science down to yours.
You can’t provide evidence of evolution to someone who doesn’t want to find it.The only goal of creationists here is to push religion, they are not interested in evidence of evolution, because if they were they would have found it for themselves back in grade school..It’s frustrating yes, a cheap attack on the immense integrity of science yes, but convincing a religious person to accept the proof that disproves their religion is not a conversational possibility.. if they were driven by logic and reasoning they would not be religious.You could show them the exact irrefutable piece of magical evidence they were asking for and literally rub their nose in it and if it wasn’t god they would FIND a way to ignore it.Remember desertion for Christians results in burning in hell for eternity.. thus they are emotionally compromised and unfit to present an unbiased opinion.
“Design CAN be implied by the existence of a design. That is NOT circular reasoning, rather an evidence based conclusion. But you might term it, ‘begging the question’”Begging the question is also known as the “argument from ignorance”. Or the argument from negative proof.You have essentially admitted that your argument is based on a logical fallacy. I feel we have finally made some progress. Most ID supporters will never admit such, and ignore the issue. Kudos to you.In time, you will hopefully also see why this logical fallacy precludes ID from being taken seriously as science. And why it is equated as being no different to creationism or religion.
Wow, this is still going on, and LeeBowman still sounds like a Discovery Institute answerbot.Evidence: Complex creatures exist.Hypothesis: Complexity in intentionally constructed.Further evidence: Complexity is seen evolving naturallyHyopthesis collapses.Evidence: Similar genetic codeHypothesis: Common designer(s)Further evidence: INHERITANCEHypothesis collapsesEvidence: Shared DNAHypothesis: Common ancestryFurther evidence: INHERITANCEHypothesis supportedEvidence: Homologous organsHypothesis: Common designerFurther evidence: Similar organs implemented in very different waysHypothesis collapsesLeeBowman says: “The data shows an ancestral lineage, but not how novel species form.”The intellectual dishonesty of this stance is breathtaking. How can you sleep at night? Do you have to take a shower after writing stuff like this?We have a theory that mountain ranges are formed by tectonic forces. We can measure where the plates are, what direction they move, and how fast they move in the course of a year. But we’ve never actually seen a Mt. Everest form.Lee, your logic would have us favor the divine creation of Mt. Everest over the theory that it formed through natural forces.The fact is we have clear, documented observation of random genetic mutation leading to beneficial traits that then are favored by natural selection. We have seen creatures with these traits then out-compete their peers and thrive. We’ve seen the same forces create significant changes in size and shape of creatures. And we’ve seen this all in the fraction of a blink of an eye in evolutionary timescales.Lee would say: “Fine, that’s micro evolution, but it doesn’t explain macro-evolution”OK, Lee – tell us – what force is PREVENTING these small changes from building on each other over time to become big changes?Le’ts say we have a population of fish living near a mudbank on which yummy bugs live. Let’s say over time one minor mutation, a slightly beefier front fin, builds on another and another, so that the fin becomes thicker and stumpier, allowing the fish to move across the mud and eat more yummy bugs.Now let’s say that one last micro-mutation would push that fin over the edge to become what we might call a leg.Lee, are you suggesting that right at that point, the Divine Designer jumps in and says “Wait! Let ME do it!”, waggles his wand, and *poof*, the fish has a leg?How does your Intelligent Designer prevent natural mutations from adding up to become a new feature?
a few typos:”They’re not even related, Rick. One is a built in adaptive function, the other is not. Dino’s didn’t grow wings as a survival tactic. The conflagration of the two is wishful (and unfounded) thinking.”My wireless keyboard and the autocorrect feature have minds of their own. Imagine small and large changes catching fire (conflagration), s/b conflation.The keyboard will drop or switch a character, and the spell corrector speciates (produces a totally new word). But I have to say, most of the changes are deleterious!Similarly, Glen Morton, whom I mentioned earlier once penned:”I also produced three newsletters. The most recent one is Cretinism or Evilution? I didn’t come up with the word “Cretinism,” my spell checker did. It lacks the word “creationism,” so each time it encountered it, my computer asked if I was trying to spell “cretinism,” which my Webster’s dictionary told me referred to “a congenital deficiency resulting in idiocy.”So blog on but seek truth AND objective science, sigh …
Hi Rick,”We have a theory that mountain ranges are formed by tectonic forces. We can measure where the plates are, what direction they move, and how fast they move in the course of a year. But we’ve never actually seen a Mt. Everest form.Lee, your logic would have us favor the divine creation of Mt. Everest over the theory that it formed through natural forces.”Cute, but you and your ‘design deniers’ are the only ones mention the ‘divine’ term. But a careful analysis and comparison of those two examples, and simple logic, will show that while plate tectonics are a natural process, functional biologic forms are of much greater complexity don’t show the same evidence. Can I quote you that plate tectonics is analogous to embryogenesis?”OK, Lee – tell us – what force is PREVENTING these small changes from building on each other over time to become big changes?”They’re not even related, Rick. On is a built in adaptive function, the other is not. Dino’s didn’t grow wings as a survival tactic. The conflation of the two is wishful (and unfounded) thinking.”Let’s say we have a population of fish living near a mudbank on which yummy bugs live. Let’s say over time one minor mutation, a slightly beefier front fin, builds on another and another, so that the fin becomes thicker and stumpier, allowing the fish to move across the mud and eat more yummy bugs.Now let’s say that one last micro-mutation would push that fin over the edge to become what we might call a leg.Lee, are you suggesting that right at that point, the Divine Designer jumps in and says “Wait! Let ME do it!”, waggles his wand, and *poof*, the fish has a leg?”Of course not, any more than I’m tired of my model T so God poofed me a Corvette. The *poof* scenario is YEC thinking.”How does your Intelligent Designer prevent natural mutations from adding up to become a new feature?”Simply this:1) No need for a radical redesign exists, except via the penchant of a designer, or design team to try something different.2) The incremental mutational steps would offer no survival or reproductive advantages.As to sleeping at night, no, I tend to blog all night. Sigh …
Lee, sorry what??!The thing people often get mixed up is that the concept of intelligent design has been around long before creationism and monotheistic religion. It is simply the belief that a conscious entity is responsible for creation whether it be a “God”, Us or something else. It has no conflict whatsoever with evolution which is the study of how organisms evolve into more complex forms over time.Creationism is vastly different to both, although it starts with the concept of intelligent design, it challenges evolution by providing a genesis story for creation, even naming the creator, based on trust in the person telling the story. It does not rely on evidence at all, it is simply a fact stated to be believed by the organizations of Christianity.It is no good for a creationist Christian to rely on the concept of intelligent design as a point of argument because it is NOT what defines creationism (genesis) as a theory nor does it in any way conflict with the study of evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.
Id-ists and creationists are good at debate. They are excellent at picking holes in evidence. And quote mining. And selective reasoning. And making assumptions not based on evidence.They also have an advantage because of their logical fallacies. All of their arguments represent circular reasoning, argument from ignorance, negative proof or simply flawed reasoning. Which means they have an advantage in a discussion. Because they can argue from a position of logical fallacy, while their opponents are restricted to positions of logic and reasoning.But in the courts, the schools and in the scientific community, the only important issue is actual positive evidence. No logical fallacies or baseless assumptions allowed.And you can make illogical arguments in those arenas if you wish. But all it will do is get you laughed at. When ID is taken to task, it fails. Because in the end it cannot back itself up with any actual evidence or science. It fails because it has nothing but assumption. And this baseless assumption goes against archology, natural selection, genetics and biology.ID is irreparably connected to creationism, theism and the supernatural. This is a weakness it can ignore on the discovery institute website, but not anywhere else.All theists have done is put a paper bag over the creationist god’s head, called him a designer, and think this suddenly makes it science. If they have designs on destroying science, they will need to be a lot more intelligent then that.
A note to the moderator. The 3 comments ending in “cheers to all” are duplicates, the 2nd and 3rd edited down since ‘spam’ messages were viewed. If you post any, pick just one please, o/w way too much blather. Regards, Lee
LeeBowman, please stop sending so many copies of your comments, especially some slightly different from others. We cannot read through all of them and decide which one to post.
Leebowman. I have yet to get an answer from either of the logical problems presented.Problem 1:-Evolution takes the evidence, lays it all out and makes a logical conclusion on that evidence.-ID takes the same the evidence, and then makes the additional assertion that all this evidence represents design.-If you are going to assume complexity is design, then you also assume there is a designer.-If ID is going to assert that complexity is proof of design, ID must prove that a designer exists.So, do you have positive scientific evidence that a designer exists? Otherwise, there is no basis for assuming that complexity equals design.Problem 2:-ID assumes that complexity is proof of design.-This means that ID assumes life can only arise from design.-ID claims not to involve a deity or any supernatural aspects.-Which means that for the designer to exist, the designer must be alive and designed.So, without invoking the supernatural, can you tell us who designed the designer? Or who designed the designer’s designer? Or is the ID concept of a designer simply “Creationist God with a paper bag over his head”?Looking forward to your reply.
I asked what prevents small changes from adding up to be big changes.LeeBowman responded with: “They’re not even related, Rick. On is a built in adaptive function, the other is not. Dino’s didn’t grow wings as a survival tactic. The conflation of the two is wishful (and unfounded) thinking.”This, of course, is utter nonsense. The Kiwi, the Dodo and the Stephens Island Wren all LOST their wings as an adaptive process. So yes, some dinos and all bats GREW wings as an extended adaptive process.Lee, you’re drawing a distinction that simply doesn’t exist. You’re forcing the distinction (like a “wedge”) between “small evolution” and “big evolution” where there is no evidence of one.And yes, you may quote me when I say plate tectonics and evolution are analogous in that both build great change over vast time, one little bit at a time.Lee, you deny that small changes over vast time become big changes.And you sacrifice intellectual honesty when you do so.
It is interesting that no supporter of evolution has bothered to respond to my entry. Anon states that “No evolutionist bothered to rise to the challenge.As the scientific evidence was already available.” If that is true, why didn’t the evolutionists simply produce the evidence and just blow the creationists out of the water?I repeat my challenge: produce just one empirical bit of evidence for evolution that does NOT rest on the ASSUMPTION that evolution has occurred. Real science rests on observations and repeatable experiments. Evolution-i.e., a dinosaur growing wings, etc., has never been observed, can not be repeated, and depends purely on evolutionist imaginations.
Wayney,Yes, and the creation of Mt. Everest rests on the ASSUMPTION that plate tectonics can push up a whole mountain. It is supported by the evidence of annual growth rate of the mountain due to tectonic forces.We have observed examples of genetic, functional and morphological changes in animals, and we have the fossil record as evidence of “points along the way”.So, if I see my friend fly off on a plane for Paris, and I get regular post-marked letters and phone calls from him from different places in Europe, then I ASSUME he traveled around Europe, and didn’t magically teleport to China for a couple of days between each of his European postcards.You can choose to ASSUME, in spite of all the natural evidence, that some magic took place to make new species. People once assumed divine/magical/supernatural causation for: the sun, moon, stars, lightning, tides, seasons, weather, earthquakes, disease, personality, etc.Like them, you’d be wrong.Evolution is disprovable – there are many things that would disprove it – but it hasn’t been because it is reality:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ comdesc/section1.htmlEvolution makes successful predictions:http://tiktaalik.uchicago.ed u/searching4Tik.html(click the hard-to-see “next” button to page through this site’s story)Evolution has been observed:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/ 26/science/26lab.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&o ref=sloginhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/re leases/2008/04/080417112433.htmhttp://ww w.msnbc.msn.com/id/13845002/This example even ADDED information (through gene duplication), something many evolution-deniers say is impossible:http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org /cgi/reprint/15/8/931Examples of observed speciation:http://www.talkorigins.org/fa qs/faq-speciation.htmlSo Wayney, I’m anticipating you’ll say “but we’ve never actually SEEN a fish evolve into a frog”. You’re right about that, Wayney. We’ve never seen a diamond form in nature – we’ve only seen them created in labs. So we must not assume diamonds form without intervention by a supernatural intelligent designer. Right, Wayney?Finally, any real scientist who could put forward a theory that overturns the fundamentals of evolution would win a Nobel Prize. Scientists love NOTHING more than proving their colleagues wrong. They long to be the one to completely revolutionize the thinking on a topic. Anyone who thinks scientists conspire to stop good ideas has not met any real scientists.Stopping original thinking is the job of religions, not science.The reason that “Intelligent Design” hasn’t revolutionized any thinking in scientific circles is because it can’t survive questioning. Just like “creation science”, polywater, luminiferous ether, and N-rays – ID belongs on the rubbish heap of ideas that failed to survive the scientific process.Once we remove Christian funding and religiously-motivated promotion, ID will take its place on that heap.