Sep 25 2005
Prev/Next Posts: « Titan Rocks || Ticks of the Trade »
Intelligent Falling
Note: Yeah, I know this is somewhat old news. I sometimes write these in advance, then update them slightly so I can post when I don’t have time to write. I’m having sinus issues right now and it’s hard to concentrate, so I’m posting this one. Also, I’m hoping to have an entry soon about NASA’s new vision of returning to the Moon, but I’ve been too busy to read up on it! I’ll rectify that very soon.
There’s a person who posts on my bulletin board who has a signature he uses that says “Think evolution is ‘just a theory’? Then fasten your seat belts, so is gravity!”
That always made me smile, and now it looks like the brilliantly satirical newspaper “The Onion” has caught on: read their article about Intelligent Falling. It really captures the ridiculosity of Intelligent Design (which, by the way, literally goes on trial today– check Red State Rabble, Pharyngula, and Panda’s Thumb for frequent updates).
And there’s more! The Onion plagiarized the idea. Maybe. They make a lot of stuff up, so it’s hard to tell.
While you’re at it, why not check out The Highest School, which takes “teaching the controversy” to the next logical step?
Get well soon, Phil.
It seems like what High school science should teach is a unit on what science means by “Theory” the problem is that in science jargon the word has a very different meaning than in regular speach
If you really think about it, the Onion’s product is a funny satirical story, and not always the idea that the story is based on.
Even if the idea was borrowed from a comic strip, the way they wrote it up and presented it is vastly diffrent.
Just a thought.
Is “The Highest School” for real? The stupidity at that site is so thick that I have to wonder if it’s someone’s idea of a joke. If they’re serious, it’s very disturbing, indeed.
Upon further review, I’ve concluded that it *is* a joke (or at least an exercise in irony).
Just saw this: http://www.venganza.org/
:-)
Enjoy!!
I’d like to propose a new theory…
“Drunken Unseen Monkey Blueprint All Solar Systems”, sometimes referred to as “Unintelligent design”
The basis of this theory is that people, and the world in general, are so irreduceably messed up that they could only have been designed by a drunken space monkey. This theory, abbreviated as the explains:
1. People’s fascination with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton
2. All the politicians’ little spats over the response to hurricane Katrina
3. Conspiracy theorists
4. Why people like cats.
5. Why 2 is a prime number.
6. How it is that people can still be debating the existence of undetectable, unverifiable, powers that only seem to speak to select people, most of whom are considered insane.
7. Every natural disaster.
Proponents of this theory are getting the short shrift and are now planning to petition the UN for a resolution demanding equal time to the DUMBASS theory.
I just had a vision of horror about something that not everybody might have thought about…
Let suppose for a second that intelligent design becomes accepted: What will happen to the credibility of the US worldwide? What will happen when a country as important as the US accepts something patently false as true? What will the rest of the world think when the US more or less openly say that it doesn’t put much importance on reality?
The only countries I know that are as such are the type of countries that have been the antithesis of the US for years.
Rohit, thanks, but you’re kind of late.
Intelligent falling?
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry?
Need anyone explain how Angels fly or how Jesus Christ
Ascended into Heaven?
These folks are nutty as a fruitcake and then some.
If you are a true Christian, you don’t “Need” to explain these things.
Again I say you have to look at the source.
Who are these people?
They sure are not Catholic!
In all seriousness, I have often had the same sort of wondering as Peptron, although I am not American, but Canadian. The main issue I see is that if ID is accepted in the US as something to be taught in schools, that concept will, like fungus on a mouldy apple, spread to Canada.
And in Canada, it could be much worse. Because Canada harps on multi-culturalism, ID proponents will torque up “theorists” from other religions as well. This will almost certainly incite a series of bizarre legal battles.
It’s really difficult to believe that, 80 years after it went to court, the spirit of the Scopes Monkey Trial keeps going and going, like some perverted Energizer bunny.
Ah, folks, the article is satrical, as is the school website.
Just so’s you know.
It might become real if the WWN picks it up
Evolving Squid, if you are dissing cats, I’m going to have to ask you to step outside.
Has evolution been proven or is just generally accepted by the scientfic community?? Gravity is relatively well understood and, IMHO is NOT a THEORY. Evolution is FILLED with speculation that simply has not been proven. Hope exactly did life start? Any takers? Protiens found in an electrified test tube filled with ‘primoridal soup’ is a long way from a self-reproducing, living organism. How do you transition from gills to lungs. Just details? I don’t thinks so. The theory of evolution is far from complete. If you can not fully explain the whole process of how a primoridal soup became a human being you only have a theory. That is the scientific process: to propose a theory and subject it to testing and criticism until it is fully understood. Then, and only then, it becomes a fact. Evolution is a theory being used to try and understand how life came to be. That’s good science. What I really find hilarious is your religeous zeal over evolution. You’ve accepted it without understanding it and you even push it with evangelistic zeal. The JWs would be proud of you!
Anton,
Theories are never “proved” in science. And any physicist will tell you that gravity is the least understood of the fundamental forces in the Universe.
Anton Says:
“How do you transition from gills to lungs.”
Well, to find the answer, you might google up “lungfish” or “labyrinth fish”. These fish have gills that allow them to breathe water and organs somewhere between gills and lungs that allow them to breathe atmospheric oxygen.
“Hope exactly did life start? Any takers?”
Someone will surely correct me if I am wrong, but I’m pretty sure the theory of evolution does not, nor has it ever, made a specific claim as to the origin of life. It claims only to explain the differentiation of species, which is absolutely NOT the same thing.
“If you can not fully explain the whole process of how a primoridal soup became a human being you only have a theory.”
That is incorrect. You are talking about the origin of life, not the differentiation of species. In any case, a theory is a hypothesis that fits the available observations and is testable. When testing the hypotheses reveals them to be incorrect, they are modified. Thus, over time, a theory actually evolves (sorry for pun). Intelligent design is a hypothesis that does not fit available observations, and is not testable. Therefore it is not a theory but a speculation. That is the difference in the simplest terms.
Evolution has been subject to about 150 years of testing and tweaking. It is on VERY solid ground. Creationism and its related speculations have never stood up to any test for centuries because at some point the tester is required to have “faith” in order to achieve a positive result.
As to the origin of life, there are a number of theories, none of which are particularly strong at this point. Wikipedia has a nice article about abiogenesis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
Oh good grief, this whole “evolution hasn’t been proven” nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Have you ever gotten a flu shot, taken antibiotics, or gotten your immunizations? If so, thank Charles Darwin, because without evolutionary biology we wouldn’t have these modern medical wonders. When was the last time a creationist used *any* creation theory (intelligent design or otherwise) to make a treatment for any disease? Get back to me when you have an answer…
Incidentally, the evidence in favor of evolution is staggering. Look here for just a taste…
“29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
Perhaps if the critics of evolution could be bothered to actually learn the very science they are criticizing, they’d see how lame their arguments really are. But I suppose that would be too much to ask, for them to learn pesky details like the scientific method
Cheers - Mattus Maximus
Anton - It appears that you have little idea what a scientific theory is. It’s a fact that evolution happens (no, I know so-called macroevolution cannot be directly observed). The theory explains how it happens and what the history of it has been. The Law of Gravity gives you some mathematical equations to figure out the motion of things but it doesn’t tell you how gravity works….that is what the Theory of Gravity does. A theory is not “promoted” to a law or a fact. Theories are the ultimate goal of science. They are the best available explanations that are based on the best available evidence, as examined, critiqued, tested, and reviewed by the world’s experts in the field.
Also keep in mind that a Theory about the beginning of life (abiogenesis) is different than the Theory of Evolution (the changes in Life since its beginning).
The Theory of Evolution is not filled with speculation. Speculations are the basis for hypotheses. Successful hypotheses (those that past tests) can be incorporated into a theory.
Anton Said:
>Has evolution been proven or is just generally accepted by the scientfic community??
That’s how science works - it doesn’t prove, just cumulative evidence and a failure to disprove leads to scientific consensus.
>Gravity is relatively well understood and, IMHO is NOT a THEORY.
What part of gravity? The fact that things fall? Yep, that’s not “just a” theory - it’s demonstrable and repeatable. The mathematical description of how things fall? That’s not a theory, that’s a model - what is called “laws of behavior”. Why objects have gravity, what causes things to fall? The best explanations right now use general relativity. Is General Relativity not a theory?
Hint: a Theory is an explanation. Scientific theories are supported by evidence and tested for failure, but they are still just explanations. If the explanation accounts for the evidence and doesn’t conflict with it, then it is considered valid.
>If you can not fully explain the whole process of how a primoridal soup became a human being you only have a theory.
No, even if you can fully explain the whole process, you still only have a theory.
>That is the scientific process: to propose a theory and subject it to testing and criticism until it is fully understood. Then, and only then, it becomes a fact.
No, theories are not facts and never become facts. Theories are explanations that become accepted as the best fit to the “facts”.
>Evolution is a theory being used to try and understand how life came to be. That’s good science. What I really find hilarious is your religeous zeal over evolution. You’ve accepted it without understanding it and you even push it with evangelistic zeal.
I suggest that it is you that does not understand evolution and science. I suggest that what you characterize as “evangelistic zeal” is frustration with proponents less interested in science than in pushing their own religious and political agendas, and who are willing to misrepresent the science and misquote scientists to further their own goals.
All the best from the loyal opposition. I do hope that you feel better soon. Sinus issues can really knock you out. Been there done that, got the t-shirt.
“How do you transition from gills to lungs.�
Via simple modification of the swim bladder, whereby the bladder not only takes in air for boyancy but allows for extraction of oxygen.
How does this occur?
Through numerous evolutionary changes brought about through natural selection.
Either that or those “drunken monkeys” have been at it again.
Folcrom.
Peptron said:
>Let suppose for a second that intelligent design becomes accepted: What will >happen to the credibility of the US worldwide?
What credibility?
Sorry, but worldwide opinion of the US is not something that is going to get much lower anytime soon.
(Don’t worry, you have the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, the second largest armed forces in the world, and the single most well funded armed forces in the world (greater than the budgets of the remaining top 20 combined))
feel safe.
please.
please feel safe and leave the rest of the world alone.
I would recommend that no-one take up the forced install of “winfix 2005″ that “The Onion” pushed at me when I visited.
I love how closing the dialog just opens their web-site, clicking cancel makes it respond with “I will install it now”.
Not likely on my computer but for casual surfers beware !
Oh, and Phil - get well soon.
james, I wish I could disagree with you…but our actions over the past several years have been…let’s say counterproductive. OTOH, I do have faith that my country will come around in a few years; we always do–it goes in cycles. But I’m straying OT here.
Another Phobos–well said! That was a pretty good description.
Anton, about the verbiage: what scientists mean by the terms “fact” and “theory” are VERY different from how we use the terms in day-to-day converation. In science, a fact is something observed, where we use “fact” to mean something that’s true. “Murder is wrong” is certainly true, but it’s not at all a scientific fact. Similarly, in science a theory is an explanation for a complex system based on repeated observation and testing. Remember from high school science (at least that’s what I was taught) that a hypothesis is an “educated guess”. That’s really what we mean day to day when we say the word “theory”. But in science, a hypothesis *graduates* to a theory when it’s been subjected to experiments over and over and consistently passes those tests. A scientific theory is basically the same thing as a scientific law, except that theories explain more complex systems than laws do.
So, for instance: Is gravity a theory, a law, or a fact?
The answer is “Yes.”
The FACT of gravity means that we observe it to happen.
The LAW of gravity basically explains the rate of fall of an object in a given environment and so forth.
The THEORY of gravity explains that objects with large mass attract other objects, etc. (Yes, it’s much more complicated than that, but just to give you an idea.)
So, evolution is a FACT because we observe it (yes, we haven’t yet observed speciation, but then again we haven’t been looking for very long yet). We do observe it on a smaller scale–hospitals are struggling with this now, in that they’re wrestling with diseases that have become resistant to antibiotics. Evolution is a THEORY because it has been subjected to numerous experiements, which it has consistently passed.
[Inspired by DUMBASS theory above]
There we have it!! The theory of evolution of the creationists and IDists - Unintelligible Design. Only this can explain why they exist and continue to evolve. As the name goes the theory is *unintelligible* and therefore cannot be explained - only proved. Creationists exist therefore the theory MUST be true, and no other explanation is needed. So there - the greatest theory ever devised.
OOPS!! By mistake I entered the subject (”Unintelligible Design explains creationists”) of the previous post in place of the website - the effect is neat though - it tries to search for a site “http://unintelligibledesignexplainscreationists/” which does not exist
Ditto to Irishman!
What kind of response will we receive from Anton?
All of the scientific explanations are readily available in libraries, bookstores, magazine racks (science magazines) and the world wide websites.
However, all of our combined scientific knowledge explanations will be for nought unless Anton and those of similar inclinations are open to learning and self-educating themselves in the sciences.
Yesterday I was in the periodical room of the Free Concord Library, MA, reading: Science, the Progressive, Harper’s, Aviation Weekly and Space Technology, and the American Scholar–Summer 2005 issue.
Robert Wilson, the editor of American Scholar wrote: “Science matters. The attack on science is an attack on reason, and it cannot be ignored, or excused, or allowed to go uncontested.”
Be well, Phil.
Oh yea! I remember that one.
It was hilarious, a nice smack back in the face of IDists.
Get well BA! (About 99% of the world population is stuck with a flu or cold right now. Seriously, everyone I talk with has it, and me too…)
Hey (sniff), I lib wid stuvvy sidusses ebery day (snort)… what’s de probleb? (Ah-choo!)
I suggest, in a spirit of coming-togethernessiosity, a compromise.
Proponents of Intelligent Design will be allowed to read the following statement (as well as play their banjos) in the classroom:
“Since no living person one was around when life began, we’d like you to consider the idea that life was created and guided through a developmental process by some sort of Higher Being. After all, there’s no evidence to the contrary. Thank you.�
IF
The rest of us may read the following statement in churches, synagogues, and mosques:
“Since no living person one was around when the Old or New Testaments, or the Koran was written, we’d like you to consider the idea that Moses/Jesus/Mohammed was a crazed, axe-wielding serial killer. After all, there’s no evidence to the contrary. Now please excuse me while I make a mad dash for the exit.�
Leon - thanks for the vote of confidence
James -
> What credibility?
It is a shame that all the good that is done by the US is being completely ignored (e.g., billions of dollars in international/humanitarian aid every year, shared advances in science and technology, etc.).
>and leave the rest of the world alone.
The usual (historic) complaint is that the US is too isolationist/unilateral.
“You’ve accepted it without understanding it and you even push it with evangelistic zeal. The JWs would be proud of you!”
Wow. You managed to be insulting both to the evolutionists AND to another religion in a single line. Your powers of jerkdom are very strong. Do you practice that?
Hey, guys, I think Anton was just pulling our collective leg.
Anton - if you really believe what you posted, go to the links posted by Mattus Maximus and Evolving Squid. Every point you raise and question you ask has been answered before in extraordinary detail. I say extraordinary, because I think it must have taken the authors many hours of careful research, drafting and proofreading to come up with such comprehensive, detailed and readable explanations.
If you seriously desire to debate evolution, make sure you know what the theory actually says, and make sure you know the distinctions between evolution, common descent, natural selection and the other terms that are a part of that aspect of the biological sciences.
In other words, show some respect to other people’s views, even if you don’t share those views.
Rodney-
Don’t fall into their trap. They want to draw the battle lines as “good, upstanding, G*d-fearing Americans” vs. “those heathen scientists.” Don’t let them define the debate on their terms.
My terms? The Discovery Lobby’s initiative is not only bad science, but bad theology. We’ve already covered that ID is non-predictive and non-falsifiable, and thus not acceptable in a science class. But some contemplation will show that a fickle, Zeus-like deity, who intervenes with nature, conflicts with our concept of a generous and eternal Lord. In short, ID’ers are building a cramped box to put their G*d into; a mundane construct for an Earthly goal.
I think all of you responding to Anton have missed the boat.
This is a favorite tactic of creationists, to get you defending/debating evolution rather than turning the tables and demanding that they provide evidence for ID. We don’t have to defend evolution, the evidence is overwhelming. This isn’t a dichotomous argument, such as in a court of law, where it is completely valid to discredit your opponent and win. This is science. If you discredit an opposing theory, that doesn’t automatically make yours right; it leaves you with a discredited opponent, but nothing supporting you.
That’s a good point, Jack.
Anton, is there evidence you’d like to put forward to argue that ID is correct, or that it’s a science? (Note: those are two *separate* questions.)
There are two initial problems with debating Creationists/ID-iots.
The first is that they employ a logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of Equivocation. In this fallacy they deliberately misuse the term “theory” to discredit the term, ignoring its accepted and intended meaning in the scientific context. This invalidates the bulk of their premise (that Evolution is a theory, in the colloquial sense, and therefore is of no value). A good debater, indeed any person with the simplest grasp of logic, should see this attempt at semantic trickery right away. The fallacy is also used when the Creationist/ID tries to argue that because the theory of evolution does not explain how life originated, it is invalid; when, in fact, it was never postulated to explain how life originated. They are shifting the meaning, then discrediting the new meaning and declaring the true meaning invalid. It’s a childish trick really, not worthy of any debater.
And, of course, Creationists argue from a False Dilemma - that if Evolution is not absolutely true, then there MUST be some kind of divine intervention. This is a logical fallacy because it deliberately excludes other possibilities such as: Evolution is not correct, but species evolve totally by random chance or that life, like “god” just is and isn’t created or designed any more than a god is created or designed. There are a myriad of possibilities that are at least as feasible as “an invisible, powerful being created all things and manipulates their progress.”
Naturally, when logic fails, they resort to that old stand-by, the Ad Hominem attack:
>> What I really find hilarious is your religeous zeal over evolution. You’ve
>> accepted it without understanding it and you even push it with
>> evangelistic zeal. The JWs would be proud of you!
Honestly, is anybody ever afraid that ID will pick up steam? I mean, there are many many many religious/creationists in the US.
In my humble opinion:
If we even consider that God is indeed the source of everything - then it logically follows that God is implicit in what we accept and what we deny. In other words, for all practical purposes God can be ignored (since…it is implicit). This achieves two things:
1) Removes an unknown (a.k.a. God) from all calculations/activites.
2) Makes life easier without having to worry about God.
Someone ought to tell these creationists that if they really believe everything is the work of god, then they should not worry about scientists - god will take care of any problem scientists pose. In fact, creationists should not worry about anything - god will feed them, god will do everything for them, all they need to do is sit in one place and do NOTHING. And indeed, since scientists are a creation of god - by questioning scientists they are committing a grave sin - questioning god’s creations!
I’m having a Kent Brochman molment…
I for one welcome our Drunken Moneky overloards
Jack - That’s a good point worth remembering, but there is a difference between being defensive and simply correcting wrong claims. Further, your point works well in the scientific arena, but ID is bypassing that debate and going straight to the public forum. For the layperson, defining the terms and answering the challanges can be helpful and give less credence to creationists’ claims that mainstream science is dogmatic.
Rohit Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 1:02 am
>In fact, creationists should not worry about anything - god will feed them, god will do everything for them, all they need to do is sit in one place and do NOTHING.
Old joke… but relevant?
A New Orleans man trying to escape the flooding is on his second story balcony. A boat comes by offering a ride; and the man’s reply: “I have faith in God, He will save me.�
Later as the waters rise he is on his roof and a second boat comes by. The man reiterates “I have faith in God, He will save me.�
A bit later he is on his chimney and a helicopter comes to aid. “I have faith in God, He will save me.�
Later, in heaven the man approaches God and says “I had faith why didn’t help me?�
God responds “I sent you two boats and a Helicopter what more did you want?�
Not to attack anybody’s faith - everyone is entitled to his/her beliefs, but one must have an objective outlook. Faith and religion are ok as long as one keeps it to him/herself and doesn’t try to impose his/her beliefs upon others - it really is a personal thing. But when it comes to public and social life, it is important to think logically and objectively - simply basing one’s actions/thoughts based on religion however noble they may be is IMHO foolish - because the doer doesn’t really understand his/her own actions or thoughts thus. It is akin to saying “my religion/holy book/scripture says so-and-so, therefore I think/do so-and-so” and it is dangerous as it sort of absolves the person (in his/her own eyes) of the responsibility of his/her thoughts/actions and their results - it might even reinforce those thoughts & actions…religious intolerance and violence is a case in point.
That said, all religious text has some foundation in reality and truth - covered with a lot of myth (or god/sin) etc. to enforce that truth. Over time the myth has become more important than its root - for example most religions forbid alcohol and smoking - the root cause is that both are bad for health. Simple. But to make people understand this and discipline them, fear is used in the form of sin or god - and that has taken precedence over the real thing. This is why today we need religion less and more scientific thought - science has achieved all the good things religion has to offer and more without the “excess baggage”.
Any person with a scientific bend of mind will automatically take religion and mythology with a pinch of salt - he/she will know that beyond a certain limit religiosity is…well…beyond limits or too much. But the sad truth is, no matter how much we tell these creationists we cannot control their thoughts just as they cannot control ours - even the most glaring example of scientific or causal analysis/events will only convince them that it is the work of god.
MikeP Says:
Honestly, is anybody ever afraid that ID will pick up steam? I mean, there are many many many religious/creationists in the US.
I am. They do seem to be picking up steam. This nonsense going on in Pennsylvania, and being revisited in Kansas, highlights that the ID crowd seems to be making some kind of inroads politically. And the fact that there are many creationists in the US (compared to other industrialized countries) I find deeply troubling. ID can indeed be a wedge to let that kind of thinking infiltrate our public science classes.
I don’t know what public schools will be like five years from now. I fear for my daughter and her education.
>> What credibility?
>It is a shame that all the good that is done by the US is being completely >ignored (e.g., billions of dollars in international/humanitarian aid every >year, shared advances in science and technology, etc.).
Thank you for reminding me! Due to unfair trading practicies and debt repayment, every dollar in aid spent is matched by 5 coming back again!
Much of the ‘aid’ is tied to requirements that are detrimental to the economy of the recipient country.
Many charitable organisations are fronts for religious or corporate agendas (I will admit this is a ‘western’ rather than solely US problem).
The US screamed blue murder in the WTO about the UK favouring 3rd world suppliers over (subsidized) US suppliers, only 2 years ago.
As for sharing science and technology, the US is one of the great champions of intellectual property, especially in pharmaceuticals (which you pretty much own).
You don’t share, you sell.
America has a lot of things to be proud of.
It’s foreign policy is not one of them.
credibility: the quality of being believable or trustworthy
The US invaded a country on the basis of evidence that most of the world knew was false.
Please understand, I like the US, I like it a lot. You are a great bunch.
You are also THE SINGLE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH.
I don’t like Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, North Korea or the English. I like them a lot less than the US. However none of them is capable of a large scale invasion of a country on the other side of the world.
If I hated you I would not be throwing mud on a largly US blog. I’d be doing it privately, while decanting saltpetre.
James Says:
America has a lot of things to be proud of.
[Its] foreign policy is not one of them.
True enough. Our record abroad since the beginning of the Cold War is not something to be proud of. And more and more, we seem to be assuming a paternal role, as if we know better than other countries because we’re the USA.
Lately we’ve shown a great deal of disdain for the international community, and much of our relations with the outside has exhibited a great deal of hubris (read: pride). That’s ironic for an administration that places such emphasis on Christianity: someone in Washington really needs to read up on the Seven Deadly Sins.
That said, I think we’re straying dangerously OT here. Probably should move the discussion away from international relations and back to the topic on hand.
I remember having a discussion with a fellow grad student who was working on phase transitions in the early universe (so not science illiterate). She said that she believed in microevolution but not macro evolution - we can’t have evolved from apes and she believed in “intelligent design”. I then asked her “So how can you account for the fact that chimpanzee’s DNA is 98% the same as ours?”. She said that she didn’t know that.
Of course, she wasn’t as bad as another grad student who was studying supernova remnants and had written papers saying that some of them were tens of thousands of years old. It turns out he was a strict fundamentalist and believed that the Earth was only several thousand years old. When his advisor found out about it, the advisor asked him how he could believe that when he dated a supernova remnant to be 20, 000 years old. The grad student replied “God made it look that way.”
Unfortunately for some people, faith is just too powerful.
That’s pretty frightening.
In my Molecular Bionengineering course (basically a molecular biology course with engineering components), the professor went off on about a 45-minute rant against Intelligent Design on Thursday, then took digs at ID throughout the rest of the class (pointing out how poorly designed many features are). I managed to write most of it down, it was quite good. Besides calling them “crooks and illeterate idiots” over and over and a few vulgaraties, he has some good points (forgive the bad grammar, the professor is Russian and I copied his words as accurately as possible). I will leave out the insults and curses for the sake of civility:
“this all can be seen if you are impartial observer of what has been learned about nature up until now” (referring to evolution)
His specialty is nucleic acids, so he is referring to the mechanisms behind transcription, translation, and replication of DNA and RNA in particular, but these quotes are equally valid for many areas of biology. “We will see it is all very poorly designed. It is clear nature blindly picked a method which caused all sort of problems later on. These systems took the wrong or not ideal path but can’t change because it would kill the organism”
“All you need for life is the ability for a chemical to catalyze its own formaton. Life may look very complicated but only reason for complexity is to facilitate transmission of information from parents to children.”
When he refers to the genetic code here, he means which specific DNA triplets code for which amino acids: “The currently accepted theory, I would say it is pretty much undisputed now, is mitochondria were bacteria who formed a symbiotic relationship with other cells. The mitochondria started transferring their DNA to the cell’s nucleus. However, before it could finish the mitochondria genetic code changed, preventing complete transfer of DNA to nucleus. This absolutely unnecessary, completely stupid. No reason to stop with only a tiny bit left.”
“All DNA polymerase requires primer as well as template. It needs a 3′ OH group. It is not fundamental in biology or chemistry because RNA can do it without primer. This fundamental rule of biology happened in evolution and although it is a bad thing it is too late to change it. This is often how evolution works”
Great stuff, BlackCat. Please be sure to bring this up in other topics here where M Duke posts; he pushes for ID and makes some DNA-related arguements. You’re obviously knowledgeable on the subject, so you’d be much better able than I to evaluate his arguements and confirm or refute them.
Evolving Squid Said:
>There are two initial problems with debating Creationists/ID-iots.
[Bolding added]
>Naturally, when logic fails, they resort to that old stand-by, the Ad Hominem attack:
Oh, the irony!
Actually, I chose that particular word quite deliberately.
Idiot means “a fool”. A “fool” is “a person who behaves or thinks imprudently or unwisely”. It is clearly, and without any doubt, foolish, imprudent, and unwise to deny reason and cling to a line of beliefs that cannot be supported with evidence, whose veracity cannot be tested, and indeed will not allow testing (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:9)
I submit, therefore, that it is not an ad hominem attack but rather an observation, a premise, a hypothesis. As a hypothesis, the statement is testable: As an experiment, we can test whether or not there are people who deny reason and logic in various ways. We can also test whether or not those people are considered fools. If people who deny reason and logic are considered fools, then the specific subject matter for which reason and logic are being denied should not matter.
Being called a fool is not the same as being told “your opinion does not matter because you are a sinner, a disbeliever and will burn in Hell”.
I am sorry if you cannot see the difference. I am not sure I can make it clearer.
Hey Squid, I follow your line of reasoning, and it does make sense on a logical level. Still, “idiot” is a very loaded word, and I think it would be best to avoid that kind of thing. Some will perceive it as insulting (not entirely without reason), and that can lead to a more emotional discussion than we should be having on this topic.
I think we all agree we don’t want this thread to devolve (pun intended) into a mud-slinging session.
You are correct.
My favorite article is when they list one of the guy’s credentials as a degree in “Applied Scripture.”
That doesn’t exist, does it?
Seems to me that “idiot” is too close to name calling to be considered mere description.
“You are unwise” is a description.
“You are a fool” is an insult.
See the distinction? It’s one of those hard to define, fuzzy gray areas that make up human interaction.
>Being called a fool is not the same as being told “your opinion does not matter because you are a sinner, a disbeliever and will burn in Hell�.
No, but it is very similar, because it is saying, “your opinion does not matter because you are a ___”. “Fool” is a value-laden term.
We had another amusing comment from my Neuroscience TA today:
“Why are there 3 different nerves transmitting tase? These are also not limited to taste, they are carrying other information as well. And why are there three nerves dealing with ocular movment? And why does one only control one muscle while another controls three? This is unintelligent design.”
AFAIK, the creationist/IDers strongest pretense at a science-based refutation of evolution is to point to the eye. How could a structure as complex as the eye have evolved, when removing or changing even one component renders it useless?
What I always wonder is why I never see anyone counter with the example of HDTV or a similarly complex yet familiar device. Here you have a complex system that no longer functions if you remove any one of a multitude of components. By the C/IDers’ arguments, this points toward a divine creator for this device. Yet HDTV has a very clearly defined and logically organized ancestry of hundreds of predecessor devices. These devices diverge more and more, becoming simpler and simpler, as you trace back along HDTV’s evolutionary tree, yet every single one of these devices was not only fully functional but considered top-of-the-line for its time.
So there’s a clear and familiar example of how a very complex system can develop from much simpler origins yet be fully functional along each step of its (human-directed) evolution. Or is this example trivial or not applicable in some way that I don’t see?
1. HDTV is designed. It is the product of human design. That process was iterative, starting from simpler designs to more complex ones, and functioned in an “evolutionary” manner, because there were selection pressures for better performance and such. But underlying it all was human intelligence at work. Creationists would claim that proves biology is the product of intelligence.
2. HDTV is not a contiguous chain of growth. Each TV set is a new build. Parts do not change in a TV set to make it work better. Rather, each design is independent, using the common principles but giving a unique component layout, etc.
It’s an interesting analogy and an interesting principle. A better example is the “reducible mousetrap” that uses one of Behe’s pet analogies for Irreducible Complexity and reduces it.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Mike, I like your analogy. Irishman is right that it leaves the field open for the ID/Creashunist crowd to say “See, your example proves there’s an intelligent designer at work”, but…that doesn’t help their arguement.
Nowhere does evolutionary science say there isn’t a creator or an intelligence at work; evolution simply explains HOW the work is being done, not what’s doing it.
I’m a middle-aged man. If I am the product of “Intelligent Design,” can someone please explain why I have nipples?
And why my hair is getting thin.
As I see it, the main problem with intelligent design is the lack of a definition of intelligence. The word design has no problems, clearly many biological systems are designed. The issue is, were they designed by natural selection, which ultimately relies on random processes, or were they designed by some intelligence. The problem is, since we have no real idea what intelligence is, we cannot be sure that intelligence itself is not governed by random selection processes. How do brains work, after all? Probably by selecting, out of many possible random processes, those that actually do something useful. Thus intelligence, as we know it, may itself be intimately related to random driving
forces. After all, human intelligence showed up pretty late in the “design process”. And if the intelligence implied by ID is something more than human intelligence, then what definition can be suggested for it, other
than the tautological one: intelligence is that attribute which is capable of producing results that show design. But using that definition, intelligent design is so self-explanatory that even Darwinian evolution can be classified as an intelligent process. So after it all, we find ID is both correct, and meaningless.
Excellent point, Ken!
Gravity is a Law, 1st law of gravity, so forth and so on. It was originally published as a theory. It became a law when it became provable. Versus, evoluation which remains theorized based on supposition.
Wrong, Sean. Theories don’t become Laws - they are two different items.
A Scientific Law (sometimes a Principle) is a description of how something behaves. Newtons’ Law of Gravitation describes the mathematical pull between two objects. It is a description. It does nothing to explain why gravity pulls the way it does.
Theories are explanations - explanations that match the data and provide a framework for why the Laws work. Theories are built around laws. Newton’s Gravitational Theory had to do with body forces. Gravity theory now is based upon Relativity and curved spacetime. Relativity replaced Newtonian gravity. Newton’s Law is still valid for most applications - only in the extreme conditions does Relativity differ.
Example: the Germ Theory of disease - that bacteria and viruses are the causes for many diseases. That’s still a Theory, even though we have confirmed the existence of bacteria and viruses and shown how they invade, how they spread, and how to prevent them and treat them. It is not the “Germ Law” of disease.
And I think you are thinking of Newton’s Laws of Motion. I’m not aware of a “1st Law of Gravity”.
I don’t know where people get this idea that scientific ideas go through a hypothesis-to-theory-to-law progression - something like a bill going through parliament/congress/local legislative equivalent. You see people all the time arguing that this happens and that evolution is still stuck at the ‘theory’ stage and is therefore dubious. Does anyone out there know where this concept comes from?