The intrepid crew at the Texas Freedom Network inform us that the reliably moronic Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist who's devoting his career to painting a bullseye on the educations of millions of Texas students, has found a worthy book on the subject of evolution. What might it be, you ask? The Ancestor's Tale? Why Evolution Is True? Or Ken Miller's perennially assigned Biology textbook?
Uh...no. How about: a book-length histrionic rant self-published by a frothing anti-evolution crank named Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
Johnson is a wackaloon's wackaloon, a West Point graduate whose pet projects have included tortured reinterpretations of Greek mythology in an effort to show they're simply variants of the Adam & Eve story. Yes, it's bizarre to try to prove your myths have some veracity by referencing other myths; seriously, the guy's position is that Athena is really Eve, therefore, the Bible is true! But that's how nutcases like Johnson think. And nutcases like Johnson think the same way monkeys drive trucks.
Johnson's "thinking" on evolution, which impressed that cretin McLeroy enough for him to refer to the book as "unique," "insightful" and "important," includes such gems as the following.
Creationists do not want to bring religion into the classroom… Creationists simply want the God hypothesis brought back into the science classroom, and recognized for what it is—a scientifically valid hypothesis.
What are they doing coming into all of our elementary schools, all of our junior highs, and all of our high schools with a disguised demand that our children embrace their evoatheism? What are they doing teaching our children that they are descended from worms and reptiles? What are they doing imposing their atheistic religious faith on our children when we’re not around? What are they doing sowing atheism in our schools?
The obvious problem here is that it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution.
What kind of monster parents teach their children that they’re descended from rodents and reptiles?
Come on in, everybody, especially you kids, and join the great evolutionary festivities! Learning about your descent by chance from worms and reptiles will strengthen your faith in “a creator,” with a small “c,” whoever he is.
So you see the kind of "science" textbook McLeroy thinks "deserves a hearing": a bombastic, hysterical, spittle-flecked tirade by a throughly scientifically illiterate moron, who, like Ben Stein, bases his whole overwrought screed on selling the idea of "Big Science" as some monolithic entity with stormtrooper-like enforcers (the first chapter literally opens with an absurd men-in-black scenario) out to quash dissent.
The egregiousness of all this cannot be condemned forcefully enough, and I encourage everyone far and wide to shine as much light on McLeroy and his pet cockroach Johnson as possible. Bring the absurdity and emotionalism of the creationist anti-science crowd right out into the open, and correct their angry lies with calm, sober scientific facts (which, contrary to Johnson's ravings, do exist to support evolutionary biology in its totality). Let ridicule and derision drive them back into the obscure darkness of their own superstitious fears, where they belong.
McLeroy, man of a thousand thoughts, none of which are worth the bronze age parchment they are written on.
ReplyDeleteI still can't believe - in this day and age, with all the information that's so readily available - there are people who still think Evolution means "People came from Monkeys (or rodents and reptiles!" Often it's followed by something mind-numbingly stupid like "If people came from Monkeys, why are monkeys still here?"
ReplyDeleteIf they'd just take five seconds to do a little research, they'd learn about Common Descent, but hey, that's way too much effort, right? Typing stuff into a search engine and clicking your fingers raw. Who needs the aggravation?
Thanks a lot, Martin. Now I have to take a shower when I get home, to watch the stupid off. When that quote came up on my screen, stupid exploded out of the speakers of my work computer.
ReplyDeleteThis guy thinks like old people fuck.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If God is a scientific thing, then so too are the 4th dimensional Reptilians.
ReplyDeleteAnd before you ask, no, I don't believe in them, but they do come in handy.
Oh come on AtheistUnderMask, of course reptillians exist! Some poorly done documentary by people who have no credit or good evidence told me so!
ReplyDeleteAnd if you do not take my word for it you are brainwashed by the massive conspiracy...
Oh wait, doesn't this describe creationists too?
"Creationists simply want the God hypothesis brought back into the science classroom, and recognized for what it is—a scientifically valid hypothesis."
ReplyDeleteNo. A valid hypothesis would be that if you mix equal parts of lindt chocolate and guinness at 25 degrees celsius at 1 atmosphere, after 10 minutes you'll have a bar of gold.
It's not true, but it's a valid hypothesis because it can be TESTED.
Johnson, you're not even wrong.
Even being almost a hemisphere away, the thought of this man having any kind of say in any children's education truly fills me with dread.
ReplyDelete"What are they doing teaching our children that they are descended from worms and reptiles?"
ReplyDeleteWhat are YOU (Don McLeroy) doing teaching our children that they are miserable, worthless sinners whose lives and souls are filled with disgrace and filth, whose only hope is to acknowledge their disgusting nature and believe in and love a supposed god who humiliatingly sacrificed his son on a bloody cross?
I'm down with the worms and reptiles. I think that's kinda cool. The whole worthless sinner thing?... not so much.
:-)
Exactly, Skeptically!
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I've used the reptiles in an argument with a creationist. I was told to grow up and asked who created the reptiles.
That second one sure sounds funny.
I've decided that the reptiles are the perfect counter against creationists because it's essentially arguing the exact same thing.
That's a good point Dan. Besides, weren't dinosaurs reptiles? That means I could have a T-Rex in my family tree. How friggin sweet is that?!
ReplyDeleteThe T-rex would be a very distant cousin and not in your direct line, but every thing that is or once was living not in your direct line is a very distant cousin. So take that as you want. As I am sure you know your actual ancestor during the time of T-rex was more of a shrew type mammal.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you can't fight with reason this kind of addiction, denial, delusion and stupidity - flaunted brazenly as a badge of honor, yet.
ReplyDeleteI keep saying it - fundies cannot be reasoned with. They can only be subjugated.
Under the mask~
ReplyDeleteGenetically and physiological research indicates that dinosaurs were the forerunners of birds, so they were actually more avian than reptilian. A transition if you will.
In fact I remember reading in a non-journal science magazine how some genetic research found that the domesticated chicken is the closest genetic relative of the T-rex living today.
To Beam and Ing: I know. I was being sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteIn the post, there is a charge to counter the "emotionalism of the creationist anti-science crowd." I find this odd, since the post is filled with emotion, personal attacks, lots of nasty words about the authors of the book being criticized, and so forth. It comes across as very inconsistent. I don't know McLeroy, and he may be a fool, but you don't strengthen your position by attacking his person.
ReplyDeleteAs for allowing creationism into the classroom, I don't like the half-measures. Scientific theory cannot explain origins with any more certainty than the Bible. I'm not talking about experiments, but the source for all of this. Either there should be no discussion at all about sources, or creationism ought to stand alongside the other explanations, in my opinion.
I believe in creation, but that does not include any disbelief of the disciplines of chemistry, physics, biology, etc. In my view, those fields are things which the human mind can concieve of and which tell us a great deal about the world. But to answer the question of how the world came to be, if creationism is to be thrown out, then the other explanations ought to go as well.
@Falkenhayn:
ReplyDeleteYou said: Scientific theory cannot explain origins with any more certainty than the Bible.
I disagree. I think science can give us a much higher degree of certainty about origins than the Bible can. Just because "scientific theory" (I'm not comfortable with lumping all of science into one big thing, but I'll play along) doesn't explain every single detail about the origin of the Universe, doesn't mean your ideas win out by default, and therefore should be taught to children in public schools. With science, we examine the universe and come to the best conclusions we can about it, based on what we observe and study. The fact that what little we can examine right now may leave some things unknown or unexplained, doesn't make your position anymore valid. Sure, the Bible provides a good and somewhat elegant explanation for the things we don't know, but that doesn't make it a BETTER explanation. In other words, I think peoples' ideas about God simply serve as a way to smooth over these rough "I don't know" spots, by allowing you to construct a personal understanding with this intangible undescribable being that will always be able to comfort you and fill the gaps where you don't know. Personally, I'm okay with "I don't know". It's more honest, and it leaves the door open to learn more.
As for all your stuff about creationism having to be taught alongside or nothing at all, you're just wrong. Creationism is nothing more than people who have misconceptions about evolution and science, see it as a threat for some reason, and feel the need to attack it, finding "gaps" in the theory of evolution, for example, and trying to say they have an alternative explanation, when really all the explanation is...is a rehashing of the gaps, with language inserted about a "designer". The idea that kids need to be taught whatever anyone anywhere thinks about evolution, etc is ridiculous. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought the goal of public education was to equip kids with the knowledge and skills they need to be valuable members of society. Apparently, according to you, it's really just a place where they go to become guinea pigs so people can just lob ideas at them and let them decide what sticks.
"I don't like the half-measures."
ReplyDeleteGood, then you'll support me in my lobbying to get taught in public schools that aliens from the planet Nibiru came to Earth and genetically modified early man into the humans we all know and love.
Seriously though, instead of whining you could actually, I don't know, show some kind of scientific evidence for creationism AND the creator, not this non-evidence of "oh well, look at the trees!" and if you can do that, congratulations, you are the first!
AtheistUnderMask: I figured you already knew but it is hard to read sarcasm when written. So best to explain things anyway. :)
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't even know the meaning of the word hypothesis...
ReplyDeleteSparrowhawk: I wasn't claiming that my ideas win out by default. My point is that if we're going to have a science class, and you don't want to see creationism taught because you think its a faulty belief system, then I find it inconsistent to teach evolution as an explanation for life. Maybe my school was different than yours, but we were taught that the Big Bang explained our existence.
ReplyDeleteMy goal is not to get the Bible into school. But if we are going to narrow down science to the study of processes and other things, then let's get rid of the big bang stuff too and simply study molecules, kinetic energy, etc.
I do not see science as a threat. Assuming that all Christians do is a faulty position. I think science tells us about the world, and the world was created by God, and therefore it is perfectly complimentary. I'm all for science, just not the attempt to pass off science as an explanation for itself.
You can analyze notes in a song, their tune, wavelength, relation to each other, pitch, volume, etc. This is a valid pursuit, and you will learn alot. But it will never tell you how the song was written. So, I'm not against any study of science, I just don't think it should be used to try and explain life in a classroom if we're going to make a classroom this objective environment for the transmission of knowledge.
On a tangent, I beleive in God not to construct a bubble where I am always comforted. Adhering to Christianity is often challenging and difficult. I believe it because I find it to be true, not because it is soft and cuddly.
AtheistUnderMask: You completely miss my point. There is nothing wrong with studying chemistry, or any other subject, in order to learn more about chemistry. Chemistry happens, it's not a threat to me. But if you object to having my explanation for how chemistry came to exist included in a textbook, then I object to yours.
If you think I'm advocating open season, where anything goes, then you have me all wrong. If creationism never gets taught in science class, fine by me. But then neither should the big bang.
Falkenhayn: You're still not addressing my point that the big bang is not a faulty explanation. I certainly see the logic you're trying to use in this: If we can't teach creationism because it's unscientific, then we can't teach the big bang because it's faulty too. The problem is, even though the big bang may not answer ALL questions we can raise about it (such as "where did it come from?"), it is NOT unscientific. I don't want creationism kept out of schools because it's "faulty". I want it kept out because it is an unscientific waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI know you'll probably try to keep harping on the big bang not being valid because it is "faulty", so I'll repeat myself. I don't think it's fair to say that it is "faulty" because it is incomplete, and then lump it together with creationism. The big bang is a tentative conclusion that was reached based on repeated observation of natural phenomena. The fact that it doesn't answer questions like "where did it come from?" doesn't mean we throw it out along with creationism. The reason the scientific community doesn't bother with creationism is because it is unscientific.
Beam: Tell me about it. It's why we invented the emoticon. Text is more monotonous than Ben Stein. Although it would be cool to be descended from a T-Rex.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I don't want to live in a world where I'm not descended from a T-Rex. :D
Falken: I'd answer, but Sparrowhawk did just as good of a job. No sense in repeating what's already been said.
Sparrowhawk: In regards to your point -
ReplyDelete"The big bang is a tentative conclusion that was reached based on repeated observation of natural phenomena."
I, too, have a tentative conclusion based upon repeated observations of natural phenomena. I conclude that the world I see must have been made, and the One who made it is the God described in the Bible. I know you think my belief is a waste of time, but here's what I we're running into.
When I explore the world, and read about science, and interact with people, and live life day by day, I reach a certain conclusion. You reach a different one. You say my conclusion shouldn't be taught in a classroom - fine. I don't see how yours is any more valid. We observe the same things, and come up with different conclusions.
You say creationism is unscientific. If my position is that God made the universe, and everything we observe in every branch of science is a part of that universe, then I honestly don't understand your claim. If it sounds like I'm trying to dodge the question or make it an issue of semantics, I apologize.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm not a scientist or a theologian. It seems like you find my conclusion distasteful, but that doesn't mean I've used different raw material than you to reach it.
True, I think the big bang faulty, but not on its incompleteness. Both your view and mine attempt to understand how the song was written. My point is, if we're going to study the notes, then good and well. But if we want to start talking about who composed them, or how they were composed by a series of events, then your explanation isn't more valid than mine simply because you claim to look at the notes differently.
Now all you have to do is back up the claims.
ReplyDeleteFalkenhayn: Looking at natural things and coming to a supernatural conclusion about them != science.
ReplyDeleteJust because you can look at science as a whole and say "I think God did this", does not make it a scientifically valid assertion. You want to assert that a specific being with very specific characteristics is responsible for everything we know from scientific investigation? You're perfectly welcome to, but you're going to have to back it up with valid justification, not just assert it and claim that since it is based on "natural" things it is therefore naturalistic and scientifically valid. Just because no one specifically witnessed the big bang doesn't mean it doesn't have validity.
Also, you claim your conclusion that God is behind everything is tentative, but I wonder is it really? I'm sure if I were to ask you, you'd say that there is nothing whatsoever that can shake your belief that this being is responsible for the natural world. You're well within your rights to do that, but don't turn around and try to claim it is "tentative too". It is not tentative in the same way scientific theories are. I'm not trying to say that science is wonderful and religion is stupid. Yes, we have both looked at the same things and come to different conclusions, but that doesn't make both of them scientific. Seems you are guilty of something my cultural anthropology professor calls "scientism", which is the belief that "science" is nothing more than a garb of terms you can throw over anything and pass it as scientifically valid.
As for allowing creationism into the classroom, I don't like the half-measures. Scientific theory cannot explain origins with any more certainty than the Bible. I'm not talking about experiments, but the source for all of this. Either there should be no discussion at all about sources, or creationism ought to stand alongside the other explanations, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhy stop there, Falkenhayn? Why not then give equal time to every creation myth and not just the Biblical one?
You also have to provide a basis for why we should accept that the Bible has anything meaningful at all to say about how the universe came to be, what with it's claim that the Earth was created before the sun around which it orbits and all.
In the post, there is a charge to counter the "emotionalism of the creationist anti-science crowd." I find this odd, since the post is filled with emotion, personal attacks, lots of nasty words about the authors of the book being criticized, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteTypical. You're willing to criticize me for using emotion, personal attacks, and (gasp!) "nasty words" without uttering a single syllable of criticism about the creationist author who saw fit to compare scientists to fascist brownshirts and call parents who teach their kids accurate science "monsters."
This is fairly routine for the kind of hypocrisy one can expect from the creationist camp. A creationist is like the kind of person who will walk up to you, throw a punch at your face, then run off screaming that he's being attacked when you swing back. They seem to think they can spew all manner of contemptible lies and vile name calling of their own, all the live long day. And yet when the scientific camp, thoroughly fed up with their nonsense, replies in kind, suddenly it's, "Gasp! How rude! What's with all the name-calling! Why can't you be more civil!?" Pfft. Sorry. But if creationists don't like being called names like "moron," they shouldn't say and do moronic things. And they should avoid name-calling of their own, especially when the people whom they're calling names (like "Nazi" and "monster") have done nothing to merit it.
I think you need a refresher in Matthew 7:3-5, Falkenhayn.
But while I'm on the subject, I must again point out that when I refer to Don McLeroy as a moron, I am not calling him a name. I am calmly and soberly stating an objective fact. Anyone who would adopt the positions McLeroy does, let alone recommend a book as disgraceful as Johnson's, is demonstrably exhibiting the kind of behavior consistent with being a moron. In the same way I would call McLeroy a "lousy dresser" if he wore a bright orange short with a pink and green polka-dotted tie, I call him a "moron" for displaying the kinds of behavior and saying the kinds of things that only morons would display and say.
I will admit that referring to Johnson as McLeroy's "pet cockroach" was name-calling. But again, Johnson started it, by writing an entire book essentially excoriating the entire scientific community, condemning parents as "monsters," and informing Christians that they could not be "true" Christians unless they were exactly like him. So, karmically speaking, the man has some abuse well and truly due. For me to limit myself to such mild epithets as "pet cockroach" shows, in my humble opinion, admirable restraint.
Now, as for your confused ideas about what science is and how to teach it, the other commenters are doing a fine job of correcting you there, so I won't chime in for the moment. Thanks for your feedback, all the same.
If creationism never gets taught in science class, fine by me. But then neither should the big bang.
ReplyDeleteAre you just playing stupid or do you really don't understand it?
Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE!
This is why the big bang theory is a scientific accepted theory
I, too, have a tentative conclusion based upon repeated observations of natural phenomena. I conclude that the world I see must have been made, and the One who made it is the God described in the Bible.
...You say my conclusion shouldn't be taught in a classroom - fine. I don't see how yours is any more valid. We observe the same things, and come up with different conclusions.
No you haven't "observed the same things" as scientists have. You are not a scientist. I doubt you have looked at all the data and done the research. You would have to be a real astrophysicist for that.
Oh and btw. Laymen do not decide what ends up in science books. Scientists do.
But ok lets assume you are a scientist. Now all you need to do is disprove almost a hundred years of research that supports the big bang theory. Then, present and prove your theory... peer reviewed of course. If you have done all that it should only take a couple of years till your theory will replace the big bang theory and show up in school books.
Until that happens,i think its fair to say that your "conclusions" are laughable.
Oh and btw. How arrogant and insane is it to think that a accepted scientific theory should not be taught in schools because it doesn't support your layman, unscientific, religious motivated, baseless, devoid of evidce and acient silly ideas?
"But while I'm on the subject, I must again point out that when I refer to Don McLeroy as a moron, I am not calling him a name. I am calmly and soberly stating an objective fact. "
ReplyDeleteThis made me LLOL.
To Atheistundermask and co: Anyone else now reminded of Dennis Hopper in the Super Mario Bros Movie?
Also I think my public school may have been the only one in history to actually go through EVERY proposed creation story before going into the science of evolution. A quick class on "Some believe it's god, some the brief sea foam that floats above Brahm before it returns to the one true reality, some that Aliens made us" was given before we went into the science stuff.
Ing: Did you not feel that it was a huge fucking waste of time and ridiculous?
ReplyDeleteCreationists are to science as trolls are to forums/blogs. Simple. All these people are interested in is taking cheap, childish little pot-shots at scientific theories to find something think isn't "fully accounted for", then have the NERVE to think their "designer dun it!" crap is worthwhile.
I try to be civil with this people, but I'm getting really fucking close to just giving up and saying screw formalities, I'm gonna call a spade a spade and an idiot an idiot.
Ing: I sure hope you were told about the Aztec/Mayan/Incan (I forget which one) story that says we're made of corn.
ReplyDeleteSparrowhawk: Whenever my friend and I are talking about religious people, we always sarcastically and, at times, cruelly use the phrase "Magic man dun it."
"It seems like you find my conclusion distasteful, but that doesn't mean I've used different raw material than you to reach it. "
ReplyDeleteYes, Falkenhayn, you have used quite different raw materials. You rely on an ancient book written by men who lived in a time and culture where people believed it was medically proper to drill holes in the skull to release demons as a cure for migraines; believed the sun revolved around the earth; thought slavery was morally justified; thought it okay to commit genocide for a tiny slab of land; considered women inferior beings suitable only for child-rearing; and considered the system of monarchy (essentially dictatorship) the best form of government.
Sorry, but I just don't care to have your fucking book in the classroom poisoning young minds and inhibiting them from developing the ability to reason and grow into rational adults. I'd sooner allow Mein Kampf.
"It's not true, but it's a valid hypothesis because it can be TESTED."
ReplyDeleteAnd similar claims of intelligent design can be tested. For example if a scientists was to perform an experiment on bacteria and get a flagellum arising, it would nicely destroy Behe''s laim that it was designed
(Just to be clear I don't think creationism is scientific but that intelligent design is. I'm not quite sure whether ID shoud be taught though)
Merely Googling evolution of flagellum
ReplyDeleteI realize it requires a bit more effort than saying "Godidit" - but not much.
"Did you not feel that it was a huge fucking waste of time and ridiculous?
ReplyDelete"
I found it entertaining as some like the asian "Snake woman makes people out of clay" were fun mythology but it wasn't too helpful scientifically and thankfully we weren't graded on it.
Mask: I'm just upset they didn't include the Scientology one
"And similar claims of intelligent design can be tested. For example if a scientists was to perform an experiment on bacteria and get a flagellum arising, it would nicely destroy Behe''s laim that it was designed
(Just to be clear I don't think creationism is scientific but that intelligent design is. I'm not quite sure whether ID should be taught though"
First of all, in science you have to back up your own idea with evidence. This is called an observational experiment. You look at the phenomena and form a hypothesis. Once you have established that your idea has some grounding in reality then you AND your peers see if it can be disproven. This is a TESTING experiment. once a hypothesis can no longer be disproven and seems sound, after probably dozens to hundreds of revisions due to the testing phase then it can be used to make predictions...adeptly called a Predicting or Application experiment.
Example:
Galileo drops the two cannon balls to show there is evidence for terminal velocity. Observation
His peers recreate similar experiments trying to disprove this. For example showing a feather DOES fall slower than a cannon ball seemingly at any height. This causes Galileo or others to revise his terminal velocity hypothesis to include wind resistance. Testing
Finally, we can use it centuries later to help us launch rockets and all that fun stuff. Application
Intelligent Design cannot get past stage one. Provide an observational experiment that backs it up. WHAT evidence in the real physical world establishes that it's even WORTH considering. Ancient books don't count, nor do "just look at the trees". Since we have no evidence to even start on that claim in the real world today there's no reason to bother testing it...And yet we do anyway. Experiments show that bacteria flagellum arose naturally out of previously useful 'parts' and that bacteria can evolve based on their environment even going as far as to create ENTIRELY NEW METABOLIC pathways (ie nylon digestion). This is not small stuff (pun not intended). this is the equivalent of a car suddenly decided to grow a propeller and work like a boat.
Liam's claim has no evidence to back it up
Furthermore; evolutionary theory lets us make application experiments to predict numerous things from cell lines, to anatomy to medicine (anti-body resistant bacteria for example). What practical use can Intelligent design have other than making people feel all warm and fuzzy?
MrFreeThinker wrote:
ReplyDeleteAnd similar claims of intelligent design can be tested. For example if a scientists was to perform an experiment on bacteria and get a flagellum arising, it would nicely destroy Behe''s laim that it was designed
First, they would claim that as evidence for design, since the scientist had to design the experiment. Second, the flagellum argument has already been shown wrong, because a plausible natural explanation has been found.
In any case, this does not "test" ID - they would just move the goalposts and say "OK, the flagellum may be natural, but what about the blood clotting cascade of reactions? Huh? That's really really super-complex!"
That's the problem with ID - it's not testable; there is no way to falsify it.
Martin: I didn't criticize McLeroy because I haven't read his material and I know nothing about him. If you read my original comment, I said he may be a fool. He may deserve the names you call him, but my point is that if you denounce him for a certain behavior, and then exhibit that same behavior (I'm not saying you are, just conjecturing based upon what I've seen) then it makes it more difficult to accept your position.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not McLeroy deserves those epithets was not my concern. I think it poor behavior for anyone to denounce their opponents the way McLeroy has apparently done, as I assume you quote him directly. Yes, you and I disagree, but I don't look at you as some sort of mindless, irrational moron who decides to be an atheist for fun. That is the conclusion you have reached. The fact that you hold that conclusion does not devalue your person.
Sparrow: I appreciate you trying to be civil, my point isn't to aggravate you. I happened to find this blog and it invited me to comment. After reading some other comments, I feel the need to reiterate that my goal is not to get the Bible into science classrooms. It is was I believe, but I don't think it should be forced on anyone else. Neither do I think my kids should have to listen to a theory about the world exploding into existence.
Personally, I have never doubted the validity of anything I've studied in physics, chemistry, etc, as far as they go. And you are all correct, that asserting the role of gravitational forces based upon observing cannon balls being dropped, and then choosing to believe that God created the universe are two different things. I won't argue with that.
Science is a process, it allows you to collect knowledge and information. What you decide with that information is up to you. This is the central point I'm trying to make. I do not seek to push a Bible in your face, or have your kids memorize verses after nap time. I'm trying to draw the distinction between the pursuit of knowledge about the world we see around us, and ideas about how this world began. They are two different realms of thought.
You can analyze notes in a song, their tune, wavelength, relation to each other, pitch, volume, etc. This is a valid pursuit, and you will learn alot. But it will never tell you how the song was written.
ReplyDeleteProbably not the best example. As a musician I can tell you we have entire classes devoted to the science of writing music. It's called Music Theory.
give me a piece of music and I can point out to you where the musician used certain techniques to convey certain sounds. I can show you what movements of notes will sound calm and soothing and which will sound disonent, and, more to the point, I can actually tell you WHY this is the case (it has to do with wavelength compatibility) and from there I can show you why certain pieces of music evoke certain feelings. I can show you why classically trained musicians scoff at modern pop musicians because they all rely upon the same basic concepts and tricks.
So, yes. I can, in fact, scientifically analyze music. I'm pretty good at it. It was my favorite class in college.
Sparrowhawk:
ReplyDeleteI agree with all your points, but one. And on reflection I'm sure you'd agree that the bible's explanation is anything but elegant.
If we were to accept that the entire universe were created by a supreme being then we would be accepting an entity and perhaps external world exponentially more complex than the one in which we reside.
Falkenhayn:
You say that by looking at evidence in nature you have reached the conclusion that it was all done by god. May I ask what this evidence is and how it proves his existence?
@Falk
ReplyDeleteYou dont seem to get it. We are not attacking you because we want to force you to believe what we believe.
You can believe whatever you want. If you don't want your kids to learn about a perfectly fine, evidence based, wildly accepted scientific theory. Fine.
You are getting attacked because of your stupid idea that if creationism should not be taught in school, neither should the big bang theory.
You still don't understand how stupid your argument is?
Bible= a collection of ancient stories claiming God did it.
Evidence: none
Observable: no. Actually, what we observe contradicts the Bible
Falsifiable: no
Accurate predictions possible: no
Big bang theory= The universe started about 13,7 billion years ago. In the beginning it was dense and small and has been expanding ever since.
Evidence: plenty
Observable: yes
Falsifiable: yes
accurate predictions possible: yes. Many postulated predictions were later found to be accurate and real.
Amnistar: Perhaps music isn't the best example, but let me try to be more clear.
ReplyDeleteMy example is an analogy and it certainly is not 100% accurate. Music theory, I take it, gives you a very in depth understanding of how music works. It's like science in that respect, particularly mathematics if I grasp music correctly.
I don't mean to say that studying music will not reveal information about the mechanics of it- rather, that knowing the mechanics is as far as it goes.
Angry Atheist: Thank you for your question. To keep going with the music analogy, after hearing all the notes, I conclude that they were, in fact, written. This is in contrast to a belief that the mechanics of music somehow started themselves.
When I see a flower blooming, I don't assume that an angel is pulling open the petals. There is a natural process within the plant, just as there are processes all over the universe. My own reasoning tells me that the most plausible explanation is that this universe was created.
Johnboy: No, I do not see how stupid my argument is. Discovering tonalities in music, as Amnistar described, is a different pursuit than discussing whether music was written or whether the notes popped into existence. The study of music theory is completely valid, as is science.
Your attempt at equating my ideas about God and yours about science, while well informed, are not congruent. Studying science and talking about God are not a pursuit of the same answers, they are not after the same question. Do you see how you keep missing my point?
Ah, in that case you don't actually have an issue with the Big Bang theory then? Right?
ReplyDeleteBecause it's easy enough for you to say that the Bang was started by a creator. That's perfectly acceptable, and not, as you are clearly differentiating, a question of how. The Big Bang explains HOW the universe came into existence, and should be in the science classroom. You are then welcome to believe that said Bang was created by something, but, by your own logic, doesn't belong in the science room.
Falken, you are so inconsistent it is UNbelievable. First you talk about your beliefs in your god as if they have even a whiff of the same kind of validity as scientific claims do, simply for the fact that you're "observing the same things". Then when we call you out on that, ohhhh now they are "not the same question". Which is it??! I'm going to go ahead and unsubscribe from this because you seem to be so willfully DENSE on this that I can only come to the conclusion that you're only here to piss us all off and stick a thorn in our paw.
ReplyDeleteFalkenhayn:
ReplyDeleteThe complexities of snowflakes and the formation of crystals show that complex things can arise due to natural physical processes and independent of a designer. This would therefore be evidence that complexity does not require a designer.
If you are claiming that everything, including the laws of physics, are by a god's design then you are surely making a completely unfounded assertion. Given that complexity, and even intelligent systems, do not require a designer I would be interested in your evidence to support that the universe had to be created by an intelligent entity.
Angry: You're still talking about a process, i.e. - snowflakes forming. Yes, that happens, and that fact does not take away from my belief that the universe within which snowflakes form was created.
ReplyDeleteSnowflakes come FROM something (water in the atmosphere freezing). Are you saying that the universe formed by the same natural way a snowflake freezes? (I realize typing is a relatively poor way to communicate, there is no sarcasm in my question, it is meant earnestly.)
I think in the end it comes down to this. You look at the world and say that it is so complex it must've been created by someone. You're making an assertion based on your upbringing. The problem is that your assertion can't be proven.
ReplyDeleteThe Big Bang is a theory, a theory that has been highly tested and has been proven as far as it can be with our current technology. You're saying that your assertion based on your religious upbringing should be compared equally with a theory that came about from the objective study of our world.
If that's the case, then the Scientology version of creation should be taught as well, if the only requirement is the assertion by someone in that religion that that's how it must've come about is the requirement.
In the end you're only promoting your own view because it is just that, your own view. You have a vested interest in it. You don't look at it objectively, because it being proved or disproved would personally affect you. Whereas if any part of the evolution theory or big bang theory were disproven, scientists would welcome it and go about furiously testing and experimenting to find out more.
Paul: Thanks for your input. When I look at this from your perspective, I can see what you mean and why you view me the way you do.
ReplyDeleteI will say that you far oversimplify my point by lumping it all under my upbringing. My childhood may have been very different than the one you imagine, maybe it's exactly what you imagine, but that's not the point.
I don't know how to state it any clearer, that the scientific theories you're referencing are not something I'm trying to tear down. My point all along is that science and belief are two different things. After I look at science, I have a belief.
Thanks for bouncing ideas back and forth with me.
MrFreeThinker: For example if a scientists was to perform an experiment on bacteria and get a flagellum arising, it would nicely destroy Behe''s laim that it was designed
ReplyDeleteI've heard this before, every time someone points out that ID is untestable. No it wouldn't. It would simply render the design hypothesis unnecessary, not falsify it. Who's to say that the designer only designs things that aren't also designed by natural processes? Like a programmer writing a simulation of a real event, maybe God just likes to tinker with stuff.
Lots of things can (and do!) break Behe's claims that ONLY design can produce complex entity X, but nothing can falsify design, because it would have to prove that X cannot be designed by a sufficient amount of magic.
I would be interested to hear what you think about Flew converting to Deism based on Platos argument of first cause. Why you disagree or agree. Besides falling back on the "he is senile" approach.
ReplyDeleteI haven't studied it much, and value your input.
Sorry, but I was only addressing the point you made about music and how you came to the conclusion that it was made by someone or something i.e. a designer. I was making the point that complexities did not require a concious designer. There is plenty of evidence to support the concept of increase of complexity over time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the universe we live in is shaped by physical processes (the laws of physics) and that life is shaped by natural processes (environment and natural selection for example).
Personally I think there has always been something in existence. I do not believe that something came from nothing. I do not need to invoke the existence of a god to explain the universe's origins. I can't prove it, but then again I don't run around telling people that if they don't believe it they will burn for eternity.
If you wish to argue about the existence of some transcendental dice that I can't disprove and therefore have to consider then you're in the wrong place.
By the way, it is nice to have a debate for once!
Angry: Thanks for clarifying, I understand your point much better. I agree, there are things that get more complex over time. I think I'd better stop with the music analogy, though, I don't know music well enough to keep going.
ReplyDeleteThis really has been thought provoking. I'll keep considering the points your brought up. Yes, very nice to have a debate. Appreciate you taking the time and energy. See you around.
Falkenhayn,
ReplyDeleteI think much of the frustration people are having with you is from a point you initially made:
Scientific theory cannot explain origins with any more certainty than the Bible.
Technically correct -- but you seem to be under the impression that scientific theory attempts to address something as amorphous and philosophical as "origins." It does not. Philosophical ideas -- like explaining the "origins" -- are never addressable within the framework of scientific theory, which is only concerned with explaining evidence and facts in a cohesive way.
If a scientific theory happens to lead credibility for one philosophical idea over another, that is a topic for philosophy class -- and if that is the source of your objections here, I agree with you -- such philosophical teachings have little, if any place in the science classroom -- but I am not aware that this is a wide spread problem in many science classes anywhere. If you feel otherwise, and have the proof beyond your singular personal experience, then perhaps you have a reason to complain (but you need to be more direct and specific about it -- if that is, in fact, what your complaint is involving).
You also mentioned that in your science classes "we were taught that the Big Bang explained our existence." and, if that is an accurate portrayal of your own experience, your science teacher was a completely unfamiliar with the theory for which he was charged with teaching you and your fellow classmates. Not only does the Big Bang fall short from providing a philsophical explanation for the origins to our universe, it never even attempts to address 'our existence' in any way shape or form (that is part of the scientific theory commonly called abiogenesis). Furthermore, the Big Bang is a theory taught in physics/astronomy while abiogenesis is a theory taught in biology. It is difficult to conceive just how a physics teacher -- even a bad one -- would confuse or conflate an astronomical theory with a biological theory.
This is such common misconstruction of the Big Bang theory -- and a fallacy often repeated to the point of reaching absurdity in some religious circles -- and I would further speculate people here might have interpreted your claim as a red flag to you being a possible incognito fundie troll.
If, on the other hand, you are in fact sincere (as I am willing to believe), I would hazard a guess that your personal experience in regards to learning the Big Bang is a bit clouded by time.
Many kids are bright and a teacher often simply presenting a scientific theory -- and as a consequence the philosophical ramifications of these theories simply pop into the students heads unprompted. They then swamp the teacher with questions and the teacher is dragged into an off topic discussion of philosophy for a period. This is very common occurrence, especially when learning about the Big Bang or evolution, and it is a much more viable explanation for your situation. I find it hard to accept (which some might be inferring from your short statement) that you actually had a teacher who specifically had a goal when learning the Big Bang to teach it as a theory that explains our origins, as you suggested, or might even place any such a supposition into lab exercises, homework, or tests (which would be the smoking gun of misconduct, in my opinion). Are you sure you simply didn't experience a momentary accidental side-step in science class, or a personal philosophical implication, rather than an experiencing a full on orchestrated curriculum based effort? If it is the latter, your teacher was being a complete jerk -- and, you would be right to draw a parallel between him/her with that of a creationist teacher teaching ID. However, rest assured, that is not part of the Big Bang theory which is a sound scientific theory in every way.
Anyway, I hope that helps you sort out your position on this topic better and understand our atheist perspective better.
Ing et al.,
ReplyDelete"I found it entertaining as some like the asian "Snake woman makes people out of clay" were fun mythology but it wasn't too helpful scientifically and thankfully we weren't graded on it."
Maybe your science teacher was a wise man to introduce evolution science with this catalogue of beliefs. Comparisons of the the varied ancient myths of human origin might help put things in context. Snake women made us out of clay?!?! That's so silly! A native South American god made us out of corn?!?!? How dumb! We born of the foam that arose from a god's testicles having been thrown in the Cyprian sea?!?! Give us a break! A caucasian, sky dwelling, anthropomorphic man-spirit willed us into existence??!? OMG that's so...er, wait a minute...
Introducing it briefly in a science class is a good idea, I think. We can leave the grading on it to comparative religion/ancient history/lit classes.
Yeah, and they always leave out the newer stuff like Scientology. How is that any less ridiculous than an illiterate man "translating" crap into a new bible type device? Is it like antiques? It's only valid if it is x number of years old? Are we like on some kind of test of time? Is it 100+ = valid? How long do we have to go before silly theists accept silly scientology as a religion due tolerance *cough* and respect *cough cough*?
I distinctly remember Mr. Brown's 6th grade science unit in 1982 that VERY CLEARLY explained and demonstrated the basic scientific method of Observe/Research/Hypothesize/Test /Conclude or some such. My project involved a wire turning orange while conducting electricity, like in the toaster. I went on to study humanities, so I would say this made an impression since I remember it after all this time. I have always assumed this formula to be the basic principle of scientific study, and more importantly, the basis of scientific explanations. I guess I take for granted that everyone else does, too. Thank you, Mr. Brown, thank you.
@kazim
ReplyDeleteI've heard this before, every time someone points out that ID is untestable. No it wouldn't. It would simply render the design hypothesis unnecessary, not falsify it. Who's to say that the designer only designs things that aren't also designed by natural processes? Like a programmer writing a simulation of a real event, maybe God just likes to tinker with stuff.
Lots of things can (and do!) break Behe's claims that ONLY design can produce complex entity X, but nothing can falsify design, because it would have to prove that X cannot be designed by a sufficient amount of magic.
Behe's argument is that there is a specific kind of complexity, that can only be produced by intelligent design. Intelligent design claims that there are things best explained b design rather than undirected processes. If you were to produce a flagellum using undirected processes, that would falsify Behe's argument that irreducibly complex structures can only arise from design.
If we were to accept that the entire universe were created by a supreme being then we would be accepting an entity and perhaps external world exponentially more complex than the one in which we reside.
ReplyDeleteWHY? I don't see your justification.
@Cipher
ReplyDeleteI can also google "intelligent design of bacterial flagellum".
Lesson learned: argument from google search=not valid
If you were to produce a flagellum using undirected processes
ReplyDeleteThat is PRECISELY what everyone is trying to explain to you! It's entirely possible to produce a flagellum using undirected processes. You've been provided with links to numerous articles.
It's as I said in the other thread - you don't listen. You want to believe what you want to believe.
MrFreeThinker is A)anything but and B)refuses to ever admit he is wrong. It is pointless to argue with him.
ReplyDeleteWHY? I don't see your justification.
ReplyDeleteSo you think that something more simple than us and everything on this planet created us...like some giant "slow kid" in space, who sneezed us all into existence?
For those Texas folks who can vote...and for those still employed who can donate to a campaign, Judy Jennings is running against Cynthia Dunbar.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings
The whole creatonist debate ignores what I pointed out before. Creatonism has no use. What predictions can we make from it about life's past and future?
ReplyDeleteadditionally if that law on the doctorates is allowed can I get a duel one in "Science!" (note exclamation mark) and "Biological blasphemy" (with a symbol crest of a chimera as a school seal)
ReplyDeleteI was pointing out that the flagellum was a claim made by ID that could be tested and falsify=ied. You cannot claim something cannot be falsified in one breath and then you say it has been falsified in the other.
ReplyDelete@Ing
And to those who say intelligent design makes no predictions we need only to look at the flagellum again. I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller debating over the flagellum. Miller predicts the flagellum evolved from a TYPE 3 secretory apparatus while Behe says the Type 3 secretory apparatus is a degenerative product of the flagellum. So we have 2 predictions, one from an ID biologist and one from an evolutionary biologist.
Microbiologists can now perform tests to see whether Miller is right and the syringe came first or whether Behe is right and the flagellum came first.
This is a good example of a rediction from ID.
"I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller debating over the flagellum. Miller predicts the flagellum evolved from a TYPE 3 secretory apparatus while Behe says the Type 3 secretory apparatus is a degenerative product of the flagellum."
ReplyDeleteYou see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn't falsifiable. Yes, all Miller has to do to falsify the Irreducible-complexity claim of Behe is to show a reasonable pathway from simpler progenitors. He and others have done that, while Behe admits during the Dover trial that he never read the stuff.
The way that unfalsifiability rears its ugly head, is that Behe and his ilk can always simply say that any claimed progenitor of an evolutionary pathway is actually a degraded progeny of an IC "designed" system. If Behe can always play that card no matter what his opponents say, then that kind of bait-and-switch fails the falsifiability test.
You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn't falsifiable. Yes, all Miller has to do to falsify the Irreducible-complexity claim of Behe is to show a reasonable pathway from simpler progenitors.
ReplyDeleteThat is what Behe and Miller are debating, whether the secretory system is a progenitor for the flagellum.
He and others have done that, while Behe admits during the Dover trial that he never read the stuff.
You should read Behe's blog or one of his books. Behe has responded to his critics and the criticism of ID including Ken Miller.
The way that unfalsifiability rears its ugly head, is that Behe and his ilk can always simply say that any claimed progenitor of an evolutionary pathway is actually a degraded progeny of an IC "designed" system. If Behe can always play that card no matter what his opponents say, then that kind of bait-and-switch fails the falsifiability test.
No because biologists can test to see which is ancestral and which is not. If scientific tests prove that secretory system is ancestral ,Miller is right.If they prove the flagellum i9s ancestral Behe is right. Behe cited several scientific papers from other biologists who argued the secretory is not ancestral. And Scott Minnich (a ID microbiologist) is conducting tests to see which is ancestral.
The point I was making is here is a prediction about the future made by an intelligent design proponent that can be tested and refuted.
Ing asked what predictions ID could make and I gave him one.
"And to those who say intelligent design makes no predictions we need only to look at the flagellum again. I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller debating over the flagellum. Miller predicts the flagellum evolved from a TYPE 3 secretory apparatus while Behe says the Type 3 secretory apparatus is a degenerative product of the flagellum. So we have 2 predictions, one from an ID biologist and one from an evolutionary biologist."
ReplyDeleteYou have exposed yourself as a fool!
One prediction is a based on evolution. The other is a prediction, but I cannot see any way it is based on ID! If an intelligent designer had done it then why would something need to be a product of something else (e.g. evolution?)
To continue in a scientific debate, please supply evidence that the argument supports ID.
You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn't falsifiable.
ReplyDeleteSo, ID can't be disproven, so it must be worthy of discussion? The FSM also can't be disproven, so should that share the stage with other items which can be proven? If so, that stage is going to fill up pretty quick with a number of ridiculous notions, all of which must be entertained because they're not falsifiable.
One question for those opponents of ID. I pointed out what would falsify the assertion that the flagellum was irreducibly complex. What would falsify the idea that the flagellum came about due to undirected evolution.
ReplyDeleteKenneth Miller has already destroyed the concept of irreducible complexity and the ID camp's attempt to hold up the flagellum as an example of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat would falsify the idea that the flagellum evolved would be if irreducible complexity were shown to be true, and that, as per Behe's definition of IC, the whole thing would fail to function if so much as one element were removed from it. This is not in fact what we see. Thus evolution, once again, has resisted falsification.
Really, why is anyone so clueless as to keep bringing up the flagellum any more?
@Freethinker.
ReplyDeleteExplain to me then, how a flagellum would work from an ID model? How does the ID predict that a cell with no true somatic or visual sense uses its flagellum to avoid harmful stimuli.
The flagellum is a horrifically bad example to hitch ID to since it's very nature shows that naturalistic random events can result in order. A flagellum has two states, run and tumble. When it is functioning in run it moves forward, when it is in tumble it causes the cell to spin in random directions. The bacteria largely go through phases of run and tumble in random intervals, however the flagellum is built so that certain chemical stimuli cause it's rate of entering tumble to increase, increasing the chance that when it enters run it'll be facing away from the stimuli and thus "avoid it". The closer it gets to the bad stimuli the more tumbles it does and thus the more opportunities to "run away". What appears to be a conscious decision to avoid an antibody is really a natural selection of metabolic behavior. Using only two rules this metabolic system effectively converts chaos into order.
The flegellum are not irreducably complex this is thouroughly debunked.
Furthermore, your comment is false. ID can make no prediction based on the flagellum. Consider the question: Why do bacteria HAVE flagellum
Evolutionary Hypothesis: it is beneficial to avoiding negative stimuli and moving towards positive stimuli, thus all other things equal cells with flagellum will divide more than non flagellated. (easily testable by removing the DNA for flagellum in a test group)
Creationist Hypothesis: God made it that way.
"One question for those opponents of ID. I pointed out what would falsify the assertion that the flagellum was irreducibly complex. What would falsify the idea that the flagellum came about due to undirected evolution."
ReplyDelete1) All other things equal flagellated and unflagellated strains of the same bacteria when exposed to a negative stimuli survive and reproduce at the same rates.
2) No DNA for the flagellum
3) No other physiological features in other species that are made from modifications of the protein structure for flagellum
4) A trade mark logo on the flagellum
5) A proposed other model/theory of adaptation that more accurately describes the behavior and emergence of flagellum bacteria. (note that ID does NOT do this. It asserts that it can't be natural and provides no explanation on how it came about)
one is the most obvious one as basic microbiology experiments can be done to manipulate the evolutionary path of microbes. Microbes are easy to manipulate due to their circular genome and their plasmids and it's easy to control their environment.
Here's an example of the application experiment using evolution
ReplyDeleteHIV evolves even though it is not alive it has the replicating material and process to evolve. It evolves quickly
based on its rates of evolution to develop immunity to drugs the best method for treating HIV is a cocktail of drugs to hit several weaknesses at once (simple odds, in order to survive the virus has to have immunity to all of the drugs given, much less likely than having immunity to just one). Inevitably doctors accept that the virus will gain resistance to that treatment so they use a different brew every few months. After a while, based on their predictions, they go back to the first one, knowing that the population of viral entities will no longer have been selected for that immunity and thus will be vulnerable again! This cycling has shown to be (since the last time I read up on drug treatments at least, I apologize ahead of time if I'm mistaken or out of date but for analogy sake I think this works well enough) the best method for keeping the viral population at a minimum.
ID may allow for herd immunity but would never predict that the population would LOOSE that immunity if it didn't have an evolutionary pressure selecting for it.
Again, freethinker (who is anything but) has failed to provide any actual evidence.
ReplyDeleteSurely he stays awake late every night, tormented by the reality that the physical world just doesn't support his ancient beliefs.
freethinker: i beg you, for your own sanity, look at the evidence. if it shows you're wrong then i don't expect you to abandon your beliefs, but for the love of your god stop trying to peddle it as science to our children.
It was Lui, up until he spelled lose with two O's.
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand why all of a sudden people have forgotten 1st grade grammar and spelling.
To loose is not the opposite of to win, just as to lose is not the opposite of to tighten.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAUM, In this day and age, the sad thing is that I've actually become used to "internet spelling" and just skip past them, forming the correct word in my own head. It's funny though that some people probably spell like that in real world situations. Kinda sad...
ReplyDelete@AA
ReplyDeleteHuh I wasn't presenting evidence for intelligent design. There are a number of books you could read if you really wanted. I was just showing how intelligent design was scientific and made testable predictions
"1) All other things equal flagellated and unflagellated strains of the same bacteria when exposed to a negative stimuli survive and reproduce at the same rates."
ReplyDeleteI doubt it. You would probably say that the stimuli was probably not bad enough or conjecture some other random mutation.
"2) No DNA for the flagellum"
Are you saying that if there was RNA or something else in the flagellum it would falsify evolution? I doubt most Darwinists would agree
"3) No other physiological features in other species that are made from modifications of the protein structure for flagellum"
The Darwinists would probablyt conjecture that there wasw some kind of undiscovered structure that could make the flagellum evolve
"4) A trade mark logo on the flagellum"
Where should we look for this trademark? What language should it be in?
"5) A proposed other model/theory of adaptation that more accurately describes the behavior and emergence of flagellum bacteria."
Like ID
" (note that ID does NOT do this. It asserts that it can't be natural and provides no explanation on how it came about)"
No ID uses methods of detecting design we all use to conclude it came about as the result of intelligent agency.
"one is the most obvious one as basic microbiology experiments can be done to manipulate the evolutionary path of microbes. Microbes are easy to manipulate due to their circular genome and their plasmids and it's easy to control their environment."
Of course if this experiment does not work we could always say "not enough time, not enough pressure...yadda,yadda".
Random mutationdunit!!!
Huh I wasn't presenting evidence for intelligent design. There are a number of books you could read if you really wanted. I was just showing how intelligent design was scientific and made testable predictions
ReplyDelete...Except that it isn't, and doesn't. Something that is really scientific anticipates these sorts of objections and addresses them. ID just employs the typical pseudoscientific tactic of handwaving the problem away, saying "There are a lot of books about it. I'm sure the answer is in there somewhere."
The number of words written on a topic doesn't, in itself, lend any credibility to the subject. The number of books written on astrology most likely dwarfs what has been written about ID, but for all that, astrology isn't a science either.
Unless you ask Michael Behe.
Freethinker: no, you presented a supporter of ID who made a prediction (like a scientific theory could). His theory, however does not seem to be related in any way to ID.
ReplyDelete@ Freethinker
ReplyDeleteID proposes no mechanism. It just says it happens. The question is how.
Also you have revealed yourself as not respecting science in general. Stop pretending to be a free thinker when you just go "LOLZ THEY DONT LOOK AT TWOOOOOOOTH~!!!!"
the good thing about science is that you can test it again and again. If you want to argue the results then you can recreate the experiment watching for the random mutations. You don't understand science, you don't understand biology, you just don't understand. I realize I'm being rude now but it's been explained to you again and again and again why ID doesn't fit as science. You can't present crap and claim people are closed minded for ignoring it. Really you're fighting an uphill battle here. A good portion of the people seem to be at least scientifically literate and with some even having a good understanding of biology and microbiology in general so the flagellum argument doesn't fly.
The flagellum is not disprovable because the hypothesis isn't saying ANYTHING other than "It's too complex to happen normally" When someone points out evidence that to them would disprove this subjective statement you ignore it and mock science.
Look ID has two predictions it logically reaches.
a) God did it, or some other supernatural intelligent force like Zeus.
b) some alien life form did it.
God supposedly is supernatural and thus unobservable so it can't be tested and isn't science
The alien one has no evidence to support (such as the ruins of an ancient biochemical factory). Either one may be right but there's no reason to think they are.
Pick one, which do you think is the truth? If it's a) then it's religion and doesn't belong in science. If it's aliens go out and work on proving it.
(I apologize for misspelling Lose. Typo. I'd presume that it wouldn't detract from the crux of the argument)