Don’t weasel. You claimed that my accusations against Behe were false. I think you’d better put your money where your mouth is.
**
But of course:
“It might for that particular system; I don’t think it would disprove the entire outlook, anymore than tons of unexplained phenomena or anomalies do not cause the slightest dent in the materialistic evolutionary edifice, where the true believers are concerned.”
Didn’t you read it the first time I quoted it?
Folks, bear in mind that we are dealing with someone who has explicitly stated that he won’t accept evidence against ID, on the grounds that evolutionists won’t accept evidence against evolution. What more proof of trollery could you demand?
**
They seem quite smart to me. Why not find out what we think of theistic evolutionists, and then make your accusations?
**
Huh? I thought this was a thread about evolution, not Christianity.
**
When did I call you a madman? You seem very eager to turn yourself into some sort of martyr.
**
Don’t put words in my mouth. You know full well that my accusations of dishonesty concerned very different matters. You know, like the “needles” on tubulin?
**
No. When have I ever implied anything of the sort?
Have you quit beating your wife yet?
**
See above.
**
Cite?
Yes, poor martyred Dave, who can’t seem to prevent himself from changing the subject and insinuating bigotry on the part of the evolutionists.
One can’t help but wonder why my conversations with the fundamentalists at the Pizza Parlor go better than my conversations with IDist David Armstrong…
You under represent the aitheists who check D, none of the above. I know a few aitheists who think Jesus Christ is nothing more that a fairy tale and could care less about science.
People who accept evolution do so for different reasons than people who believe creationism. Creationists tend to be raised in a church and/or have a staggering ignorance of science. Even if they read themselves up and actually understand the science, then there is still that lingering fear of what happens when they die. People who accept Evolution didn’t do so cause mommy and daddy took them to United Darwin Church every Sunday morning when they were kids. Usually they just went to college with an open mind and got an education.
They are not pretending. By your logic, if I’ve never been to Japan than it is by my own faith that I believe such a place exists. Does that mean the Honda I saw on the road today was an act of God?
[ul]
[li]‘Creationists’ and ‘evolutionists’ often get into heated debates.[/li][li]Evolutionists often accuse creationists of bad science, logical fallacy, personal attack etc.[/li][li]Evolutionists invariably ‘win’ debates.[/li]
[li]Therefore in order to ‘win’ debates, creationists should accuse evolutionists of bad science, logical fallacy, personal attack etc.[/li][/ul]
See? simple.
Although I’d never call myself an ‘evolutionist’ (any more than I’d call myself a ‘gravityist’), I’d quite like to examine some of the evidence of intelligent design, may we see it please?
I also feel we may all be working on different definitions of ‘open-minded’ - would the main contributors in this thread be kind enough to post your definition of ‘open-minded’ here.
Well, so much for the mask of being ‘merely interested in the philosophy of it all.’
That replacement bit is the crux, isn’t it?
It is that what is inconceivable to you, your big fear.
It is what puts you in the ‘rigid, irrational dogmatist’ position.
Merely switching the accusation around to the opposition doesn’t free you from it. You are still desperatly seeking God.
Despite your claim of a philosophical point of view and your intial caution in calling for a vague ‘creator’, you will not accept this creator being anything other than God.
Calling it ‘intelligent design’ is just a front to make it sound more scientific.
And because of that you are unwilling to commit to the actual debate.
You asked for step-by-step evidence for the evolution of the whale.
It was given to you, now please explain why you do not consider this valid evidence.
Instead you’re just going ‘Humph’.
Ok Dave, I am gonna try to take this from a different angle and see if this helps ya.
While the named I.D. movement is fairly young, the ideas are not new. They have certainly been around since at least 1900.
I imagine that even you would admit, that the primary religious problem with evolution is that it flatly contradicts genesis. While many other ideas and observations flatly contradict genesis, this is somewhat the “last stand” to hang on to any remnants of this chapter of the bible.
Lets looks at some objections to our scientific knowledge that are very consistent with I.D. (and have been raised by creationist of various flavors) over the last 100 years or so. Most of these are biological, but a few are not.
The sun would have to use fusion power to remain lit for the billions of years required/expected by evolution. Fusion would generate lots of nutrinos, and since the sun isn’t puttting out nutrinos the sun cannot be burning by fusion and therefore could not have burned long enough of evolution. A little while later, we detected solar nuetrinos and nobody (credible) debates that the sun is powered by fusion any more.
What happens inside of living organisms is much to complex to be carried out by ordinary chemistry. Turns out to be quite incorrect, at the time it wasn’t known or well established. Today, it is pretty clear that every process going on within a living cell can be adequately understood by the very same rules of chemistry (and consequently QED) that are used to explain every other non biological reaction.
There is no way that the design for an entire organism (like a human) could be packaged in a single sperm and egg. Again, DNA has been found to the answer to the quandry.
Many structures have been tossed in the ring as being irriducibly complex, ignoring the ones you are hanging onto now… Are you comfortable with idea that the myriad other I.R. candidates have been taken care of? Behe seems to be, and you haven’t brought them up either. (How bout the eye for a specific example?)
This list could go on and on. If I put everything on here that we didn’t understand 100 years ago but do now, that could have been used by I.D. in the past… well, the list would huge.
For I.D. to succeed, it requires structures and processes to be more complex than we can ever understand. If you consider the history of I.D. consistent ideas that have been knocked off over the last century, a clear pattern would emerge. I.D. has gotten smaller and weaker the whole time, and the case for evolution has gotten stronger day by day. Is this a scary pattern? Nearly every new understanding in biological science has weakened I.D.'s hand and strengthened Evolutions for an entire century.
Lets look at what you have tossed in the ring. (I am not rereading all of it at the moment, so if I miss something, feel free to stick it back in here.)
Whale evolution… People pointed out that if evolution was right, whales must be ex-land creatures. Evolutions admitted that this was a logical conclusion and went on to say that they would expect to find evidence of this eventually. Eventually has happened. Intermediate fossils have been found. Genetic comparisons clearly relate whales to the ungulates. Fossils with proto baleen, nostrils closer to the front of the head, various configurations of hind legs have all been found. I have a hard time seeing where you have a problem with this one anymore.
Blood clotting… Looking at the existing variation on circulatory system, clotting mechanism, the chemistry of it, and how it is emplemented genetically is very consistent with what would be expected if it developed by evolutionary means. Granted, it could also be interpretted as consistent with (or not contrary to) I.D.
The infamous, flagellum… I will admit to you all day long, that not every last detail about these structures is know. If you are honest, you will have to admit that there is more known than Behe stated, and that at least a plausible evolutionary pathway has been put forward. This causes more problems with I.D… but I’ll get to that shortly.
Now, lets look at the history of God the creator beliefs.
Young flat earth, center of the universe.
Young round earth, center of the universe.
Young round earth, heliocentric solar system.
Old round earth, heliocentric solar system, no special place in the universe
4 plus, living organisms have been around along time and changed over that time, but it was all directed by god. And we have proof, there are structures that couldn’t exist without a direct creator.
There are still some (few, but some) adherents to 1 and 2.
3 is still quite popular, and 4 is still extremely popular (more so than even 5).
It is your own contention that people clinging to the first four have their eyes shut to the evidence. The problems with the first four are quite clear. They make claims as to the nature of the universe that when compared to reality are clearly wrong. I.D. skirts this just a bit. I.D. admits pretty much every single observation is being correct and only quibbles with the interpretation of the data.
Here is the problem with I.D. (this has been covered already, but I will do it again a little differently… hopefully you will follow it)
The validity of I.D. (or the claim that things are too amazing to have developed on their own) hinges completely on the lack of understanding of processes rather than the positive understanding of any process.
Every item that I have seen as an example of “proof” of I.D. and certainly every one that you have offered, fall short of proof at the very least. Some of the proof items have been completely resolved (at least in my opinion), and all the others have at least reasonable proposed pathways for their origin that do not invoke the supernatural. For I.D. to be able to claim victory on any of these, it has to show conclusively that there is no natural explaination conceivable. It has clearly failed here. (And, just because you won’t or can’t understand/grasp the natural explaination, or even find it distasteful, matters not one little bit in the validity of the arguement)
I will also list some (soft) reasons why I find I.D. particularly unlikely.
Through physics, we know and understand that everything in the universe (thus far examined) appear to be consistent with the idea that all processes can be understood/explained using nothing but the atomic theory of matter and the four fundemental forces (gravity, electomagnetism, weak nuclear, strong nuclear). All biological systems so far are reducible to chemistry and thus to Quantum Electro Dynamics.
The pool of things not completely understood or explained is shrinking every year. If you considered how robust I.D. theory would have been in 1900 if it had been formally proposed as such, and compare it to what it is today, you would say that I.D. was a mere skeleton of its former self.
As we have looked at the actually coding of genes in our DNA, it certainly doesn’t look like our DNA was designed. There is so much “garbage” in our genome. A great lot of DNA appears to be completely unnecessary. This is far from “proof”, but I find it pretty odd to think that if our development was intelligently directed, we would find all this garbage in there. I would expect something much sleeker.
I.D. (and creationism in general) would have a pretty strong case if we discovered that somehow the chemistry of life operated on different principals (or there was some exception to the normal rules of chemistry) that was unique to living things. The processes are complex, they are beautiful (at least in my opinion), but they follow the same prinicipals that every other non organic chemical process follows.
Overall, you have presented several predicates for a logical conclusion. All of these predicates have been shown to be false, or at the very least, much weaker than originally claimed. You appear to have little to no interest in making any attempt to understand the science behind what would make these predicates valid or not. You seem to justify this with the idea that it wouldn’t matter, because you know what you would find if you bothered to learn this stuff.
Bottom line, if you are going to quote a source (such as Behe), you better understand what you are quoting. Arguing that his claims are still valid because you don’t understand the science or logic by which his evidence has been diminished or eliminated just doesn’t cut it.
I will not bother to repeat every instance where you have made statements that are not logically sound, or are based on predicates that are weak and/or disproven.
btw, If you can’t hang on to your religious beliefs with genesis repealed as factual in any manner, that is not our problem.
Many people have no problem with this idea. You might want to look into.
If we are both around in 20 years, it would extremely interesting to re-examine Behe’s arguements, and also look at what the new I.R. structures are at that time. How long does the process of “I am write be default because you can’t explain this… ok, you explained that but can you explain this?.. ad nausium” have to go on?
I am hoping this will appeal to you, because the logically valid arguement that “pointing to incomplete understanding or evidence in one theoretical area does not in any way imply support for another theory”, seems to be going right past you.
The concept that any theory that is supported by lack of evidence rather than positive evidence, makes no testable predictions, and generally cannot be ruled out unless everything is known and understood is nearly useless seems to blow right by you as well.
These things alone point to some combination of
closed mindedness
ignorance
lack of mental prowess
laziness
There it goes again, someone appearently “name calling”… But it isn’t. I am pointing out very specifically what your lack of understanding (not be confused with disagreement with) the topic up for debate points to.
When someone points to one of your positions as logically unsound, you bluster about the evidence, etc… but it is never clear by your statements that you even understood their point.
What confuses me Dave is that the Pope himself has declared that there is no necessary conflict between religion and evolution - so why argue against it? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I’m honestly a little surprised to see a Catholic evolution denier. In fact you may be the first I have ever run across.
I suspect that Dave Armstrong is not an “evolution denier” any more than Behe (who is, coincidentally, also Catholic) a denier of evolution. Behe accepts most aspects of evolutionary theory, especially the easily observed aspects regarding descent. Where Behe parts ways is in insisting that there is a “special case” at the molecular level that implies (or demands) intelligent design. It would seem that Dave Armstrong has the same reservations based on a need to see the Hand of God in an immediate fashion (as I infer from D A’s railing against “materialist” philosophy).
I suspect that most of the objection is based on misunderstanding (and will await further posts to determine whether or not that misunderstanding is deliberate).
There are any number of us good theistic evolutionists (even Catholic ones) who perceive God as a first cause who has interposed in history, but who, after creation, has allowed the physical universe to run on its own internal rules without dabbling in secondary creation.
and If my previous posts do not make it clear, let me state this idea bluntly (even though I am presently quoting you, tomndebb, I am not accusing you of this).
Modern evolution and its evidence rests upon a large body of accumulated data and theory from a large number of fields.
To understand it and debate, requires a mastery of at least the rudiments of those other fields. Evolution does not exist in a vacuum.
Fields that come immediately to mind would be applied logic, chemistry, geology, archeology/paleontology, and even physics.
If you want to have a useful, debatable position on evolution vs any other idea you better understand the above AND
You better understand the complete proposed mechanism of evolution as understood by its adherents, not the skewed representation presented by evolutions detractors, besides the obvious requirement…
Understanding the point of view you wish to forward.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not all of those opinions are equally valuable.
(ignoring all the pompous lamentations of my woeful, profound ignorance, intellectual cowardice, infantile need for crutches, need to learn the alphabet, etc., etc., etc.)
Except for this one, from Diogenes the Ass…, er Cynic:
Hi Diog! Ya got anything of substance to add to the “debate” today?
Now on to some substance for a change:
Ben cites my earlier words:
This assessment is based on a more or less complete misunderstanding of the point I was making in
the above citation. In context, I was asked whether a demonstration of Darwinian evolution in one
instance would disprove Intelligent Design as a theory. I denied this, because one isolated
example is hardly sufficient to disprove an overall theory; much more is needed than that. But I
accepted the possibility for the particular.
I then proceeded to make a semi-sarcastic, analogical remark about how contrary evidences are
perceived and received in Darwinist circles. In other words, I was subtly calling for the same
standard to be applied across the board: “if you insist on irrationally suggesting that one instance
of disproof in one particular instance of organic evolution is a disproof of my entire theory of
Intelligent Design, then surely you will want to apply the same epistemological criteria to the
many, many discrepancies and deficiencies in materialistic evolutionary theory. But you do not.”
Now, based on his incorrect interpretation of my words, Ben then concludes that they are proof
of my “trollery” and supposed refusal to “accept evidence against ID.” Of course, this is directly
contrary to both my self-report and my repeated request for hard evidence of process within a
materialistic evolutionary framework, and statements that I was fully willing to be convinced
(thus, a denial of my sincerity, which, as we have seen, is a quite common charge made by
materialist evolutionists against their opponents). Elsewhere in the larger thread, I wrote:
Nowhere did I state that there could be no conceivable evidence against ID. Ben fails in his
attempt to make me look like a dogmatic, “blind faith”-type fool who ignores any and all contrary
evidence. He erroneously extrapolates from one statement I made about one particular theoretical
disproof of ID, and by missing the sarcastic import of my associated analogy, falsely concludes
that I “won’t accept evidence against ID.”
This is not only woefully illogical, but unethical as well. I suggest that Ben (a scientist, who is
certainly capable) learns a bit more about how to read the English language in context, and to
discern different meanings based on context, style, and choice of words. In this instance (failing
an understanding of the larger context and framework of my overall argument), my words, “true
believer” were the giveaway that I was being sarcastic, because throughout my remarks above I
was highly critical of that sort of mental outlook; for example:
Thus to believe that I am adopting the “true believer” mentality or mindset myself, strains the
bounds of credulity and sense. Of course, on the other hand, if a dialogical opponent is willing to
quickly assume the rankest hypocrisy and lack of logical acumen in his opponent, then they could
conceivably quickly (albeit falsely) conclude such a thing; ignoring the opponents’ many clarifying
words elsewhere. In fact, shortly afterwards, in answering Ben’s questions, I expressly denied
the parallel proposition that evolution was disproven:
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude, then, that I don’t think Intelligent Design is proven,
either. If Ben had closely read my words, instead of pouncing upon what he vainly thinks are the
ruminations of an uneducated knee-jerk idiot, he would easily see that, as indicated by my
remarks elsewhere about epistemology and criteria of proof; e.g.,:
In other words, my position is that ID is philosophical, and can be neither proven nor disproven
empirically. I think the same of God and Christian belief in general; my epistemology of religious
belief does not rest upon so-called “absolute proofs” but upon the collective plausibility of many
cumulative evidences of many sorts, which make faith a credible option, built upon reason and
non-contradiction and a coherent theistic view of the world. Thus, the argument becomes the much
more complex one of plausibility, rather than demonstration. I think this is true of both
materialistic evolution and Intelligent Design. Absolute proofs are not to be had, in my opinion. In
any event, Ben’s charge that I am unwilling to accept any contrary evidence whatever with regard
to ID, is absolutely false, as now shown.
how do you know there is just one god?
how do you know YOUR god is real, and not some other god?
what makes your religion so special?
just some questions.
Which pretty much removes it from the realm of the physical sciences and makes it both meaningless and counter-productive when applied to scientific analysis.
