# Quiz in honor of Darwin's 200 anniversary, and why many Republicans would not take it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557 "2009-02-12T17:17:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/81 "2009-02-13T22:41:09Z")
> [@](#): > > it is insane to think that a creator who created this petri-dish universe specifically to make human life would have taken this long to get around to actually doing so. OK, I’ll bite - why is it insane? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be asserting that it is impossible that an intelligence tolerated any delay between the beginning of the universe, and the appearance of modern man. Why is that? What is it about that time table that makes it a logical necessity? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/82 "2009-02-13T22:58:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, I’ll bite - why is it insane? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be asserting that it is impossible that an intelligence tolerated any delay between the beginning of the universe, and the appearance of modern man. Why is that? > > What is it about that time table that makes it a logical necessity? > > Regards, > Shodan Because it’s a stupid waste of time to deliberately take as long as reality did. Tell me, how many projects do you start up, then dick around with for thirteen _billion_ years before bothering to start the part of it that you actually _want_? If there were a god noodging electrons and particles around, he _certainly_ wouldn’t have spent 130 million years playing with dinosaurs before clearing the slate to start on the beings he _really_ wanted to make. He would have made us first - and probably on a custom-made planet a few billion years earlier. (And don’t even start with a timeless god - such a god would _also_ have no reason to script out an extra thirteen billion years of stuff he didn’t care about. The god being timeless doesn’t change that all that time was created for, to him, no reason whatsoever.) The long delays make sense with abiogenesis and evolution because those are (to some degree) _random_. You don’t _expect_ to get all aces on your first deal. But if you’re stacking the deck, then you _do_. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/83 "2009-02-13T23:15:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Because it’s a stupid waste of time to deliberately take as long as reality did. I am trying to come up with a less smartypants answer than “what’s the big hurry?” But seriously, I don’t see why there would have to be such a deadline. Why is it logically impossible to fool around with electrons and dinosaurs and instead get right to making people? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/84 "2009-02-13T23:32:22Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > The analogy was flawed because it was a false analogy. There are fundamental differences between designing the entirety of the world/universe and designing a car within that world that make the comparison meaningless. You’re stating fundamental differences, but I’m failing to see what they are except that the universe has magnitudes more constraints and requirements. Beyond that, it’s still a mutliple objective optimization problem, just magnitudes more complex. > [@](#): > > Why does the design seem imperfect? Because the designer was operating under certain constraints. > How do you know these constraints exist? Because the design appears imperfect. > > Getting dizzy yet? Huh? I don’t think you’re understanding my point. Constraints are a natural part of any design. If I’m designing a house on a plot of land that’s 50’ x 50’, I obviously can’t build a house that’s 60’ x 60’, can I? The designer may be operating under certain constraints that could include, but not limited to, the laws of physics and other basic underlying properties, available materials and interations. What you’re probably refering to are basic requirements and criteria for determining the design. Virtually any design, unless all objectives reach a global maximum at the same point (in which case the design is trivial), inherently have flaws when compared to any arbitrary criteria. This is a place where the car example is apt. One could say that a beautifully made Italian sports care is flawed because it gets terrible gas mileage, but good gas mileage is not a meaningful criteria to the designer. Sure, he probably could give it better gas milege but, due to constraints, by improving gas mileage, he would likely reduce the value of other criteria that he deems more valuable and, thus, making it less optimal. And, yet again, no one claimed the ID guaranteed perfect designs. Thus, the fact that humans are not absolutely perfect in form, which again is decidedly different from perfectly designed, does not mean that humans were not designed, it simply means that if we were designed we either were perfect and no longer are, or never were because that wasn’t the goal of the designer. In either case, it doesn’t contradict any of the premises at all. > [@](#): > > Pointing out flaws in someone else’s argument isn’t a reasonable defense of your own. If ID is a good theory, it should stand on its own merit. One thing it seems to imply is that the “designer” is an impotent nothing from nowhere with less power than the undersecretary of agriculture. Most people pushing ID claim God as the designer, which doesn’t seem to fit once you actually sit down and think about the implications of ID. No, I wasn’t point out that the entire origin of the diversity of life argument, no matter what direction you take, is inherently circular because they all require a lot of assumptions. And, yet again, I am not a proponent of ID, but attacking it because of perceived variations from absolute perfection simply means that you don’t understand how multi-variable optimization problems work. And yes, even though I don’t agree with ID, I don’t see how a God, even an omnipotent and omniscient God doesn’t fit. You assume that an omnipotent and omniscient God would want to create perfect humans but inherently and saying that, since we aren’t perfect, he isn’t perfect. The fact that humans aren’t perfect doesn’t imply anything about the original goals of the designer himself nor does a perfect God imply that he would necessarily want to create perfect beings. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/85 "2009-02-13T23:35:24Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > Other countries have a much higher percentage of people who believe in evolution than the US. If you are looking for cites, put “belief in evolution by country” into Google and see what it spits out. Evolutionists have to talk more and talk louder to get the point across, and of course creationists talk back, and around it goes. > > Yes, a _perfectly_ designed car could run on cakes. It could run on whatever you want. It’s perfectly designed. But iff that doesn’t make a lick of sense, then follow this logic: > > 1. God is all powerful, all knowing, all loving and perfect. > 2. God designed all animals, including humans. Indeed, humans are his favourite animal. > **3) Epic fail on the design of humans.** > It doesn’t follow. Bolding mine. At least for Christians it’s a result of the Fall. It does follow. (provided that you accept the Bible and so forth…) ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/86 "2009-02-13T23:38:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Well, next I suppose we can talk about the relative likelihood that you have some previously unknown relative in nigeria who had died and left you a million dollars. After all, if you ignore the motives of those who generally are proposing that theory, it also is possible, right? Motives are absolutely irrelevant. The motives could be because they want to subvert the educational system, or they could be because they’re trying to reconcile their faith with science, or it could be because they’re being telepathically mind controlled by aliens from Venus. The source of a theory has absolutely zero bearing on it’s validity. To say it does is an ad hominem fallacy. > [@](#): > > As for ID, I’d say that the starkest disproof of it regarding humans is the incredible amount of time that has passed prior to now, and the comparatively short amount of time humans have been on the earth. Unless you think the universe only started 6000 years ago or something (:D), it is _insane_ to think that a creator who created this petri-dish universe specifically to make human life would have taken this long to get around to actually doing so. Yet again, you’re conflating YEC with ID. You’re also making basic assumptions about the designer that are not necessary. Maybe the designer’s goal wasn’t humans, maybe it’s something grander and we’re just a stepping stone. If it is the Christian God, maybe it doesn’t matter how long it takes because time is completely irrelevant to him. ID is a way of addressing abiogenesis and irreducible complexity, it is NOT a way of trying to make the universe be only 6000 years old. If you want to talk about methods for disproving ID, fine, I’m all for that, and I can give you plenty of reasons why I don’t think ID works, but that’s not what this thread is about. The OP put a bunch of questions that evolution has answers to and claimed that ID did not, and I’m arguing that ID DOES have answers to those questions, that those answers are in fact identical to the ones evolution would answer, and that it’s just a strawman argument. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/87 "2009-02-13T23:50:19Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Again, you obviously haven’t read a single post I’ve written because I specifically said I am not a believer of ID, in fact it is in direct contradiction to my beliefs, and I haven’t been sermonizing or handwaving. The reason I posted in this thread and have been participating in this discussion is because there are people like the OP and you who are arguing strawmen, and it is a severe disservice to anyone involved in the discussion to throw out strawmen. The point was to show ID does not belong in the classroom, since the questions have answers that fit evolution, it does then follow that ID should have an as good or better answer if you say so. I’m waiting. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > The problem with the OP is they are making the exact same assumptions about ID that you are because the EXACT SAME ANSWERS that works for evolution work for ID because both theories operate on speciation and natural selection, so it just makes the author of the quiz look ignorant, makes people who agree with him smug, and makes those who disagree with him irritated. Ideas from ID like “irrecducible complexity” or “complex specified information” are not employed at all in science. You bet the intention is to make IDers irritated. As I already pointed out the idea that I’m assuming that ID is referring to perfection is wrong, I am taking their “good” or Very good" stance as also not being scientific. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > So, again, please go back and read the arguments that have been put forth instead of just coming in and spewing arguments that consistent entirely ad hominem and strawmen fallacies based entirely on points that have already been addressed. Only rhetoric will not do, as mentioned before I’m still waiting for an ID idea that can be experimented with, as the questions are based on actual research I would expect to see the same coming from the IDers ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/88 "2009-02-14T00:08:41Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Motives are absolutely irrelevant. The motives could be because they want to subvert the educational system, or they could be because they’re trying to reconcile their faith with science, or it could be because they’re being telepathically mind controlled by aliens from Venus. The source of a theory has absolutely zero bearing on it’s validity. To say it does is an ad hominem fallacy. Hmmm? I didn’t say the motives implied it wasn’t a valid argument - where did I say that? Now, whether it’s an argument _worth bothering with_, much less _defending_… > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Yet again, you’re conflating YEC with ID. You’re also making basic assumptions about the designer that are not necessary. Maybe the designer’s goal wasn’t humans, maybe it’s something grander and we’re just a stepping stone. If it is the Christian God, maybe it doesn’t matter how long it takes because time is completely irrelevant to him. ID is a way of addressing abiogenesis and irreducible complexity, it is NOT a way of trying to make the universe be only 6000 years old. I’m conflating nothing, and I’m making one assumption about the designer - that it’s not insane. If we weren’t the goal, the sane designer wouldn’t have bothere ID’ing us. He might have ID’d things that he _did_ care about, but not us. If the god was God, he _still_ has no reason to dick around with dinos. And, I wasn’t saying that ID was trying to prove a young earth - it merely only makes sense (as a way of making humans) if you are already _assuming_ a young earth. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > If you want to talk about methods for disproving ID, fine, I’m all for that, and I can give you plenty of reasons why I don’t think ID works, but that’s not what this thread is about. The OP put a bunch of questions that evolution has answers to and claimed that ID did not, and I’m arguing that ID DOES have answers to those questions, that those answers are in fact identical to the ones evolution would answer, and that it’s just a strawman argument. Meh, I’ll talk about whatever seems interesting at the time. But it isn’t a strawman to ask why the ‘mysterious designer’ would have designed us with so many obvious problems. The answers aren’t the same, between evolution and ID, because the real answer that evolution provides to all those questions is, “because we aren’t the result of deliberate planning and design by an entity with an awareness of the alternative better methods”. ID, necessarily, is arguing that either the designer didn’t design the stupid parts :dubious:, or that the flaws aren’t flaws :dubious:, or that the designer was not perfectly competent. The latter point isn’t a problem for you, but it is a deathblow to those dishonest people who have the ‘unstated’ premise that the designer is some specific god (such people comprising everyone who is actually avocating the argument). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/89 "2009-02-14T00:34:28Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > The OP put a bunch of questions that evolution has answers to and claimed that ID did not, and I’m arguing that ID DOES have answers to those questions, that those answers are in fact identical to the ones evolution would answer, and that it’s just a strawman argument. You have repeated this, but you have not bothered to explain how an ID proponent would do so, the worse part is to make it sound like if ID is not the joke that it is: > **[Where exactly can I find this controversy again? | TalkDesign](http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/node/42/)** > [@](#): > > Where exactly can I find this controversy again? > > … > > The best reason not to teach the “origins controversy” is that it simply is nowhere to be found. Genuine scientific controversies – the important and useful ones – take up a huge volume of space in the scientific literature. Even the controversies sparked by wrong ideas can be tracked as they generate discussion among the members of the scientific community. If no-one is talking about it, it’s not controversial. > > And no-one in the scientific literature is talking about “irrecducible complexity” or “complex specified information”. A recent search on “irreducible complexity” in the Science Citation Index yielded seven instances of papers using this term (two of these were direct responses from Behe to criticism of his work.) For comparison, the term “face on mars” yielded three papers discussing the proposition that an advanced Martian civilization had built edifices with human features. > > But it gets worse. > > A comprehensive examination of biology databases in which both ID terms and authors were used in queries yielded the following: > > ```auto > > BIOSIS PubMed > Search term hits..directly related hits....directly related > "Intelligent Design".....................20....9..................324....3 > "Complex Specified Information"..........0.....0..................111....1 > "Specified Complexity"...................1.....0..................152....1 > "Irreducible Complexity".................5.....5..................10....3 > Any term.................................23....11.................162....6 > > ``` > > This is to say that in all of PubMed, only six papers appear in which one of the four terms listed is used as a key phrase. > > In comparison, REAL controversies have a substantially larger presence in the literature. > > > [@](#): > > > > …BIOSIS…PubMed > > > > “Group Selection”…530…261…148…58 > > “Endosymbiosis”…574…249…182…120 > > “Punctuated Equilibrium”…195…190…38…31 > > ID may be claimed as a “new science” (though it’s neither), so it may be argued that its anemic presence in the literature indicates the early stages of a controversy. (In which case it’s too early to be mandating its teaching in science classes. But whatever.) > > How do ID citations look over time, as compared to genuine controversies? Sometimes the source of an idea can be traced to a particular publication. Most often the publication will be a scientific paper, but it can just as well be a scientific or even a popular book. If the idea generates interest, scientists will respond to it in the literature, and cite the seminal publication in their own work. The “citation impact” or the number of publications that cite a particular work, thus gives a reasonable approximation to the importance of the work in the literature. > > … > > It’s clear that the “seminal” ID works have all peaked in their citation impact. They’re not just not ready for prime-time, they’re past their sell-by date. > > What this means is that if there is to be a scientific “origins controversy,” it will not be able to depend on these texts already written. That is to say, the founding text of a scientific “origins controversy” has not yet been written. > > Which makes “teaching the controversy” a difficult proposition. ---
**Author:** ![AllWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AllWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AllWalker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/90 "2009-02-14T01:58:29Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Bolding mine. At least for Christians it’s a result of the Fall. > It does follow. (provided that you accept the Bible and so forth…) If humans were able to Fall in the first place, that is a failure of design. A few tweaks to our brain could preserve our “free will”, if desired, while making humans un-Fall-able. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/91 "2009-02-14T04:22:17Z")
The problem with “Intelligent Design”–which some people in this thread are not getting–is the problem it shares with creationism: fundamentally, anything one can’t quite understand or explain through currently understood natural processes means that “God did it.” It’s a science-stopper. More to the point, it’s non-science. It’s basically, “my brain is too small to exist in such a big universe without a god in it to make me feel better.” Sorry, but I have nothing but contempt for “intelligent design.” As far as the questions go, they are only answerable in any substantive, predictive way via evolutionary theory. All “I.D.” adds is “I think god did it.” Non-science. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/92 "2009-02-14T10:28:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Cite? It was in a local paper, I can’t cite it. Regardless, it doesn’t matter, his arguments are dreadful, involving teleological arguments and such. > [@](#): > > Cite? Learn to read? You posted well after my edit. > [@](#): > > Cite? You could just read the wiki article or something. > [@Fred Hoyle](#): > > If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of… > [@Fred Hoyle](#): > > Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/93 "2009-02-14T13:47:39Z")
> [@AllWalker](#): > > If humans were able to Fall in the first place, that is a failure of design. A few tweaks to our brain could preserve our “free will”, if desired, while making humans un-Fall-able. The Fall is due to directly contradicting God’s orders. Intelligent people can always think they know more. The only way to mke humans free-willed and un-Fall-able would’ve been to make them perfect. If you can’t screw up, there’s no free will. Even angels Fall. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/94 "2009-02-14T15:39:24Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The Fall is due to directly contradicting God’s orders. Intelligent people can always think they know more. The only way to mke humans free-willed and un-Fall-able would’ve been to make them perfect. If you can’t screw up, there’s no free will. > > Even angels Fall. There is a major flaw in the argument that Free Will was bestowed upon man and that man simply abused it, therefore justifying the existence of suffering. In Christian theology, there is an End Game in which beings live eternally in perfection with God. It should be obvious upon examination of this that those beings are unable to use a Free Will to sin. This begs the question, then: Why not start with heaven if you are an omniscient Creator whose end game is to live with beings in an eternal state of no suffering? If, indeed, it’s true that “If you can’t screw up, there’s no free will” then there is no free will in heaven. And heaven is the end-game for all eternity. So therefore free will is not some sort of absolute requirement of any kind, and the only thing it ever accomplished was the unnecessary suffering of billions of beings. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/95 "2009-02-14T20:34:03Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > It was in a local paper, I can’t cite it. Regardless, it doesn’t matter, his arguments are dreadful, involving teleological arguments and such. Firstly, you can cite a local paper. The claim that you cannot do so is laughable and bizarre. Secondly, if Anthony Flew were actually senile, someone would surely have posted evidence of the fact on the internet. Thirdly, in the years since the publication of _There Is a God_, Flew has continued to do things which a senile person cannot do, such as publishing articles and attending conferences. Hence your claim that Flew is senile is logically false. As for your insistence that “his arguments are dreadful”, why don’t you quote specific arguments from him and explain why they’re dreadful? > [@](#): > > You could just read the wiki article or something. Assuming you mean Hoyle’s wiki article, I’ve read that, and I’ve read some of his scientific work as well. I find that all of it upholds high standards of logic and clarity. If you’d like to argue otherwise, I would, of course, be willing to listen. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/96 "2009-02-14T21:38:42Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Because it’s a stupid waste of time to deliberately take as long as reality did. Tell me, how many projects do you start up, then dick around with for thirteen _billion_ years before bothering to start the part of it that you actually _want_? If there were a god noodging electrons and particles around, he _certainly_ wouldn’t have spent 130 million years playing with dinosaurs before clearing the slate to start on the beings he _really_ wanted to make. He would have made us first - and probably on a custom-made planet a few billion years earlier. > > (And don’t even start with a timeless god - such a god would _also_ have no reason to script out an extra thirteen billion years of stuff he didn’t care about. The god being timeless doesn’t change that all that time was created for, to him, no reason whatsoever.) In this post you are merely projecting your own thinking onto God. Efficiency, that is to say the dictum of doing everything by the fastest possible means, is very important to most people in the USA in the early 21ast century, but it would be arrogant and solipsistic to suppose that it’s equally important to everyone in every time and place. In fact, most people in most times and places, people put much less emphasis on efficiency, and sometimes none. Hence, there’s no justification for assuming that a nonhuman would prize efficiency either. In fact, producing and cultivating things is one of humanity greatest joys that a human can experience, so it’s small wonder than many people draw it out for long stretches of time. Since humans are made in the image of God, it seems logical that the same is true for God. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/97 "2009-02-15T00:56:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In this post you are merely projecting your own thinking onto God. Efficiency, that is to say the dictum of doing everything by the fastest possible means, is very important to most people in the USA in the early 21ast century, but it would be arrogant and solipsistic to suppose that it’s equally important to everyone in every time and place. In fact, most people in most times and places, people put much less emphasis on efficiency, and sometimes none. Hence, there’s no justification for assuming that a nonhuman would prize efficiency either. > > In fact, producing and cultivating things is one of humanity greatest joys that a human can experience, so it’s small wonder than many people draw it out for long stretches of time. Since humans are made in the image of God, it seems logical that the same is true for God. Going beyond topic here, but you are also projecting your own thinking. Even that thinking is too small. But if that is the case, then God is busy in more fertile grounds: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/22/the-beating-heart-of-w5/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/22/the-beating-heart-of-w5/) > [@](#): > > W5 is a nebula, a giant cloud of gas roughly 6000 light years away in the constellation of Cassiopeia. It’s enormous, spanning about 2 x 1.5 degrees of the sky (15 times the size of the full Moon on the sky), and is actively cranking out stars. The valentine-shape is actually an enormous cavern, a hollow carved out of the gas by the winds and fierce ultraviolet light flooding out from massive young stars in its… well, its heart. It’s like these stars are blowing a vast bubble in the middle of the cloud. > > … > > There are stars in those towers, less massive stars (in this case, more like the Sun) being formed even as we watch. In fact, that’s what makes this image so exciting scientifically (aside from its sheer awesome beauty); it appears that we’re seeing triggered star formation. It’s not perfectly clear yet just how massive clouds collapse to form stars. Sometimes it’s from cloud collisions — cosmic fender-benders or even head-on ramming that crunch up the clouds, triggering collapse and star formation. > > … > > I have spent the past year researching all the ways the Earth can end from cosmic catastrophes for my book, Death from the Skies! Being near a young, massive star is a good way to do this: they flood out fierce light while they are alive, and they tend to explode when they die. But here we see the exact opposite: these stars are the Johnny Appleseeds of the Universe, the lifegivers, sowing the galaxy with the conditions needed for more stars to form. > > In the real world, life and death are inexorably intertwined, sometimes so tightly bound that they are nearly indistinguishable. And here we see it on a scale hundred of trillions of kilometers across, so large it appears majestic and calm, yet so finely detailed we can study the processes at work and learn how the basic building blocks of the Universe came to be. We are not the focus of it all, and this became apparent after Copernicus. In any case, Happy Valentines Day everyone! ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/98 "2009-02-15T02:05:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Hoyle became a deist, but never had any interest in Christianity to my knowledge. > > Another example is Anthony Flew, a philosophy professor from Oxford University who was an outspoken atheist for most of his life. He recently became a deist. Deism is incompatible with Intelligent Design. Deists believe in a God who is distant, impersonal, and doesn’t meddle with the universe. Intelligent Designers (mostly) believe in a God who meddles with critters and plants in the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/99 "2009-02-16T05:38:21Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > You’re stating fundamental differences, but I’m failing to see what they are except that the universe has magnitudes more constraints and requirements. Beyond that, it’s still a mutliple objective optimization problem, just magnitudes more complex. And you know the design process of humans would be a multiple objective optimization problem because…? You make assumptions about the nature of the designer, and the design process, then you go and use the conclusions from those assumptions to support the assumptions themselves. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Huh? I don’t think you’re understanding my point. Constraints are a natural part of any design. I get it. You think that an intelligent designer is similar to a house or car builder. My argument is that if you’re going to take that tack, you can logically analyze the design and point out flaws inconsistent with a god figure. Your response is, in essence, “if it didn’t make sense, it wouldn’t be that way”. It’s a circular argument. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I am not a proponent of ID, but attacking it because of perceived variations from absolute perfection simply means that you don’t understand how multi-variable optimization problems work. Knock it off with the condescension. I know what you’re saying, I just happen to think the concept of ID is illogical when you actually think about it without constantly resorting to this “you don’t understand because you aren’t the designer” non-logic. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > And yes, even though I don’t agree with ID, I don’t see how a God, even an omnipotent and omniscient God doesn’t fit. You assume that an omnipotent and omniscient God would want to create perfect humans but inherently and saying that, since we aren’t perfect, he isn’t perfect. Your claims about design constraints don’t fit with an omnipotent god. If God created everything, why not remove the constraints and do a better job, out of benevolence? Saying “God did it that way because he wanted to” is just side stepping the actual, logical analysis of the issue. It’s a non-answer to the questions presented in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557/100 "2009-02-16T19:02:56Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In this post you are merely projecting your own thinking onto God. Efficiency, that is to say the dictum of doing everything by the fastest possible means, is very important to most people in the USA in the early 21ast century, but it would be arrogant and solipsistic to suppose that it’s equally important to everyone in every time and place. In fact, most people in most times and places, people put much less emphasis on efficiency, and sometimes none. Hence, there’s no justification for assuming that a nonhuman would prize efficiency either. > > In fact, producing and cultivating things is one of humanity greatest joys that a human can experience, so it’s small wonder than many people draw it out for long stretches of time. Since humans are made in the image of God, it seems logical that the same is true for God. Of course, when you notice that God wasn’t drawing out the enjoyable process of creating humanity, but in fact was _not working on it at all_ for billions of years, this theory collapses into rubble, leaving us with God who, at best, preferred to spend his time screwing around with other things for incredible spans of time, and then, (supposedly) a hairs’ breadth from the time he’s been planning to destroy the entire shebang, says to himself “Oh my, time’s nearly up, I guess I’d better put away the cool dinos and start getting serious about those hairless monkey things.” Lemme guess; procrastination is a virtue? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quiz-in-honor-of-darwins-200-anniversary-and-why-many-republicans-would-not-take-it/485557.md?page=6)