Don’t Tell The Flat Earthers
Tweet
If they see this cool beer commercial they may “intelligent design” themselves to the next life.
50 Responses to “Don’t Tell The Flat Earthers”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Frank;
Care to debate evolution vs ‘intelligent design’?
Because conservatives don’t drink? What? Your joke is unfunny, or your logic is puzzling.
I haven’t got 6 minutes (the real time — in God minutes — it took to create the Universe and everything — including the material that would one day be you — in it) to prove that Intelligent Design is more than a worthy opponent for Darwinian style evolution in the arena of scientific ideas.
Natural selection works just as easily in both.
As I suspected — from the swamp to the pub in only 100,000 years…
Proves only conservatives came about through intelligent design.
I’m sure Polipundits “Jayson” and Powerline et al will spin some connection with the hated Reuters News Service
Conservatives reject the concept of evolution.
Cool.
But where does Guiness get off using Heinz’s *exactly* old slogan?
“Good things come to those who wait.”
Frank;
Have you got the 6 days (6000 years in god time) to discuss this in a coherent manner?
Unless you are ready to stipulate that the fossil record is inconsistent with Bible chronolgy?
Do you so stipulate?
Was that Sammy Davis Jr? It’s been too long. Googling, and yes, yes that was. Lots of other questions were left unanswered though:
http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/commercials/1959/
What is an Inferno and why are people that work the Infernos titled Inferno Artist (as opposed to say, Inferno driver?)
And I think the last scene (first in time) in the video was logically reversed. It should have shown the lizardy things drinking from the water and saying, “Feh”, but it showed them saying “Feh” and then drinking from the water.
Hmm, Guiness, is there anything it can’t do?
Hey look! I forgot I had a pumkin goatse gravatar….
I don’t want to attempt a debate, one comment at a time, on any topic, at any time. This is not a good media for a debate.
Intelligent Design is the modern day equivalent of the old Divine Watchmaker.
It’s latest incarnation goes like this:
Evolution tries to say that if you leave a sufficient amount of rubber, glass, cloth, metal, and other assorted materials laying around a warehouse for a sufficiently long period of time, you will eventually find a jet airliner in the warehouse.
Exactly. Along with the rubber, glass, cloth, and metal, if you also leave enough carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. And you leave it long enough for life to evolve and then humans and then human consciousness and human culture and economies and sociopolitical systems… you’re gonna get yourself one big-ass 747.
Oliver Oliver Oliver,
Please don’t tell me that you believe in this concept of evolution. Do you actually believe that we came from monkeys?
You are better than that.
Frank, you know that feeling you experience when someone claims that 9/11 was an inside job or that the levees were detonated in NO? Scientists get that same feeling whenever you claim that ID is a valid scientific explanation.
goatchowder: Says the parody of evolution is true (amd passengers on board, too, eh? Do you see Rod Serling’s back?)
Wilbur: Says Intelligent Design is superstition
Evolution: Says the earth was made by a turtle that carries the Earth around on its back. What does it stand on? Another turtle. What does that turtle stand on? Another turtle. Turtles, turtle, turtles, all the way down.
JWG: Except a whole bunch of scientists believe in Intelligent Design
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Behe.htm
Evolution tries to say that if you leave a sufficient amount of rubber, glass, cloth, metal, and other assorted materials laying around a warehouse for a sufficiently long period of time, you will eventually find a jet airliner in the warehouse.
Intelligent Design is like someone saying “I can’t imagine what could make the sun turn black in the middle of the day, so an angry god must be doing it.”
Leo: I told you this was a bad idea. Do you really think I’m going to debate 4 or 5 people?
This isn’t Plastic.com
And a whole bunch of engineers believe in various conspiracy theories. The “trick” is to present evidence to support the claim. Let me know when ID supporters start providing biological, chemical, geological, astronomical, and other falsifiable scientific evidence rather than bypassing the scientific process and merely publishing to the general public.
Oliver,
Conservatives don’t reject evolution. In fact, almost all accept microevolution as valid but reject macroevolution as an explanation for origins.
Oh and that commercial has a lot of gaps in it. But it is cool. And conservatives do drink Guinness. At least this one does.
DY
I’m not debating the specifics of evolution. I’m pointing out that you dismiss anti-government “conspiracy” theories because their facts aren’t supported by the preponderance of documented evidence. Likewise, scientists dismiss ID because it’s contradicted by 150 years of documented evidence accumulated within dozens of scientific fields of study.
While wingers push intelligent design on school children, the world laughs at us, and serious scientific study moves elsewhere.
The real question remains, is our children learning?
Wilbur: Says Intelligent Design is superstition
No, not superstition, just the opposite of science.
A lot of scientists do believe that there’s an “intelligent designer” behind all the natural phenomena they observe, but most of them realize that this belief has nothing to do with science, and so they keep it out of the science classroom.
I’m not against the idea of “Intelligent Design”, I’m just against the idea of presenting it as science. I’m against the idea of telling kids that there’s a point beyond which we need not investigate because there’s no possible natural explanation.
Where would we be if Thales had said to himself “no need to look into why eclipses happen. There’s no way that there’s a natural explanation for that!”
OW and most leftists have zero understanding of conservatives. They assume all conservatives are christian fundamentalists. We are not. We are all over the map.
As to intelligent design. I’m not aChristian but I do not sneer at Christians, or other believers. They have “faith” that at some point there is divine intervention and/or guidance. Many believe that that intervention may be in the form of some science. I don’t believe that but they do. And until I can explain where the uninverse ends, where it came from, when time begin, infinity, and answer many other unanswerables, I, again, do not sneer . Some people have faith there is something called a god, with the attendent powers etc a ‘god’ would have. Others have ‘faith’ there is no God, working by intelligent design or otherwise. I’m more in the latter camp. But nobody can ‘prove’ anybody wrong here. Mostly, the atheistic believers enjoy sneering at the deistic believers.
Dugger
Let me know when ID supporters start providing biological, chemical, geological, astronomical, and other falsifiable scientific evidence rather than bypassing the scientific process and merely publishing to the general public.
That will happen right after “believers” in the theory of Evolution do the same.
Let me ask you a question: What is “falsifiable scientific evidence”? Don’t tell me to look it up. I won’t. You used the term. Define it, or I will assume you don’t know what it means.
Wilbur:
Frank says this is not a good place [better?] for debate, but that s plainly a copout. You can debate four or five people, answer every one of their points and make every one of yours.
Isn’t that cute? I make a point — four of you answer it. Then I answer each of yours. Sounds like “One, two, three, four” for me; “One” for you.
There’s that legendary left – wing level playing field again, eh, Wilbur?
Frank says this is not a good media [sic] for debate, but that’s plainly a copout. This is an excellent medium for debate. This is the one forum where you _can_ debate four or five people, answer every one of their points and make every one of yours. Nobody’s going to shout you down, interrupt you or pull your mike. The questions aren’t canned and preapproved, and no screeners are going to edit your comments into easily-refuted pablum. If you’re really interested in free and open debate, then the internets [sic] is the places to be.
Frank should just admit that like most conservatives he only likes to give lipservice to free and open debate. He’s really interested in nothing of the sort.
“Despite ID sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as “Intelligent Design Theory”, it is not recognized as a scientific theory and has been categorized by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience. The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Not that that should convince anyone, Lord knows we are not supposed to believe anything that doesn’t strictly follow the “bible’s stories”.
Yeah, all those scientific journals where scientists publish and debate ideas are just a myth.
Evidence that can demonstrate that an idea is wrong. Please tell me how you demonstrate that God is not responsible for something?
I’d be happy to discuss the issues here with any number of folks on your side. Ain’t my fault if they’re not chiming in. Anyhow, you _have_ responded (weakly, imho) to most of our statements, and it hasn’t killed you. So, what are you complaining for? Oh, I know: so that when your arguments are made to look silly you can rationalize it by saying “they ganged up on me!”
Mostly, the atheistic believers enjoy sneering at the deistic believers.
I only sneer at deistic believers when they try to slip deistic indoctrination into our classrooms and call it “science”, which it isn’t.
For someone who complains about “sneering” you certainly do a lot of sneering at “leftists”, Dugger, along with plenty of invidious generalizations.
See, Frank, here’s Dugger comin in on your side; that playing field’s getting leveller by the minute. Eeek! they’re ganging up on us! Help us, Darwin, help us!!!
Wilbur,
“invidious generalizations.”
Like that! Very articul — uhh — smart *ss.
But, to use a phrase often hurled at moi, are you moving the goalposts. Is then the concern not with the rationality or logic of the theory of intelligent design or even deism but it being taught in the classroom (by which, I assume you mean as if it were co-equal fact)? if so and if by class room you mean science as opposed to asurvey of religion or social theorues, then I agree. I definitely would not teach intelligent design as science and would not let one scientific effort be held up for intelligent design considerations. Intelligent design is ultimately spiritual and that is a matter of faith or the lack of faith.
And I’m not sure Darwin will help you. If I were an “intelligent designer”, I just argue that God designed Darwinism. Its God’s way of making something happen he/she wants to happen.
Dugger
Dugger, I’m very glad to know you wouldn’t want ID taught in the science classroom. You and I agree, then. But do you realize that there is a large and powerful movement to do just that? That this movement has succeded in numerous school districts, and that even the President of the United States has spoken out in favor of it?
If you do realize that, perhaps you will join me in speaking out against it the next time the subject arises, rather than engaging in enabling equivocations.
As for the “rationality and logic of the theory” I can’t rule out the notion that there is some kind of clockmaker behind the clockwork of the universe. Nor, in my opinion, can anyone else. But I have never seen an application of this “theory” to any specific natural phenomenon that amounts to anything more than a variation on Frank’s puerile jape about the self-constructing jetliner. Every argument for “Intelligent Design” I’ve seen boils down to “I can’t imagine how this occurred by natural processes, so some supernatural process must be at work.” That sort of thinking is the antithesis of science.
Wilbur,
I’m in Cobb County, Ga., the supposed epicenter of said movement and it didn’t work here. Its laughed at in many areas. It failed.
As far as speaking out against ‘it’, whats ‘it’. You are unclear when you are talking about the pure religious concept or its teaching as an academic (science) discipline. I have no problem with Christians believing in intelligent design. Its their way of trying to explain the unexplainable. But its not science. Otherwise, I don’t like looking down on people because of their religious beliefs – which is often how a discussion of intelligent design goes. As far as your statement of Frank’s example, I didn’t quite get that that was what he was saying – but thats his case to make.
Don’t actually think we disagree that much, in theory. Keep it out of science.
Dugger
Wilbur — You are just plain wrong. The Intelligent Design theory doesn’t boil down to anything like your oversimplification. Intelligent Design says quite simply that there are too many incredibly complex organisms, bodily organs and functions, too may complex symbiotic relationships, and too many complicated ecosystems to be explained away by chance. That is not at all the same thing as saying “Duh, me no understand, must be – um magic biosphere God!”
If any theory requires blind faith it is Darwinism: changes take place over eons – or maybe generations; learned adaptations may be passed on genetically (shades of Lysenko!); moths turning gray and white and black almost simultaneously in the Engish countryside; men’s nipples; so many vestigial organs never shrink, but feet turn into fins; bats fly; penguins don’t — and don’t forget nature’s freak show — Australia, complete with more species of poisonous snakes than any other continent. Now there’s a connection!
Yes, if, as one theory suggests, genes use animals to replicate themselves, then, by George, given enough time, a 747, full of chimpanzees typing Shakespeare will appear in a junkyard. Maybe they’ll re – write the ending of The Fugitive.
You want scientifobabble? Try Punctuated Equilibrium.
You want a little science?
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Behe.htm
I believe in an omnipresent invisible God who looks a little like Santa Claus. This all-powerful deity hears my individual prayers and the prayers of billions of others like me. Of course he filters out prayers of those who are unlike me, such as gays, lesbians, islamofascists, feminazis and Hollywood movie actors. Obviously there is a God, evidenced by every beautiful sunset, powerful earthquake, and swirling tornado. With such compelling evidence I am certain God had a hand in evolution too, and should be given credit for coming up with it.
buma: I don’t believe you exist… But you do
It’s not my idea: It’s “preached” on many a Nature show.
Several of Behe’s examples have been explained since he started writing his books. Ultimately, not being able to understand how something works today does not demonstrate that it does not occur. Behe needs to provide a biological mechanism that limits change rather than arguing there’s some details that are currently too complicated for us to understand…so God must’ve done it.
By the way, natural selection, genetic shift, and other evolutionary mechanisms are not “chance.” Chance plays a part in some aspects of evolution, such as what mutations may develop, but any changes that take place are obviously dependent on the biological material that already exists.
Additionally, I have no idea where you got the idea that “learned adaptations may be passed on genetically.” Do you have a source on this?
But any changes that take place are obviously dependent on the biological material that already exists.
Which is pretty like saying, “You can’t make something out of nothing.” But how does it happen? That’s where the chance part comes in.
Intelligent Design says quite simply that there are too many incredibly complex organisms, bodily organs and functions, too may complex symbiotic relationships, and too many complicated ecosystems to be explained away by chance.
Frank, can you explain to me how this is any different from saying “I can’t imagine how these complex phenomena arose by natural processes, therefore some supernatural process must be involved”?
No, it’s not, since evolutionary theory does not claim that such a thing occurs. Learned adaptations cannot be passed genetically. Anything learned will have to be re-taught and re-learned by the next generation.
Heh-indeedy:
http://www.reasongonemad.com/columns/2005/1002evolution.asp
By the way, that Guinness commercial rocks. My kids love it too.
Wilbur: Because you are using the word “imagine.” And, when I say “they cannot be explained away by chance,” I am implying, “If it is too complicated for ‘chance,’ and it is not some ‘supernatural process’,” then it remains unexplained,i.e., by Darwinism. Therefore, Darwinism is a poor “theory”, indeed (because it explains so little).
JWG: There are countless examples of language like, “The Mother ______, or Father______, teaches his / her young how to ______”, because it is inconvenient to explain how these talents show up in the next generation, virtually without fail.
Language like “Nature provides the ______ with ______, so it can ______, to attempt to explain how the species has acquired attributes in some unknown (supernatural, maybe, Wilbur?) way.
This argument is nothing more than, “If there’s anything that can’t currently be explained then the entire idea is worthless.” I’m wondering about what your thoughts are on atomic theory? There’s certainly much we don’t understand about the nature of atomic and subatomic particles. And our understanding of cellular activity is not complete, so I guess we shouldn’t trust medical science.
Look…the current Nobel Prize winners in medicine provide a perfect example of how real science works. It was commonly believed that ulcers were caused by stress. Marshall and Warren argued against this view for years by accumulating evidence, publishing their results, and debating the findings. By using evidence they were able to win over the scientific community. They didn’t resort to using the legal system to force their views into the public sphere. The ID movement needs to provide testable hypotheses which produce results supporting their arguments. So far, what few scientific hypotheses they have advanced have failed. Most of their arguments are merely philosophical criticisms of evolution.
JWG: If you’re wondering what my thoughts are on atomic theory, you can keep on wondering. I know there are questions about atomic theory, but what is already known is observable and repeatable, unlike evolution, which is neither.
Their is no reason Intelligent Design should meet standards evolution has yet to meet.
Finally, how long do you think it will be before medical schools teach that ulcers are not stress – related (choose one):
a) Six months
b) 1 year
c) At least 5 years
I say c)
In case you’re wondering how I know: up until 19 years ago, medical schools were teaching substance abuse for eight hours. Has it changed yet? I don’t know.
The head of the Counseling Department [Graduate level] (Pastoral Counseling and Marriage Family Therapy) told us a few weeks ago that “50% of marriages end in divorce”, which I learned 11 years ago was a totally inaccurate interpretation of statistics (my Sociology of the Family Professor was a demographer).
So, even “scientists” keep getting it wrong.
You’ve seen an atom? How about an electron? Surely, you must have seen radioactive decay?
Do you know anything about what questions biologists ask about evolution and how they test their hypotheses? Are you claiming that there is a vast conspiracy in which thousands of scientists secretly ignore how science is normally applied in favor of advancing a non-scientific concept?
Frank, your misunderstanding of how evolutionary theory fits within the scientific process demonstrates why ID proponents bypass the scientific community in favor of the non-scientific public. ID can get away with proposing unscientific ideas without worrying about any critical analysis.
Frank, I avoided insulting you even though your knowledge about science very poor. I asked you about the atom because you claim that atomic theory is different than evolutionary theory on the basis of observability. It is, in fact, not different. Not all evidence is directly observable. That was the point.
So, do you think there is a massive conspiracy by scientists to promote a non-scientific concept, since you argue that evolution theory is not based on scientific evidence?
JWG, you avoided insulting me, and then insulted me?
The answer to your question is no.
I told you, I will not entertain you any further. “Not all evidence is directly observable”? What next? “The sun doesn’t really rise — the Earth revolves and rotates.”
Duh, gee, Dr. Science, you’re so smart!
What was my insult? You made claims about how evolutionary theory is different than other scientific theories. I asked you to expand your criticism based on your example of other theories being “observable and repeatable.”
Now you’re running away. Why?