It’s time to fight for progress against those who want to send us into the dark ages
The film’s title might suggest that it’s an attack on intelligent design, but it is actually quite the opposite. With a large dose of humor, Olson explores the shortcomings of both sides.
“Flock of Dodos” audiences laugh at the expense of Olson’s own evolutionist friends. While the evolutionists are playing poker and calling intelligent design proponents “yahoos” and “idiots,” he turns the evolutionists into animated dodos, the extinct, flightless birds that were known for their lack of grace. He also shows examples of extraordinarily unintelligent design, like the fact that rabbits have to eat their own feces to absorb enough nutrients from food.
“The ID movement suffers from being based on the advocates’ own intuition. It tells them that all things are designed, but they don’t have a scientific way to demonstrate it,” Olson said. Still, he said intelligent design advocates are far better communicators than evolutionists.
“Natural selection teaches us that when an environment changes, the species that don’t change with it run the risk of extinction. The media environment in the United States has changed drastically,” Olson said. Intelligent design advocates understand the rules of new media, but evolutionary scientists are “a huge flock of dodos when it comes to communications,” he said.
I call ‘em as I see ‘em, and this is not about fairies. You are only indicating to me that a) You don’t understand the significance of the article, and b) You don’t know the first thing about intelligent design, except for the evolutionists’ view, which is kind of like asking communists to explain capitalism to children.
Anti – evolution has its own history, going back in my personal memory, to 1973, before punctuated equilibrium (a theory used and discarded, to attempt to respond to the problem described by me above), before Darwin on Trial, and well before Intelligent Design.
It is not about fairies; it’s about holes in Darwin’s theory. Which is not to say that it can’t be taught. It is, however, safe to say that it will be found to be wrong one day.
Frank, it shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but science isn’t determined by who “campaigns better”. It is determined by the study of actual nature, formulating and testing hypotheses as to how that natural system behavies, and using the one which best fits the observable world to go on and try to expand to a larger understanding. It is the ID Creationists who don’t seem to understand this, who think that they can win by “campaigning”, which is unfortunately relatively easy to do because we have far too many under-educated and scientifically illiterate people in this country to whom the idea that “we came from apes” (actually, humans and apes share a common ancestry if you go back far enough – the quote is another one of those marketing oversimplifications that help to sell ID snake oil) just sounds *icky*. The fact that you find some timelines of more than 10 millennia to be disturbing does not make your unease a scientific argument.
And BTW it is the IDers who are using the Judiciary to fight their battles for them, not the scientists. Attempting to define evolutionary theory as “just another religion” via legalistic gobbledygook so that they can then wedge their religious ideas under a supposed rubric of “fairness”. They also frequently poop on the concept of representative democracy by putting up “stealth” candidates for school boards and such who run on general platforms with the intention of getting ID in the schools as soon as their butts hit the board room seats. So when the people of Dover PA voted resoundingly to throw the ID bums out of their school boards, was that a “fair fight”?
Would you debate people who believe in fairies? There’s no equivalency when it comes to basic science. Sorry, this is far more concrete than Republicans vs. Democrats. I love the irony of an ID-supporter saying that there are basic problems with evolution.
It s a hard case to make because there are problems with the basic theory.
No, Frankie. It’s because evolution, like most of science, is complex and requires an audience that is educated enough to understand certain terms and concepts. It’s like calculus–if you don’t have firm grasp of the underlying mathematics, algebra, and trig—your eyes will glaze over and you’ll never get it.
That’s the appeal of ID and why it attracts so many GOPers. GOPers don’t like complexity and they have limited attention spans. It’s much easier to say that some worm is very complex and therefore it must have been created by some higher being than to actually do the scientific heavy lifting associated with the scientific process of actually finding out.
I’d remind you, Frankie, that gravity is a theory. There are things we don’t quite understand or know about gravity.
Not the old, “We’re supposed to win, but they campaign better” routine. Where have I heard that before?
The reason the evolution case is hard to communicate is because it’s a hard case to make. It’s a hard case to make because there are problems with the basic theory.
Most people don’t have a problem with the idea that living things can and do evolve. At, least, I don’t. My problem is and has been with time. 100,000 years to do this, 65,000,000 years to do this. Sometimes the timelines are unbelievable, hence, not believed. That’s just one problem.
There are others. But they are not in the area of public relations. Instead of getting the Judiciary to fight their battles for them, evolutionists should engage the Intelligent Design people instead of dismissing them, before people start asking why evolutionists can’t defeat ID’ers “in a fair fight.”
Again, Frank, evolution is not a debatable thing. It isn’t like so much other politics. It is. The fact that you would equate evolution to communism shows the limitations of the conservative mind as it deals with science. This isn’t some ideology one debates the merits of.
JadeGold: I’ll remind you, junior, that you have no reason to call me Frankie. Each time you do, I will no longer respond.
Grow up or get lost. If you can’t be respectful, you don’t deserve my attention.
Rheinhard: I regret to inform you that you are incorrect. It was the anti – Id people who brought that case to court. The ID people wanted it taught in school. The judge, in a pretense of self – righteousness and outrage such as I have never seen in my passing knowledge of court decisions (a few hundred, maybe) decided that Intelligent Design was a “thin veneer” for Creationism, and, I guess, fearing that the idea that God created the world might damage the minds of little children (in a way that I’ll bet he would never think sex education would), played philosopher, educator, and biologist all in one. What next, will he leap over the court house in a single bound?
Secondly, it was my point exactly that science is not determined by who campaigns better. But that was, as far as I could tell, Oliver’s point. My point was clear:
The reason for the “campaign mode” on the part of ID’ers, I think (I don’t know, because I’m not in the campaign), is because some of them want a “fair fight.” There may be some who want to sneak “creationism in ID clothing” into the schools, but why? It couldn’t hide too long, if they tried to take it a step further, and certainly not if ID itself is “about fairies.”
No one is teaching Adam and Eve here. By the same token, no one has come up with a good answer to the question, “What was happening before the ‘Big Bang’?”
That is a good question. What does it have to do with evolution?
“It is not about fairies; it s about holes in Darwin s theory. Which is not to say that it can t be taught. It is, however, safe to say that it will be found to be wrong one day.”
Frank, even if it’s true that there are “holes” in Darwin’s Theory that doesn’t mean that Intelligent Design is true or even makes any sense. Even if the theory of evolution collapsed from massive failures and assumptions in its own proofs, it wouldn’t give one iota of weight to the ID argument. In short, you can’t prove that ID is right by proving that Darwin was wrong. On its own, ID can point to absolutely zero empirical, observable, testable evidence that supports its claim that an all powerful being created the universe and everything in it. That would be zip, nada, nothing offered to back up its central claim. Sounds like fairies to me.
If you can t be respectful, you don t deserve my attention.
Thanks for laugh, Frank_D.
Frank, please answer this question. Why has the ID argument suddenly reared its head in the public debate arena? Since Darwin’s original hypothesis to the current time, all evidence uncovered by geologists and biologists has only confirmed the the theory of evolution, not the opposite.
We get a Republican majority running the political show, and look what happens. A fringe group of scienctists gets a louder voice than they deserve. This is followed by a highly uninformed populace debating something it knows very little about. Eventually, the collective ignorance of Americans blossoms (starting in Kansas, of course).
Frank, this isn’t a political topic, and evolutionists could care less if anyone believes in God. I have determined from my own reading of the topic that scientists who support evolution have no religious agenda. They’re just presenting the facts and the obvious conclusion that should be drawn from studying them.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Personally I don’t like the term “intelligent design” being used as a substitute for belief in God in the first place. The only apparent reason for this is so that belief in creation can be taught without violating the First Amendment. Teaching it belongs in the home and in Sunday school class but not in the public school.
Fuming, if the first word of your comment is directed at an individual who has said nothing to you or about you, and it is disrespectful, that is about as disrespectful as a comment can get. It is an annoying practice that Jadegold has directed at me for a long time, despite my protests.
He also done the same thing on this thread to other posters, and on other threads, he has been threatened with being banned for it. He has made remarks about my family members, my personal character and personality, things, which since he couldn’t possibly know anything about them, were designed to be belittling and mean – spirited. I’ve simply had enough.
Frank, even if it s true that there are holes in Darwin s Theory that doesn t mean that Intelligent Design is true or even makes any sense.
Taken by itself, your statement is correct. However, there are many other areas of science, including biology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc., where there is disagreement as to “how things work.”
It seems in the case of evolution, it has taken on the form of dogma (we’ve all seen nature shows where the narrator explains that “Over millions of years, fish walked up on land, and then millions of years later, went back to the sea” while we’re looking at whale like creatures with colored skins — as if you can tell that from fossils. Then there’s the ‘Mother Nature’ endowed the _______ with ___________ so it could _____,” without explaining how it could have happened; about the same way Billy Graham would say, “And Jesus cured the lepers.”)
Now, I don’t know about Creationists, or all ID’ers, but I would like to have a lot more questions answered, before I treat evolution as a fact.
Were the dinosaurs made extinct by a huge meteor hitting the Yucatan Peninsula, or was it because of Gary Larson’s theory that they smoked too much?
If the Earth (or maybe it’s the Universe, I don’t remember) has existed 3 billion years, then supposedly, if the Earth existed for 24 hours, man has only been here, what, a minute or something? Something’s out of whack.
I suppose it’s that I just “don’t understand,” but that’s not likely after all the time I’ve spent reading about it, and watching TV shows, and specials and what not, and having read several books on anti – Darwinian arguments that only included ID as a small part of the problem.
And HE’S a doctor!
Pedro, I’m with you on this. I know evolution has flaws, but at least the scientific method can be applied to it. ID doesn’t work that way.
Why has the ID argument suddenly reared its head in the public debate arena?
As I mentioned above, evolution is often treated like dogma. I also mentioned that I’ve been interested in this subject since 1973, long before the “Republicans were in power.” It may be related to the Christian ‘backlash’: Rightly or wrongly, many Christians feel that their religious beliefs are threatened by political forces: People who say public expressions of religion are forbidden, the ‘attack on Christmas’, and, of course, the legalization of abortion (which, in their eyes, allows babies to be killed). Now, they’re “fighting back” in any way thay can.
But (there’s always a “but”)
http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln7_0211.html
This is a very simple argument actually.
Intelligent design can’t be tested. Therefore it is not a scientific theory. Therefore it should not be taught in science classes.
End of story.
Frank –
Criticizing the oversimplified narrations of nature shows designed for general audience consumption doesn’t even come close to valid or substantative skepticism. Indeed, show me a nature show that anthropomorphizes natural selection in the way that you describe — “ Mother Nature endowed …” — and I’ll show you a program aimed at children and the simple minded. And as you are so fond of reminding us, Frank, you are an old, old man.
The nice thing about my argument is that it doesn’t belittle anyone’s viewpoint, it simply points out the fact that one theory is testable, and another isn’t.
I can respect a persons opinion, but still maintain a standard that I want testable theories taught in a science class.
Old, maybe, but not old, old! And I was talking about PBS’s Nature; Discovery, etc., not Saturday morning kiddie fare… It’s a common usage, not just for children. And this is not what justifies my skepticism. This is what makes me worry about what think evolution is actually about. This makes me wonder if anybody is skeptical about evolution but ID.
Wilbur says, “There have been, and will continue to be, problems and questions about every evolutionary theory that will ever be produced.”
My challenge to all of you believers in evolution is this: Name a “problem” with evolution, or a “question” which has not been raised by ID’er. I know of one, right off the bat, but none of you know any. That bothers me.
Further, an Intelligent Designer may noit be supernatural, or unnatural. You’ve heard the story of the bacteria with the screw type tail that ID’ers point to as evidence? Well, evolutionists say, “Someday we’ll figure out he does that.”
ID’ers are simply saying, “We’ll find out who made it happen.”
Frank, there have been, and will continue to be, problems and questions about every evolutionary theory that will ever be produced.
But it is _not_ a valid scientific alternative to posit that some things have no natural explanation, which is what ID does. Science is the business of finding natural explanations. If there are things that have no natural explanation science can’t say anything about them.
Listen to Pedro. He’s right for once.
‘ ID ers are simply saying, We ll find out who made it happen. ‘
Not these IDers Frank:
“What if life really is designed and truly has purpose?What then for science? If so, then religion not only deserves a place at the table, it may deserve to be at the head.”
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
So religious authority wants to reassert itself in a scary modern world by dressing up a weak metaphysics as science? No thank you.
It is a fact that species evolve over time. That’s as certain as any other fact you would care to name. You seem to suggest that accepting the simple, basic facts of the world makes me some kind of mindless slave to science. Please. If you want to argue that the Bible offers a literal explanation of existence, fine, but don’t try to do it in science class. It has no place there. The attempt to push ID into science curriculums is a pure power play by people frightened of modernity, frightened of free thought, frightened of a cold universe devoid of meaning except the meaning we give it during our short time here.
When you take away all the half-assed, uninformed attacks on evolution, all ID boils down to is this: Of all the creatures in the world only man can design anything as complex as a camera and the human eye is even more complex than a camera so it follows that a being even more intelligent than man designed the human eye. That’s not science, Frank, it’s not even empiricism. It’s rank amateur philosophy, at best.
That really pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? It’s like arguing about medicine with someone who says “If the heart pumps blood (or maybe it’s the liver, I don’t remember), …” There’s really no point in continuing to argue with someone who knows so little about what he’s arguing against.
I was happy, though, to see a reference to what’s now being called The Church of the Butt Propeller.
The nice thing about my argument is that it doesn t belittle anyone s viewpoint, it simply points out the fact that one theory is testable, and another isn t.
I can respect a persons opinion, but still maintain a standard that I want testable theories taught in a science class.
To coin a phrase, DrP, AMEN, BROTHA!
ID is not science, its philosophy, as the filmmaker’s mother nobly pointed out. As such it should not be compared side by side with scientific principles.
If it is stealth Creationism, it violate the seperation of church and state and should not be taught in state-funded public schools.
I don’t care what anyone else says about you, Dr.P, you’re a reasonable guy (on most things)
Frank :Name a problem with evolution, or a question which has not been raised by ID er.
Dude, what’s with the Platypus?
“I can respect a persons opinion …”
That’s hilarious, Pedro, hilarious.
Listen, if someone wants to believe that God created the world, fine. I can respect that. Whatever gets you through the night. But that is not the kind of respect that IDers are after. In the IDers mind, Pedro, your standard of proof is more than disrespectful, it’s down right tyranny because it rejects outright the basic, fundamental claims of their argument which is, again, little more than a brand of continental rationalism. IDers are trapped in their own metaphors. They see a complex cell and describe it as a machine. From there they assert that since only intelligent beings design complex machines that a cell must therefore have been designed by an intelligent being. I can respect faith but I can’t respect this kind of reasoning. Can you?
Look, you’re all saying the same thing, and I’m saying something else.
And I’m not the one who thinks the world is scary; you’re the ones that are afraid of the responsibility of religious belief.
Just think: If God did make the world, now look at what I have to do — behave myself, not live impulsively / hedonistically, care about that others — not me, no sir.
frameone, I already said that there are anti – Darwinists, creationists and Intelligent Desisn believers. Even I don’t believe what those authors in the Bioethics Quartely are talking about. I don’t need ID to put religion in my life. I already have spirituality, which does that for me.
Bob Munck: I don’t run off and do research to write these comments.
Since you’re an evolution expert, here are three easy questions:
1) How long ago was “the Big Bang”?
2) How long ago was the earth able to support life (or when did life first appear on earth)
3) How long was the Pre – Cambrian era?
If I’m supposed to have information like that at my fingertips, why not you.
As for the platypus, it is better evidence for “survival at random” that practically any other species on earth (another example is the sea horse that changes from male to female to fertilize eggs). By and large, however, evolution draws impossibly direct lines from the past to the present, with few, if any, errors, no mistakes, no maladaptations.
This so – called “progress” was the way I was introduced to the anti – evolution movement — I saw a paper on a man’s desk: Evolution Defies the Second Law of Motion (know that one offhand, Mr. Munck?), and I was hooked.
nope, but I think religion is a bit of a crutch too.
However, I like to be able to give a dispassionate, consistent reason for my beliefs. So I don’t care WHAT the subject is, if it isn’t possible to test a hypothesis (whether or not we are able to test it now or not) then it doesn’t belong in a real science class.
I don’t have to belittle peoples beliefs in order to say that. In my mind it is very much common sense and consistent with “science”
God figured we could handle it on our own after we ate of the Tree of Knowledge and discovered what Good and Evil were.
We’ve been operating on free will since then.
I think I’ll use my God-given free will and order some Chinese food for dinner tonight.
oh believe me, I have no illusions that I have friends here.
The democrats talk about a “big tent”, but much as with “caring” about minorities, it is all lip service…..
I’d like to add that I recall learning about “phlogiston” in chemistry, Galvani’s error in theorizing why the frog’s leg jumped in Physics, and other theories and hypotheses that preceded the truth in certain areas.
I strongly suspect that because Intelligent Design is viewed strictly as a Trojan Horse for religion, it has the secularists in a tizzy.
Many people who push the “wall of separation between Church and state” as if the wall separates the church from the state, but doesn’t separate the state from the church, act as if (unlike frameone, I don’t accuse people I know nothing about of being afraid) they’re afraid that the church is out to “get them”, or someone, I’m not sure who. But there is definitely an attitude of, “Don’t let that religion come around here!”
That’s new, in my lifetime. Things weren’t like that until, guess when? The late 60’s! Surprise, surprise!
And I love the way no one calls Dr. Pedro Dr. Peedro, now that he’s on the “right side.” Wait until the next thread, Doc.
Pfui, the second version says “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Maybe moderation is triggered by length of message. I’ll try a tiny bit of it:
1) 14 Billion Years. I m not sure what the current uncertainty is, but I think it s about ± 2 billion. Might be less.
2) 500 million years ago.
3) 4 billion years.
All answers solely off the top of my head, no google, no looking at any other materials whatsoever. I m a 60-year-old software engineer, not an evolution expert. I read Scientific American and similar publications. Don t you? There s a certain amount of basic knowledge you need to be a functioning adult in a technological society.
Man I didn’t want to get sucked into this….
I think actually the second law of thermodynamics says that things tend to proceed to entropy without the addition of energy.
Life and evolution requires a LOT of energy….
Wait a minute, “Evolution Defies the Second Law of Motion ?!? No it doesn’t. That doesn’t even make any sense. Could your apparent sudden insight have been about The Second Law of Thermodynamics? (No wonder I flashed back to my thermo courses.) That claim has been made, but only by people who don’t have a clue what the 2nd Law is.
Wow, you mix up the laws of motion with the laws of thermodynamics. That’s serious ignorance.
Big Bang — 15 billion years
Earth formed about 4 and one – half billion years ago.
PreCambrian lasted 4 billion years.
We just “got here”:
John McPhee, in his book Basin and Range, recounts a nice illustration of what this sort of time means. Stand with your arms held out to each side and let the extent of the earth’s history be represented by the distance from the tips of your fingers on your left hand to the tips of the fingers on your right. Now, if someone were to run a file across the fingernail of your right middle finger, then the time that humans have been on the earth would be erased.
I tossed a coin on that one, Munck, Motion won over Thermodynamics. Sorry about that. Nonetheless, it does refer to the idea that the Universe is in a state of entropy, not progressive improvement.
While you were quick to point out my errors (good liberal that you are), you haven’t answered the three questions.
I’ll be back in less than 15 minutes with the answers. See if you can beat me.
Humm, strange, I did answer your questions, with a long post at 7:46 pm. Then I did the short one at 8:01. The first post says “awaiting moderation” on my copy of the page, but the second one doesn’t. It sounds like you got the second but not the first. Strange are the ways of WordPress. I wonder if you’ll see this post.
I made it back a lot sooner than 15 minutes.
That’s serious ignorance, Munck.
BTW, Dr. P, that’s where the entropy comes in. How does life improve without input or stimulus?
1) I’m not sure what you mean by “improve.” If you’re using the word to imply progress from simple to complex, then most life on earth is not improved (bacteria). As far as multicellular organisms are concerned, many species of parasites are actually more “primative” than their ancestors, so “improvement” shouldn’t imply more complexity. Additionally, some organisms “improve” by becoming more specialized, while others are more successful as they become more generalized.
2) The sun provides more than enough energy for the earth, so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. Parts of the universe can become more ordered while other parts change toward disorder.
3) I wonder if you can accept natural explanations for non-living phenomena such as snowflakes, stalagtites, and sand dunes becoming more ordered, or do you look for ID to explain that as well?
1) I wonder what the Intelligent Designer was waiting for?
2) Maybe humans are just a good, long living host for the multitudes of different organisms that inhabit our bodies. It took the designer a while to design a host that could withstand various elements for decades to carry His favored creatures.
I could swear I learned something about a crazy notion called “extinction,” but maybe I’m just confused.
Read some Stephen J Gould for cryin’ out loud!
…and not just his quotations, but at least several of his books.
Second Law of Thermodynamics? Pfft. Earth — as a closed biological system — has been receiving massive amounts of energy from the sun for four-point-three billion years; additional energy is input from radioactive decay of earth’s heavy metals.
I guess the Chinese philosopher was right: The more we know… the more we see we don’t know.
“Direct lines” only because any organism is linked to the past by parent-child relationships; how could it be anything but direct lines? However, there are billions of lines that branch off and … terminate. Billions of mistakes, billions of errors, billions of maladaptations.
The salient point is that every time there’s a branch (split) in a line, there are copies, maybe millions of copies, of each side of the branch. The viability of both forms is tested many, many times as they multiply through many generations. If one or both branches aren’t viable — can’t compete — they don’t survive and that line dies out. (But they might split off a line that can survive before going extinct.)
In 500 million years, there’s time for a lot of generations. That’s 20 million human generations, and most organisms have much shorter generations than we do (days, weeks, or months rather than decades). Proponents of ID are basically unable or unwilling to understand this, so they declare that it can’t be true. That’s the basic postulate of ID.
Oh, but its so much fun to hear them think theyre using actual science when they say it, pretending theyre all growed up, using big people words they dont really understand. “Second Law of Thermodynamics” god thats just so CUTE of them!
Since not that many people actually read and study the Bible, they don’t actually know that there are two different creation stories — one in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and another in Genesis 2:4 – 25.
Some folks of a particular persuasion try to paper over the differences, and at least one translation of the Bible actually combines the two into a single story. While I don’t agree with the theology of the Worldwide Church of God, this article on their website provides one of the best analyses that I have seen of Genesis and the creation stories. Michael Morrison, the author, says:
This is exactly the mistake that the supporters of “Intelligent Design” make when they attempt to redefine science to include supernatural causes and give credibility to a non-existent scientific controversy about evolutionary theory. Morrison anticipated just this sort of action when he said:
For those on both sides of this issue, I highly recommend Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller, a devout Catholic and a professor of biology at Brown University. Miller clearly and irrefutably rebuts every “theory” of creation science through a systematic and even-handed examination of the evidence. He also shows how creation science is bankrupt of ideas, both as science and as an expression of Christian faith.
Ultimately, the question is not how human beings came about, but how we use our gift of life. For me, it doesn’t matter if humans evolved from something else. Humanity is still set apart, something special. As humans, our consciences tell us right from wrong. We feel love and compassion. We have minds that can discover and understand new ideas and concepts. As a result, we and we alone are responsible for our actions, and we must answer to God for the choices we make.
Finally, as a Christian I just don’t understand those who want to use the coercive power of the state to indoctrinate our students with a warped and cartoonish view of our Creator. Our God is an awesome and powerful God, and He doesn’t need any help from our government.
You guys have been busy, huh?
Thank you all very much. I feel very ignorant now. And no Mr. Munck, I don’t read Scientific American, or similar publications “to be a functioning adult in a technological society”. I function just fine. There’s a saying, “I don’t have to be a chicken to scramble an egg.”
As far as “knowing the most obvious things about the fusion processes needed to produce elements like iron and the time it takes for a star to cycle through them and go supernova”, you are kidding right? You don’t really think that is common knowledge, do you? I hate to think about what you do for fun.
The basic postulate of ID is not that ID’ers are too stupid to understand evolution. That’s the most ridiculous of all the arguments that claim to refute ID. “If only they were as smart as I, they would understand the complexities of this sophisticated theory that popped into a man’s head on a visit to an isolated island.” Yeah, that’s it.
It’s not about religion, or God, either, as I pointed out above, It’s about order, hence the name Intelligent Design, not creation.
One question I have always had is what happens when a particular “skill” or “talent” doesn’t replicate itself? That’s it, right? Or does it reappear a zillion years later? There should have been primates popping up all over the place… trees and dinosaurs evolving together, cockroaches and cockatoos, etc. Not one thing, then an improved thing, then another improved thing, another improved thing, until, lo and behold, cro – magnon knocks neanderthal’s larger brains out, and here we are!
Interestingly, only 30 or 40 years ago, it was hypothesized that neanderthal still survived, then it was theorized that they interbred with cro – magnon, and finally a few years ago — just a few years ago — it was decided by the scientists that neanderthals were wiped out by the smart Frenchmen from the south.
What about tomorrow? I am absolutely sure that evolution is an artifact of the Enlightenment. As we advance away from it, evolution will be found to be an unsophisticated stab at explaining what really happened. As Feynman said (I paraphrase) about quantum physics,”We’re looking at one corner of a chessboard that is lit, while the rest of the board is in darkness. Pieces come in out of the square, and we have yet to figure out the pattern, let alone make a prediction.”
Me being smarmy:
An Inteligent design that does not necessite the existence of the designer, right? A designer that would have to be all powerful, knowing, and have a consciousness, yeah? And is not necessarily a God figure? Wow, that makes so very very much sense. Thank you for exposing me to the light of sense, good sir.
Ignoring for now the jolly concept of “advancing away from enlightenment,” you’re ignoring the fact that the theory of evolution, as all scientific theories do, has itself evolved over time as new information is entered into the equation. It grows to encompass these things, and the theory changes. Darwin’s specific theory is not what is believed in today, and indeed there is disagreement within ght legitimate scientific community as to what specifically are the finer points of the theory and how other things can be explained, but the entire theory need not be thrown out. It changes, adapting to survive.
Intelligent design (which is like so totally not creationism) does not change, indeed can never change because it is set up in contrast to all scientific experimental theory in that there is no way you could actually prove it wrong. Not because it’s right, but because it doesnt adhere to logic. The Faerie argument above is exactly like this, as there is no objective way to prove or disprove the supernatural. Godsdamnit, thats what supernatural means! This is merely personal opinion, mark you, but comparing a theory that develops over time in adherence to scientific principles, and one that stays rigid in defiancee of them, which do you really think is the “unsophisticated stab at explaining what happened?”
So basically you’re disagreeing with only that tiny part of evolution that Darwin came up with on the few months of the Beagle’s voyage, and not the huge amount of evidence and analysis created by tens of thousands of scientists working for the past few centuries? OK, that seems fair, though it could be said that there was more science in that little bit that Darwin did than in the whole modern ID postulate.
As far as I know, Darwin didn’t do much with probabilities. His thoughts were basically of the form of “this mutation wasn’t very probably, but there were lots of members of the species, so it was likely to happen several times.” A modern geneticist would say something like “this mutation had a probability of 0.003%, but the species existed for 30,000 years over a range of 2 million square miles, so there were about 100 million members of the species and the mutation would have happened about 3,000 times.”
The point that IDers don’t get is that the numbers are big like that. Things that seem so extremely improbably that you view them as impossible are actually likely when the numbers are large enough. 500 million years and a plant and animal population large enough to fill up an entire planet. That’s a lot.
You must have come in late. You missed this above: Intelligent design doesn t go so far as to identify the agent of change, Gonzalez said. It doesn t start with religious assumptions.”
When I was in high school (of the Catholic kind) [1959 -1963 BTWFA*], we learned about something called Mitigated Evolution: the Bible’s days were long periods of time, until man was created, and history was written. God began and oversaw the process of evolution, and as such, was the Creator.
It so happens that that is what I believe, not ID.
That wouldn’t pass muster either, I suppose, because, to fit the secularist nature of the theory of evolution (which is like so totally not anti – religious), God has to exit, appropriately enough, stage left.
*Before The World Fell Apart
I had to comment on Rex’s statement, “Ignoring for now the jolly concept of advancing away from enlightenment.
Surely you don’t think that The Age of Enlightenment is the end of the line in human introspection? Now you’re on my turf.
There’s a sizeable patch of land to the east of Russia, called Asia, where almost half the people in the world live, and most of them have a totally different way from us of viewing the world — without an “Enlightenment”.
The Islamic world thinks differently from us, and we wouldn’t have had a Renaissance (plus Reformation plus Enlightenment) without them. In fact, there wouldn’t have been an America without them. The astrolabe and compass were perfected so that devout Muslims all over the Islamic empire could be sure they were facing Mecca when they prayed. Prince Henry the Navigator taught at his school for explorers following an Islamic model.
And then, of course, there’s the survivalism and animism of Australia’s aborigines, and Africa’s sub – Saharans. Thanks to the Internet, in a
hundred years or so, the period from 1884 to sometime beyond right now — I’m not sure when (it depends on when we finally engage the Islamic world), will be known simply as the Post – Monarchical Era.
The Enlightenment will be a small part of the Asian and African philosophies that drive us. Think big, Rex. The dinosaurs survived 65 million years (you say). Do you think we’re going to make it that long on an “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck,” philosophy? No way.
Marvelous. Thanks for taking the time to point out to me that “different people are different people.” Serves me right for putting in a throwaway line intended to be a joke. Should’ve forseen it’d be used as a focal point when I asked you to ignore it, right? Stupid stupid me…
And as far as Intelligent design doesn t go so far as to identify the agent of change… doesn t start with religious assumptions, thats just plain silly. If you acknowledge that the universe is designed, doesnt it require acknowledging the designer explicitly? As I said, the intelligent design itself wouldnt exist were it not for the Creator of such a design. And, the designer of all things natural would himself have to be greater than it, ergo supernatural, and as such having no place in science class. If the design happened without the designer, coming about randomly or naturally or whatever, then its not actually designed is it? Saying that Intelligent Design, though it cleary requires a God figure to even exist, doesnt explicitly identify God as the designer, is like saying “The arrow hit the target at trajectory such that following it backwards we can see that it came from the precise area of the bow that Robin Hood is holding, and we can see that for the arrow to be there, he must have shot it, though that’s not to say we are specifically identifying him as the bowman.” Seriously, I dont know how else to say it, but ID does require a godlike designer. Any legitimate study (tries really hard not to scoff) of ID would have to include that, and its just flat out wrong to suggest otherwise.
Mr. Munck: I was only saying that if it occurred instictively to Darwin, most intelligent people can figure it out — and / or disagree with it.
The point that IDers don t get is that the numbers are big like that.
Yeah, that’s it. Let’s see if can wrap my puny non – technological mind around a large number. First, .003%. If I remember back to the 8th grade, when I last heard about or saw a percentage (even though I spent 15 years working for the IRS), is 3 one – hundredths of a per cent, or thee over 10,000. Do I have it right so far, Mr. Munck? OK, then we multiply that really, really small percentage by a really, really large number like a bajillion, and we get a smaller number like a zillion. Did I get it right, Mr. Munck, huh, huh, did I? Did I? Puhleeese.
Your turn, Rex:
the designer of all things natural would himself have to be greater than it, ergo supernatural
BZZZT! Wrong! You are playing a semantic game. You are trying to make “greater” equal to “super.*” Obviously — I repeat, obviously — if Intelligent Design were 100% provably correct, then it would be a natural force.
As I said before, an Intelligent Designer would not require worship, obedience, rituals or even right behavior.
The attributes of Intelligent Design could have been generated in the Big Bang.
Thanks for taking the time to point out to me that different people are different people. Serves me right for putting in a throwaway line intended to be a joke.
It’s a common practice for liberals on these threads to make a ridiculous statement,and then, when it is pointed out to them, they pretend it was a joke. First of all, the last paragraph of my post says nothing about “different people being different.” Secondly, you made the statement, not I.
So, wiseguy, since it was a joke, what’s so friggin’ jolly about the concept that we will advance beyond the Enlightenment?
*There’s a riddle that illustrates what you have done: Which is better, unending happiness, or a ham sandwich? Answer: A ham sandwich. Why? Because nothing is better than unending happiness, and a ham sandwich is better than nothing.
I must be some kind of idiot to think its even worth my time to try and talk sense to you. You’re just lucky my time is as worthless as you are.*
Okay, the “Designer” of the Natural Universe must be greater than it. He/She/It would have had to exist before, and likely after the begining and end of it, and have enough power to manifest everything within it, right? So, while they may exist at least partly within the Natural, they must also exist outwise it, right? Well, see, in my book, external to the Natural is what supernatural means. And since my book is a dictionary, you can lick it.
Supernatural (adj.) - 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
See, what it is is that Super- the prefix comes from Superior, which is a synonym for Greater, so yeah, the two words mean the same thing, and I know you’ll find this shocking, but your cute little riddle doesnt relate at all, sorry.
Now, you say that the Designer would not necessarily require worship and such, but the problem is that you cant believe in ID without at least acknowledging him. And acknowledging the existence of a supernatural entity, one who’s existance cannot be proven fully within the natural world, requires an act of faith, belief. Hence, if you think ID is true, then you believe in the existence of the designer. What you believe about him/her/it can be debatable, but you must at least believe he exists, which inherently excludes, for instance, atheism, which is a contrary belief.
As for the second bit, since youre clearly trying to get me into a lengthy discussion about an admittadly stupid attempt at humor on my part, devoting, lets see… seven paragraphs to part of a sentence, the part, you’ll note, I began with the word “Ignore”, which obviously, I repeat Obviously, I didnt want to become a major point of contention, I will instead refrain from discussing it at any unnnecessary… length… dammit, now youve got me going on about it for no good reason. I hope youre happy. Look, fine, I’m done trying to make my case when you wont listen. Read this post or dont, reply or not, whatever, I’m done with you.
*This is an example of ironic insult through simultanoues self-deprication. I’m pointing this out here in case you feel the need to devote seven paragraphs to how cruel and viscious I am, when really I’m only trying to be funny. You must, logically, only take as much offense at it as I do. I take none.
You are indeed the ruler of the mundane — and the redundant and the superfluous. And I’m not trying to be funny.
I think wikipedia’s article can clear a lot of this up.
In short, Frank, you’re arguing that Intelligent Design has a place because there are problems with the theory of evolution. In its stead, you offer ID.
ID, however, does not constitute a scientific theory. It is not:
Consistant: If anything sufficiently complex must have a designer, than that designer is necessarily more complex, and would require a designer. ID makes no allowance for this necessity.
Parimonious: Sparing in its entities and explanations (occam’s razor). Since ID relies on an explanation rather than on fact, it fails.
Useful: describes and explains observed phenomena. In so far as it goes, I suppose one can always explain anything by saying “magic”. Which is what ID does. However, it fails in the extension of this, that the theory be…
Empirically testable and falsifiable: This is the biggest failure of ID. You cannot make any prediction by ID that could, by failing, prove ID false. In fact, you really can’t make a prediction based on ID. It claims it already has all the answers. “Someone” (aka, God) designed everything. Ok, problem solved, next!
Based on multiple observations, preferably in the form of controlled, repeated experiments: Do I need to go into this one? ID comes up with a few examples where they cannot see a “logical” progression to arrive at the end result, and claim that this is sufficient, while ignoring the mountain of observations disproving “intelligent design”. For instance, male nippes and the ridiculously squashed sinuses that humans have, just to name a few…but I digress and it is probably at this point that Frank will base his argument. Just so ya’ll know.
Correctable and dynamic: Well, ID has no need of this, given it already explains everything.
Progressive: acheives everything that previous theories have and more. well, I suppose if you’re willing to buy ID explaining everythig with no further science needed, then you could try and say this…I’d say ID is a bit of a step backward, since it does nothing to explain anything, or be able to predict anything.
Provisional or tentative: Admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty. This is kind of funny, since your average ID’er will claim that it is specifically because they do not claim absolutely to be correct that theories are “flawed”.
So frank, come up with something that fits these criteria, get it peer reviewed by people who are skeptical of the idea. For instance, check out hydrino theory or the possibility of something akin to a “warp drive”. These are disputed, but in a true scientific sense.
You’ll find that if you actually dig into the “peer review” done on ID, they can’t get it published in established journals, so they have to go make their own. Unlike these issues.
This is all old news: It isn’t science because you say it isn’t science. Then you refer to the National Enquirer of encyclopedias.
You did notice, I hope, that all the “supporting” links in the WikiPedia article, were other WikiPedia articles. And you are, I take it, aware that WikiPedia is not a peer reviewed journal, either.
And you were doing so well, for a minute.
Oh, and by the way frank. the logician’s definition of your argument is called the “argument from ignorance”.
Sure, frank. Except for, you know, the notes and references section, where they point to 71 external references for the article, or the external links section, or anything else.
Oh, yeah, as for wikipedia. Its recognized as a good *starting point*. If you’re interested, you’re supposed to follow the links to external sources. In fact, if you don’t have links to “more credible” sources, wikipedia tends to can your article.
Oh…and its been found at least as accurate as britannica.
Go figure. Its not science because, you know, people who actually know science have said it doesn’t mean their criteria. How terrible. I mean, I’d rather take the word of an evangelical preacher any day.
You need to go back to school frank. You might learn something. I know you already know everything, but its possible.