Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@farmerman,

That is nothing more than the simple-minded thesis behind the watchmaker claim. That's been around for more than 2000 years (Cicero used the analogy of a sundial or a "water clock")--it was bullsh*t then, and it has been bullsh*t ever since. Hume tore up Paley's watchmaker analogy, long before The Origin of Species, on a logical basis. We have no experience of making a world or a cosmos, so we can't say that making a watch is analogous to making a world; further, that even had we experience of world-making, there would have to be a sufficient number of similarities between watch-making and world-making for an analogous argument; and finally, Hume points out that even were the analogy valid (without conceding that it is), it would not be evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient and allegedly benevolent deity such as Paley was imagining.

It is interesting to see the tortured "logic" which the god-botherers will employ to support the conclusion with which they start, and for which they go looking for evidence.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If you believe that a really dopick [?] "Intelligent Designer" was wearing the wite helmet on this project Ive always wondered "Why the hell would he care?"

I've always thought that is a very good question. It needs an answer in order for any subsequent data/facts of our existence is to fit into any sort of coherent pattern.

For myself, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a created sentient being (us) would be fundamentally different in needs and wants from their creator. That is our goal when we attempt created beings (if only in our books and movies). Even in our goals for Artificial Intelligence, WE are the standard that we judge it by. i.e. - We create it in our own image.

If there is anything fundamental about us, it is that we are social creatures - we want and need company. Why would we assume that our creator would be different?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Why would we assume that our creator would be different?

"We" don't assume a creator, you're the one that had the dreams, remember?

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

Hey dude, I was asked the question and I answered it.
Go have your own dreams.

0 Replies

Here is what really mystifies me when so many make assertions (and expect others to accept them as fact) that there is no doubt about 'Evolution' and its ability to explain life as we observe it.

I compare their unqualified assertions with those of scientists like James Tour. (see some of his credentials at bottom)
On his website, he writes that

Quote:

"From what I can see, microevolution is a fact" and "there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution."

A New York Times article described Tour as saying that the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes. Despite this, he said he remained open-minded about evolution.

There are a few (and I do mean few) people on this thread who are pretty sharp thinkers. But they are far from being anywhere near as qualified as Tour.

So the question is, why would you expect me (or anyone) to believe you 'Evolution true believers' over the opinion of people like James Tour?

OK, that's just about Evolution. What about you equally unqualified guys that repeat "There is no evidence of God!" over and over.

In Lee Strobel's book "The Case For Faith" - the following commentary is attributed to Tour: "I build molecules for a living, I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."

In spite of this, I'm not advocating that anyone form their opinion on the word of anyone, even someone as eminent as James Tour. But if you want to debate either of these subjects here, bring your A Game Logic to the table rather than these pathetic cries of "Evolution explains everything." or "You are just trying to justify your belief in God"

From Wikipedia - James Tour:

Quote:

Tour has over 640 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 129 (107 by ISI Web of Science) and i10 index = 538 with total citations over 77,000 (Google Scholar).

Awards:
Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.[41] He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.[42] Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.[43] Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012. Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009. That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989. In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[44] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The interesting thing about Tour and the rest of the ID science guys is that they take a road that really has no evidence in fact(a rather unscientific approach). Noone is stopping these guys from doing what they say should be done. Summarizing his words from his "Dissent from Darwinism", hes quick to propose that we should look into ID as a scientific theory. WHY THE HELL ISNT HE BUSY DOING IT THEN???

Dont you realize that, should ID be more than a neat story wrapped in religious myth, scientists careers would be made instantaneously??.
SCientists are all in the market to leave a mark like Newton or Darwin.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Appeal to credentials is kind of an easy path to establish cred among our drinking buddies, not formal discussions.
I question whether , by dwelling on Tours patents in Org nanotech has ANYTHING to do with his positions on Darwin.
When we look at Darwin the mistakes he made are several. He proposed a mechanism for how species change with input from severl mechanisms (none of which ever mention the input of genetics).
In fact Darwin's biggest mistake was getting flummoxed as to how "heritable traits" even last beyond a few generations.

I dont think that Tour and many of the ID boys from Discovery, have even read much Darwin. They always appeal to the incongruity of how life changes shapes and functions as an undirected force. They are convinced that theres someone behind it all

I say WONDERFUL, show me the way it works.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

It is interesting to see the tortured "logic" which the god-botherers will employ to support the conclusion with which they start, and for which they go looking for evidence.

Still, there advancement of their beliefs to the level of "indisputable" is a memo I must have missed. They have talked about such real evidence since 2001 , and, as far as I know, no hunk of evidence in support of any of their "indisputable" facts has yet been shown.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The interesting thing about Tour and the rest of the ID science guys is that they take a road that really has no evidence in fact(a rather unscientific approach). Noone is stopping these guys from doing what they say should be done. Summarizing his words from his "Dissent from Darwinism", hes quick to propose that we should look into ID as a scientific theory. WHY THE HELL ISNT HE BUSY DOING IT THEN???

First off, even though he signed that DI statement about doubting mutation and natural selection as being able to account for macro evolution (origin of truly new species) he is quick to tell you that he is not an ID guy. I'm not either in the sense that you are using it - (ID = Religious nut). ID in the sense that I, Tour and other scientists look at it, is stated in that DI statement - That the current Neo-Darwinist theory is not sufficiently able to account for life as it exists.

Second, although he and others ARE looking scientifically into why evolution can not explain life as we see it, it faces this well known problem - It is damn hard to overturn a popular theory and prove a negative. All you can do scientifically is to keep amassing enough facts and data until the old theory crumbles. Personally I think that has already happened but as you know, old theories die hard. There are still scientists who do not believe the BB Theory in spite of lots of facts and data refuting a static universe.

4 Replies

@Leadfoot,

well we can all agree that Darwin is incomplete. Ive listed at least three areas in his overall theory that need revision and , while they are not exclusionary, they require the addition of genetics, Continental Drift, radionuclide dating, and Hardy Weinberg and Gould mechanisms and expansions.
Im not even adding the newer findings in epigenetics nd "neo Lamarkian thinking" (mostly because these need to be better proposed.
I see youve included yourself as a scientist in evolutionary thinking??

ID, no matter what its self proclaimed basis being real science, is really religion when you get the onion all peeled.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Do you have a link to what he really proposes is the source of new species?
Im wondering about how hard hes actually looked at genetic linkages among species and the active v pseudogene status of the genic components of related species.
(For example, the pseudogenes that code for teeth in a chicken are at the same spot on the genome that living squamatal lizrds have as "turned on" single polymorph genes.

It appears hard to deny mutation, nat selection regarding the function of a growing genome that contains more pseudogenes as related .
species appear to be derived from each other.

He seems a little more assertive than the "neutral theorists" who do not deny the role of nat selection , but just downplay its importance.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I see youve included yourself as a scientist in evolutionary thinking??

Oh heck no, I don't have the white lab coat.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

ID in the sense that I, Tour and other scientists look at it, is stated in that DI statement - That the current Neo-Darwinist theory is not sufficiently able to account for life as it exists.

OK, Ill pas ,but the DI statement , if not a statement based
on its religiou history (especially from its own "Center for Renewal of Religion and Culture).

I still admonish your ignorance on the history and intent of the DI. DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERES NO CORE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY THEREIN. The Discovery Institute has always played a game of denial of Fundamental roots because its CONVENIENT to do so. They are very convincing in their lack of veracity . Their toned down beliefs support the DI causes and attracts similarly leaning scientists.
Im not saying that J Tour isn't a good organic chemist and isn't a distinguished one. HE IS JUST like many scientists and engineers who "doubt evolutionary mechanisms" , most of them speak outside their own areas of expertise .
I would say that of most of these scientists, perhaps one, Frank Collins stands out as one whose work and religious beliefs coincide seamlessly. He believes in a form of theistic evolution and doesn't hesitate to argue the pant off many comers.
Same thing with Steve Austen who, trained in geochemistry of radionuclide analyses and dating , has totally reversed his "Scientific work" to try to prove that an Old Earth is a sham.
I dont know why some of these folks start in one area and then accept another. Im not sure I want to delve into their private worlds so lets say IM mightily skeptical of their confessed "evolved beliefs"

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

All you can do scientifically is to keep amassing enough facts and data until the old theory crumbles.

Ive yet to see any "fcts" that hve been amassed by scientists of the DI. or any of the several other Creation/ID organizations and higher education establishments.
You will note that , of those higher ed organizations, the only things I see are arguments based on hypotheses that usually have a large condition of acceptance. several people here do it. They will start the Evidence discussion by claiming that ID is a condition going in. Again, thats not scientific. Or they will claim proof is theirs, and then forget to discuss what that proof even is.Its impossible to have a debate when the other side remains close minded and then makes demands that some key aspect of evo/devo evidence "indisputably" supports their belief, when it really doesn't even come close.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I still admonish your ignorance on the history and intent of the DI. DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERES NO CORE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY THEREIN.

I would point out that correlation is not synonymous with causation.

The correlation that you are fixated on can be explained by the simple fact that those who believe in God are obviously more open to the ID argument than those who just as passionately believe that there is no God.

Occam's razor would suggest that this is a simpler and more logical explanation than your conspiracy theory about ID being a plot cooked up by fundamentalists to indoctrinate vulnerable children with the evils of religion.

I would also point out that many religions (both main stream and fundamentalists) are virulently opposed to ID theory.

I've never had to use math notation to make my writing clear before, but for you, here it is.

Quote:

I, Tour and other scientists look at it...

=
I, + (Tour and other scientists) look at it...

Of course the definition of 'scientist' is actually pretty open except for intellectual snobs who think it has something to do with letters appended to one's name.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You're fighting against a brick wall (like the one being built by Trump).

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I would point out that correlation is not synonymous with causation

Unless, like in this case, qhere it truly is causation. Thats why I try to entice you to read about how and when the DI was founded and upon what worldview lies its foundation.
You keep trying clever jibes but had you even read a bit about the DI, you would have quickly seen that these guys are the same "creation Science" crew that represented the defense in Edwards v Aguillard as well as making a brief assistance in Kitzmiller.

Even the entire movement of modern ID has been a quickly cobbled bunch of opinions based upon Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial"

Apparently you just want to deny these facts. I dont know how I can further convince you if you dont wish to delve into the story of the Discovery Institute and their "Renewal of religion and culture"

Quote:

this is a simpler and more logical explanation than your conspiracy theory about ID being a plot cooked up by fundamentalists to indoctrinate vulnerable children with the evils of religion.

. The actual fact is that they just changed their organizational name from Creationist to Intelligent Design. THATS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Its been brought up in evidence several times in Kitzmiller v. Dover and the judge himself called it a bunch of "Breathless inanity"

I see that you cannot accept the truth about this , and Im just tired of your trying to clasp on to "reasons to believe that ID is not just religion in a labcoat"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You keep trying clever jibes but had you even read a bit about the DI, you would have quickly seen that these guys are the same "creation Science" crew that represented the defense in Edwards v Aguillard as well as making a brief assistance in Kitzmiller.

You are bald face lying about this. The DI acted only as advisors and they advised that they were OPPOSED to Dover’s policy.

Here is an excerpt if you don’t want to follow the link.

Quote:

In the fall of 2004, the Dover Area School Board in Dover, Pennsylvania passed a policy requiring ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement about intelligent design (ID) before beginning teaching on evolution. Discovery Institute, the major organization supportive of intelligent design, opposed the Dover policy, although it defended the right of teachers and students to voluntarily discuss intelligent design.

https://www.discovery.org/id/o/dta1212/

0 Replies

Here's a link for the Edwards v. Aguillard case. It discusses the bullshit claim linking ID with Creationism.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/in-science-a-factually-and-logically-challenged-letter-decries-intelligent-design-and-discovery-institute/

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The latest US Supreme Court case was Edwards v Aguillard.It followed a bunch of other Creqtionist cqses where schools required the teaching of Creationism AS SCIENCE. (Daniels, Epperson,McLean) were all either Fed District or USSC cases that overwhelmingly stated that"Balanced tretment of Cretionism v science violated the Constitution on the basis that it violated the establishment clause of Amendment 1 of the Constitution).

McLean and then Edwards involved laws that mandated the teaching of "scientific Cretionism". It was decided by a 7-2 margin. In Edwards, the Louisiqn Legislature stated tht there was "More evidence to support a supernatural Creation "theory" than there was for some biological hypotheses"

. Also, it was here that the attornies for the State (Edwards) asserted that evolution was "merely a theory" (we heard it there first). They had all kinds of experts who , no matter their pedigrees, honors, publications etc, DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF THE TERM "THEORY" in science.
WELL EDWARDS LOST, but did he go home and play cards? NO INDEED. A lawyer with strong Creationists beliefs, Phil Johnson, came along 3 years after The Edwards decision was publicized and began putting together his book"DARWIN ON TRIAL" . It was here that the elderly term of "Intelligent Design" was polished up and began his assault on Darwin , (who, in his autobiography, explained why he did not accept Rev Paly's ID beliefs)
Johnson, brought the term ID up to date by developing all the Creationist arguments ( Tired ones may I sy)
arguments like
Fully Formed
Sudden Appearance
Inexactness of the fossil record
Errors Darwin made

A textbook used in the Scientific Creationism of Fundamentalist Christian SChools was "Of Pandas and People" A clearly Creationist view of biology. This text was then revised by merely converting the word Creationism or Creation Science into Intelligence or Intelligent Design.

You see, Im not trying to insult you by imputation , I just am so damn overloaded with how the DI has used chameleon like statements that theyve always been a purely research organization that is looking for Universal Intellect that took over in the Creation of life and then had a driving hand in evolution. I also know some of their "faculty members" and find many of them good scientists in their fields. When they get out of their fields and preach ID , I find that wholly and cynically disingenuous . Id rather argue with a Creationist who doesnt have any problem with saying his GOD 's in charge rather than IDers who try to make us believe that theyre really scientists on honest searches for someone wearing the white helmet. So far, the DI, afater almost 30 yerw of being has really not published anything in peer review journals that can convincingly evidence ID. They publish in journals but only articles about their basic computational work, not their applications for their "SETI" program.
Closest Ive seen,was in a self published paper is a discussion about how some organo-metallic chemicals themselves hove " molecular bond memory" which can force replication of themselves and make minor changes in bonding and surface partitioning (methylation etc). I think that could actually be worth following up. Yet I only saw the paper about 8 years ago and it appeared that perhaps his work was not "encouraged" by co- faculty members at DI.
You should follow Bill Demski's computer and math work in tech journals and try to find work in open-peer review journals

1 Reply

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know