Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)
----------------------------------------------
Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.
In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s critics.
Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.
I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility.
#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.
But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.
#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Well…God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”
The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap" almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.
The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.
Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.
The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.
Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:
…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.
To be continued in Part II
That was the best you could do?
I thought you were responding to my post.
You have much to learn. Especially about Boolean algebra.
I don't recall ever saying that life definitely started from non-life.
When you phrase the issue that way, it is a matter of forensics, and it is probably indecipherable. If you weren't such an asshole you would know that about my position, because I've posted it hundreds of times. Check my posting history.
It is, however, possible to look for ways in which life could have arisen from non-life. This would be equivalent o a criminal prosecutor driving a route to see if it can be done in the available time. This would not be proof that something happened, but it would be proof that it is physically possible.
My position is and always has been that so-called alternatives to mainstream science attempt to shut down curiosity.
3VL has to do with nulls in the boolean milleu.
You always seem to be a post behind (or I am a post ahead).
I can teach you if you would like to learn.
Sadly, you're stuck with the assinine claim that 2VL, Boolean Logic, has "to do with the management of missing data".
How do you shave without laughing at yourself? :-}
I think "Mr. Science" is like "Genius."
You know, what the unwashed use when adressing their betters ;)
See you on the next thread with my new tag line!
Your ability to misconstrue what was said is amazing. I said 2VL AND 3VL have to do with the management of missing data. That is what differentiates them.
Quoting out of context is something that Liberals do. You should be ashamed.
But since you don't know what nulls are, you withdraw to what you think is a defensible position.
Do you work for the New York Times? Misrepresenting my position, which can be seen by everyone on the thread, is pretty sad.
Admit you don't know what 3VL is and how it works in Boolean algebra (as I pointed out to you in my 297) and then you can learn.
YOU, OTOH said that 2VL and Boolean Algebra are the same thing. And that is NOT out of context. And it is 100% WRONG.
So you are triply busted. You should quit while you are only a little behind.
I would strongly recommend you re-read my post when you are sober.
My post was (I quote):
2VL and 3VL have to do with the management of missing data (nulling).
So you have been exposed. If you try to use this partial quote (I note you ignore my 297 in its entirety -- too deep for you?) I will expose you further for the fraud you portray yourself to be.
I hope this discussion follows you into your dreams. Your shame will probably make for a fitful sleep.
I, OTOH, will sleep the sweet and clear sleep of the innocent and just.
What size collar should I use for YOUR millstone fitting?
Find help fast. You're sinking like a rock and nobody is willing to come to your aid.
Why?
Because you're wrong! LOL
You should have stuck with the revised and extended remarks. :-}
I am not sinking at all. The introduction of nulls in 1968 fundamentally changed boolean logic forever. The introduction of a value that is neither true nor false but in fact represents missing data required a new approach to boolean algebra.
So, you got your information in 1967?
If so, I am trying to descrbe an MP3 player to someone whose understanding peaks at an 8-track player.
I see you have ignored my 297 -- so much for educating people.
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
You had to really work to Google that up, didn't you?
You are right, in that a description of Mathematics says "Mathematics deals with the operators PLUS, MINUS, TIMES, DIVIDED BY" (which are of course arethmetic).
If you haven't studied 3VL Boolean then you are banging stones together.
But I guess I owe you an apology. You kinda know OLD Boolean Logic (how well I don't know -- you have yet to define XOR, a basic Boolenan 2VL operator).
Quaint and of limited application in today's world. But someday I am sure the nimble-minded who keep on top of things will finally get out in front of me.
So, don't feel too bad. I will be where you are someday.
indecipherable=undiscoverable. I pushed the wrong button on the spell checker.
Most of the history of the universe is lost in noise. And also mot of the history of life. What we can do is study the processes and determine if scenerios are possible. That is essentially what Darwin did when he studied variation in plants and animals under domestication. Nothing in the subsequent century and a half undermines his argument that variation and selection can proceed indefinitely.
If you determine that a natural scenerio is possible, it is going to take precedence over scenerios that require supernatural intervention. That is certainly the logic used in courtrooms.
There are no natural scenerios competing with descent with modification plus natural selection as the story of life.
And one last thing for when you are shaking off your hangover in the morning.
Do you retract your "sucking at the teat" remark? If not, then you must describe how my opinions somehow disqualify the value of my work (now THERE is a golden piece of "the Internet is forever").
I'll let you just say you were in a bad mood and lashed out. I have done so in the past.
If not, I will use it against you IN ITS ENTIRETY (not redacted as you are wont to do).
I assume what you meant was something along the lines of "did snakes evolve from legged animals"? The answer is obviously "yes", because snakes are reptiles, and the earliest reptiles had legs.
If the legged creature, what would have caused it to lose its legs, then? It certainly would not have provided any evolutionary advantage
Certainly, huh? From the above article:
One long-held theory is that snakes are closely related to some group of terrestrial lizards and lost their limbs on land. Many burrowing animals, from weasels to worm lizards, have smaller limbs today. "For animals wiggling around in small holes and crevices, it makes sense that limbs would get in the way," Hedges said.(bolding added)
What's a worm lizard? Amphisbaeniae
Elongate, slender, fossorial reptiles with scales arranged in annular rings, short robust forelimbs, hindlimbs absent. Hindlimbs absent, front ones present.(bolding added)
Kinda like a transitional would look, eh? (these are not transitional between lizards and snakes, what we have here is convergence). More about amphisbaeniae.
Legs are a bit more critical than that.
Depends where you live and what you're doing. The above references reduction in limb size in weasels (also platypuses, moles, and others), absence of limbs (snakes, some amphisbaenians) partial absence (other amphisbaenians). So loss of limbs is unusual and counterintuitive, but happened several times independently. Loss of flight in birds is also counterintuitive, but is found worldwide and is common on islands.
Waiting on Ad Mod to come to work placemarker
A pity that the Bible doesn't record what appalling sin of dolphins and whales made God remove their legs too.
Seriously, I've been alive 53 years, believed in Evolution while in High School, until I grew up while in College and realized that Evolution was impossible and actually entertaining but not to be taken seriously from a scientific point of view as well as common sense. There is no basis nor continuity in the theory what so ever....it only covers segments of the life of organisms and not the entire life cycle and I have discovered that this has become a matter of convenience not for scientific reasoning but to change the religion of a people. Not for science as it is made to be......this is the reality. Believing in Evolution is safe for a person's soul to avoid accepting the responsibility for their life or behaviors......this is the root cause and the deep underlying issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.