Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am pointing out a paradox. Basically, the anti-ID community relies heavily on ID tools do disprove ID. This is sort of like a rabid environmentalist driving a gas-guzzling SUV to a protest of air pollution or oil drilling.

[NJ Neocon]

I understand that you are trying to point out a paradox. I do not SEE the paradox. What ID tools are being used?

And why don't you address the straw-man I called you on?

[Thatcherite]

Thank you for a long and thoughtful post. I'll get back to you on most of it later, but I will respond concerning the distance calculation method for SN1987A. The math required to ascertain the distance of that particular supernova is 9th grade stuff, just calculation of the dimensions of a right-angle triangle given one of its angles and the length of one side. The assumptions involved are trivial and easily defended (essentially unassailable). What basically happened is that there is a ring of gas near that particular star. That ring lit up about a year after we saw the initial explosion, therefore we know that it is a light-year from SN1987A, this gives us a triangle with two very long sides ending at the earth, and a short side (2 light years from one side of the ring to the other). We measure the angle from one side of the illuminated gas to the other from the earth, and simple geometry gives us the two long sides (in such a long thin triangle they are essentially so close to the same length as to be identical). Other observations of that supernova tell us that the speed of light when it exploded is that same as lightspeed is now.

Therefore the universe is at least 187,000 years old or God (or some other incredibly powerful entity) has faked evidence of events that never occurred. You may be in the branch of YEC that don't have a problem with this, but most YEC have a severe problem with it. Part of the problem that we on the scientific observations side have in these arguments is that evolution rejectors are in so many little camps of separate belief, united only by your detestation of ToE so it is hard to tell exactly what set of beliefs we are trying to debunk.

Of course despite the protestations of sites like ICR and AiG science is just as certain that the earth is around 4 billion years old and that there was no global deluge in the last 6000 years as it is about the size and age of the universe. But the math and observations required to justify this are somewhat harder for the layman to understand, unlike the killingly easy SN1987A. Have you ever examined and tried to understand the assumptions that go into radiometric dating, and the results it gives? Have you ever pondered on the results that led (creationist) geologists in the 19th century to conclude that the earth is very ancient long before radiometric techniques existed?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Er, where in the fossil record do you find evidence against ID? Note that I'm pointing out a paradox. It seems that anti-IDers want their cake and eat it too. You love your ID tools, but use the results to try to disprove ID. Sorry, but if a finite intelligence can come up with tools, there is no way that we can logically assume that an infinite intelligence cannot use the same.

The strawman that is often thrown up by anti-IDers is that since ID is unprovable, then it should be ignored or tossed out. This reminds me, in many ways, of the Paris medical academy's answer to the Pope when he was searching for ways to end the Bubonic Plague during the middle ages. They pretty much said that the answer was unknowable and probably had to do with a bad alignment of Jupiter.

So, if you wish to throw ID out of the equation, please stop using ID tools, since logically that is a no-go. All else is little more than hypocrisy.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The paradox is that all experiments and human observation are, by defnintion, necessarily rooted in Intelligent Design. To use ID tools, then to discredit ID brings forth a paradox similar, in many ways to the old paradox of "What would happen if you went back in time and killed yourself?"

As far as the strawman (so you say) is concerned, if you are talking of your argument that most evolutionists believe in God, its beside the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not ID is true or false. Neither, for that matter, do I have anything, other than your word, to believe or disbelieve this farrago. IOW, I flat out don't know (and, to be honest, at this point don't care) whether the majority of evolutionists believe in a diety or not.

If you believe the strawman to be something else, please point it out, because I must have missed it.

[Thatcherite]

So, if you wish to throw ID out of the equation, please stop using ID tools, since logically that is a no-go. All else is little more than hypocrisy.

If you want to use the word "logically" correctly, then your premise has to be in some way linked to your conclusion. Just chucking the word into your statements at random doesn't make your non-logical arguments logical.

You haven't demonstrated that it is illogical for human beings to use the results of tools intelligently designed by human beings to disprove the idea that biological diversity on earth is intelligently designed. So far your "logical" argument is just a non-sequitur.

[unlearner]

"Points are also used to represent the foci of ellipses. Are you saying the earth is an ellipse?" Post 704.

Good point (pun intended). No, geometry and the real world are two different things. But points CAN represent corners of geometric shapes. An object having four corners does not necessarily mean it is a flat square. I would consider a pyramid to have four "corners" in the way the Bible uses it. Perhaps the term has a broader meaning since, like I mentioned, it also refers to the corners of a person's head.

Allow me to further point out that in spite of the fact we know the earth is not rectangular and flat, we still use maps of the world which ARE rectangular and flat.

"Please provide a source for your claim." Post 706.

I was referring to "Relativity" by Albert Einstein, published by Crown, I think the 1952 edition. But don't misunderstand my point. Einstein did not say we should or could remove math from physics. I was just pointing out that he challenged the proposition that a particular form of math, Euclidean geometry, accurately represents the real world. He said, with certain conditions, it can be used. He also did regard physics as essentially mathematical (of course).

But that is the point I intended. We cannot compartmentalize various disciplines and say that certain ones have no bearing. When someone uses their book-learning in the real world, the decisions made require the integration of many different skill sets. For example, a marketing campaign might require math skills, the ability to use proper grammar, the use of historical data, etc.

As I said before, math may be the purest science. But what if a student is given a word problem that asked "how much explosives would someone need to blow up a particular building"? Or, "what is the probability that a certain number of people would die?" You cannot separate morality from education.

"Isaiah 11:12 & Revelation 7:1 " Post 705.

Neither of these verses include "he shook it by grabbing its edges" which you asserted in post 614. I think my comments on this issue pretty well stand on their own regarding those two verses. If you were thinking of some other verse I am interested.

[js1138]

SH gets a tenth of a point for finding a reference to the word "recessive" in a bacteria gene. He loses the match because the article he quotes specifically cites a mutation as necessary for the antibiotic resistance to become effective.

First of all, the study cited demonstrates only one instance of mutation conferring. South implies that this is always the way it works. There are, in fact, many known routes to antibiotic resistence, including single gene mutation, bacterial congegation and viral insertion.

Actually, Southack's argument works in favor of common descent, because genome length is not particularly correlated to the apparent complexity of organisms, and tiny mutations can enable huge differences is body plan, such as altering the number of legs.

[NJ Neocon]

Your paradox makes no sense and has nothing to do with evolution.

As far as the strawman (so you say) is concerned, if you are talking of your argument that most evolutionists believe in God, its beside the point. It has nothing to do with whether or not ID is true or false.

It most certainly is a straw man. It is a straw man because no one ever said that you have to be anti-ID to believe in evolution except you. You implied, over and over again, that all believers in evolution were athiests (anti-IDers). Since no one did, and since it is a flat out falsehood, it is a straw man.

Neither, for that matter, do I have anything, other than your word, to believe or disbelieve this farrago.

Which farrago? That most people who believe in evolution believe in God? Look up the statistics. if you are going to discount anything you don't like, how can you expect others to take youy at your word or believe your statistics?

IOW, I flat out don't know (and, to be honest, at this point don't care) whether the majority of evolutionists believe in a diety or not.

Then stop saying "anti-IDers".

[Doctor Stochastic]

Obligatory Junior Samples Comment: "That's not bigamy, that's trigonometry."

[js1138]

The word "recessive" is very unfortunate when applied to duplicated genes on a single chromosome. The word has a long established tie to sexual reproduction.

Gene duplication is itself a common kind of mutation. It is a source of variation.

Southack's argument is equivalent to arguing that A * A * A is really the same as A * A if you forget to perform one of the operations. I mean, everything is the same as everything else if you deny that transformations are significant.

[VadeRetro]

I stopped counting when I had reached 60 occurrences of the string "muta" in 256 of 4971 numbered citations. That would extrapolate to over 1100 overall on that one web page if one may infer inductively from a mere sample without offending a creationist.

[Southack]

You do owe me an apology, however. Prior to learning that bacteria really do have recessive traits, you were quite vicious. - Southack

"Alas, the characterization remains spot on and you are indeed doing the Dance of the Superdumb Larry. In the words of Dan Day, "Try to keep up, son." I will review for you." - VadeRetro

No, not even close. You made your vicious mischaracterization of me because you incorrectly *thought* that I was wrong about bacteria having recessive genetic traits.

I post, in message #680 on this very thread, an incontrovertible, comprehensive, authoritative proof of your error. In short, you were wrong. Yet you bashed me personally.

Now, after being educated on the biology of bacteria, you still refuse to admit that you were wrong to bash me (even though I was right)! You even have to chutzpah to claim that I'm the dumb one after I've corrected you.

That takes substantial (and unmerited) hubris on your part.

Not only should you be apologizing to me for your behavior on this thread, and not only should you be thanking me for educating you properly on the biological traits on bacteria, but you should be *publicly* correcting on your earlier Crevo threads all the instances in which you were spreading such scientific falsehoods as the bizarre "bacteria don't have recessive genetic traits" sort of claims that you've made in the past.

Correct your record.

If you want me to believe that Darwinists actually care about scientific honesty, then you have a wave of corrections to make.

You claimed that bacteria have no recessive genetic traits.

Now you know better.

So go show me that you value honesty; show me that you're correcting your earlier scientific falsehoods.

[Southack]

Do you claim that bacteria do *not* have recessive traits? - Southack

"You found an oddball use of the word recessive. Good for you."

Answer the question: do *you* claim that bacteria do *not* have recessive genetic traits?

[VadeRetro]

Er, where in the fossil record do you find evidence against ID?

To the extent that ID borrows the creationist mantra that there are no transitional forms (and Meyer, Wells, and Johnson for at least three out of the six "ID scientists" anyone can name will do just that), the fossil record disagrees strongly.

Now, ID has various second lines of defense when the falsity of "No transitional forms" is pointed out. The last trench is "ID can explain that, too."

Yes, God or "The Designer" can have left things looking just like that, too. But evolution actually predicted that certain kinds of transitional forms, the very kinds we keep finding, must once have existed. ID-ers mostly sit around mocking, "Where is the missing link?" and then retreat to "ID can explain that without invoking evolution" when yet another one turns up.

Note that I'm pointing out a paradox. It seems that anti-IDers want their cake and eat it too. You love your ID tools, but use the results to try to disprove ID.

Science is fond of experiment, yes. This is not a gift from the discipline of ID to the rest of science. This is just science systematically investigating nature.

The only real paradox is the dumb Catch-22 game I pointed out to you in my previous post and which your post does not address except to express puzzlement over references to evidence for evolution.

That reminds me of another salient feature of ID. On every thread, the same ID scientists show up with amnesia for all previous threads and need to be reminded of the existence of evidence against what they think. Their failure to remember the existence of any evidence for evolution, or to correctly understand what evolution even is, is somehow evidence that they are correct and mainstream science is wrong.

[MEGoody]

"A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum".

This is the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that can make evolutionists appear akin to PETA activists.

[MEGoody]

"A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum".

This is the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that can make evolutionists appear akin to PETA activists.

[Southack]

"Yes, God or "The Designer" can have left things looking just like that, too. But evolution actually predicted that certain kinds of transitional forms, the very kinds we keep finding, must once have existed."

Evolutionary Theory (which is constantly being revised due to its failed earlier predictions) is seldom better than Intelligent Design theory for predicting how new biological machines, DNA-computers, computer viri, artificially intelligent software, self-replicating robots, and cloning attempts will come about.

Likewise, our fossil records could just as easily be evidence for Intelligent Design as are the rusting carcasses of discarded automobiles buried in old junkyards.

[Junior]

But don't you think God would be able to safeguard His word sufficiently enough so that truth-seekers would be able to find out what He wants them to know?

I'm sure He could have. Unfortunately the evidence indicates He didn't.

[Southack]

"On every thread, the same ID scientists show up with amnesia for all previous threads and need to be reminded of the existence of evidence against what they think."

When one considers that *your* past "evidence" against ID includes such scientific falsehoods as "bacteria don't have recessive genetic traits" (to paraphrase), one scarcely wonders why some such "evidence" is either forgotten or dismissed out of hand.

Are you correcting your own scientific errors on said threads, one could legitimately wonder?