Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 29, 2005

[WhatsItAllAbout]

A biogenesis has to be the starting point for discussions of Evolution or Intelligent Design.

Your comment:

No, actually, evolution deals with the diversity of life after it was created. The creationists link the two, but they are separate scientific studies.

That seems to be and arbitrary distinction. And it is interesting that you use the word "created". What would you call the process by which this "Adam&Eve" simple cell came into being? Is it just plain chemistry and random chance? Hinges my “Shake and Bake” analogy

This mythical first simple cell (by mythical I mean something everyone talks about but no one has seen) however it came to be has to have a minimal irreducibly complex (in my opinion) structure, quantity of material, reproductive and survival information, and suitable environment to live(this may not be an inclusive list of life's requirements but it's suitable for our discussion).

Your comment:

There is no irreducibly complexity. That is a term of (sic) the creationist IDers. There may be minimum requirements for the self-organization of biological systems, but that doesn't make them irreducibly complex or show any non-natural origin. There are minimum requirements for fire, but every camp fire isn't caused by a god.

”Minimum requirements”, or “Irreducibly complexity” what’s the difference if you do not have the Minimum requirements no fire and no life, regardless of their origins. And by the way “Irreducibly complexity” is not just a term, it is a fact, no matter who say’s it.

I recall some arguments about spontaneous genesis of flies in garbage supported by many learned men of the time. But whoops, another theory bites the dust. The thing I find interesting in this example is all they had to do to prove it wrong was to prevent the flies from depositing the eggs with the information needed to make the flies.

So here we sit with our garbage in a jar, and we can shake and bake it using any process that occurs in nature expecting flies but without the minimal requirements mentioned no biogenesis.

Your comment:

Spontaneous generation (the fly in the garbage) is more akin to the biblical creationists saying that god breathed on dust or mud and created a human. That is not the same as positing a biochemical reaction that had the ability to perpetuate itself.

So what’s the difference between saying “God breathed on dust or mud and created a human” and saying the individual atoms where “Shaken and Baked” and life sprung up, other that one is Intelligent Design and the other is a just chance happening?

[longshadow]

To wit: the creationists who actually check out the details and go to the effort to learn something eventually cease being creationists. All that are left are the die-hard types who refuse to see the evidence lest their souls be damned.

Sounds like "natural selection" to me....

;-)

[DannyTN]

Given all our vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, I'd say the creator was a poor engineer.

It is better to see physical disease and death and learn from it and avoid spiritual disease and death, than it is to simply die spiritually never having a clue of what hit you.

[DannyTN]

Explore the design to learn about the designer. That was Galileo's motivation long before evolutions was the latest fad.

[Junior]

Sounds like "natural selection" to me....

Change or go extinct.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Keep counting your questions. I'll answer the ones I feel like answering while you and your cheerleaders get all excited. I'm not the one trying to pass of a philosophy as if it were science. There has been no gross misrepresentation of your ramblings, only a lack of desire to count them as anything less than an emotional atempt to justify a philosphy that hangs around the neck of science like a ball and chain.

[DannyTN]

Christians are certainly not blameless, but not everything you've laid at our feet is necessarily the work of Christians. It's not clear whether you are anti-Christian, but you don't sound pro-Christian either, which is curious given your nick.

"Nevertheless I am an enthusiast for democracy. And I take that position, not because I believe majority opinion is inevitably right or true - indeed no majority can take away God-given human rights - but because I believe it most effectively safeguards the value of the individual, and, more than any other system, restrains the abuse of power by the few. And that is a Christian concept." - Margaret Thatcher.

Christianity and Wealth- M. Thatcher

The moral foundations of society - M. Thatcher

[Thatcherite]

I believe that Christianity has been a force for much good in the world, but following Christianity has not notably restrained Christians from evil behavior also. My post was a response to an attack on atheism on the grounds of the behavior of some atheists.

[Aloysius88]

I'm gonna teach some kids about evolution. We're gonna throw firecrackers at some bowls of snot. Do you think we're gonna create life? Talk about ignorant.

[Junior]

Talk about ignorant.

You betcha. Throwing firecrackers at bowls of snot to illustrate evolution has got to be the most ignorant thing I've heard on these threads in the past seven years.

[Right Wing Professor]

We're gonna throw firecrackers at some bowls of snot.

Ah, life in the trailer park!

[WildHorseCrash]

That seems to be and arbitrary distinction.
Not really. It simply how the science is defined. It is the study of the change in organisms. Do you think archeology is arbitrary because it doesn't concern itself with star formation?

And it is interesting that you use the word "created".
It's just a word to indicate the appearance of the first life. Don't get your panties in a knot, I don't mean Odin or Zeus or Jehovah or Amen Ra created it. The natural forces no doubt responsible for it would have "created" it.

What would you call the process by which this "Adam&Eve" simple cell came into being?
Abiogensis, probably. Unless the panspermia theories are correct, then probably panspermia.

Is it just plain chemistry and random chance?
Pretty much. But not so much random chance, but the chemistry and mechanics of self-organizing systems. Think of it this way, under the correct conditions, ice crystals form. They have no choice. Certain chemicals, when mixed, will combust. It isn't random, although the presence of water under the correct conditions or the combustible chemicals meeting may be random. I think that once the necessary materials are assembled under the proper conditions, life will or can result. (And no, I cannot prove that. Obviously, if I could, I'd be accepting my Nobel prize...)

Hinges my “Shake and Bake” analogy
No. Shake and Bake was a (somewhat) healthy alternative to battering and deep-frying chicken, popularized by its ease and quickness of preparation, and moderately good taste. Abiogenesis is not about food preparation. (That was a joke.)

”Minimum requirements”, or “Irreducibly complexity” what’s the difference if you do not have the Minimum requirements no fire and no life, regardless of their origins.
Simply because something is required for something else, it does not mean it is complex. Again, to return to the ice crystals: all you need is water and a lack of heat. Neither of these are complex, but they are necessary. There is, thus, no irreducible complexity, but there is a minimum requirement.

And by the way “Irreducibly complexity” is not just a term, it is a fact, no matter who say’s it.
Well, in this area of discussion, it has become a term of art coined, if I remember correctly, by Michael Behe, in generating his ID theory. As applied here, by common usage it has been established as having a certain meaning. (His theory has been well debunked. If you know of something in biology that is truly irreducibly complex, please enlighten us. Behe hasn't been successful in pointing one out.)

So what’s the difference between saying “God breathed on dust or mud and created a human” and saying the individual atoms where “Shaken and Baked” and life sprung up, other that one is Intelligent Design and the other is a just chance happening?
Well, for one, the first theory requires proof of the existence and involvement of God. Next, you have to account for where he came from and who created him. Next, you have to account for and described the natural mechanism by which this supposed "breath" transformed non-living matter into living matter. Absent these proofs, you have religion. The flies spontaneously arising from garbage was superstition and magic--i.e., activities believed on faith. Absent evidence that God exists, of his history, abilities, and basis for his biogenetic actions, you have the same, i.e., activities believed on faith.

The scientific explanation, on the other hand, is simply that certain chemicals, when arranged in a certain manner exhibit the conditions we call life.

[PatrickHenry]

Throwing firecrackers at bowls of snot to illustrate evolution has got to be the most ignorant thing I've heard on these threads in the past seven years.

I'm encouraged. The creationists are finally embarking on a research program. It's a bit unconventional, of course, but give them credit for trying.

[Aloysius88]

I apologize. Everybody knows you can't have evolution until you have reproduction and so therefore the question of origins is hereby declared Out-of-Bounds. And yet throwing firecrackers at bowls of snot is a lot more entertaining than trying to figure out why intelligent design is an argument from ignorance and punctuated equilibrium is not.

[Junior]

And yet throwing firecrackers at bowls of snot is a lot more entertaining than trying to figure out why intelligent design is an argument from ignorance and punctuated equilibrium is not.

Because ID presupposes facts not in existence (the existence of a designer) and punctuated equilibrium does not. Indeed, the latter is simply Darwinian evolution (Darwin was the first to postulate what became PE).

[Wolfstar]

Given all our vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction...

I know. You'd think that even if He wanted us to get diseases to keep the herd thinned, He'd at least design us with teeth that don't rot and eyesight that remains clear throughout life.

And what's the point of Alzheimers and dementia. Why rob us of our memories and capacity to care for ourselves in our old age?

And why make it so that children get fatal diseases? Why not just make it so that only middle aged and older people get sick. Give everyone minimum of 25-30 good, happy, healthy years on the planet. Then let the physical deterioration begin. And when it's time for us to leave, just pull the plug. Boom!

Since the whole point is to eventually go back to God, why make us with an emotional response to death that we call grief? What's that about? If death is a return to God, shouldn't it be a cause for celebration?

Why? Why? Why?

[Aloysius88]

I have to run home now but I will reply in an hour or so.

[Aloysius88]

Okay, I'm back.

So, you are saying that because there is no God then there can be no God. That is an interesting philosophical position but I am also confused by your assertion that Punctuated Equilibrium is simply an extension of Darwinian evolution.

What is and is not Darwinism is a slippery subject. But in my understanding Darwinism is basically about numerous small changes accumulating over time until a new species is established while PE (in order to account for some differences in the evidence ,i.e. the Cambrian Explosion spoken of by Meyer) posits long stretches of stasis punctuated by times of changes bordering on (but of course, not the same as) Hopeful Monsters.

I have a theory that you claim is a priori unscientific while you have a theory that no one has empirical evidence for and cannot be reproduced experimentally. Now I know that eyewitnesses are impossible for events that predate witnesses and that experiment is not applicable to historical occurences but tell me again how scientific (and therefore falsifiable) your infinitely mutable theory is.

[Junior]

So, you are saying that because there is no God then there can be no God.

Wrong right off the bat. I never said there was no God (indeed, I'm one of His biggest fans and most popular whipping boy). I'm saying ID presupposes the existence of God, which cannot be shown to be the case. If you are going to posit a designer, you have to show evidence for him, and unfortunately ID cannot do that. Simply saying "this looks designed" is no good because it is subjective. There has to be an objective test.

[Aloysius88]

P.S.
I like your tagline and believe I recognize it from the work of Terry Pratchett. Are you an admirer of the Discworld stories?

P.P.S. I wrote a poem. Perhaps it will amuse or annoy you.

Beervolution or My Creation Story

The Coyote was drunk again,
Drunk as a skunk, he was.
Although ,as yet,
There existed no skunks.

He was relaxin', kickin' back,
throwin' firecrackers
At bowls and tubs of snot.
At snot he shot and hit them not
Because not a good shot was he.
(Seein' as he was drunk.)

So purely by chance,
(It had to be chance,
Because chance is all there is you see.)
Purely by chance
He tossed up a brick
and fortuitously
it plopped with a gloop
in this primordial goop
this serendipitous pot of snot soup

It went off with a bang
And a glurpy Kaboom,
Little snot fairies everywhere.
And that's my story
Of how we all came to be,
Except for it don't account
For who put the yeast
in the Coyote's beer.