Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]

Seattle Weekly ^ | 01 February 2006 | Roger Downey

[Rudder]

ID is here to stay. The debate has just begun.

John Carew Eccles, hisself, I presume.

Please explain what ID means, or states, concerning the data ID cites for it's inclusion into science. In other words, why do you support ID?

[Right Wing Professor]

Macroevolution has many issues like how some of the more complex features could have evolved from a single celled creature given an random unguided process.

Evolution is not a random process. You bring to mind Dawkins' words about people who reject evolution.

For example, one could even believe that we all descended from a chimp like creature, but when you get past that to evolving from a creature with no eyes,brain, arms, or legs, you just can't get there with gradualism.

Why not?

To say the siafu ants from Africa, with their highly complex society and language were the product of random mutation and natural selection will never be known, yet it is stated.

The evolution of behavior in ants is discussed in Sociobiology. You should read it. It's a classic.

[Coyoteman]

All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

And what disclaimer should we put on the global flood?

[Rudder]

I remember being very unimpressed by the constant Behe drumbeat of [paraphrase] "You know Design by the purposeful arrangement of parts." That sounds promising, until he fails to deliver on how you know a purposeful arrangement of parts. It turns out Behe just knows one when he sees one.

I'm glad to read that you also picked this up.

I've been calling, in my earlier posts to these threads: Behe's either guilty of sophistry or infllicted with mental deficiency .

His testimony at Dover was devasting...he's both.

[Right Wing Professor]

And what disclaimer should we put on the global flood?

Deluges in the Bible may have been much smaller than they appear?

[LiteKeeper]

The inane responses to your post simply serve to demonstrate the validity of your post. Good job.

[microgood]

And what disclaimer should we put on the global flood?

If someone was trying to prove that scientifically, then the same one.

[Coyoteman]

And what disclaimer should we put on the global flood?

If someone was trying to prove that scientifically, then the same one.

More likely they are trying to prove it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Evidence doesn't seem to matter to some folks.

As Heinlein noted:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[Virginia-American]

RE: Scientists refuse to debate CRIDers.

There are several things going on here:

1) CRIDers often throw out a whole pamphlets' worth of what they perceive (or pretend to perceive, because, deep down, I suspect they know they're lying) to be unanswerable objections to standard biology, geology, physics, etc etc.

It is impossible for the normal person to respond to all of these in the time allocated.

2) The converse of this is, that CRIDers *will not* debate on-line. Their sound-bite logic doesn't work when the other side has time to research, as opposed to trying to remember everything on their feet in front of an often hostile audience.

I'm pinging RWP because IIRC he wanted an on-line debate. With Johnson (?)

[VadeRetro]

His testimony at Dover was devasting...

It couldn't be more obvious after the testimony of ID's poster boy that, scientifically, there's no there there in ID.

[VadeRetro]

RE: Scientists refuse to debate CRIDers.

There's also a Catch-22 game there. Any scientist who regularly debates ID, or any entity actually organized to do so (the NCSE website or TalkOrigins) is routinely rejected on these threads as an anti-creationist witch-hunter and a "better" source will be demanded.

So, duck them and you're accused of a conspiracy to ignore them away. Answer them and you're a rabid partisan incapable of objectivity.

[Dimensio]

The fact remains that you did predict a verdict in the trial. You could have just admitted to being mistaken regarding your claim that you made no such prediction, but your continued denial in spite of the fact that I can show the exact post where you did make such a prediction gives the strong impression that you are dishonest.

[connectthedots]

I did predict a narrow victory for the defendants; I am not disputing that. In other places, I also stated that judges can do whatever they want; including ingoring the law.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'll debate any of them, online or in person, at any time. I can do sound bites; I have no problem returning personal attacks in kind; and a quarter century of teaching has trained me to think on my feet. Nothing focusses the mind like discovering you have a sign error in your notes and you have to finish a complicated proof on the fly in front of 50 wise-ass chemical engineers who will pick up instantly on any mistake.

[connectthedots]

I don't believe you have ever gotten around to stating the parties you think are bound by that decision, aside from the parties directly involved in the case.

The fact, the answer is 'no one else'.

[Virginia-American]

The ostensible "fence-sitter" to me is another variant of the "secular skeptic of evolution." ... hoping to act as the shill in the crowd.

Reminds me of the "formerly life-long Republicans" on CSPAN.

[dread78645]

Jones' opinion has absolutely no relevance to any future case; even within the same district.

Fascinating.
So I suppose every school board will just ignore McLean v. Arkansas as well?

[microgood]

Evolution is not a random process. You bring to mind Dawkins' words about people who reject evolution.

You are right. I meant to say unguided.

Why not?

Because I do not see how even if the world was 300 trillion years old you could mutate your way from a single cell creature to a human. You can call it the argument from incredulity but it just does not make any sense. What I find incredible is that anyone actually believes it. I must be missing something.

I can buy evolution up to our common ancestor with the chimps but after that (or before that) you lose me.

The evolution of behavior in ants is discussed in Sociobiology. You should read it. It's a classic.

Thanks, I will check it out. Those ants fascinate me. Some show on discovery said their language is way more complicated than human language and is transmitted through high frequency waves of some kind.

[Right Wing Professor]

Because I do not see how even if the world was 300 trillion years old you could mutate your way from a single cell creature to a human. You can call it the argument from incredulity but it just does not make any sense. What I find incredible is that anyone actually believes it. I must be missing something.

Possibly what you're missing is the intermediate steps? We know about most of them. Do you have any problem, for example, with the transition from a lobe-finned fish to a tetrapod?

When I first looked at electronic circuits, I thought who the heck can possibly understand this complicated network of transistors and resistors and capacitors. Once I learned a little more, of course, I realized it can all be divided into sub-circuits that perform particular functions, and it's just a question of recognizing the elements. People can understand the most extraordinarily complex things, but only in pieces.

[darbymcgill]

I neglected to provide a link: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

Ahhhh... come on.. post the whole thing please... I hate punching those dumb links...