Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[<1/1,000,000th%]

ID wants to focus on the "why" of nature and how it fits into God's plan for us.

Biologists want to understand what's going on around us in a simple non-metaphysical way.

[DannyTN]

"These are all examples of negatives."

Radio-isotope halos and Diamond Crystal studies aren't negative. Creationists went looking specifically looking for "clocks" that would measure through different means than radiometric decay.

The magnetic flips, wasn't negative. The Creationist specifically theorized and predicted that lava cooling would have captured the record of quick magnetic flips.

The vestigal organs can be stated as a positive. That all human organs would serve important functions.

The missing links is a negative, but it's a pretty damning negative for evolution.

"Non-coding DNA having function" is a positive.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

What's far more disturbing than Coulter herself...

Someone's going to get a can of whoop-a$$ opened on him.

[b_sharp]

"Stalin was a Darwinist.

Not really. Darwinism does not fit in well with Marxist philosophy. Marxism requires the populace to be socially malleable, Darwinism states that humans have a large unmalleable, evolutionarily inherited, central mental core. Stalin would be better described as a Lamarckian.

"Hitler, who believed in a master race, was...what?"

Hitler was a fruitcake that was full of hate and would have latched on to anything he felt had the slightest possibility of justifying his actions.

[Antoninus]

well, I'm not an osteologist, nor am I a veterinarian, but they all appear to be canines to me - not canidae, but canis familiaris. a trained veterinary osteologist would do a much better job of identification.

That's basically my point. We know these are canine skulls because we are familiar with them. Similarly, a verterinary osteologist would be able to place them immediately because he's seen thousands of them--along with their original owners.

We don't have that luxury with the fossil record which covers at least 4 billion years. Tales of incorrect interpretations of the fossils are legion and updated almost daily.

Don't assume that I think we shouldn't study the fossil record--quite the contrary I find it fasciniating and I read about each new discovery with great interest. However, I'm cautious enough to realize that something paleontologists are absolutely certain right now might get thrown out the window in 20 years. We're just scratching the surface, really.

[betty boop]

All of these accusations are founded in a premise that her claims are demonstratably false, and ample information has been provided as evidence that her claims are false.

Please give one example, Dimensio!

[betty boop]

We have discussed whether or not there are transitioal fossils, whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics says evolution is impossible, etc. It is theoretically possible therefore that you could realize that nothing in Ann's book would look like anything but the usual bad creationist pennies I have wearily dissected for the last several years on this forum.

I guess that must mean I'm stupid, too -- because I remain unconvinced by your arguments.

In any case, I never said the Second Law of Themodynamics means that evolution is impossible. I also never said that I hold evolution theory to be false. All I have ever said in that regard is that the neo-Darwinist version both claims more than it can justify, and is incomplete.

[King Prout]

I'm reasonably comfortable with the analyses done by experts in the field. I'm not particularly pleased with the occasional uber-extrapolation from one chunk of occipital bone into a fully-fleshed organism, nay! tribe, etc... but those are exceptions to the rule.

while not an osteologist, I do have some familiarity with the standards of the trade, and know that they are carefully measuring and comparing hundreds of specific and interrelated "landmark" features, not simply eyeballing them and making grand pronouncements - that latter's the Scientific Creationist's method, not the scientist's.

[Louis Foxwell]

Amos preached in a time of plenty and comfort. There was no recognition among the people that they needed the Lord.
Those in our culture who luxuriate in their comfort do not want to be bothered with loathsome enemies like Marxism, Islamofascism and the illicit spawn of Humanism.
When science seeks to create a moral climate it is beyond its limits.
And, you are correct, when religious professionals make diatribe against reason and legitimate scientific enterprise they are no better than a Taliban.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Those look like crocodylians. But with the 250 million year history of that order, it's impossible to ID them without being able to handle them or look them up.

There are 23 current species and 100's of extinct ones, more if you include similar looking species from the diapsida sub-group.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[King Prout]

such has been done, repeatedly.
do you pledge to pay attention, or shall we simply put out once more in hope that has thus far gone unrequited?

[b_sharp]

"If you read his "work" again you will see that he attempts to equate all religions, including Christianity, in his blood liable. I was simply showing that if he wants to talk religious bloodshed, not all religions are equal."

I agree.

My point is that attributing horrific habits to a specific group during a debate about science is nonsensical. Humans, whether atheistic or religious have in the past and will continue to kill other humans based on any number of closely held and probably erroneous reasons.

I would prefer that the argument between Evolution and Creation avoid such obviously pointless arguments.

In my opinion, comparing numbers of deaths devalues the lives of all who died.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You're misrepresenting the talkorigins write-up. The data in this case were fabricated to match the prediction.

A better example would have been a cosmological one. The Bible documents a creation event that is now accepted in the "big bang" theory. The previous steady-state theory is now discredited and no longer studied.

[Antoninus]

while not an osteologist, I do have some familiarity with the standards of the trade, and know that they are carefully measuring and comparing hundreds of specific and interrelated "landmark" features, not simply eyeballing them and making grand pronouncements - that latter's the Scientific Creationist's method, not the scientist's.

Perhaps. But comparing hundreds of interrelated features is still speculation when it comes do determining if two fossilized skulls were actually of the same species/genus/family/class etc. If we could genetically compare them somehow, THAT would be proof. I believe that we someday we will develop the technology to do so, thus putting a lot of this stuff to rest.

[atlaw]

His point, apparently, is that paleontologists aren't allowed to use source materials or their education to identify skull and bone samples. I think it's found under section 2, subsection b (iv) of the Paleontologist Rulebook -- which reads -- "With each find, a working paleontologist in the field must forget all prior knowledge and eschew all reference materials, make a wild-ass guess at what he's holding in his hand, and avoid at all costs any further examination of the find after a shower and a shave."

[b_sharp]

"The transitional articles you post are all Biased, and un-scientific.

"it is creation that is supported By the phisical world.

"there are exactly Zero, transitional Fosils.

"Archeopterix was just a Bird.

"Evolutionists are afraid of the truth.

"They, like Satan want to be GOD.

Wow! Now *that* was an amazingly convincing, concise, scientifically sound and unbiased refutation.

[Antoninus]

Those look like crocodylians.

One is, one ain't. The one that ain't is Eryops, a giant amphibian which existed about 300 million years ago. The other one is of a modern caiman.

My point is, it's relatively easy to misidentify two fossils that very far divergent--even when we have full skulls or skeletons (which is the exception, not the norm). Granted, a trained paleontologist is going to be a lot better at it than you or I, but they're still prone to mistakes and have made many of them over the past century.

[Antoninus]

His point, apparently, is that paleontologists aren't allowed to use source materials or their education to identify skull and bone samples. I think it's found under section 2, subsection b (iv) of the Paleontologist Rulebook -- which reads -- "With each find, a working paleontologist in the field must forget all prior knowledge and eschew all reference materials, make a wild-ass guess at what he's holding in his hand, and avoid at all costs any further examination of the find after a shower and a shave."

Uh, my belief is that the ToE offers the best explanation for speciation we currently have. Snide comments like this are exactly what makes me think that there may be more political/religious fervor behind the pro-Darwinian side of the argument than the young Earth Creationist side. And that's saying something!

[Gumlegs]

My mistake ... I was thinking of Harmon-Kardon.

[atlaw]

Sorry. That was pretty snide on my part. But it was also kind of tough to see the point.