You see, I can't argue against him anymore - he's not taking my money by force to teach pseudoscience.
In the beginning
Whether evolution or creation, both are still theories
Editor, The Times:
Wow, I had to duck fast and early to miss the knee-jerk reaction of Mindy Cameron ("Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection," Times guest column, June 3). The "We know what they are really saying" (wink, wink) and immediate call to arms over the discussion of any compatibility between intelligent design and natural selection. What she misses completely is that evolution and creation are both theories.
Wait just minute — hold that knee down! One has more backing from a certain segment of the population and one has more backing from another. Science is not supposed to be subject to those all-too-human emotions that impact positions and arguments from each side, but it is.
It is telling to note that Cameron states, "I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design... But it is only a belief." It is an equally true statement to substitute "evolution" for "intelligent design." It may be a majority belief, but it nevertheless requires its own faith.
Stephen Jay Gould's theory tried to explain the lack of actual demonstration of evolution of a new species rather than the natural selection within a species. Until that happens and is repeatable (that, by the way, is science), evolution is simply a different religious belief.
- Barry Baker, SeattleA divine spark
I've read that in inventing the incandescent light, Thomas Edison tried some 4,000 different ideas before he hit on one that worked. Oops, that didn't work — oops, that didn't work — oops, that didn't work — Hot damn! — look at that baby glow!
Was this an evolutionary process or intelligent design? Looks to me like it was both.
There are a whole lot of really interesting "Questions to Ponder" out there, like:
What sort of "stuff" did the Big Bang "bang" from?
What was God doing before Creation? Shooting pool at the eternal billiards parlor — or what?
Wasn't the Pythagorean Theorem true even before Pythagoras thought of it? Wasn't it always true? Even before the Big Bang, Creation or whatever? This sort of implies that "Nothing" may be impossible, if this theorem was always true — then there never was "nothing."
I think this makes the "Creation vs. Big Bang controversy" a little trivial; there's something more profound here.
We'll have to scrap the dogmas from both sides to pursue this much further. Seems to me to be a worthwhile venture, both in the classroom and out.
- Norm Seaholm, SeattleUnevolved thought
Mindy Cameron's summation as to what intelligent design argument is about, demonstrates stunning ignorance. She offered no credible defense of evolution. There is no evidence suggesting the super-micro particles of life evolve even in the slightest.
In the vacuum of anything better, I suppose evolution is all Darwinists have, but you look silly in insisting this be taught in public schools based on recent research, and it would indicate that this argument clearly has more to do with simple politics than it does science.
My criticisms of the entire debate centers in hypocrisy in checks and balances that dramatically change depending on which direction the criticism is headed. Until both parties can explain the opposing opinion correctly, and apply the same standards in both directions, none of us has the right to teach anything on this topic in the public schools.
Fortunately, judging from polls regarding belief in God, it appears the students of America can see a fraud regardless of how much evolution gets shoved down their throats. Might I suggest the Darwinist camp start being a bit more honest with their "evidence"?
- Phil Caldwell, SeattleBarriers at the gate
OK, I am a seventh-grade science teacher, and I just finished my mandatory unit on Intelligent Design (as required by the state and Harcourt Brace). My students ask the natural question (the only thing that matters in this theory): "Well, who is this Designer?" My answer: Xenu, the Uber Soul from a galaxy far, far away.
Would the Christians be OK with that? After all, their goal is not to put God in the classroom, but to offer a science-based alternative to evolution, so why should they care?
Fact is, the genesis of our universe only matters within the realm of science, because it is science that will make some practical use of the knowledge. Religious believers want the knowledge (actually, they act as if they already have it, don't they?) so they can drive a "wedge" between themselves and the rest of the unenlightened world. Heaven has a gate, right? With Saint Peter guarding it. What is a gate but a passage through a wall or fence? Why a wall around Heaven? Metaphor! We are good and smart and right. They are bad and stupid and evil.
Science has given us Velcro and minivans and computers and fields of wheat that feed 10,000 instead of 10. Religion has given us false comfort and hope when we are sick, and guys who fly jets into buildings.
Which domain of activity has benefited humanity more?
- Dave Stead, Port OrchardSeparate but equal
While we can all have sympathy for people whose religious beliefs seem threatened by the discoveries of science, Mindy Cameron is right to point out this need not be the case, since science and religion occupy two distinctly different spheres of the human experience.
To insist on the inclusion of "Intelligent Design" in science curricula is like adding sand to a recipe for apple pie — it just doesn't belong. It may be a comforting idea to those who refuse to accept the reality of what science discovers, but science isn't the place to turn for comfort and a sense of belonging — that job belongs to our religious and cultural beliefs, just as it should be.
We can no more shoehorn faith into the realm of science than we can force God into a test-tube, so why continue tilting at windmills? Congratulations to Cameron for the thoughtful essay on why such confusion benefits no one.
- John Hedley, Kirkland
Intelligent discussion
The designer has no label
Mindy Cameron's column on intelligent design is another attempt to obfuscate the issue of the origin of life ("Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection," guest column, June 3). Instead of scientifically addressing the critiques by intelligent-design proponents, Darwinists and their supporters like Cameron focus on the "G" word or a sociological agenda by right-wing conspirators. How about the scientific evidence?
I have the video "Icons of Evolution" that Cameron criticized. I read Jonathan Wells' book. He lists and describes in detail many distortions that appear in high-school and college biology textbooks and refutes Darwinistic claims that these "icons" prove the theory of evolution.
Cameron's dread of a belief system invading our schools has already happened. It is the materialistic, atheistic philosophy that serves as a base for Darwinian evolution and is disguised as science. A chief proponent was Stephen Jay Gould, who may have criticized traditional Darwinism (due to the lack of evidence in the fossil record) but was still a neo-Darwinist who held to the philosophy.
Intelligent design does not attribute a name to the designer. It could be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist god or none of the above. It may have been space aliens, or the Earth itself, for Gaia theory fans. The important consideration is this: Does the scientific evidence best support design or macroevolution?
One thing we do know: Students will remain impoverished when the school boards reject the advice of Congress and true science and instead embrace materialistic philosophy.
— Tim Hope, Kent
Clear-eyed faith
I found Mindy Cameron's column grossly misleading. From what I read, she sees intelligent-design theorists as anti-scientific hillbillies who reject accepted scientific fact. In reality, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory (i.e., something that hasn't been proven true). And 100 years of digging and probing hasn't proven whether or not it is (true).
We who believe in intelligent design come to our conclusions the same way scientists do; by examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on our observations. We came to our conclusion honestly, not through a blind, irrational faith like Cameron seemed to suggest.
Yes, intelligent design is founded on a religious basis. But evolution is also founded on a similar "religious basis": the idea of the absence of God.
If teaching an unproven theory that tries to explain God away is allowed to be taught, I don't see why an alternative theory to the same controversy could not be shown by its side. Intelligent design is, after all, an accepted theory, with its proponents in just about every area of science. And whether Cameron agrees or not, it is a rational theory that deserves to be given a chance in our public institutions.
— Joshua Tom, Bothell
Designer's dream
I submit that intelligent design is much more than a mere belief about life's origins. Many informed persons today consider intelligent design more scientific than evolution.
Item: It's the consistency and rationality of Earth's properties that allow scientists to explore hopefully and explain confidently. It's that same consistency and rationality that allows pharmacologists to design medicines that work predictably.
It would appear the intelligent designer wanted his creation explored by the fascinated and admired by the informed.
— J. Philip Prigge, Seattle
Intelligent design does NOT have to involve God, although theists can choose to place the intelligence in a deity.
The driving force behind the opposition to rational debate and discussion of intelligent design theory is a pervasive undercurrent of Anti-theism, or a need by some people to have there NOT be a God.
The mere suggestion that there may be a God, even alluding to His existence and involvement with intelligent design theory, sets a transcendent foundational framework for civilized moral human behavior that declares a right and a wrong way of living and interacting with others.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 17].
One movement is held back by the scientist/university/government complex. The other is held back by the nation's largest labor union. Both dams are beginning to break.
Arise Sheeple and throw off your chains!
The creation-evolution debate helps illustrate our dependence on science, nurtured by a media controlled by others.
If we were to use other terms for the above quote from the article, we would have something like:I have no quarrel with those who believe in global warming. It has appeal as a way to control property. But it is only a belief.
Two hundred years ago, the founding fathers intended a separation of Church and State; James Madison wrote, “religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” Today, if Madison was around, he would say, Science and Government will exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
The founding fathers knew from history that religion was misused to control people, to stifle liberties. The threat of damnation was used to indulge the whims of those in power.
Today, the threat of extinction, the threat of harm, based on the misuse of science is used to accomplish what religion cannot because of the First Amendment.
Science has ceased to be enlightening; it is time to separate Science and State.
Yep, that's right.
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
| . . , , | ____)/ \(____ | _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ | ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. | ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. | |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| | ` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Homeschooling Has Come A Long Way
"There are many more worthless courses taught in public schools on which homeschoolers will not spend their precious time, such as courses in...evolution"
Example: we (conservatives) have ideological disagreement with the output of the economics departments of these major universities (where, for example, people receive undergrad degrees in economics and have never HEARD of Von Hayek and only vaguely of Friedman, believing only that economics rests on the shoulders of Keynes and Galbreath.) Now, apply this over to the biology department and you will see why EVOLUTION is singly, solely propagandized and you now have otherwise bright people brainwashed as you see here on FR because they were never exposed to anything else----much as people hear Limbaugh for the first time and realize they were never exposed to the conservative thoughts of, say, William F. Buckley, Jr., or Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan, because in school and in media this was BANNED just as anything OTHER than "evolution" is verboten when it comes to origin theory in education and media.
Here's a small, typical glimpse behind the ivory tower. Gawd, does anyone really have to shine a light back into that roaches' den for CONSERVATIVE's to see it for what it is? The Intellectual Terror in Our Universities
My gosh----I believe there are very few (at least I hope) on FR who don't see through this Global Warming sham. We conservatives see it for what it is. Global Warming was created on campuses by the same people who bring us evolution. So how is it that some people will believe, will swallow----hook, line, and sinker----evolution, yet reject global warming, when global warming is being presented as absolute truth, just like evolution.
We---the unwashed masses in flyover country---need the intellectual elite to figure this stuff out for us. If someone is a CONSERVATIVE, that automatically disqualifies them from having an opinion worth consideration. HENCE, we have evolution---read: 19th century junk science---taught at fact. Next: global warming---20th century junk science taught as fact.
Oh, I forgot...here's another good one from academia: Diversity!---or, The People Who Brought You Global Warming And Evolution Say "Diversity---Our Strength, Our Salvation"---When In TRUTH, a TRUE Academic Study REVEALS the OPPOSITE!!! But, of course, the left at universities---when it comes to diversity, or to evolution, or to global warming, or to who started WWII---wouldn't want TRUTH to get in the way!!
This is so much more a plausible theory than: Complex life just sponteously Combusted into it's complex closed cirvo form.
Futhermore there is much more evidence for ID than evolution...Entropy alone puts evolution to shame.
Scientist? More like story teller. He gave up paleontology because it did not prove his atheistic theory. He thus went into fiction writing about new species arising where no one could see them and where no one would find a trace of them. His writings are more new age religion than science.