Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 10:40:51 AM PDT
A customer says:
Here's the Razor used properly:

Codes == Metaphor

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 11:25:57 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:22 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 12:26:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2011 12:32:58 PM PDT
SinSeeker:

BAM says:
"Evolution model: matter + energy + time = codes
ID model: matter + energy + time + intelligence = codes"

If both models lead to codes, isn't intelligence superfluous? Wouldn't the more parsimonious model be best?

Evolution does not lead to codes. It *changes* already existing self-reproducing codes. The search for a small (conceivably happening at random) self-reproducing molecular code system is the key to the debate at this time. IDers are just pointing out that one commonly observed source of such codes is intelligence. Please note, however: even if some future mathematician establishes a minimum complexity for such self-reproducing codes that is way more than we can comfortably attribute to chance during the life of the universe, invoking intelligence outside the universe is still not science. Not because it is wrong, but because science limits itself to this universe in its methodology. It is equally a mistake when materialist scientists regard Science as the Search for Ultimate Truth. It is the best way to learn about this universe - but assuming that this "universe" is "all there is" is a metaphysical and non-scientific assumption.

Objective evidence for interaction with things outside this universe is by definition historical, not scientific. Due to our incomplete knowledge of this universe, any such evidence can always be regarded as a natural phenomenon not yet understood. If you personally shake your Boggle cubes, and they spell out a message in English - Dembski's concept of CSI measures how likely this is to happen by chance. The "pattern" is English, and the specified complexity is the total complexity of Boggle throws (easily calculated) divided by the complexity of all throws that match the "English" pattern (much harder to estimate). A considerably smaller, but still huge number. There is no obvious pattern to use for measuring CSI in general evolution. However, the "pattern" for origin of life is "self-reproducing code". The specified complexity of the first "life" is in principle measurable. Current research into such self-reproducing molecules is critical to measuring that CSI - even when done by those "biased" and "lying" Darwinists. No matter how dishonest the researcher, a positive finding can be checked. Every positive finding establishes a new upper bound on that CSI. Cold-fusion claims were positive claims that were checked and found wanting. Even dishonest Darwinists are subject to the same checks.

Yes, I understand the complaints about the solemnly intoned origin of life mythology of primeval soups presented as "fact" in schools. Or for that matter the un-Biblical models of creation refuted by the Church Fathers (e.g. Augustine: "how can they be days when the means to measure days are not created until the fourth day") presented as "fact" in other schools. But those are complaints about education, not the science, however biased in its direction, done by Darwinists and Intelligent Design proponents. For the record, I support school choice as the answer to the above problems.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 1:03:01 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Charles Dawkins: to show me the experiment (or the research paper) that demonstrates the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicellular organism.
>If by experiment you mean empirical observations predicted by evolution, then you've been told about them many times, but you refuse to open your mind to the possibility that ID is wrong.

Charles Dawkins:Here is another one then, more sophisticated: an outboard motor.
>The last time I saw an outboard motor it was not a living organism. So, evolution, nor any biology, would apply.

Charles Dawkins: We can perform the same experiment on the flagellum.
>The flagellum argument has been refuted so many times that even talking about it becomes nonsensical.

Charles Dawkins: That's another though one. Journals have banned any reference to ID because only evolution is allowed (darwinism on display.)
>As Behe freely admits, ID is not science. So there is no reason to publish anything about it in a science journal.

I would like to know if you reject all science or just that which refutes ID?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 6:36:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2011 6:41:29 PM PDT
B.A.M. and his ilk prefer fundamentalist terrorist Islamis to the teaching of respectable science in their own nation's educational institutions.

That doesn't make them very good Americans, does it?

" Sema Ergezen teaches biology to Turkish students interested in teaching science themselves, and she has long struggled with her students' ignorance of, and sometimes hostility to, the notion of evolution.

But she was taken aback when several of her Marmara University students recently accused her of being an atheist, or worse, for teaching anything but the doctrine that God created the Earth and everything on it.

Thanks to aid from American Christian Fundies, this is just one incident:

"Creationists boost Islamic Fundamentalists in Turkey

Fundamentalist Christians are not generally big boosters of Islamic fundamentalism. But it appears that American creationists hate Darwin and the science of evolution even more, and are aggressively helping Islamic fundamentalists undermine both science and the secular governmental traditions in Turkey. According to an article in the Washington Post, the teaching of evolution is under attack by Islamic fundamentalists armed with materials created by American creationists. The article opens with an anecdote that, with one exception, will be all too familiar to U.S. science educators:

Sema Ergezen teaches biology to Turkish students interested in teaching science themselves, and she has long struggled with her students' ignorance of, and sometimes hostility to, the notion of evolution.

But she was taken aback when several of her Marmara University students recently accused her of being an atheist, or worse, for teaching anything but the doctrine that God created the Earth and everything on it.

"They said I was a liar if I called myself a Muslim because I also accepted evolution," she said.
==========
Anti-evolution forces are blossoming, according to the article, thanks to American backers of creationism and intelligent design:

Translated and adapted for a Muslim society, the purported proofs that Darwinism and evolution were wrong came directly from American proponents of Christian creationism and its less overtly religious offshoot, intelligent design.

Ergezen's experience has become increasingly common. While creationism and intelligent design appear to be in some retreat in the United States, they have blossomed within Muslim Turkey. With direct and indirect help from American foes of evolution, similarly-minded Turks have aggressively made the case that Charles Darwin's theory is scientifically wrong and is the underlying source of most of the world's conflicts because it excludes God from human affairs.

"Darwin is the worst Fascist there has ever been, and the worst racist history has ever witnessed," writes Harun Yahya, the most assertive and best-known critic of evolution in Turkey, and long a favorite of more conservative American creationists.

The article notes that Turkey, with it secular government traditions, has been more open to scientific understandings of evolution than other Muslim countries, but that's changing with the help of American institutions like Seattle's Discovery Institute and The Institute for Creation Research in Dallas.

"They said I was a liar if I called myself a Muslim because I also accepted evolution," she said."

www.rightwingwatch.org/.../creationists-boost-islamic-fundamentalists-turkey
-----------
Mind you, I don't much care if Fundies of any stripe destroy the basic concepts of the scientific method in Turkey.

And I suppose that American Fundies , if they gain control of major projects in the US such as the space race and nuclear weaponry, will do nothing but good; they will slow down the speed at which nuclear technology is developed.

But it's interesting to see how politics makes strange bedfellows. Because American Creationsists are certainly in bed with Islamic Creationists.

But when they get get rid of evolution theory in schools, and get down to the issue of whether Jesus is God or just a prophet, and whether all the nation's courts should honor, respect and adhere to Sharia law, it'll be right back to drawn daggers and conversion at the point of a sword between Fundies whether Christian or Islamic.

Business as usual!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 9:49:32 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:26 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 22, 2011 10:59:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2011 11:00:01 PM PDT
BAM: "I believed in Darwinian evolution and that we evolved from an apelike creature. I became a theistic evolutionist in the late 90's and then around 2004 I started studying intelligent design. Like Dr. Smalley I began to get angry about the lies I was fed through indoctrination with bad science to get me to believe in evolution."

I saw this thread by chance when I was browsing the forums. I'm new to the idea of ID, but as I understand it claims to be a scientific theory that explains how the different species came to be what they are today. I'm interested in papers or journals that contains the latest research in the field of ID. Since you have studied it for many years I wonder if you can guide me to scientific journals where I might find answers to the following questions

1. When was the first design made?
2. When was the most recent design made?
3. How many designs are made (roughly)?
4. Who, or what, is the designer according to the ID theory?

These are just a few introductory questions from a lay person. I hope you can help me out. I'm sure they are easily answered.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 1:10:47 AM PDT
A customer says:
Ooh, a Concern Anti-Troll!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 3:26:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 23, 2011 9:25:16 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 9:04:49 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:28 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 9:09:43 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:28 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 9:21:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 23, 2011 9:24:19 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 23, 2011 9:50:34 AM PDT
David Félix says:
Hi Brent,

"Scientists are still allowed to write books, Darwin did without peer review and it changed science (at least biology,) remember The Origin of Species?"

Remember the Oxford Evolution debate of 1860?

"Gerald Schroeder- "The Hidden Face of God." "
"Then Flew wrote a book "There is a God" "
"John C. Sanford a world renowned geneticist is writing books since his conversion from atheism. "

For someone that keeps on whining about how "darwininsts" keep bringing God into the debate, your choice of "papers or journals that contains the latest research in the field of ID" is ... interesting to say the least...

"He's also published a couple of research papers in science journals that discuss the genetic meltdown which contradicts NDE."

Any references of Sanford's research papers in science journals that contradict Evolutionary Theory? All I can find are papers describing biollistic transformation (the "gene gun" method), and not alot of them at that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 9:52:57 AM PDT
I'm not sure your questions are honest, but just in case you are merely unclear on the concept:

1. When was the first design made?
Apart from metaphysics, before recorded history. A stone axe is a design. When discussing metaphysics, the first design relevant to our universe would be its creation. The first design relevant to evolution would be the first self-reproducing via code that can be mutated molecule. If the "irreducible complexity" barriers to evolution are real, then the first cell (with code for all such cellular machinery).

2. When was the most recent design made?
A very recent one was this post. If the context is evolution, then generally it is assumed there was only one, and things evolved from there. A long succession of miracles would be interesting, but not very amenable to scientific investigation. There are religious arguments for a large number of "kinds" as the first design, followed by special evolution, but no general evolution. There is no positive evidence for this apart from questionable interpretations of ancient texts, however, only arguments from things unexplained by general evolution ("where are the missing links?").

3. How many designs are made (roughly)?
Too many to count. Estimating how many designs a typical human makes in a day is tricky since distinguishing choices from habits is difficult. Again, in the context of evolution, just one. It is an origin event, like the big bang.

4. Who, or what, is the designer according to the ID theory?
Unknown, and irrelevant to science unless we uncover evidence that it was an intelligence within our universe, such as an alien race - which would then lead to the question of how the aliens came to be. Origin events like the big bang and the first cell are philosophical problems for materialists, but not scientific problems. Origin events are simply the fence at the end of the playground.

We could discover that our universe is much bigger that we first thought - with colliding branes producing our spacetime along with many others. But the concept of the supernatural is not another dimension, but one of author and story, or of host operating system and virtual machine. The VM cannot tell by experiment that it is virtualized. Programs within the VM can communicate with the host OS via magic bytes setup by the host OS. But intelligent programs within the VM could also rationally regard the behaviour of such magic memory locations as a peculiar feature of the VM they inhabit (especially since the strange behaviour is intermittent), and discount metaphysical theories of supernatural machines whereby their VM was created and is sustained.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 10:26:11 AM PDT
A customer says:
Stuart D. Gathman - "Apart from metaphysics, before recorded history. A stone axe is a design."

And also probably originally an accident. Quite a common property of the "designed", that.

Not to mention not being "irreducibly complex", a recent way to dignify the argument from igorance.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 10:31:57 AM PDT
A customer says:
Brent A. Mortimer - "ID is banned in mainstream science journals because it doesn't fit the premise of NDE: everything evolved. This approach was adopted to selectively look for evolution, it does not fit the standard "scientific method" model developed by Sir Francis Bacon a couple of hundred years ago"

The one that laid out methodological naturalism as its central dogma, you mean. The one that described the scientific method as proceeding from facts to generalisations to PHYSICAL, i.e. naturalistic, law.

"The premise of ID: design is detectable"

And the method of detection: We can't see how this arose, therefore God did it. An argument from ignorance in flow-chart form is still an argument from ignorance.

In any case, designers seek redundancy, the OPPOSITE of irreducibility.

Posted on Mar 23, 2011 11:42:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 23, 2011 11:44:30 AM PDT
MrBabakS says:
dear Mr. Brent Mortimer,

Your argument makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe that's because I am a C# coder and software developer and I work with code every day.
Perhaps those who don't understand your argument do so because they are unfamiliar with coding and complexity.
After having experienced sometimes spending many hours to debug some logical error in an area of code, one comes to appreciate the intelligence required to create complexity in a system.
Here we have complex code (human DNA) that is the basis for creating complex machinery (a human being). That's two levels of complexity.
To believe that such complexity happened out of randomness requires a HUGE leap of faith and is absurdly unreasonable, while believing that complexity that creates complexity (DNA code that is the blue print for proteins) is designed is quite reasonable.
Let us consider this: DNA (complexity) is the basis for proteins, which are the basis for enzymes (complex machinery), which contribute to creating a human (complex machinery), who goes on to create computer code (complexity) that ends up as a piece of working software (complex machinery).
So, we have complexity which results in complex machinery which contributes to more complex machinery which results in complex code which results in another piece of complex machinery.
Evolutionists claim that the original code complexity (DNA) which led to that chain of complex things happened by random occurance. Now that's a leap of faith!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 11:45:55 AM PDT
SciGuy says:
BAM posts:

"You are now on ignore. Thank you AMAZON for this useful feature. D.Thrower, Irish Lace and A.Caplan are also on ignore. I won't be responding to any future posts from you."

Reply: Will you do me this great honor too. Being placed on "ignore" is good when the ignoring party also ignores evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 12:06:30 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 12:16:11 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 12:20:50 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Add me to your ignore list!

(That will make it easier for you to avoid answering any of the questions I asked.)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 12:21:28 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
Concerning Michael Behe, one of ID's champions. He accepts common descent too. The following is revelatory:

"Unlike William A. Dembski [23] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[24] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:
"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 1:13:18 PM PDT
I trust you noticed that BAM failed to answer even one of your questions. I will answer the last. ID says that the designer is the Christian God. When BAM denies it, he is being deliberately disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 1:31:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 23, 2011 1:34:17 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
David Félix asks BAM: "Any references of Sanford's research papers in science journals that contradict Evolutionary Theory?"

BAM, I'd be curious to know which aspects of these research papers you've cited in response to David's question "contradict Evolutionary Theory"?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 1:37:39 PM PDT
Seeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  303
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 10, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions