Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Evolution under fire

Just wanted some comment on this. I found it surprising - maybe someone can bring some perspective to it.

I'm not banging a drum either way.

I notice that there are a number of Professors and PHD's from Washington University - maybe Dan could sort them out

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Regards,

Blacknad.

Most of those that signed on have degrees in a subject other than biology and can be dismissed out-of-hand.

I don't turn to Paris Hilton for advice on quantum mechanics and don't think anyone would be wise to take my advice on how to be a high fashion slut. Expertise in one area does not equate to expertise in another. And it should be noted that biochemistry is not biology and neither is genetics.

So lets look at Eugene Buff with a Ph.D. in genetics. One might note he is the author of the following paper: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/short/genetics.105.049213v1
Nothing here about evolution nor can I find anything else on the subject.

So here's my suggestion:
ebuff@yet2.com
phone: 617-557-3850

Ask him on what basis does he have reservations. I'd be interested.

Cheers Dan.

I will mail Mr Buff and let you know if he responds and with what.

Blacknad.

Have you heard of project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/ZZ/657_project_steve_n__600_9_16_2005.asp

Most of these people may be "scientists" in some sense of the term, but how many of them are truly leaders in their fields. IDers and other creationists habitually support the opinions of people who have made very minor contributions (or none at all) over people who have made staggering contributions:

Example - I keep hearing muttering about how String Theory supports ID. But one of the co-founders of the subject, Leonard Susskind gave a talk entitled "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design."

(I all-capped ILLUSION for emphasis.) I wrote Dr. Susskind and asked him directly whether this was meant to be taken literally or whether he had intended some sort of irony. He answered very quickly that it was meant literally and that he was coming out with a book by the name.

Now, there is a lot of debate about String Theory, but I think when it comes to who understands it best, that this guy would be way up there. In any case, his book has since come out:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/20/news/booksat.php
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/103-1943192-3866216?v=glance&n=283155


Another example:
William Dembski has written about how an information theoretic (IT) concept known as the NFL (No Free Lunch) Theorems supports intelligent design. What is Dembski famous for? Nothing, other than supporting ID. What does the David Wolpert - the co-discoverer of the NFL theorems - say?

He wrote an article called "William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems is Written in Jello" which you can read here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

These are just two of the latest in and ENDLESS attempt by IDers (and other creationists) to go to some really obscure branch of science and try to make some idiotic assertion - feeling very secure that the rarified atmosphere will keep out the average critic AND that they will be able to state things in such a way that the average reader will have an illusion of understanding the subject.

It started with

1) the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, then went to

2) the human eye disproves evolution, then

3) the bombadier beetle disproves evolution, then to

(2 and 3 representing cases of "specified complexity")

4) IT (info theory, specifically the NFL theorems listed above) disprove evolution, and finally to

5) ST (String Theory) disproves evolution.

These are just a very few highlights. IDers and other creationists have devoted pages and pages making claims like this - there are hundreds of examples.

On the one had the people who keep throwing out these little tidbits don't do sufficient homework to understand how inane most of them or how to evaluate competing claims (oh, wow! Jonathon Wells has TWO PhDs so he MUST BE really smart and really right!) On the other hand, their audiences tend to be even more mentally lazy. They just keep spouting the same stuff over and over, beating themselves into a frenzy about the myriad obvious disproofs of evolution.

If scientists ignore it, they say, "SEE! They don't know how to refute us!"

If scientists respond, they say, "SEE! We must be on to something, because they keep defending evolution SO VERY VIGOROUSLY!"

The simple truth about evolution was best summed up by what Dostoevsky's Underground Man. He wrote:

"Nature doesn't consult you; it doesn't give a damn for your wishes or whether its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is. . . ."

The problem for those living in fantasyland trying to kludge reality into a box built thousands of years before the discovery of electricity is simply that nature doesn't give a damn. And if a deity created nature ... the truth there too is ... that he doesn't give a damn either.

I like project Steve. Who says scientists are without a sense of humour?

But it does have a similar problem to the anti-evolution list - most signatories have nothing to do with evolutionary science. However, open it up to all scientists (Steve or otherwise) and the story would be very different.

For better or worse, these are my thoughts (as a Christian) on the ID versus Evolution debate.

In the end we have to get amongst the evidence - as someone who has come from an 'OLD earth creationism' position to an acceptance of evolutionary theory, I have to say the evidence is overwhelming. I was only able to choose a creationist position because I had not examined the evidence.

There are some anomalies that ID'ers point to that seem not to fit with an ancient earth and these are valid questions that we should seek to find answers for, but trying to use them to build a whole position from (as creationists do)is either senseless or disingenuous.

I know there are many religious types that accept evolution, but there are far too many that do not. I hope that one day they will realise that their proposition is solely driven by not wanting to relinquish a supporting 'proof' for God's existence, and is counter to all reasonable thinking. Galileo all over again.

This is a modern day 'god of the gaps' argument and will be shown to be completely unsupportable by what we observe, when ID'ers and such have had every single argument they make refuted (for example, cases of specified complexity held up by ID proponents as proof have been shown to be simply based upon a lack of understanding, and mechanisms have been demonstrated for the complex system to arise by gradual means, such as the tail of flagellum etc.).

As for its teaching in schools - ID is a philosophy that arises from a religious paradigm. Evolution is a scientific endeavour that arises out of the observation of common ancestry etc. ID should not be taught in schools at all - especially when used to support religious belief - this completely lacks all integrity. How long will Creationist hang on to an ever reducing proposition as everything is slowly explained away?

There are many things that bring religion into disrepute - this is certainly one of them. What is the real value of devoting your life to defending an indefensible position?

Blacknad.

Creationists who are actually seeking truth are at a very strong disadvantage.

Before they can even think, many are taught that faith is more important than anything else. They are taught that the scriptures are right above all else - and to doubt them is to spit in the very face of Our Lord and Savior.

They are also taught - from very early ages - to believe that they understand more than they actually do. Many of their preachers and many of their parents give them a version of evolution that doesn't remotely resemble the scientific version, and "facts" that are distorted, contrived, or otherwise misrepresented.

They then send them out into the world to preach the good word, with the preparatory remark:
"Them there evilutionists will scoff at you and Our Lord, but that's only because their position is weak. They will call you names. They will accuse you of being ignorant. But that's because they know they're really wrong."

And so they go out in their multitudes and try to persuade the world - debunking a theory of evolution that only exists in the minds of creationists, and spreading discredited facts and arguments. And when you - as an evolutionist - tell them "Uh ... you realize that that argument was refuted 25 years ago ... and that even creationists now admit it's wrong..."

"HA! See there! You're saying I'm ignorant! That's only because your position is weak!"

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sorry to say TFF, but I think that generalisation is as simplistic as the generalisations that SOME creationists make about scientists.

It does not accurately represent the mindset of most creationists I know.

Blacknad.

I was raised a creationist. Actually, I had two conflicting views. I was a creationist and an evolutionist. For whatever reason it never occurred to me that there was a conflict, until a fateful experience in Sunday School.

I won't relate the incident, but I remained a creationist a long time after that. It took me a very long time to figure things out. Since then, I have argued with an debated many, many creationists - online and off. I got interested in the subject when I was an agnostic who was still kind of pro-creation - nearly 25 years ago, about the same time I discovered the Internet. In fact, if I recall correctly, my very first post ever on the Internet was on the subject of evolution.

Every dealing I have ever had with creationists leads me to suspect that my own experience was not unique. Very, VERY few of them know what the theory of evolution actually says, and fewer still understand the implications.

Now it could be that most creationists are silent and the ones I have argued with have just been particularly vociferous and ignorant (of evolution).

A nice exchange gentlemen. I find myself rather pleased with its content as it demonstrates a willingness to move beyond canned sound-bites.

Relgion is about faith. At its most basic and fundamental level it starts with the premise that it has the correct and best answer. Anything that challenges it is by default a heresy.

The historical perspective is essential. The "discussions" on what constituted heresy between Catholics and Protestants is exceedingly bloody and one could argue didn't end until the reconcilliation in Northern Ireland just a few short minutes ago. We now get to witness, I presume, the same bloody imbecility carried out in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite Moslems whose only real beef, orpork, with each other is who should have rightfully inherited a title more than a thousand years ago ... one relative rather than another. The whole lot of them should be taken out to the woodshed and thrashed for an inability to learn anything from history.

Science on the other hand gives its grandest prizes to those that overcome normal human behavior and establish new paradigms that better explain reality. Not once in all of history have a group of physicists lynched each other over whether Einstein's explanation of gravity was a heresy against Newton's. Nor does one see bloody nonsense in Chemistry, Biology, Genetics, Astronomy, or any other serious scientific discipline.

It is a question of human maturity. Are we mature enough, as a species, to stand on our own two feet and confront nature on her terms or do we hide under the bed and beg an unseen hand to protect us from what is beyond our reach?

CLAP CLAP CLAP

However, I disagree with this: "Science on the other hand gives its grandest prizes to those that overcome normal human behaviour and establish new paradigms that better explain reality."
Well, not so much disagree, since it is true, but it is more a question of the individual's thirst for knowledge, and more importantly, the individuals ability to have them-selves proved-wrong and not get discouraged, and quite to the contrary, be more motivated to find the real truth. Where as some intelligently make fact-based hypothesis and set out to prove for themselves whether they were correct, others fool themselves with the belief that their hypothesis makes so much sense that it couldn't possibly be wrong. So now they have solved the mystery of life and can now rest their brain and go and ponder over more important things like sports, and cars -and sports cars!
Other differences between creationists and us include gullibility, the ability to trust the word of humans, which I find remarkable when I watch the biased news and lying governors.
Fear plays another important role in whether or not you are a 'believer' and I will now quote a believer concluding a debate on science vs. religion: "if god doesn't exist, so what -you die, but if he does, you're f***ed". Now I'm not saying that you have to be brave to believe in science, since the only reason I'm not afraid of being an atheist is because I give those stories of eternal damnation for non-believers as much credit as I would a story told to scare young children into behaving, but perhaps there are those that fear death (as in oblivion) so very much that their own sub-conscious works against them to prevent 'intelligent thinking' so that they can have peace of mind. Then of course there is that theory that gullibility is caused by your genetic make-up but then again, this is the origins board.

Good thread, gentlemen! Let me just comment on this quote:

This is a modern day 'god of the gaps' argument and will be shown to be completely unsupportable by what we observe, when ID'ers and such have had every single argument they make refuted...

It is god of the gaps thinking, but there will always be gaps in our knowledge. For those who are intellectually satisfied by jumping from one closed gap to the next one that remains open, ID can never be refuted.

Rob wrote:
"Fear plays another important role in whether or not you are a 'believer'"

I believe it is partially about fear and partially about belonging to the winning team. I've no respect for either mentality.

Soilguy wrote:
"It is god of the gaps thinking"

It is indeed. But the gaps keep getting smaller and the only way they can hide in them is to intentionally ignore history.

Take for example the Catholic Church. At different times in history the very same church, through its divine knowledge of the will of god, has both condemned and supported evolution. It is easy for the ignorant to only look at what is in front of them at the moment. It is for the rest of us to view it in the context of history and to see the self-serving nature of the pronouncements.