Slashdot Mirror

Neil deGrasse Tyson said in Season 1 Episode 2 of the Cosmos reboot, near the end of the episode,

"Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. Not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began."

So tell me this. Why do people keep calling evolution "fact" when there still is no clear answer to how life started? There's plenty of research on how the "building blocks" might have formed, but noting solid beyond that. There is missing information. It's a "best guess". In scientific terms, a "best guess" is called a hypothesis, not even a theory. So it's actually the Hypothesis of Evolution.

In continuing to call evolution "fact", people are pretending to "have all the answers", and as Tyson said, they should be ashamed.

Unless of course people would like to try and separate Abiogenesis from the other aspects of evolution, in which case it becomes very obvious that those people are attempting to hide the missing information. It's like people fighting to prove that the speed of light is a constant, despite the repeated experiments that show variations, so that General Relativity isn't broken in the process.

There continues to be debate on other aspects. Some have claimed that the Dover trial was "proof" against Irreducible Complexity, when it was actually a straw man argument against Behe claiming that he said the components couldn't have worked anywhere else in the organism, which is not what he said. Also evidence submitted as "proof" was nothing more than an opinion piece buried in a document that had nothing to do with Irreducible Complexity, which itself should have resulted in charges of falsifying evidence. The entire trial was an embarrassment to people seriously researching evolution. But that hasn't stopped internet atheists from parading it around as some triumph of science over religion.

http://www.discovery.org/a/142...
http://www.discovery.org/a/856...

And one other thing, since I mentioned "Black Science Man". He was in a Big Think interview a few years ago where he explained that there is no conflict between science and faith. I only mention this because these forum "debates" always contain raging atheists desperate to create a straw man argument of religion opposing science so they can attack that instead of providing actual scientific information.
http://bigthink.com/videos/nei...

Likewise, Michio Kaku has spoken about many physicists being spiritual if not fully religious. And I will remind you that not only does the current Pope have a masters degree in Chemistry, but also the Vatican employs 4 astrophysicists. So kindly shove the straw man attacks and focus on a lack of proof for Abiogenesis, among other holes in evolution that continue to be researched.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said in Season 1 Episode 2 of the Cosmos reboot, near the end of the episode,

"Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. Not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began."

So tell me this. Why do people keep calling evolution "fact" when there still is no clear answer to how life started? There's plenty of research on how the "building blocks" might have formed, but noting solid beyond that. There is missing information. It's a "best guess". In scientific terms, a "best guess" is called a hypothesis, not even a theory. So it's actually the Hypothesis of Evolution.

In continuing to call evolution "fact", people are pretending to "have all the answers", and as Tyson said, they should be ashamed.

Unless of course people would like to try and separate Abiogenesis from the other aspects of evolution, in which case it becomes very obvious that those people are attempting to hide the missing information. It's like people fighting to prove that the speed of light is a constant, despite the repeated experiments that show variations, so that General Relativity isn't broken in the process.

There continues to be debate on other aspects. Some have claimed that the Dover trial was "proof" against Irreducible Complexity, when it was actually a straw man argument against Behe claiming that he said the components couldn't have worked anywhere else in the organism, which is not what he said. Also evidence submitted as "proof" was nothing more than an opinion piece buried in a document that had nothing to do with Irreducible Complexity, which itself should have resulted in charges of falsifying evidence. The entire trial was an embarrassment to people seriously researching evolution. But that hasn't stopped internet atheists from parading it around as some triumph of science over religion.

http://www.discovery.org/a/142...
http://www.discovery.org/a/856...

And one other thing, since I mentioned "Black Science Man". He was in a Big Think interview a few years ago where he explained that there is no conflict between science and faith. I only mention this because these forum "debates" always contain raging atheists desperate to create a straw man argument of religion opposing science so they can attack that instead of providing actual scientific information.
http://bigthink.com/videos/nei...

Likewise, Michio Kaku has spoken about many physicists being spiritual if not fully religious. And I will remind you that not only does the current Pope have a masters degree in Chemistry, but also the Vatican employs 4 astrophysicists. So kindly shove the straw man attacks and focus on a lack of proof for Abiogenesis, among other holes in evolution that continue to be researched.

My life belongs to me, and if it sucks, I want to end it without any interference from religious morons and brainless public administrators like Ms. Barber. Removing the means of suicide does not solve or prevent the real problem: people have less and less reasons to live.

Why should I live and get education when engineering is off-shored to brainless indians and chinese?
Why should I live and contribute to knowledge if science and research is constantly mocked, ridiculed and deprived of funding?
Why should I live when I've been treated as a insignificant cog in a corporation (which is now true for everything - even universities are run like a business)?
Why should I live when some female bitch, whose mental capacity was enough only to graduate from an obscure secondary school in a german village, is sitting in EuroParliament and blathering about shutting down nuclear fission and fusion research?
Why should I live when postdocs are lasting months? What useful science could possibly be done in couple of months?!
Why should I live when even art and music became a commodity, and are forced to cater to lowest form of human waste?
Why should I live when imbecile politicians want to turn the whole country into a large maximum security prison?!

I want to kill myself not because I cannot cope with pressures and competition, but because stupid MBA morons hijacked the system and gained power over creative and talented people. Remember those socialized schmucks who bullied and ridiculed you in high school and universities? Now they are MPAs, MBAs and your bosses - they hate you and want to crush you, because deep inside they realize that they are worthless earthworms compared to creative people. I worked hard to solve difficult problems and hence earn my Ph.D. in electrical engineering, but thanks to banksters and businessdicks, the long-term postdoc positions have vanished and even short-term postodcs are nearly impossible to find anywhere in the world.

My life belongs to me - not to a district attorney or moronic MPA. And when I want to end my life, I want my decision to be respected. It is not difficult to implement: farmers already use Controlled atmosphere killing for animals slaughter - inhaling inert gas guarantees a painless and quick death within minutes. You don't even have to build any new buildings or suicide booths - morgues are perfectly fine and can easily cope with those who want to voluntary end their lives.

Instead of stupid regulations, how about giving more reasons to live and removing the reasons for suicide? Or at least simplifying the whole process of ending one's own life? It is harder than writing useless regulations, for sure, and requires substantially more brainpower than a typical MPA possesses, but we still have some smart, educated, thinking people on this planet, aren't we?!

The concept of "co-opting" genetic material is old news. It was a key argument in the Behe Dover trial over Irreducible Complexity, which itself devolved into straw man attacks and false claims made about research papers. http://www.discovery.org/a/142... This article also elaborates on the over simplification in defining "genetic material", and is a good start in understanding why genetic co-opting isn't a widely accepted theory.

One key problem with any mutation, including attempts to explain new genetic material via "co-opting", is that sexually reproducing organisms are usually governed by hereditary traits. An example of this is seen in White Tigers, in that they must be inbred to continue the mutation. Any complex sexually reproducing organism that experiences a significant mutation that then breeds back with the general population that does not share that mutation will create hybrids and usually see the mutation "bred out" in a very few generations. This has led researchers to look for things like ways that several of a species could express suppressed genes simultaneously so that a sufficient population mutated simultaneously to eliminate the problems with "breeding out" a mutation and still avoid the problems from inbreeding. Thus regardless of where and how a mutation gets its genetic material, hereditary traits still present a barrier to that mutation continuing, especially with more extreme mutations.

Actual genetic research is far beyond what is mentioned with the monkey brain, but it's still interesting that such a forced mutation could have such dramatic effects on a primate.

I guess it's back to http://www.discovery.org/ for some real nastiness.

This post brought to you by the Discovery Institute. (Interestingly located in Seattle.)

This appears to speak to your question, especially the last two paragraphs before the notes section.

The Peppered Moth Story: Vindicated!

A quick search appears to show they haven't folded their cards as yet.

About Irreducible Complexity
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration

I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.

The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium came about for a reason - to explain missing data - transitional forms, data that couldn't be found but evolutionary theory said should be there. It is certainly a bold approach to the problem - we can't find it because it doesn't exist so, never mind. In a way it brings to mind the Fermi Paradox.

Of course the ID community has a view: Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record

Note to moderators: I am neither kidding nor trolling. Feel free to ignore the post.

I see your "creationist nonsense" and raise you a "both sides are biased".

I could care less who believes what...as long as both (or all three, or however many) sided are realistic about the problems that their own pet theory has. (and, you know, stops being jerks to anyone who has a different opinion than they do...)

For example, evolutionists ignore the issues with the dating methods that they use, and creationists assume that their bible can be used to prove something. Both sides need to get their crap together, stop ignoring the scientific method, and just do science. (article deals specifically with evolution, but all the principles apply to creationists)

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html#Different Dating Methods Agree
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=6841

There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator.

Your opinion suggests that you haven't discovered Google (Or at least didn't use it before posting this...)

Um, there is no evidence of intelligent design. There is evidence of billions of years of random mutations and natural selection. You should be able to google that, if not, delete all your cookies and try again.

There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator.

Your opinion suggests that you haven't discovered Google

(Or at least didn't use it before posting this...)

One assumes that you would be as dismissive of biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. I doubt, however, that you would convince many thinkers by categorizing them as stupid. Intelligent design theorists do not so dismiss evolutionists.

Assuming you would like to learn a bit about the difference between intelligent design and creationism, you could check the following:

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
What is Intelligent Design?
Darwin's Black Box

Here's more proof that christians - at least, the Talibangelical wing - are actively denying global warming;

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

(Note that Steve Jobs compares rather unfavorably with e.g. Bill Gates in this area; where exactly is the Jobs Foundation? Gates is fighting tropical diseases that kill millions of poor children. Jobs was ... hoarding his wealth and keeping it to himself. Me, I judge people by what they do, not what they say they believe in.)

No, you're just another dumb sheep who judges people by what they do in public, in front of a TV camera, not by how they actually affect the world around them. You'll believe whatever you see on the tube, and nothing else.

If Jobs was a Buddhist (and I don't know if he was, in fact), then he believed in doing good works anonymously. Meanwhile, Gates appears to be too busy funding efforts to push intelligent design "education" to accomplish any lasting good.

The point is we need a statistical test developed for this sort of stuff regardless of the whole evolution debate, and when we have one developed, we could apply it to the DNA record for the past and see what it turns up.

As I said, if we had a Jurassic park time machine to collect DNA samples from the past, that might be feasible. But without a time machine, DNA simply doesn't last long enough for any sort of rigorous analysis. Even using a time machine to collect DNA samples, it's not clear that it would be possible to distinguish a rapid change in natural selection pressures from the work of a supernatural designer.

I doubt it would support ID, but it does make ID falsifiable.

I've previously listed a few experiments that already could have falsified evolution. Your fantasy doesn't count because it's too vague and requires technology that doesn't exist and may very well be impossible. That's why you wouldn't be able to publish it in a reputable evolutionary biology journal, but if this bill goes through maybe your chances will improve.

Here's a good analogy. When I was debating Brett, I proposed a "crazy hypothesis of a non-biologist" to falsify abiogenesis. I think your argument is similar to mine (albeit more vague- I didn't see you describe the exact steps necessary to identify a statistically abnormal mutation).

But I was describing abiogenesis, which scientists consider more tentative and mysterious than evolution (a separate topic.) And I later became more skeptical of my own proposed falsification, calling it an example of my "ignorance of exobiology". These sorts of musings shouldn't be conflated with the actual falsifications that have been repeatedly applied to evolution.

But all this is beside the point anyway, because Beelzebud was right to point out that "intelligent design" argues that "irreducably complex" structures like flagella can't possibly have evolved naturally. The list of these "irreducably complex" grows without bound, because it's a scientifically useless concept that embodies the "argument from incredulity".

if you are a scientist you would have a hard time getting funding to do ID research,

Not really.

While I do agree with you regarding the article commentary, there are indeed people who are trying to get creationism(disguised as Intelligent Design) taught as science in schools. Eg. http://www.discovery.org/
A nicer list of the papers written etc. are here --> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.

Then you don't really understand people very well. From the Center for Science and Culture (a pro-ID organization) here

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Right. Every statement from an advocacy group's website is an honest statement belief, and not disingenuous in the slightest.

Are you acquainted with the evidence that was introduced in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District?

It was discovered that the ID text that Dover sought to introduce was originally written as an advocacy tract for creationism, which called it by that very name. Then, to try to do an end-run around a Supreme Court prohibition on teaching creationism in public schools, they simply did a mechanical search-and-replace to change "creationism" into "intelligent design", and "creationist" with "intelligent design proponent".

"Intelligent Design" is a transparent construct invented in the 1980s by people who self-identify as "creationists".

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.

Then you don't really understand people very well. From the Center for Science and Culture (a pro-ID organization) here

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Even aside from religious beliefs, it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance. Just look at the number of references in popular culture to fate and "the meaning of life". Going back even as far as the Greeks, it was a major theme of their literature and plays. The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation. None of this should be taken as a challenge to natural selection or a defense of ID. However, your assertion that nobody actually believes in ID is naive.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

OK "Every" was careless, but neither of the studies you mention shows any sign of being peer-reviewed. The first one, which I flicked through briefly offers no detailed information about its data selection or analysis.

Then you also failed to understand what http://patitionproject.org/ was all about. Perhaps you might want to take a closer look.

The second http://www.discovery.org/v/30 item was a video for those that are not into reading long scientific papers that covers the exact same material.

The scope I see is usually "life", not the whole universe.

Ah, yet another citation of that authoritative source you keep bringing up - "others" and "many" we can now add "usually."

It is the first freaking sentence of the DI's FAQ and the word "universe" is the first item in the list:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You seem to be trying to see this all in black-or-white, while I'm exploring the gray. Focus on the concepts instead of the fight.

The concepts? ID's central tenant is the UNIVERSE is designed and as a result PEOPLE are designed. You take away this omnipotent universe designer and it is not ID any more, its not "sub-ID" or anything that actual IDers would claim as theirs - the only people who could claim it as ID are just members of the creationist herd who don't even understand what they profess to believe in. Take out the universe's designer and all that's left is just a bunch of pontifacting and navel gazing that lots of people have done while stoned.

I am not an American but it sure would help if certain American's and their pet lobbyists stopped using psuedo-science and lies to convince small-minded gullible fools that Al Gore has the power and/or charisma to corrupt the members of every major scientific instutution on Earth. I have even had such fools here on slashdot tell me I can't point to the journals Nature or Science when talking about AGW because apparently they too are part of Al Gore's global conspiracy.

Here are some examples of the lies and lobbying I am talking about, Senator Inhofe who's list of desenting scientists, has as much cedibility as the dicovery institute list of scientists that supposedly reject evolution but that has not stopped a large number of slashdotter's from waving it around like a magic wand that somehow makes facts dissapear. Then there is the "Heartland institute" run by one Fred Singer who was also prominent in the tabacco industry's anti-science propoganda. Another site that has raised it's ugly head and that can also be related to the anti-science lobby of the tabacco companies is called IceCap, this site specializes in conflating various regions of ice all over the planet and is incapable of ditingushing the North pole from the south pole. It is run by a guy who is on the payroll at the "Science and Public Policy Institute", who are in turn funded by the "Frontiers of Freedom" which is the lobbting brain fart of yet another (ex) US senator. Wallop and Singer are mates from the tabacco industries anti-science cmapaign, the major contributors to the Frontiers of Freedom include Philip Morris and ExxonMobil.

Yep, these anti-science and anti-environment politicians/CEO's have nothing but good intentions, they publish their propoganda to protect you from "environmental whack jobs" and the scientific community who make ludicrous claims such as smoking causes cancer or that a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. They have somehow convinced a large chunk of the US that it's not them who are running scams and lying it's the scientific community under the direction of Al Gore who are the liars and scammers.

"Get real."

How about you get real, pull your head out of the sand and drop the alarmist hyperbole, nobody is putting greenpeace in charge of anything but there is a problem and the anti-enviroment/anti-science rhetoric/popoganda coming from the US over the last decade is what has perverted any attempt at a real solution.

"(Yeah, I know. This will almost certainly get modded down to oblivion by KOSdot mods, probably modded "-1 Troll" but screw it. I've got the karma to burn.)"

I have no idea who KOSdot are and I'm not a fan of greenpeace but I agree that your misguided alarmisim should be moderated into oblivion.

If this is the flavor of stupid being put out by respect think tanks I would hate to see what the less respected tanks are churning out.

How about a think tank spearheading the effort to teach creationism in public schools? http://www.discovery.org/

I guess those funny letters after their names (like "Ph.D." -- sometimes more than once) from funny places (like "Berkeley" and "Yale") don't count for anything.

Bio of Jonathan Wells

You mean like Amtrak?

The government can't create efficient industries. The only thing they can do is protect them and keep them alive. It doesn't even do that well.

Aside from all the direct arguments, consider this from TFA: "Discovery [Institute] fellows helped write the bill and arranged for testimony in its favor in the legislature."

I find it a good rule of thumb that anything promoted by the Discovery Institute is a "bad idea". The Center for Science and Culture
"Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which: supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory; supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;"

These assholes have made it hard to be a Christian without feeling like an idiot. By putting religion in opposition to science, they drive thinking people to athiesm.

Well, there is the case of Richard Sternberg, who holds two Ph.D.'s, one in Molecular Evolution and one in Theoretical Biology. He was formerly the Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (published by the Smithsonian Institute). After publishing a politically incorrect, yet fully peer reviewed article, he was ostracized. There were two government investigations that you can read about here and here.

Amazingly, if you google for his name, you will be hard pressed to find out the truth about this incident. You will be hard pressed to find out about the two government investigations, neither of which found him guilty or any wrong doing.

But you will find plenty of libel and slander against him.

So, yes, there are other areas in science which are subject to serious ethics violations, especially areas in which there is significant public controversy.

Bring On The Exaflood!
...
By Bruce Mehlman and Larry Irving

Plus, with Mathematica, you aren't allowed to change the internals -- you're stuck with what you get.

Here at the Discovery Institute, we've been doing some research into the age of the earth. Unfortunately, the current commercial analysis packages all give answers in the neighborhood of 4 billion years. With Sage, we should be able to tweak the code so as to give us a answer more in line with reason. Say about 6000 years.

Setting aside the complex question of copyright infringement, isn't plagiarism, as TFA mentions, the more obvious "crime" here? Although as they don't appear to be an educational establishment perhaps they don't view the plagiarism of someone else's research in quite the same light.

They also seem to have a different view of the word original. From http://www.discovery.org/aboutFunctions.php

A research and advocacy project is selected when it is in harmony with Discovery's mission, when the Institute can make an original and significant contribution to the issue's development and when it is within the Institute's resources.

Well I suppose it is an original spin on the information.

But you don't have any data points.

OK. My datapoints were from my experience (which you conveniently refuse to accept). So I have done a google search (just like you could have). And what do you know, the first two links are pretty interesting. One is wikipedia where the google cache still show a statement backing up what I said (edited out in August). The second lists several books including ones published in the 2000s (this was actually a surprise to me, I figured by now that practice would be over).

The search I did was "recapitulation in textbooks" The second link is

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=view&id=3935&program=CSC%20-%20Science%20a nd%20Education%20Policy%20-%20News%20and%20Article s#text5

Of course the prediction could be falsified.

Let me be a little more specific. If there are multiple reasonable explanations for what is observed, there needs to be a way to choose between them. Otherwise, all you have is your faith that your interpretation is correct. At least with gradualism, the expected results would have been hard to explain any other way, but the fossil record does not support it.

Why are you harping on the idea that it is?

Because your view is basically gradualism. Gradualism is also what is taught in schools, but we have long since gotten off of the original topic.

if the environment is static, the population won't change.

And once again, you are using selection as a magical pony. Change happens with mutation. Consistent change throughout a population happens with selection. You can't have change without it showing up (at least not with the time frame you are postulating). Selection only selects for things that are there.

Pat Michaels point which got dropped

Actually, you were the one who did not answer the question about money and its influence.

The fact that anyone not supporting evolution results in them being labeled as a heretic can be seen your assumptions about my beliefs and your derisive comments about them in the early posts. In fact, you appeared so blinded by your incredulity, that you kept thinking I was saying things that I was not.

As far as the "I won", I would not claim that without you acknowledging that you are at least being inconsistent. The fact that you cant see that you are still espousing gradualism, is pretty depressing especially since you sounded like someone who was trying to be consistent.

Actually, blaming the network doesn't help much.
In the early days of the internet, there were specifications and best practices for host security.
And there were also stories about key administrators shutting down whole countries until they dealt with 'inappropriate' network behavior:
Unless you have a way to impose social control on user behavior, you need both host security and powerful administrators to impose absolute security:
Read 'Goliath at Bay' from 1996 for a 'powerful user' story http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=view&id=24&printerFriendly=true

Hello. I'm a creationist, and I read Slashdot. My field of expertise is computing, but I also have a graduate degree in philosophy which included "philosophy of science", and I like a good argument. I would like to address point #3 briefly.

In your first paragraph (of point #3) you point out a strong correlation between belief in intelligent design and certain religious views. You are appealing to the prevailing Slashdot bias against organised religion when you do this

This is why political speech is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, and why we tolerate things like the Nazi Party and the Stalinists and any number of other kooks.

Unfortunately it also makes us tolerate even crazier idiots.

Encouraging people to change laws that they don't agree with often isn't even productive for society. There are a lot of stupid people out there and deciding what is best for anyone (never mind for everyone) is about the furthest thing from what most of them should be doing.

Even the anti-evolution premier scientist Michael Behe testified under oath in court that there is no scientific support for the Irreducable Complexity argument, and that the various efforts to make such an argument have been fatally flawed, and that the various attempts to cite examples of biological Irreducable Complexity have one after another been shown to have evolutionary valid pathways to establish them.

"Intelligent Design is not science, it is not a theory, it is not something testable by the scientific method. It is a proposal for a minor change in the philosophical underpinnings of modern science."

Incorrect and misleading. If ID simply said, "Empirically detectable forces may have a supernatural cause that may or may not be empirically detectable" then your statement would be true. But ID, as pimped by the Discovery Institute, says that the supernatural creator is empirically detectable, and produces egregiously false arguments and dishonest media and political outreach efforts in an attempt to convince laypeople that they have, in fact, detected design. Because objective science fails to produce the results they want, they attack it wherever possible: ID is an attempt to suppress the teaching of mainstream and objective evolutionary theory for religious purposes.

The issue at stake is to teach rational and sound thought in learning rather than as another poster said "fact after fact".

"Rational and sound thought" sounds great, but ID offers neither. It is a media and political ministry intended to support Christianity against a perceived assault by "secular science." I refer you to the infamous Wedge Document.

Considering Intelligent Design forces us to not take for granted the philosophical underpinnings of current scientific inquiry.

What, methodological naturalism? When you can objectively demonstrate supernatural forces at work, then it's time to reconsider the value of empiricism as a philosophical underpinning of scientific inquiry. Until then, the false debate is merely an attempt to sneak religious extremism in through the back door, because it cannot offer the validation required by objective scientific processes.

Knowing this can make us more aware of the exploitation and more resilient to its efforts to sway public opinion.

How Orwellian. Look again to the Wedge Document, the long-term strategy of the DI (chief architect and champion of ID creationism). How much does the document focus on research? How much on media outreach? How much on political advocacy? More to the point, how much does the DI spend on research as compared to media outreach and political advocacy? Intelligent Design is, at its core, an "effort to sway public opinion." It offers nothing else - no research program, no results, no discoveries.

ID gets a chip to play at the "lets discuss the basic processes of science" table when it has some relevance to science. Until then, its demands to be taken seriously as a legitimate alternative are nothing more than the plaintive complaints of a theology that can't compete with actual research.

Idiots, I guess:

Study: Smaller cars are more dangerous

Fuel Efficiency Regulations Cost Lives and Money

Government's Dangerous Prescription

Oops -- I messed up a link there. Here's the corrected paragraph.

Moulton works with Picard, and presumably knows what she really believes. He lept to her defense when I pointed out the undisputed facts that she voluntarily signed her name as well as the good name of MIT to the Anti Evolution Petetition sponsored by the Discovery Institute, and that Intelligent Design proponents regularly refer to that petition in support of their so-called "theory".

You are, in fact, entirely ignorant of the issue. I am not surprised; Intelligent Design was created with the intention of deceiving people, and it is very successful. The vaunted list you're pimping suffers from two critical flaws. The first is that it is overwhelmingly made up of lay persons with no special training in biology, as another commenter made clear.

Second, and more importantly, the list's statement is an expression of just the sort of ignorance that is characteristic of creationists. Any scientist could honestly sign the statement, because "it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too." Most scientists won't sign it, however, because they understand that it is a political tool used to attack objective science and support the suppression of scientific education. The DI list is a carefully constructed tool for deceiving laypeople, intended to create the false impression that there is a legitimate debate over the reality of evolution in scientific circles. There is not, and your belief that there is betrays colossol ignorance on your part.

(Incidentally, the list is also dwarfed by "Project Steve," a list of professional scientists who support objective science and evolution, but only accepts signatories named "Steven" or "Stephanie" in honor of Steven J. Gould. When the DI's list is a little over half the size of JUST the scientists named Steve who understand and support objective science, it shows how poorly they are viewed by professionals.)

In short, your criticism betrays just the sort of ignorance you don't want me pointing out in creationists generally. The problem is that it's not just a rhetorical claim; creationism really is dependent on ignorance. The list is a good example--it seems like a valid argument only as long as you don't know what you're talking about. Please do read up on the subject, but remember that you cannot get accurate information from creationists; the success of their theories depends on the suppression of information, not the dissemination of it.

I suspect you could find other examples of this in upstate New York and and other northern coastal areas if you wanted to look, but I really don't. I will assume you were going to saw off Georgia and the other southern coastal states.

Mod Parent -1 Flaimbait

Not only is the post plain wrong; it attacks the views of others in an illogical way. Intelligent Design theory does not promote one "designer" over another. See the FAQ page on the Discover Institutes website for clarification. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

And I quote: 3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

I don't see anything wrong with their reasoning. Instable environments don't produce abnormal, life-forming events, they regularly produce events that are hostile to life. I saw a screening of a film last year at USF called The Privledged Planet. Admittedly, it gratuitous in support of "purposeful design", but they did a great job of approaching what makes Earth so suitable for life using a myriad of fields. It may suggest life with a purpose, but it was strongly pro-science, and probably worth a watch, even if you are skeptic of the premise. Not only are some of the theories presented innovative, but the imagery and cinematography rival are reminiscent of an imax presentation.

there is no discernable difference between creationism and ID

Since I don't want to attribute malice what ignorance will explain, I'll assume you're just badly misinformed. Let's take a couple of the more authoritative ID web sites:

http://www.discovery.org/

http://www.ideacenter.org/

Now let's do some google searches limited to these web sites and look for the terms “creationism,” “bible” and “genesis”:

http://www.google.com/search?q=creationism+bible+g enesis+site:discovery.org

http://www.google.com/search?q=creationism+bible+g enesis+site:ideacenter.org

The first query returns about 62 pages and the second about 23 pages. Depending upon how much time you have, you can go and examine some or all of these pages. But I'll save you the work. Every statement is either a refutation that ID is a form of creationism or a neutral statement about creationism (such as a passing reference or a quote). I'll summarize in my own words:

If an archaeologist finds an ancient kettle and utensils, can he legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion that those objects were designed and not created by natural processes? Yes. This is true even though he may never know who the designer was.

If I look at a mousetrap, can I legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion it was designed? Yes. This is true even though the manufacturer may be out of business.

Likewise, if I look at certain biological structures or processes can I legitimately and scientifically draw the conclusion they were designed and not created by random processes? Yes. I can do what every other scientist does: I can put forth the evidence and make my case.

Intelligent Design rests on the hypothesis that design artifacts can be scientifically identified as such and differentiated from artifacts that are the result of random natural processes. Maybe this hypothesis is true, maybe it is false. But it has nothing to do with creationism.

So why does virtually every statement in the press (and on Slashdot) contain the notion that ID is a form of creationism? I have no idea.

But I challenge you to provide any evidence of any prominent supporter of ID making any claims that the truth of ID is somehow dependent upon the truth of the bible.

ID is not creationism in any form.

ID is yet an immature hypothesis and I'm not even sure that I fully support it. But I can certainly render someone else's point of view accurately. It seems that you need a little work in this area.

The discovery institute is largely funded by everyone's favorite monopolist, Bill Gates.

And he dares to complain about the state of science education in the US!!

ID the Future

Evolution News

As well as: The Center for Science and Culture

I am glad this guy made this comment and wanted to have this class. Intelligent design is not backed by any biologists. It is only so we can have creationism taught in our schools. What a bunch of shit. bunch of shit.

In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits.[...]Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the "genocentricity" and "incrementalism" of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists.

If they worked with biologists to understand organisms and all of the stuff already studied, then maybe it could be considered.

If they didn't just deride evolution instead of studying real things and relating them to the world, then maybe there could be a discussion considered.

The correct analogy here is whether we are "better" than our distant ancestors, which, if you go back far enough, were bacteria-like organisms from which we evolved according to Darwinian natural selection (though some folks would dispute this explanation of our origins).

If by "better" you mean more well-adapted to our environment, then we should be better than our ancestors assuming an unchanging environment -- which is not the case: the geological environment is always changing (e.g., global warming) as is the ecological environment (e.g., emergence of other competing species, overcrowding due to population growth, etc.). So it's impossible to say whether we are more well adapted to our environment than our ancestors were to theirs.

You touch on an interesting area, though: comparing language evolution to species evolution. There is certainly constant pressure on languages to mutate and adapt to new pressures, and scientists that study human evolution have used linguistic analysis to gain insights into the spread of early human populations. Read up more on language evolution.

Now as to whether we are "better" than present-day bacteria (i.e., more highly evolved or well-adapted), this is a different question entirely. Given the increased complexity of human biology and our great technological innovations that allow us to survive anywhere on Earth, one might put the ball in our court as being the "better" species.

However, consider that the generation time of bacterium such as E. coli is about 20 minutes, compared to ~20 years for a typical human. So the bacterium is experiencing an orders of magnitude faster iteration cycle of than are humans. Natural selection operates on a species only as fast as its replication cycle, with different genetic variants of each generation being selected for or against based on their differential fitness (ability to replicate).

By this measure, bacteria have had much more opportunity to be optimized by evolution than have humans, and thus are more highly evolved than we are. BTW, this is the same sort of reasoning that underlies some tenets of agile software development.

Bacteria are selected for rapid generation time, so they have evolved very simple genomes and cellular designs to allow for such rapid replication. So if your definition of "better" is speedy replication, bacteria win hands down.

Perhaps a reasonable way to rank various species and languages is to look at how long they've been in existence, since that would be a measure of adaptability and robustness to environmental change. By this measure, humans wouldn't be a top-rated species, but we are still alive, which is more than you can say for 99% of species that have existed on Earth. Time will tell.

When you think about it, the survival of a language is tied to the survival of the speakers in interesting ways. For example, a language may survive longer if it allows its speakers to communicate better and adapt to environmental and sociological changes better than other languages. In this way, language evolution likely plays a role in species evolution, and vice versa.

Human language is a fairly recent invention, but it is clearly a major force underlying the success of human populations. I'd argue that language and its speakers are co-evolving entities, each shaping the other in complex ways, striving to ensure their mutual survival.

--

God is real, unless declared integer.

I absolutely agree with every part of your post.

Now what I'd like to see next is that people also realize that one doesn't have to be a creationist or even adhere to everything ID proposes to acknowledge that ID actually raises some questions on purely scientific merits.

I mean how many here or elsewhere have actually bothered to read examples of the scientific criticisms ID themselves actually put on the table rather than all the second, third, and fourth-hand attacks on ID? If more people did so (even if they deny the overall claims of ID like I do) then those embarrasing scientific faults (tempted to say frauds) can actually be accounted for and corrected in the science. Some of the stuff ID is critisizing has been known about for close to a century as scientific frauds, disproven several times by peer-reviewed articles and is generally accepted as untrue even by vocal anti-ID scientists - so why isn't the erroneous information culled from science? Reading what the scientists who are the foundation of ID actually says it should become obvious that ID is not a purely philosopical/religious argument.

Go read people, please, do yourself and everyone else a favour in the discussion, perhaps that will open up the possibility for getting much needed corrections and improvements into parts of science that are in dire need of getting their heads out of their asses.

Btw I am not a christian but I do believe in pretty much the same God but I don't care for people who try to prove religion through science because it derives faith of any value. That being said I do not believe rational religion and science can ever be at odds, if one did think so it would be like claiming that love can only be a chemical reaction and nothing more (we have other words to describe that) something only absurdist reductionists do.

A possible starting point is (PDF warning) http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/surviva lOfTheFakest.pdf

*sigh* I bet this post is probably useless in batteling /. groupthink but to look at the sunny side of things at least we got FSM and Pastafarians out of it all :)

Some creationists (lots) back ID because they see it as a way to at least get some of their beliefs out there.

Take a look at http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#ques tionsAboutIntelligentDesign from the Discovery Institute, the think tank of ID.