Daily Topics - Thursday July 14th, 2011

29 posts / 0 new

The Big Picture "On Air" Questions or Comments for Thom?

Hour One: Should textbooks require students to challenge evolution? Casey Luskin, The Discovery Institute

Hour Two: Debt ceiling debate gets extreme - Congressman Steve King (R-IA, 5th district) / Plus, Ohio's Gov. Kasich poo poo's overwhelming opposition - Cliff Schecter, Libertas LLC

Three: "Is America still a place where it's worth it to work hard to get ahead?" Ryan Streeter, Conservative Home USA / Plus, Geeky Science Rocks - Got the munchies? Could it be what you're eating?!

shawnt56's picture
shawnt56
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Thom just got owned by that scientist. He tried his hardest to get the scientist say that he wants to teach intelligent design in the classrom, but failed. Thom's argument was terrible: it came across as we should teach evolution exactly the way we are teaching it without sufficient evidence, because we don't have an alternative. This is not how a scientist thinks. You don't teach something with gaps and flawed logic, because you cannot find an alternative. Thom was over his head in this debate. By the way, this is coming from an atheist.

kmgilroy89's picture
kmgilroy89
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is a Scientific Method. Please post what Religious Method there is for testing theories. Please see the below link.

  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

chanus's picture
chanus
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 9:14 am

A good book is called Darwin's Black Box. By Michael Behe. Think about the concept of irreducible complexity. It was one of Darwin's concerns when he wrote Origin.

wilder's picture
wilder
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thom, I wish you had countered the guy from the Discovery Institute thus: What he and his ID allies are doing is trying to portray scientific debates about HOW evolution occurs as debates over IF evolution is occurring! This is the insidious part: The Phillip Johnson strategy of "Teaching the Controversy", portraying ANY controversy within the field of evolutionary biology as a controversy over the very validity of evolutionary biology.

At least Mr. Luskin (the ID guy) is an "old-earth creationist", a species of creationist that most people don't realize exists. He may be nuts about the biology, but at least he believes in the geology.

RE what Steve King said about the "difference of philosophy" about what drives the economy: This is not about a difference of PHILOSOPHY; this is about a large group of people who willfully embrace NON-REALITY. The problem is that we have allowed these people to claim legitimacy for their illegitimate "beliefs" by allowing them to claim it as simply a differing opinion or philosophy. It is DELUSION and WILLFUL IGNORANCE that flies in the face of all observable reality. Their idiocy must be called out as such, and the idiots themselves must not be allowed to dignify their insanity by cloaking it behind words like "philosophy" and "opinion".

Finally, the reason John Kasich can be so dismissive about the movement against him has little to do
with a sense of the monied interests being able to back him. Authoritarian personalities tend to listen only to like-minded people people, and therefore they tend to think that most people think like them. Therefore Kasich, who almost certainly is an authoritiarian personality, REALLY BELIEVES that all the "real" people are behind HIM, and those people protesting him and putting the repeal of SB 5 on the ballot are just the rabble-rousers who would be dwarfed by the "silent majority" who surely believe as Kasich does (at least in his mind).

Scott Dickerman's picture
Scott Dickerman
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thom:

As a public high school science teacher who has taught several courses, I did not find Mr. Luskin's position concerning. I was surprised how uncomfortable you seemed to be with it. Asking that evolution be taught by discussing the current strengths and weaknesses of evolution as addressed in current peer-reviewed journals is hardly an unreasonable or even unusual proposition. This is how science teachers are instructed to teach all aspects of science and evolution is no exception. In my brief 3 years of teaching, students are, without question, the most engaged when they are given the opportunity to explore and critically evaluate the evidence on all sides. To teach to one side despite growing dissention among scientists in evolution is a disservice to students who leave the classroom with an oversimplified and dogmatic understanding of evolution and who lack the critically thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions. In my opinion, religion only became an issue when you made it one.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote kmgilroy89:

Thom ... tried his hardest to get [Luskin to] say that he wants to teach intelligent design in the classrom, but failed. Thom's argument was terrible: it came across as we should teach evolution exactly the way we are teaching it

Luskin doesn't need to admit that he wants to teach intelligent design in the classroom. It's a fact, easily verifiable in the public record.

Intelligent Design was prohibited in Dover because it IS creationism, as proved by the intermediate form "cdesign proponentsists" in the draft record of the desired text, Of Pandas and People. That's a failure to fully edit the word "creationists" into the phrase "design proponents." In the Wikipedia link above, and in the original text of his "analysis" if you bother to read it, he does espouse the creationist beliefs known by proponents -- creationists, who wish to illegally smuggle religious dogma into public schools -- as "intelligent design." The only reason he now disavows the label "intelligent design" now is that it has been ruled, in federal court, to be creationism, and therefore illegal to teach in public schools.

Just as "intelligent design" was exactly the same as "creation science" with a name change to evade the establishment cause, he now denies being a "cdesign proponentsist" or "intelligent design proponent" for the exact same reason, that verbiage has also been definitively tied to religious belief. In federal court.

Quote kmgilroy89:... without sufficient evidence, because we don't have an alternative. This is not how a scientist thinks.

Yes, it is how a scientist thinks, because there is absolutely no viable alternative theory, and there is sufficient evidence. There is such overwhelming evidence that 99.9% of all professionals in all fields of biology consider it fact.

The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism".

You believe you know better? Well, you don't.

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

Quote kmgilroy89:You don't teach something with gaps and flawed logic, because you cannot find an alternative. Thom was over his head in this debate. By the way, this is coming from an atheist.

Thom may have been over his head. I won't address that. If he cares to, he can speak for himself about what or who is over his head.

But there are no gaps nor flawed logic, except by creationists / intelligent designists / cdesign proponentsists.

99.9% of scientists use natural selection, because it works. No alternative hypotheses work worth a dump, and what Luskin's employer pays him to support is an end-run around valid science, bypassing the "prove it" step which requires making successful predictions and publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and just jumping, by fiat of ignorant, scientifically illiterate and theocratic school boards, directly into innocent children's textbooks.

That is evil.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am

After reviewing the heated posts so far...I remain surprised at how quickly this discussion has digressed from its original agenda. Mr. Luskin was not pushing for ID in the classroom nor did he address his religious convictions. He simply asked that evolution be taught like any other science - an open discussion of current peer-reviewed strengths and weaknesses. Seems fairly straight forward.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am

As a side note, I encourage my students to avoid Wikipedia as their primary source.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am

As a response to Reed.Young:

There are two things that should never decide the scientific credibility of a theory:

1. The judicial system (scientists, not judges are the appropriate individuals to make informed evaluations of their subject area)

2. The percentage of individuals who accept the theory (history suggests that sometimes minority viewpoints eventually prevail)

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote firw6548:Mr. Luskin was not pushing for ID in the classroom nor did he address his religious convictions.

Are you always so credulous about everything a politician or a political lobbyist denies? Or only when it comes to religious dogmas about our origins?

Luskin didn't admit that what he is pushing for in the classroom is meant to be a path to teaching creationism in public schools but that doesn't mean it isn't what he's up to.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am

What shame that any suggestion to discuss evolution openly is met with the immediate fear of "creationism" barging in the door. I hope this debate will move beyond this.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote firw6548:

As a response to Reed.Young:

There are two things that should never decide the scientific credibility of a theory:

1. The judicial system (scientists, not judges are the appropriate individuals to make informed evaluations of their subject area)

That is not what happened in the Dover case. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory that has any credibility to assess. It has never been used in any scientific work in any way. It is worthless verbiage concocted by creationists to smuggle religious dogma into public schools.

Quote firw6548:2. The percentage of individuals who accept the theory (history suggests that sometimes minority viewpoints eventually prevail)

You're wrong. How does a correct minority opinion eventually prevail in science? By first convincing a majority of scientific peers, in every case, from Galileo to Einstein. A general public opinion poll would be inappropriate, but that isn't what I linked. I showed you that all legitimate experts agree with me. You're wrong.

3. School Boards, and now you need to re-order your list to recognize that only school boards are currently causing a problem in school curriculums by uninformed meddling in things they don't understand.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am
Quote firw6548:

What shame that any suggestion to discuss evolution openly is met with the immediate fear of "creationism" barging in the door. I hope this debate will move beyond this.

Can you show me a viable alternative theory, proven successful by publication in peer-reviewed journals?

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am

While many of the positions put forth today are not falsifiable, the one claim that is falsifiable is that there is no peer-reviewed research challenging evolution. In this discussion, let’s be careful not to put forth blatantly false statements. Below are two links with extensive peer-reviewed journals in this regard:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

http://biologicinstitute.org/research/

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am

Neither of those are peer-reviewed journals. Both are lobbyist groups. Well, actually, both are the same lobbyist group. The Biologic Institute is just a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is the very same political lobbyist organization Luskin represents, for Christ's sake! How did you expect to fool anybody with that lie?

By their own admission, the Biologic Institute exists only to advance one paradigm, the paradigm of "intelligent design." That is not science. That is collective, politically organized, intentionally mutually reinforcing confirmation bias, which is one of the greatest professional hazards any scientist faces!

Quote "cdesign proponentsists":About

Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology and exploring its scientific implications. Its founding was made possible by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which continues to support its ongoing work.

The phrase "THE purpose" means exactly that they have no other purpose than "developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology and exploring its scientific implications."QED

Quote "firw6548":In this discussion, let’s be careful not to put forth blatantly false statements.

You need to be careful of that. Not us, not "let's," just you, hypocrite. That is not peer-reviewed. You claimed it was. You lied.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am
Quote Reed.Young:

Can you show me a viable alternative theory, proven successful by publication in peer-reviewed journals?

Very reasonable question which I will answer honestly and directly. No, I don't have a viable alternate theory. However, I am not in need of one at the moment. The absence of an immediate replacement theory for evolution is not a reason to ignore the challenges regarding evolution in the peer-reviewed literature I just posted. In the meantime, I want the ability to present students with research that addresses the complexity of cells that Darwin was could not appreciate. I believe you would agree with this also.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am

And the peer-reviewed articles linked from the bottom of your Biologic Institute page do not support your crackpot theory.

Ask the authors, or search the text of any of those articles for the phrase "intelligent design." I guarantee you, it's nowhere, in anything peer-reviewed except studies of why there is a belief in the public that i.d. is a legitimate theory, while every expert knows it is not.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am
Quote "the real science which Biologic Institute dishonestly claims is evidence of i.d.":Active bleb formation is abated in Lytechinus variegatus red spherule coelomocytes after disruption of acto-myosin contractilityKeywords:
  • sea urchin;
  • invertebrate immunology;
  • coelomocyte;
  • cell motility;
  • cell movement;
  • microfilament dynamics

Abstract

Red spherule coelomocytes are immune cells in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus that have been characterized as motile O2 transport cells. Video microscopy of living red spherule coelomocytes reveals a constitutive, dynamic array of cellular morphologies and movements. Cells continuously send out and retract membrane blebs all over the cell surface as part of their normal cellular physiology. Disruption of microtubules by perfusion with either nocodazole or taxol had no effect on bleb formation or motility. Perfusion with cytochalasin B abated bleb formation and revealed cells that exhibited multiple small spheres attached by short membrane extensions. Attenuation of blebbing and intracellular organelle motility were restored by washing out with cytochalasin B. Treatment with phalloidin also abated bleb formation and revealed a smooth, spherical cellular morphology. The effects of phalloidin were completely reversible after washout. Red spherule coelomocytes treated with blebbistatin rounded up with an irreversible retraction of blebs into surface blebs that were greatly reduced in size, number and motility. Normal cell surface bleb formation and intracellular organelle motility were not restored after washout of the drug. These results indicate that the acto-myosin contractile mechanism contributes to the dynamics of constitutive cell surface membrane blebbing in invertebrate immune cells.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00086.x/abstract

Hit Ctrl+F and search for "intelligent design," I dare you firw6548! Then rinse, and repeat for every paper on that fraudulent list you posted. Ya got nothin'. I.d. is not a valid scientific theory. It has never gotten anything right. It is a pr gimmick, to knowingly, illegally smuggle religious dogma into public schools, nothing more, nothing less.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am
Quote firw6548:
Quote Reed.Young:

Can you show me a viable alternative theory, proven successful by publication in peer-reviewed journals?

Very reasonable question which I will answer honestly and directly. No, I don't have a viable alternate theory.

Thank you, for finally giving one honest answer.

Quote firw6548:However, I am not in need of one at the moment.

You are if you wish to teach it in any curriculum. You teach what is known. Evolution by natural selection is known. Exploring the unknown is college graduate school work. Pretending high school students are capable of "deciding" which paradighm is more reasonable is dishonest. You teach high school students science, you don't ask for their opinions about advanced topics in science that YOU KNOW they don't have the background to evaluate in the way Texas is doing.

Quote firw6548:The absence of an immediate replacement theory for evolution is not a reason to ignore the challenges regarding evolution in the peer-reviewed literature I just posted.

Those are not peer-reviewed challenges to evolution. You are now lying again. Those are papers about new discoveries about evolution.

Quote firw6548:In the meantime, I want the ability to present students with research that addresses the complexity of cells that Darwin was could not appreciate. I believe you would agree with this also.

Then you're not paying attention to what I'm actually saying. I make no effort to be "open-minded" to crazy nonsense and you do not have the right in any public school in the United States to indoctrinate innocent children with your religious faith by falsely arguing that what Charles Darwin knew is the sum of all that is now known about evolution by natural selection, and therefore anything Charles Darwin didn't explicitly discover himself constitutes a "flaw" in evolutionary theory and therefore an excuse to start making stuff up, or pulling out of your Bible.

Different viewpoints on evolution that are appropriate to teach high school students include the Lamarckian, Lysenkoist and Darwinian viewpoints, and that Darwin has been proved right by all evidence found so far. Those are the facts. And teaching the facts is your job. If you want to hold forth to whoever cares to listen in coffee shops or the public square about your "ideas" about alternative "theories" about evolution, that is your right, not speculating in public schools when you should be teaching the basic, elementary facts of biology.

Let them learn some facts before encouraging them to imagine that their first impression is as good as 99.9% of all professionals. What you're advocating is irresponsible and dishonest.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am

[quote=Reed.Young]

Neither of those are peer-reviewed journals. Both are lobbyist groups. Well, actually, both are the same lobbyist group. The Biologic Institute is just a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is the very same political lobbyist organization Luskin represents, for Christ's sake! How did you expect to fool anybody with that lie?

By their own admission, the Biologic Institute exists only to advance one paradigm, the paradigm of "intelligent design." That is not science. That is collective, politically organized, intentionally mutually reinforcing confirmation bias, which is one of the greatest professional hazards any scientist faces!

In response:

1. Citing peer-reviewed literature from Mr. Luskin's organization is hardly concerning. Discovery Institute is the organization Mr. Luskin spoke for and thus an appropriate primary source by which readers can evaluate his positions by.

2. Citing peer-reviewed literature from Biologic is also not concerning. As you noted, they are a subsidiary of Discovery Institute and openly note on their website that they are developing a case for intelligent design (quoted at the end of this response). It is wise to keep a healthy skepticism with them or any other organization that has an agenda in mind. However, it would be unfair and unreasonable to dismiss their research simply on account of their motives. Dismiss their research on account of its scientific credibility or lack thereof. What does their research suggest? As far as I can tell, they are exploring how likely single functional protein folds could have arisen through Darwin’s gradual model. This sounds interesting and worthy of a closer look.

The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. We think life looks designed because it was designed, and we think that careful science is backing this up—not just in one field, but in many.

Biologic brings together experts in molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry, bioinformatics and genomics, astrobiology, and engineering and information science in order to examine the question of design from all angles, the aim being to build a comprehensive and coherent picture. http://biologicinstitute.org/research/ Retrieved July 14, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am

I apologize for the way in which the citations did not appear correctly in my post above.

firw6548's picture
firw6548
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote firw6548:Dismiss their research on account of its scientific credibility or lack thereof.

You're getting closer now, but you're still wrong. It's not my burden to find a reason to dismiss each one. It's your burden to quote the text in each that establishes that it actually advocates an entirely different paradigm from evolution by natural selection. Because you're the one that wants to alter the science curriculum, you bear the burden of proof.

Quote firw6548:What does their research suggest? As far as I can tell, they are exploring how likely single functional protein folds could have arisen through Darwin’s gradual model. This sounds interesting and worthy of a closer look.

I'm not impressed with how far you can tell. You'll have to quote, probably from the conclusions section, that any of the authors actually advocate overthrowing the expert consensus on biological evolution in any way. And be very careful here. A biologist marvelling at complexity that evolved over millions of years is not necessarily a biologist making an assertion of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, or that other catch phrase for i.d.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am
Quote firw6548:

I apologize for the way in which the citations did not appear correctly in my post above.

For that, I will not fault you. The only thing worse than html is bbcode!

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am
Quote Reed.Young:
Quote kmgilroy89:

Thom ... tried his hardest to get [Luskin to] say that he wants to teach intelligent design in the classrom, but failed. Thom's argument was terrible: it came across as we should teach evolution exactly the way we are teaching it

Luskin doesn't need to admit that he wants to teach intelligent design in the classroom. It's a fact, easily verifiable in the public record.

Intelligent Design was prohibited in Dover because it IS creationism, as proved by the intermediate form "cdesign proponentsists" in the draft record of the desired text, Of Pandas and People. That's a failure to fully edit the word "creationists" into the phrase "design proponents." In the Wikipedia link above, and in the original text of his "analysis" if you bother to read it, he does espouse the creationist beliefs known by proponents -- creationists, who wish to illegally smuggle religious dogma into public schools -- as "intelligent design." The only reason he now disavows the label "intelligent design" now is that it has been ruled, in federal court, to be creationism, and therefore illegal to teach in public schools.

Just as "intelligent design" was exactly the same as "creation science" with a name change to evade the establishment cause, he now denies being a "cdesign proponentsist" or "intelligent design proponent" for the exact same reason, that verbiage has also been definitively tied to religious belief. In federal court.

Quote kmgilroy89:... without sufficient evidence, because we don't have an alternative. This is not how a scientist thinks.

Yes, it is how a scientist thinks, because there is absolutely no viable alternative theory, and there is sufficient evidence. There is such overwhelming evidence that 99.9% of all professionals in all fields of biology consider it fact.

The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism".

You believe you know better? Well, you don't.

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

Quote kmgilroy89:You don't teach something with gaps and flawed logic, because you cannot find an alternative. Thom was over his head in this debate. By the way, this is coming from an atheist.

Thom may have been over his head. I won't address that. If he cares to, he can speak for himself about what or who is over his head.

But there are no gaps nor flawed logic, except by creationists / intelligent designists / cdesign proponentsists.

99.9% of scientists use natural selection, because it works. No alternative hypotheses work worth a dump, and what Luskin's employer pays him to support is an end-run around valid science, bypassing the "prove it" step which requires making successful predictions and publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and just jumping, by fiat of ignorant, scientifically illiterate and theocratic school boards, directly into innocent children's textbooks.

That is evil.

Listening to the program, it was evident that many viewers saw the situation the same as I did. I didn't know who Luskin was when I was listening. Thom seemed to be prepared to debate intelligent design, but Luskin smartly wouldn't allow him to. As a result Thom did not know what to do and just came across as extremely rude during the interview. Luskin claimed on the program that there were unproven gaps in the theory of evolution and that there might be alternatives to the theories presented that explained those gaps. He did not say that those gaps were explained by a creator. Because Thom was running out of time I don't think Thom gave him a chance to explain alternative theories for those gaps. If Thom allowed more time for the discussion perhaps the interview would have been different and he could have caught Luskin in his trap. Unfortunately Thom's interviews are often too short for what they need to be in order to have a real in depth discussion about a topic.

One thing I did notice about the show was the clip he played from Kennedy. Does anyone know where he got that from? The video about Kennedy lowering tax cuts across the board has been posted all over YouTube, but I cannot find the video about closing tax loopholes.

kmgilroy89's picture
kmgilroy89
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I wouldn't say it's any good, but I am disappointed that Thom never asked Luskin "what experts," or "how many experts" or "what percent of professionals in the biological sciences?"


Quote wilder:

A good book is called Darwin's Black Box. By Michael Behe. Think about the concept of irreducible complexity. It was one of Darwin's concerns when he wrote Origin.

I suspect Luskin would have dodged the question, objected to it desperately, or if forced, the only two names he would have been able to offer would have been Behe and Dembski, both fringe characters in biological science making no meaningful contributions to actual learning. But they can sell books to the general public, and put asses in seats, you betcha!

An informative interview on the same topic could have been with Eugenie Scott.

http://ncse.com/

Thom, why expose us Progressives to Luskin, and not to the truth? I'm very disappointed with the parade of wrong-wing and anti-intellectual guests on your radio show, with no "balance" to their lies but yourself. You're knowledgeable and smart, but you're simply not that smart. Sorry. You need to get expert opinions from people like Eugenie Scott at least as often as you invite on wingnuts to lie to us.

That's all they do, and it's tiresome. It's only useful to learn the lies that the enemy is telling if I learn the truth of the matter, and this show is not where I'm learning that. I'm listening less and less often as a result.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am

Radio Hot Talker Thom Hartmann Uses Classic Darwin Lobby Tricks to Ignore Challenges to Evolution - Evolution News & Views

It's hard to disagree with the above article. Luskin wanted to make the issue about science, whereas Hartmann was desperate to push religion into the picture in a dishonest attempt at undermining Luskin's 100% scientific argument. This is a typical Darwinist tactic used to deflect any criticism of their theory (if it can even be called a theory anymore). In fact, we've seen multiple people in this very thread using the exact same tactic, including linking to Wikipedia articles which are─surprise, surprise─written by Darwinists using the exact same tactics. It's a vicious circle of lying for Darwin.

Reality is, the idea that there exists a purposeful direction (design) in nature requires no religious commitment, and in fact, it long preceedes Christianity, dating back to no earlier than Plato 2,400 years ago, being referred to as telology. Apparently, Plato and Aristotle were also creationists in cheap tuxedos.

We went through a (relatively) brief period of time where it appeared as though natural forces (excluding intelligence), in and of themselves, could create life forms from scratch, and that unplanned bursts of creativity (usually acredited to random mutations) created the plethora of diversity found in he living world, past and present. We know realize that period of time was fueled by ignorance. I.D. proponents want to progress beyond that ignorance and into the 21st century, where life is seen for what it is: Information-processing biological machines far surpassing anything any engineer has ever designed. On the other hand, Darwinists want us to remain in that period of ignorance, where life was thought to be comically simplistic.

Jared Jammer
Joined:
Jul. 14, 2011 12:37 pm

Mr. Young,

Aren't we a know it all!

"Luskin doesn't need to admit that he wants to teach intelligent design in the classroom. It's a fact, easily verifiable in the public record."

Sir, I am a true creationist and I can vouch for the Discovery Institute that they are NOT! It's a common claim(lie?) that people like you try and propagate, but there is a big difference between them and us. We believe the earth is young and they do not. Many of them even believe in common descent, although Casey Luskin probably does not. Now if you define a creationist as someone who believes in a Designer who was God, then Luskin would qualify, but who the designer is has nothing to do with the question of whether or not something was designed. Science cannot answer the question of who the designer was, but it should be able to recognize the signs of design, just like archeologists recognize design in things they dig up.

We all recognize the amazing design in living creatures and even in the natural world. You believe it can be explained by time, chance, and natural selection as well as gene transfer, etc. and we think those causes are no where near sufficient to explain the design and complexity that we see. We believe intelligence and intentional design is the only rational explanation for the design we find. Faith in one's views is something that is common to both sides.

Sure, Luskin probably believes the designer is God, but what does that have to do with his scientific views? Nothing! Does belief in God disqualify a person from being a scientist? If so, you are being quite prejudice. Almost all of the great early scientists to whom we owe much of our scientific knowledge today were actual creationists who even believed in a young earth and it didn't hinder their scientific work. They made great discoveries and we are still in their debt today.

And by the way, the Discovery Institute does NOT advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. They reluctantly testified at the Dover trial, but not for the purpose of getting ID into the schools. In fact, they even advised against this school suing.

You are propagating false information. That is what is truly evil. By the way, as a Darwinist, how do you define evil and good? What is your standard? Just curious. Is lying wrong? Is it always wrong or only when it goes against your desires and beliefs? Do you ever lie?

"But there are no gaps nor flawed logic, except by creationists / intelligent designists / cdesign proponentsists."

Typical Darwinist bull. Ignore all the problems of and criticisms against evolution, close your eyes and run around screaming in a loud voice "What controversy? What controversy? I don't see any controversy! There is no controversy." Meanwhile the controversy rages across America. Even this discussion is evidence that there is a controversy. Oh, the controversy only exists in our little pathetic creationist minds. All true scientists know better? Listen, Mr. Young, we are not as dumb as you all assume us to be. Ask any Darwin dissenter why they dissent and I'm sure they can give you evidence to back up their views. For evolution to be true, you have to rely on trillions and trillions of timely miracles of chance, not to mention the greatest one of all - the origin of life. You have to explain irreducibly complex systems and organs. Nano-machinery, homochirality, genetic codes(plural), sex, consciousness, brain, free will, morality, spirituality, why evolution is producing so many believers in God around the world - (perhaps natural selection is showing that believers are more fit than non-believers by the sheer overwhelming majority of believers), etc.

"The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism"."

Well, here is another list for you to add to that list. According to this list, there are 800 scientists. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

That list doesn't include all the true creationists. For a list of about 100 PhD creationists, see this site: http://creation.com/creation-scientists

Needless to say, if it weren't for the bias against them, there would be a lot lot more scientists who would sign the list, but they don't for fear of losing their job and other repercussions that the Darwin police would send their way. Those who publicly doubt Darwinism are definitely in the minority by far, but majority/minority does not decide truth(except in the atheist/believer debate - smile). There have been times in the past where dogma in science has been overturned in spite of the majority holding to the mistaken dogma.

It is only a matter of time until Darwinism is a has been in science in my view. True creationism will never be accepted, but the more we learn about our world, the more Darwinists must try to explain with their limited resources of time and chance. and natural selection, which also is coming under fire these days. Even creationists believe in natural selection, but we realize it is limited to the genetic information already existing in the cell. It can help an organism adapt to it's environment up to a point, but it has limits, just as a dog breeder has limits on how hairy a dog he can create or how big a dog he can breed. Once all the large genes are selected for, he has reached the end of what artificial selection can do. That limit would also apply to natural selection because natural selection cannot create any new genes. However, even evolutionists are coming face to face with the limits of natural selection.

"99.9% of scientists use natural selection, because it works."

It works to help preserve a species, but the finches are still finches no matter how big or how little their beaks get. In the end - no net evolution. Taking the little changes that natural selection can cause and extrapolating them to the nth degree and claiming they add up to macro-evolutionary changes is just a claim and unfounded assumption. Here are some recent articles on natural selection that seem to present a different view of it than Darwin had.

"Most mutations are nearly neutral and invisible to natural selection, as Sanford explained in detail in his book. Because they are not eliminated by purifying selection, they therefore accumulate in the genome, dragging it into genetic entropy. Mutations are not good material for natural selection. (John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (Ivan Press, 2005)."http://crev.info/content/110605-genetic_entropy_confirmed

“We are all mutants,” proclaimed a headline on Science Daily. “First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us.” The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute press release reported 60 new mutations per individual, received from parents – a “striking value” the article characterized the “unexpected findings”. The genomes of children from two families were inspected in this first-ever test of generational mutation. “This fascinating result had not been anticipated, and it raises as many questions as it answers,” the article exclaimed without offering an explanation of how evolution could deal with this high a mutational load. See also the 06/05/2011 entry, “Genetic Entropy Confirmed.” .... Even one or two mutations per generation is cause for alarm, let alone 60. John Sanford’s book is must reading to realize two things: (1) Natural selection can never find enough beneficial mutations to overcome the flood of deleterious ones, most of which are nearly-neutral mistakes that accumulate, like typographic errors, to cause genetic deterioration. (2) Humans could not possibly have lived for millions of years at this rate of mutational degradation. This story only reinforces with empirical data a worry about the future of our species that has long been known by population geneticists. We are not evolving, despite improvements in medicine; we are all less fit than Neanderthals and ancient Romans. http://crev.info/index.php/content/110621-humans_are_devolving

It's not as simple as you would like to have us think, Mr. Young.

Thom had some obvious misconceptions about these guys at the Discovery Institute. He didn't do his homework and assumed they were really stupid people. He found out the hard way that they are not and he got his little derriere booted hard on that show.

Behe's book on irreducible complexity and on the edge of evolution, Meyer's book on the Darwinian myth of Junk DNA, and Dembski's Design of Life, Well's book Icons, etc are books that have thoroughly challenged the neo-Darwinian paradigm and what's more, they actually deal with evidence against evolution! There is nothing about creationism in those books, just good hard scientific research. When Darwinian critics resort to ridicule rather than deal with the science, you know you have hit a nerve. You know they are just trying to cover up the fact that they have no good answer. Their books and ideas are rejected not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of worldviews. They simply cannot be right if Darwinism is to stand so their views are rejected without even considering the science involved.

tokyojazz's picture
tokyojazz
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2011 5:30 am

You have anonymously and falsely accused me, coward. If you have any decency you will apologize as soon as you understand that it is you whose statements are false.

Quote tokyojazz:Sir, I am a true creationist and I can vouch for the Discovery Institute that they are NOT! It's a common claim(lie?) that people like you try and propagate, but there is a big difference between them and us. We believe the earth is young and they do not. Many of them even believe in common descent, although Casey Luskin probably does not. Now if you define a creationist as someone who believes in a Designer who was God, then Luskin would qualify...

That is what it means to be a creationist. Furthermore, so-called "intelligent design" lost Kitzmiller v. Dover because the editing history of the "textbook" from which your side wished innocent school children to "learn" the religious dogma so-called "intelligent design" showed proof positive that "intelligent design" is nothing but creationism. Maybe not your brand of Creationism[TM] but I did not assert that it was. I said "intelligent design" is creationism, and that is a fact. YOU lied, then falsely accused me of lying, liar. The intermediate form "cdesign proponentsist" proves this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, as I have already documented above.

You owe me an apology, and I mean now.

Reed.Young's picture
Reed.Young
Joined:
Apr. 5, 2010 10:24 am

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system