MyThoughtWorld.com

14 Responses to “Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate: Part VI”

1. Olorin on Jun 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

   One aspect of these debates is impressive. In almost a decade since they were filmed, the Intelligent Design movement has come up with no new arguments or research for its position.

   The only change is that some arguments have been quietly dropped. The most significant dropped argument in this segment is that Michael Behe now admits that the whale fossils are intermediate species. In fact, Prof. Behe has for the last several years stated that living organisms do have a common ancestor.

2. Chad Phillips on Jul 1st, 2008 at 5:45 am

   Olorin,

   I appreciate your comments. Here’s my rather lengthy reply. It is intended to be received with respect, so I hope it is well taken. My sarcasm in this response isn’t aimed at you as much as it is aimed at the elitist icons of evolution.

   You wrote: “Michael Behe now admits that the whale fossils are intermediate species. In fact, Prof. Behe has for the last several years stated that living organisms do have a common ancestor.”

   Are you now giving Behe’s position authority since he has come to your side of the table? You seem to be indicating that because Behe allegedly changed his position on transitionals, this somehow gives a lot of weight to macroevolutionary theory. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut any mustard with me. The fact that he changed his mind doesn’t give any credence to the argument. The validity of this position depends entirely on how conclusive the evidence is. An isolated case of similarities between bone indentations of fossils found in the “correct” order isn’t conclusive of “transitionals” from a common ancestor. You might just as well compare any inanimate object which shares common “morphology” and make the same argument: for example, a compact disc, a hubcap, a cymbal and a plate. (Not to sound like a smart ass, but) Hey look! They’re all round and flat (or virtually flat). Conclusion: They must’ve had a common ancestor, since they’re so similar and all. I understand there is a world of difference between the synthetic and the biologic, but the reasoning is exactly the same. As Dr. Johnson so eloquently stated, we have no way of knowing if those fossils are transitionals and by what mechanism(s) they allegedly changed. In any case, morphology or homology is a poor indicator in the fossil record precisely because of how creative people can be in their efforts to come to the “right” conclusion. Some guy who speaks well, has a PHD, and can hold up nifty ink drawings of animals with similarities doesn’t really impress me all that much.

   Moreover, you state, ID has come up with no new arguments or research for its position. This is incorrect. Just last year, Behe wrote a book outlining the limits of biological evolution entitled, The Edge of Evolution. Also, as recently as March 2008 a book was written and coauthored by Behe, Johnson, Colanter, Luskin, Moreland, and Gage, which outlines the key issues in this debate.

   Still, both your observations are simply that…observations. Saying that someone from the ID camp switched sides on transitionals or that ID has no new arguments doesn’t make evolution more plausible, nor does it invalidate legitimate criticism of naturalistic evolution. The validity of a proposition depends on the evidence.

3. Ron McClure on Jul 1st, 2008 at 7:56 am

   Olorin,

   Good to hear from you. Most of us that frequent this blog try to engage in civil discourse. That said, please don’t take my comments as a personal attack, as they are not intended in that manner.

   I believe ID offers an alternative “scientific” theory for the origin of “life.” Without taking sides, naturalistic evolution hasn’t provided any credible scientific explanation for the “origin” of life. We can observe and validate minor changes, but drastic mutations are still not supported with clear evidence. You wrote, “In almost a decade since they were filmed, the Intelligent Design movement has come up with no new arguments or research for its position.” I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” was published in 1872 (a 6th edition descendant of “On the Origin of Species”), which by my calculation was 136 years ago. ID is fairly new, and to say that after a decade we must abandon ID is somewhat disingenuous. People are still fervently supporting Darwin’s theory after almost a century and a half, even though it has repeatedly failed to present “real” scientific evidence for the “origin” of life.

   My beliefs aside, is it not possible that life was created “intelligently,” and then “evolved” over time? Why must people be so dogmatic about a “theory” (which is nothing more than a supposition) that is based on antiquated research? Is it that some can’t accept a higher power? The intelligence doesn’t have to be “God.” As Richard Dawkins said, “I suppose it could have been highly evolved aliens from another planet.”

   In the interest of science, we must be open to the fact that the earth is not “flat” and is not the “center” of the universe, as many previous scientists purported. We have discovered that the earth appears flat, because it is so large compared to humans, and we have conversely discovered that the earth is only the “center” of the orbit of the moon. To accept Darwinian evolution in whole really shows an unwillingness to continue searching for truth.

4. Troglodad on Jul 1st, 2008 at 7:57 pm

   Fellas, I have to say that arguing with Darwinists is a dead end. These folks will never, ever accept that God created everything, because to accept that is to accept the rules and laws of the Bible and the concept of eternal damnation. They’re like people who smoke and doggedly refuse to believe they’re going to get lung cancer and die.

   Rather than trying to convince Darwinists how we got here, why not preach the Gospel to them and work on their lack of faith? Once they can accept the Truth about the world around them, maybe then you can educate them on how we all got here.

   To put it in children’s terms, do you first argue with your child about how a lamp got broken, despite their repeated denials, or do you clean up the broken pieces so know one gets hurt?

5. Olorin on Jul 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm

   Chad, Ron, and Troglodat exemplify different ways in which science education has failed. It is evident from your comments that none of you understand the methods and techniques of science. The importance of this failure is that public policy more and more depends upon an understanding of the physical world, so that we can manage it intelligently to attain the goals we wish to achieve. Misunderstanding and denial of scientific knowledge will get the human race into a lot of trouble, and may even lead to our extinction—self destruction through ignorance. Think about it.

   Chad’s major problem is denialism. Without any knowledge of comparative anatomy or paleontology, he denies (for example) the claims of skilled educated researchers that certain fossils are intermediate. What facts undergird their inferences? Geological time sequences by radiometric and geological dating. Anatomical similarities that are shared by these fossils but by no other animals—particularly, a very quirky set of ear bones. What evidence does Chad bring to the table that all of these hundreds of experts are wrong? His beliefs.

   Ron is a “gapper”. To the extent that science has not yet discovered the origin of life—or some other desired result—then, by default, God did it. The problem here is that the gaps keep going away. Before 1650, we knew that God kept the planets in their orbits. Now we think gravitation does the job. Which of these do you think does a better job predicting spacecraft trajectories? Before 1780, lightning was the visible wrath of God. Franklin and Faraday gave us natural explanations. Which of these explanations resulted in electric lights and video games? Before 1800, we know that God’s Flood produced the major features of the Earth. Now we know about plate tectonics and gradual erosion. Which of these theories is more likely to find new oil deposits? Before 1860, we knew that animals and plants were individually created with no relationships among them. Now we know about evolution. Which of these theories allows us to produce better vaccines? Before the 1800s, we knew that diseases resulted from possession by demons. Now we know that microbes cause many diseases. Which of these theories do you think offers the best hope for cures?

   Here’s a modern example. You’ve probably heard of the use of genetic evidence to establish that one person is the son or brother or great-grand-uncle of someone else. If you accept this capability, then why do you not accept the common descent of chimpanzees and humans? The techniques that establish this relationship are exactly the same as those used in court, or to establish migration patterns. (You may have heard of “mitochondrial Eve, or “Y-chromosome Adam.” Same deal.) Ron, your reaction to a gap in our knowledge may be “Praise God!” My reaction is “I wonder how this works?” You accept your own beliefs on no evidence, but you require tons of incontrovertible, eye-witness evidence for a scientific inference. Tell me again how symmetrical that view is.

   Troglodad doesn’t have a clue as to what science is all about. Science does not reject supernatural explanations per se. But science does restrict its field of view to those phenomena that are subject to repeatability and predictability. These are necessary for human understanding and control. Arbitrary actions of a supernatural power are by definition not subject to theses constraints, and are thus not within the purview of science. Science does not deal in the totality of truth. But to say that “God did it in His mysterious ways” is to foreclose the possibility of further knowledge. Many individual scientists are themselves religious. Many are not, and some (mistakenly, in my view) see the restricted boundaries of science as delimiting the pale of all truth.

   So, the purpose of science is to advance understanding and control of “natural” phenomena; that’s why it rejects inherently unknowable and uncontrollable “supernatural” causes.

   Finally, scientists do get upset when confronted by ideological denials of scientific results. Denialism of science for ideological reasons has proven disastrous in the past. Here are three examples that come to mind.

   By the 19th Century, Baghdad was the scientific capital of the world. While Europe slept through the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars retrieved Greek science and added to it in chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, and other fields. Then the mullahs decided that this knowledge conflicted with the Qur’an, and they quashed it. An awakening Europe was more than happy to build upon the Arabs’ science–to the detriment of the Islamic science; Baghdad is now the capital of misery, not knowledge.

   Nazi Germany suppressed relativity and quantum mechanics as products of “Jewish science,” and drove out the scientists who accepted these theories, replacing them with second-raters who followed the party line. This ideological suppression of science drove many scientists to flee to England and America. Where a number of them employed these theories to devise atomic weapons to defeat the Axis. So Hitler’s ideological suppression of science was counterproductive, to say the least. And Germany, which formerly ruled the roost in theoretical physics, is now an also-ran.

   In the 1920s, the USSR was the breadbasket of Europe, even after Stalin’s forced collectivization. Then came Trofim Lysenko, with his Lamarckian views that fit hand-in-glove with Communist ideology. Plant the same crop together, he said, because, being of the same class, they will cooperate, rather than competing, as different “classes” of crops would. Stalin bought this line, and suppressed Darwinian evolutionary research, even imprisoning many world-famous biologists. By the 1970s, the USSR was wracked by famines. The government finally came to its senses and liquidated Lysenko, But it was too late. The damage of replacing science by ideology had already been done, and the shortqges were one of the major reasons for the implosion of the USSR.

   In our own day, the denial of science in general and biology in particular is already beginning to be felt. Several major US drug companies now conduct their research in China, which has always been strong in science education. Singapore and Korea have attracted a number of prominent biological researchers away from the US. Asian and European grad students, who used to remain in the US, are increasingly heading back home, partly because of increasing acceptance there, and partly because of short-sighted restrictions by the US government. Science and technology are important to our future; I worry that increasing denigration of science and poor science education will turn our own country into a backwater.

   That too may seem elitist. But think of our futures, yours and mine. Global-warming researchers have even come up with a measure for denialism in that field. They call it the “ethical discount rate.” It measures how much more people value their own lives and well-being than the lives and well-being of their grandchildren. I read recently that the US figure now stands about 40%. That is, we are willing to sacrifice rather little comfort ourselves so that our descendants might live as well as we do. That’s sad, I think. I hope you think so too.

6. Chad Phillips on Jul 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm

   Trog:
   This was never about trying to convince Olorin of the validity of our position. I’ve been playing this game long enough to know that such an endeavor is a fool’s errand. I do appreciate your comments, though.

   Anyway, I think this was more about allowing others who are eavesdropping on the conversation to see a civil discussion between two people who are in camps which are traditionally hostile toward one another. Also, it gives us the opportunity to expose the rhetorical tactics of evolutionary proponents, in general. By stripping away the veneer of distractions, it is hoped we might actually discuss what the flap is all about, namely the “science.”

7. Ron McClure on Jul 4th, 2008 at 9:07 am

   Olorin,
   Are you a “highly evolved alien from another planet?” You must be supernatural to know so much about us. You referred to me as a “gapper.” Well I’ll have you know that I am actually an “Old Navier.” The “Gap” is way to pricey for my pocketbook…plus, Old Navy is more rugged-like, whereas the Gap is more metrosexual-like. But that’s debatable, and you are entitled to your opinion.

   On a more serious note, let’s “assume” that I am what you say. I will approach you from that perspective since you have so eagerly “labeled” us here.

   Let’s talk science. You stated that we were not educated in science. Do you mean that we haven’t swallowed every utterance from science books that, “like organisms,” are constantly changing? If scientific elitists are produced from drinking ”kool-aid,” then you’re probably right. I don’t accept Darwin’s theory just because it is in science books, and frankly, I am immune to ten pages of big words and “special effects” from a Darwinist disciple. I understand that “transitionals” seem to fill in gaps, but the key word here is, “seems.” Let me propose an argument, borrowing a little from Chad.

   We’re trying to see if there is a link between finger cymbals and gongs. They seem to be similar, but too many differences exist to extinguish the doubt surrounding such a postulation. After some research and investigation, we’ve discovered the fossils of splash cymbals, crash cymbals, ride cymbals and china cymbals. With this evidence, we now have the “transitionals” that link the finger cymbal to the gong. As we can see, starting with the finger cymbal, each fossil increases in size and its sound gradually changes until it reaches the deep sound of the gong. Not to mention they are all constructed of similar material. In summation; gongs, china cymbals, crash cymbals and ride cymbals are all descendants of the finger cymbal.

   This seems to a perfectly logical argument, but it IS begging the question a little. I mean, if we didn’t already “assume” these were related, we wouldn’t necessarily come to that conclusion. And yes, it is based on the scientific method, to a point. One thing is missing though, the experiment. We cannot reproduce this process. In fact, we can’t even observe this process, because it takes millions of years for a finger cymbal to become a gong. But, heaps of evidence support the theory, and nothing has been found to “disprove” our supposition. Since hundreds of colleagues have peer reviewed and agreed with our findings, we must now “educate” stupid people that don’t believe that gongs used to be finger cymbals a billion years ago.

   What we didn’t take into consideration is that each of these were separately created by the Zildjian cymbal company. They are very similar, because they serve similar purposes but with distinct differences, each is “designed” to create a “specific” effect. The finger cymbal gives us the high-pitch “ting” sound, while the gong gives us the deep and sustaining “bong.” While our research was well-intended, we concluded that all of these fossils had a common ancestor. However in our quest to prove that our initial postulation was correct, we disregarded another perfectly logical “possibility,” a common designer.

   Obviously, living organisms are much more complicated, but the concept is the same. Without empirical evidence and direct observation, we just can’t be sure. There is a distinct difference between “possible” and “probable,” and at this point: we don’t have “empirical” evidence to support the probability of either Darwinian evolution or Intelligent Design. But why would we only choose to pursue one “possibility?” Could it be bias? It’s definitely, “bad science.”

   Olorin, you obviously are quick to accept incomplete science, and I believe that is more dangerous to humanity than considering alternative explanations. Zildjian cymbals were NOT created by God; In fact, they were created by Turkish craftsmen. Either way, the finger cymbal is not the ancestor of the gong.

8. Troglodad on Jul 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

   Olorin I laugh at your pathetic argumentation skills. And by pathetic, I mean that entirely. Unable to counter my claims, you have chosen to claim I said one thing than attacked it.

   I have never rejected science. Science is a fact. So is archery, fishing, and astronomy. What I reject is the foolish idea that the results of scientific study dismiss God out of hand, claiming instead that from nothing “somehow” the Universe evolved.

   Judeo-Christian history tells us how it happened, and why. Scientific study proves it.

   For example, the Bible tells us of a great Flood. Doubters will want proof, rather than just believe. Sure enough, we have physical evidence to support a flood. Fossils, erosion, underwater ruins such as Yonaguni… I could go on and on.

   Religion does not reject science. In fact, it was a monk, Mendel, who proved evolution exists. It was a heathen, Lamark (followed by the grief-stricken Darwin years later) who rejected God as our origin and tried to explain God away with pseudo-scientific babble.

   I know, you’re unconvinced. That’s because you don’t want to believe in God. The idea of being wrong, and the idea of spending all eternity in Hell terrifies you. You truly are like the smoker who keeps on smoking despite overwhelming evidence it’s going to one day kill you.

   Part of the blame for your and other Darwinists’ ideology is the fault of folks like Pat Buchanan. Like everything else man messes up, religion is often warped and twisted to suit the ego of so many.

   My point for Chad and Ron (who I can’t believe is so girly- Old Navy? That’s a CHICK store) is that they are tilting at windmills. They can never convince a Darwinist they are wrong because they are approaching this from the wrong angle. Before you or any Darwinist can be saved, you must want to be saved. And that will require a completely different argument. Their attempt to convince you of religion is no different than if I tried to make you believe in ghosts as a precursor to converting you to Christianity.

   Before I go however, here are some Biblical accounts that have been scientifically proven:

   All mankind has a common ancestor
   Many languages exist, but do not appear to have derived from one language
   The Pharoah’s Army has been found in the Red Sea
   Ruins exist around the world in deep water
   Sodom (or was it Gomorrah) was discovered and it was destroyed
   Jesus was a real person (based on records from the time)

9. Chad Phillips on Jul 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

   Elitism???

   How about this?: Olorin’s major problem involves an omniscience complex coupled with a propensity for straw man making, non sequitur, using post hoc ergo propter hoc tactics, question begging, use of selective “evidence,” vague terms and shifting definitions, lack of testability, and (probably the coup de gras of the evolutionary tactic handbook) appeals to authority.

   It sounds good, though. Maybe I should do the same thing in response. Perhaps I should assume that since you don’t agree with me, it is because of what you believe irrespective of the evidence. You bias is clouding your judgment. You’re in denial, or maybe you’re just a pig ignorant clod because you don’t hold my point of view:) Perhaps the reason you don’t agree with me is because you haven’t adequately studied. For if you had, then there’d be no principled reason for you to come to the “wrong” conclusion.

   Then again, I could just make an appeal to authority and lightly insult you in the same sentence, like this, for example: “What evidence does [Olorin] bring to the table that all of these hundreds of experts are wrong? His beliefs.” That would be presumptuous, indeed, since I know nothing about you, your background, your education, what books you’ve read, etc. (The omniscience of evolutionists amazes even me.) Your statement also assumes an answer to the point in dispute, that there aren’t hundreds of experts on the other side of the table taking the opposite position. But a more fundamental flaw exists here, that of assuming an appeal to authority proves naturalistic evolution. It doesn’t, which is why you don’t see me trying to pull that wool over your eyes.

   Continuing onward, maybe I should drudge up where science has gone wrong in history. That would be tough to do, however, since science is “always” objective and has “never” erred.

   I won’t do all that, LOL:) but you get the idea…This kind of posturing is really not very helpful (although I do appreciate the candor). All such tactics effectively keep us from discussing the real issue: the science. Instead, we just sort of argue past one another, using rhetoric which mostly dwells on the irrelevant.

   That leads to a key question: What is relevant in this discussion? I think the answer is in exposing the dichotomy between science and philosophy with regard to evolution, and also in focusing on evolutionary mechanisms.

   In the former, evolutionary proponents take what is scientific and then balloon it into a philosophical construct, based on an a priori inference. So “adaptive” is this construct that no matter what evidence surfaces to controvert it, the construct swallows it up in a single Darwinian gulp. In the latter, the mechanisms have never been shown do all evolutionary proponents say they can. Both tacks are a problem if you’re approaching this from a paradigm of scientific empiricism.

   Probably my biggest objection deals with the software and how it is that mindless mechanisms were able to untie that knot. Evolutionists don’t have any mechanisms capable of producing what is needed to get the fundamental innovation, much less the software. Yet, the reasoning seems to be, “We’re all here, so it must’ve happened.” This is not unlike the philosophical theist’s claim that the reason things look designed is because they are designed. And it seems to me counterintuitive to dismiss the teleology of biology due to an a priori commitment to naturalism, especially given the mandate of science to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I do understand that science is restricted to the observable, testable, repeatable, etc. But what if what is buried under that mountain of empiricism is a design? Would that somehow invalidate science?

10. Chad Phillips on Jul 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Trog,
    I already stated I’m not trying to convince Olorin; this is more for the voyeuristic among us. Also, I think it’s part of being a good ambassador for truth. To those ends I think the dialogue is constructive. I will never convince Olorin of the validity of our position. But for someone else observing this might serve as food for thought, showing that ID theorists have good reason to doubt large scale evolution. It should also serve in a small way to purify the debate by stripping away the diversions used as proof of a so-called scientific theory.

11. Olorin on Jul 4th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Quoth Chad: “This was never about trying to convince Olorin of the validity of our position.” But you didn’t define what your position is. If your position is that we should worship God and follow Jesus Christ, then I agree completely. But if your position is that the natural sciences must be denied to serve the details of your particular set of religious beliefs, then we disagree completely. Requiring science to justify your faith is like demanding that your auto mechanic fix your car by praying for it.

    The methods and the goals of science differ from those of theology. Theological research proceeds from divine revelation, then adds glosses from trusted authorities. When an unanticipated situation arises, a researcher must infer what the original source of the revelation would have intended had He spoken directly to the matter at hand; for example, does in-vitro fertilization contravene the will of God? Papal encyclicals employ this technique.

    Scientific research, on the other hand, begins with physical evidence of natural phenomena, then proceeds to build theories to understand those phenomena and to predict additional phenomena. New physical evidence can extend, modify, or destroy a theory; its truth is always provisional—not absolute as in theology. When, we cannot duplicate the phenomena, we piece together other facts to infer what we cannot observe directly—for example, the nuclear reaction cycle of the Sun or the relationship of biological species. The more facts we have, the more confident we are of the inference. You and I make inferences about unobserved events all the time. Very few murder trails involve eye witnesses, yet juries sentence people to death on the basis of hair found at the scene and prints that match shoes of the defendant. And we accept an expert’s report that the defendant’s gun fired the fatal bullets, even though we have little idea how he developed the test, because we accept his qualifications and the test’s scientific basis as presented in court.

    Yet you deny the evidence of scientists out of hand solely on the basis of religious beliefs. Not based upon any expertise you may have, or upon any contravening evidence. You apply theological reasoning to scientific questions, just as Martin Luther did when he refuted Copernicus’ heliocentric theory by quoting Scripture to the contrary. To deny evolution, for example, you must deny or distort many major parts of geology, paleontology, genetics, and atomic physics. (Even historians cite soi-disant Biblical science passages as a fallacy they call “whiggism.”) You may feel justified in bending science to faith, but scientists call it “lying for Jesus.”Scientists rely on honesty. The structure of science depends upon the reliability of reported evidence in publications. This is why scientists consider dishonesty to be the gravest sin. David Baltimore, a Nobel prize winner, almost lost his entire career when one of his co-authors was (falsely, as it turned out) accused of dishonesty. Hwang Woo-suk falsified some of his cloning results; he will never work again, even though others have subsequently verified most of his results.

    This is why biologists disdain Michael Behe. Time and again in the Dover ID trial, he attempted to mislead the judge and to distort scientific results. After these attempts were exposed in cross-examination, his credibility tanked. It’s little wonder that Behe and others have gained no traction in the scientific world. The central point of Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution, was demolished several weeks after it was published—by a grad student in Oklahoma who showed that the HIV virus has evolved in the laboratory in exactly the way that Behe said is not possible. She cited literature that Behe almost certainly knew about. Results in an earlier paper by Behe & Axe were disputed on the basis that his sample size was at least a billion times too small; he later admitted this—yet the Discovery Institute still touts his paper as evidence of evolution’s shortcomings.

    This leads back to the point of my original comment that creationism arguments do not evolve, they only become extinct. I cited Behe’s endorsement of common descent not to prove the truth of the matter, but to show that this argument is beginning to lose adherents among creationists, based upon increasing genetic evidence developed over the past few years. Invocation of the second law of thermodynamics is farther down the slopes; not many creationists anymore argue that the second law prohibits evolution. Arguments that evolution doesn’t happen at all have been replaced by an artificial distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution. Arguments that evolution cannot produce new species are increasingly soft-pedaled; even without going back into history, dozens of presently existing “ring species” trounces that claim. “Proof” of a young sun because of missing solar neutrinos became a dead issue years ago, along with polonium halos. Going further back, the claim that woolly mammoths were flash frozen in the Flood has plunged out of sight. Even further back, the Paluxy River dinosaur/human footprints are now only a distant embarrassment that even Ken Ham won’t touch.

    Ironically enough, creationism is itself a major source of new atheists. Lauri Lebo, the author of “The Devil in Dover,” was a born-again evangelical whose father owned a Christian radio station near Dover, PA. Lauri covered the 2005 Kitzmiller trial which exposed Intelligent Design as scientific thimblerigging. After listening to the evidence for six weeks, and hearing lie after evasion after misdirection of the ID witnesses exposed, and hearing the evidence for evolution presented by the plaintiffs, she lost her belief. If they lied to me about that, she said, they probably lied to me about the rest as well. Science magazine recently described the case of a now-prominent evolutionary researcher who went through the same experience in college, with the same result. A long-time colleague of mine who was raised in communist Vietnam occasionally asks me about Christian beliefs. But, he keeps saying, if many of them say things about science that we all know are risible, why should I believe them?

    A recent (May 2008) video by Thunderf00t has a good sound bite on this subject: “If any hole in scientific knowledge is evidence for God, any hole that is filled in by knowledge is deemed as an attack on God.” My position is that this need not be the case. All it requires is that people stop using science to prop up their faith. Is your faith really too weak to stand on its own?. Do you really think that God is too stupid to employ methods that you don’t understand?

    I’m not convincing you. It’s difficult to reason people out of a position they did not reason themselves into. All I ask of you is that you please do not help your children with their science homework.

12. Ron on Jul 6th, 2008 at 11:24 am

    My final contribution: AN OLORIN PARODY

    “You ‘Creationists’ claim that ID is the origin of life. Well you obviously didn’t study science. Because, ANY half-retarded 10 year-old that took Ms. Parker’s 5th grade science class would know that ID is only open to one possibility, a Judeo-Christian Creator. Well, I happened to have heard first-hand from Richard Dawkins that IF the christian ‘God’ existed (which Darwinism proves he doesn’t) their ‘God’ must be dumb. Afterall, THEY were created in HIS image, and well, “the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree” (if you know what I mean). Therefore, the theory could only be correctly titled as, “UD” or ‘Un-intelligent Design.’ Plus, I heard that a Christian once stole a pack of gum, and that just devastates this entire theory.”

    Olorin, this is the way you build an argument. You sound bitter, random and hysterical. Still, you don’t address the issues that we bring up. Instead, you just refer to the book, “How to Sling Crap Like a Monkey: Aiming for the Mouth,” by Richard Dawkins. Then, you begin to recite his prose nearly verbatim. By the way, Dawkins previously used the Luther attack and the “lying for Jesus” quip, too. Did he get those from you, or vice versa? Big words, red herrings, big names, vicious personal degradation, but still you offer no empirical evidence. Instead, you employ more spin than a “Tilt-a Whirl” full of teenage boys. Empirical evidence is: “observable and based on experiment” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical). You can give names and quote “experts” all you want. You see, opinions are similar to bowel movements. That is, everyone squeezes one out each day or so, and most of them are just a big bunch of $#!T.

    Come to think of it, “lefties” tend to defend Obama with the same veracity and underhanded tack as you’ve displayed in this “civil” discussion on evolution. Let’s see if we can spot the similarities:

    A: Barack Obama is going to bring change!

    B: What change?

    A: Things will be different!…you’re a racist.

    B: I am NOT a racist. I just want to know how Obama is going to fix all of the problems that he promises he will.

    A: Spoken like a true Bush neo-con. If you people weren’t such greedy selfish klan members, you might give some validity to what Obama is all about.

    B: I’m not in the klan…Anyway, what IS he “all about.”

    A: I can’t stand talking to you stupid gay-bashers, I already stated earlier, CHANGE!

    B: Excuse me? I didn’t even say anything about sexuality. I simply said, “what change?”

    A: Things will be different…you’re a racist.

    B: I already said, I’m not a racist, I just want to know, “HOW WILL OBAMA FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT HE HAS PLEDGED HE WILL?”

    A: Spoken like a true Bush neo-con… If you people weren’t such GREEDY selfish klan members, killin’ people for oil, you MIGHT give some validity to what Obama is all about! Go make out with your sister!

    B: Again, I completely renounce the klan…my sister?…what are you talking about?…anyway what IS OBAMA really “all about.”

    A: I can’t stand talking to you stupid skinheads, I already stated earlier, CHANGE!

    B: BUT WHAT FREAKING CHANGE IS HE TALKING ABOUT!?!

    A: Things will be different…you’re a racist.

    B: WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?…ANSWER THE SIMPLE FLIPPIN’ QUESTION…I’LL PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH IF YOU INSULT ME AGAIN!!!

    A: Spoken like a true Bush neo-con. If you people weren’t such greedy selfish klan members, you might give some validity to what Obama is all about. Just like a Bible-thumping Jesus-freak to act so “uncivilized.”

    B: I’m not in the klan!…I’m not a neo-con!…we’re not talking about my personal beliefs!…PLEASE!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, “WHAT IS BARACK OBAMA ALL ABOUT?”

    A: I can’t stand talking to you stupid homophobes, I already stated earlier, CHANGE!

    And so on…forever and ever. You insult me, I defend myself, and you never address the issues.

    Well, I’m glad you stopped by, at least you gave Troglodad some braggin’ rights for a couple of weeks. I’m disappointed that our lengthy prose could never get past, “what is the evidence?” I would love to continue, but if I want to be insulted, I’ll just get a girlfriend.

    Au revoir!

13. Troglodad on Jul 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Olorin, you’d make a hell of a liberal. Once again, you try to paint this as an argument over evidence. It’s not- it’s an argument over findings based on evidence.

    Heathens use evidence to deny God. Christians use evidence to confirm God to nonbelievers.

    And as for “The methods and the goals of science differ from those of theology.” Really? Are you suggesting that any bible-based study can’t include science? That it must instead be faith based? What then of issues not covered by the Bible?

    For example, the Bible doesn’t tell us how people wiped their behinds so long ago. Paper or water? Yet, we know people did have to go potty. How then do we determine the method? Surely we must use a scientific method to examine archaeological evidence of the era.

    Your writing more and more shows a contempt for Christianity, which makes me wonder which of God’s rules you don’t agree with.

14. Chad Phillips on Jul 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Olorin,

    I didn’t think there was any need to define OUR or MY position. Doing so would be superfluous in light of the fact that you know every minute detail of my epistemology, my I.Q., my education, what books I’ve read, and whether or not I fold or wad my TP before wiping. But even if you did know my orientation (which you don’t) would it make any difference? The answer is, “No,” a thousand times, “No.” Because somewhere in your lexicon you’ve picked up a meme which says that anyone who is critical of large scale evolution is this, that, and/or the other thing. But I refuse to believe you’re that myopic, so I must assume the worst here. You’re just being malicious.

    After the first extraneous comment you wrote, I asked you politely if we might indeed discuss the science. Specifically, I asked you if we could focus on the mechanisms of evolution and the process by which they are allegedly able to produce both the innovation in biology as well as the software programming.

    You replied with yet another meandering diatribe, underscoring both your clairvoyance and your mastery of the techniques outlined in the evolutionist’s handbook, aptly entitled, “Skirting the Issue.” Pardon me for saying so, but character assassination of ID proponents doesn’t prove evolution, neither does saying the church persecuted Galileo, or whatever else you’re pulling from your bash ID macro. Conversely, such tactics don’t invalidate the legitimate criticisms and questions ID has brought to bear on the subject of evolution. As I said in my earlier comments, the history of science (especially that of evolutionary biology) is replete with unqualified extrapolations, outright fraud, and torturing the data until it confesses. Why didn’t I just adopt the posture you used by enumerating those “indiscretions”? Because I’m not so obtuse as to think that those problems disprove evolution any more than they validate ID. They might underscore a bias; but just because someone has a bias doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. That depends on the evidence, which apparently you have no interest in discussing.

    Anyway, thanks for taking the time to straw man, ad hominem, and post hoc us to freaking death, and that last barb about not helping children with their science homework was an especially nice touch. But seriously, you’ve worn out your welcome here, Olorin, and I’ve wasted enough of my time and my readers’ time giving you the benefit of the doubt. So much for a rigorous discussion of the science, and so much for giving our readers the novelty of an evolutionist and an ID theorist actually communicating. It would have been nice to get beyond the irrelevant, the condescension, and the steam rolling usually associated with this debate. But then I gave you more credit than you deserved.

Leave a Reply