Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry by Michael J. Behe

 Intelligent DesignEvidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry

by
Michael J. Behe

(From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute’s God & Culture Conference, August 10,1996)

eyeHow do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail, and its sophisticated features astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the time correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye’s many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. So it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.

Charles Darwin knew about the eye too. In the Origin of Species, Darwin dealt with many objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection. He discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled “Organs of extreme perfection and complication.” Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the public that complex organs could be formed gradually, in a step-by-step process.

He succeeded brilliantly. Cleverly, Darwin didn’t try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to make the eye. Instead, he pointed to modern animals with different kinds of eyes, ranging from the simple to the complex, and suggested that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.

evolution eyeHere is a paraphrase of Darwin’s argument. Although humans have complex camera-type eyes, many animals get by with less. Some tiny creatures have just a simple group of pigmented cells, or not much more than a light sensitive spot. That simple arrangement can hardly be said to confer vision, but it can sense light and dark, and so it meets the creature’s needs. The light-sensing organ of some starfishes is somewhat more sophisticated. Their eye is located in a depressed region. This allows the animal to sense which direction the light is coming from, since the curvature of the depression blocks off light from some directions. If the curvature becomes more pronounced, the directional sense of the eye improves. But more curvature lessens the amount of light that enters the eye, decreasing its sensitivity. The sensitivity can be increased by placement of gelatinous material in the cavity to act as a lens. Some modern animals have eyes with such crude lenses. Gradual improvements in the lens could then provide an image of increasing sharpness, as the requirements of the animal’s environment dictated.

Using reasoning like this, Darwin convinced many of his readers that an evolutionary pathway leads from the simplest light sensitive spot to the sophisticated camera-eye of man. But the question remains, how did vision begin? Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point for the simple light sensitive spot came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye’s ultimate origin:

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated. He had an excellent reason for declining the question: it was completely beyond nineteenth century science. How the eye works; that is, what happens when a photon of light first hits the retina simply could not be answered at that time. As a matter of fact, no question about the underlying mechanisms of life could be answered. How did animal muscles cause movement? How did photosynthesis work? How was energy extracted from food? How did the body fight infection? No one knew.

Darwins Black BoxTo Darwin vision was a black box, but today, after the hard, cumulative work of many biochemists, we are approaching answers to the question of sight. Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is what it means to “explain” vision. This is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision, or digestion, or immunity must include its molecular explanation.

DarwinNow that the black box of vision has been opened it is no longer enough for an “evolutionary explanation” of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.

 

 

 

 

For more of the Good stuff from Dr Behe go to here;

http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/intelligent-design.html

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Jesus, News, Photography, Religion, Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry by Michael J. Behe

  1. tildeb says:

    (A) Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.

    God did it.

    Case closed.

  2. tildeb says:

    Enjoy:

    sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/the-scientific-case-against-powered-flight/#comments

  3. Note that this is not what Dr Behe is saying, simply when you eliminate all other options then we should accept that inference is fine methodology, as this is precisely what we do with subatomic particles and indirect observation we have in modern science.

  4. tildeb says:

    Take your time with this one: Aaron knows his stuff, so be prepared to see Behe’s basis for ‘science’ at his (courtroom) best.

    youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU

  5. tildeb says:

    But the point is that he eliminates everything except ID to conclude ID. And who designed everything according to Behe’s criteria? God. So the answer I have provided remains Behe’s ‘answer’: God did it.

  6. It is true that Behe believes that God was involved in creation of the world, as do I. Difference is whether it is through the process of evolution that says random, blind chance or a guided designer who had to put things into place for things to work progressively rather than degenerative that e.g we observe with Dog breeding with osteoporosis, with loss of smell with some cats etc. Lastly he deliberately avoids the word God and the word used is rather Intelligent Designer hence the name to the movement ID. This means that we could have alien as a source being that is responsible for the start of life on this planate.

    To say that “God did it” is not acceptable due to our preference is to ignore every possibility available out there, so to speak.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  7. Thanks for that, whilst I can’t say that these were the best spent 11 minutes of my time. I can see why such argument may appear to be persuasive. It is often said that as long as you are confident you could sell snow to the Eskimos, however there are many issues that are not addressed in this video. And I find it to be very much general in its representation. Issue with Behe are grossly misrepresented, and he failed to consider number of points. Including that Behe would have considered many of the points and would have read number of the books related to the subject. This is an absolute necessity otherwise how could he possibly be arguing his case. I am shocked that someone so eloquent could miss obvious multiple possibilities. He is very boldly stating that all the things that Evolution is saying is factual truth because they have been tested and proven to be true. We come to that same old question, if you have sample size that is large enough and your understanding is limited you could make anything and say it is fitting the preconceived model. However as I pointed to you before when you take box of legos and rather than put together aeroplane you could use limited parts (Children often do this) and build yourself gun. You will note that function would be lost but in Childs mind this is acceptable because this is what he/she wanted in the first place. (You can see that I have two children) This is however not proof, I find it frightening that people who are so bright could still make such massive logical fallacy and still say that ID defenders are lying and then with a straight face go on to say that you need to be gullible to believe in ID. Does he consider himself to be way above many scientists who don’t share his view on this subject. It is shameful that he so readily misrepresents his critic too, on number of occasions criticism was square on the issue of generalising and not considering implication of what he is saying. And that is very important point, did he talk to all ID proponents, did he truly listen to their objections or is he simply just repeating what many others are saying?

    Never the less, it was good to hear what he had to say, even if only for his neat presentation though I did not understand why he used sock puppet, presumably that was to humiliate and show how stupid is anyone who would dares to challenge his assertions. At least he did admit that many of the claims he made have been challenged by those who give ID equal chance. But I find so frightening is that I know from talking to many ID people that they would not object and would even recommend that Evolution should not be excluded from the school curriculum. Yet ID proponents are still portrayed as backward village idiots that simply could not understand this “complex” subject. Yet often what you find is that many ID people have very good understanding of the process of evolution. Only difference being that they ID people have big reservations about it.

    Regards

    Defend the word

  8. Sorry but how is a strategy going to be a proof, a magic bullet against ID? I fail to understand that logic, every organisation has their own objectives. This is simply part of any business structure. It is clear from what we observe that there is well established unwritten policy that is present amongst those who propagate Evolution. If you are going to be successful against the theory that discriminates so readily against anyone who is not in agreement with it then you have to fight, in the way that is going to be effective. For far too long People have written disjointedly, it is about time that they group their resources in the same way much of the evolutionary propaganda is being spread and peddled as science when in fact much is based on faith. And often when evidence is strongly pointing to creation it is dismissed simply because God did it is not acceptable to such mentality. Fact is that true scientist will accept whatever the truth is, regardless of what they would prefer. I am sorry that your rejection of title is so short when it comes to accepting credentials of those who are of the opposing view. That shows preferential treatment and fact that legal system is not perfect should warn you against reaching your conclusion that we must accept Evolution because judge and law said we should. I class that as false evidence and should not be misunderstood as anything else. That is simply put; pretension on the behalf of those who have no evidence but anything would do, when all other fails.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  9. [“Repeatedly, DTW, you subscribe to the false impression that complexity cannot come from evolutionary processes. You like to use the standard creationist misrepresentation of the Second Law of thermodynamics, as if that adds anything to the weight of the misplaced point, yet refuse to comprehend the well documented evidence laid before you.”]

    Defend the Word: Actually examples given in the past have always shown that such mutations bring hindrance to the organisms that have suffered negative mutation. I.e. like fruit flies that get extra wings but can’t fly anymore. Yes there are mutation that are beneficial, and fact that I accept micro evolution testifies to that fact. Therefore your assertion is incorrect. You got me mixed up with someone else. I believe as I said many times before that there are changes oscillations within the parameters that are already part of the designed blueprint of the organism. However what I would strongly disagree with you, is when move up the complexity means that we go from Mouse to donkey to Human is advocated when simply put there is no such evidence.

    [“Your impression is stunningly wrong… not that that means you are any willing to change your mind because of that fact. You seem particularly intransigent to even consider the possibility because you believe as you do.”]

    Defend the Word: Thanks for your honesty, but have you not considered that I actually understand what you are talking about??? Otherwise are you not wasting your time with me???
    [“Regardless, I press on… “]

    Defend the Word: I’m grateful that you do! If I was you, and I had so much to disagree with others I would question why I intend to do this.

    [“Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?”]

    Defend the word: You are building straw man argument here. I have already said that bacteria adopt and mutate, but I would urge you to precisely target your examples. Like with any other test, you can’t simply give any answer to the question at hand and expect full marks from your assessors?

    [“The overwhelming evidence from the scientific literature is yes. Appropriate papers include: Evolution Of Biological Complexity by Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(9): 4463-4468 (25th April 2000) Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider, Nucleic Acids Research, 28: 2794-2799 (2000) De Novo Origination Of A New Protein-Coding Gene In Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Jing Cai, Ruoping Zhao, Hifeng Jiang and Wen Wang, Genetics, 179: 487-496 (May 2008) is merely one of the more spectacular instances. Surely the emergence of a gene where previously there was none, constitutes an increase in complexity by any reasonable measure? Particularly as the instance in the above paper arose from a previously noncoding DNA sequence?
    From Calilasseia, one of several thousand such posters over at Pharyngula.”]

    Defend the word: Thank you for your examples, as I said before there is a big difference between mutations that are harmful, new genetic code, within existing DNA and so on. As opposed to completely new organ change as it would be required when moving from land mammal to sea creature. I maintain that our data is disputed and that we both use same information but give diversely opposed conclusions. You say things are evolved where I see common blueprint and same designer. Why should I accept your interpretation of data, in deed where there are more than just one explanation we must challenge our conclusions otherwise we are simply coming to the cop out process where we will accept whatever establishment is suggesting, by accepting the easy way out. I think it far more challenging and honest when despite the majority view one chooses to test and question what is being proposed.

    Thanks for your examples they are relevant to the study of biology, but we must be careful that we don’t selectively choose which bits we highlight.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  10. [“You’re not comprehending what you are reading. ID isn’t science; it’s a >strategy to insert creationism into the science classroom! The guys you like to quote are paid by the Discovery Institute to come up with stuff that looks likely to be viewed not as real science but as an alternative to science. This way, politicos can argue that real science needs to be taught along side creationism as if it is a legitimate alternative. It isn’t. It’s religious belief. Your refusal to grasp this point is astounding in its purposeful obtuseness.”]

    Defend the word: I’m not surprised that this is your attitude, simply put I would ask you to question your statement, and check who is being deceived, and who is willingly deceiving. Note that I do not have to publish your comments yet I do, why do you think this is the case? Do I fear your superior knowledge and deeper understanding? Note this is not insult just question, If therefore I have nothing to hide and have no objections to your disagreements why do you state things that are not factually correct>

    [“You are so invested in promoting creationism that you cannot comprehend how much of a dupe you have been nor how much damage you are doing to the science education of children – yours included. What you are promoting is exactly what the Discovery Institute wants you to promote… not because it is good science but because it undermines good science with theology. And you go right along with it because you want creationism to be as legitimate as evolution. That’s your theology, not any legitimate science. How dare you supplant anything in the public education domain with your theology! But you are blind to comprehend that it comes at a cost, and that cost is directly against the advancement of science. You are an agent against the advancement of science. You. Your goal – not the theory of evolution – IS the problem: inserting creationism into the science classroom. It is anti-science. It is anti-knowledge. It is anti-intellectual. It is anti-rational. It is the promotion of creationism in place of legitimate science. Your purpose is immoral, unethical, and theological bullying. Your efforts need to be exposed for the lie it is – pretending to promote good science and academic freedom with the sole intent of undermining each to promote your version of supernatural creationism. That makes your efforts duplicitous.”]

    Defend the word: You are a bright man, and I understand your frustration but note the your approach is what needs addressing, If you carefully observe and I’m sure you will know this that Humanist society and Atheist are congregating yearly, they have strategically decided to call each others “bright’” they have also agreed how best to secularise America, and then you feel it appropriate to challenge Discovery Institute for doing the same. Note the obvious double standards, I challenge anyone with such attitude to understand that all organisations have plans and strategies and if they say they don’t I have to question their systems and their long term future.

    [“Again, evolutionary theory is as solid as the theory of gravity, and those who ‘promote’ it are called ’scientists’. Real scientists. The kind of scientists who inhabit the science called biology and all its offshoots. The kind of scientists who, as you say, accept whatever the truth is, and this truth is called evolution. You fail to grasp that last bit and insist that there is some element of scientific doubt. There isn’t. There is no scientific doubt about evolution… so far. Your paltry examples are bad science. They are textbook cases of what bad science is. Those who undermine the theory by promoting ID’s lies, half-truths, and duplicitous actions are not ’scientists’; they are the devout who think their god requires this kind of unethical behaviour to support what you think this god wants. Why not just settle for the truth rather than choosing lies? If your beliefs require lies and duplicitous behaviour as it certainly does, then that should tell you something about the quality of your belief, and it is sorely lacking integrity and honesty.”]

    Defend the Word: I like the way phrase that, I have never heard any astrophysicist saying Gravity is as solidly proved theory as theory of Evolution is. Why do you think that is? Also note your emphasis on “Real scientists” is that correct way to argue your case? I think you would be first to admit that we have variety of people with verity of views, ability and personality, of all will be playing part in what comes out of their mouths.

    [“Your classification of what constitutes ‘false’ evidence is telling: if the court had sided with ID, you would have been at the front of the line to tout it as ‘verified’ by the courts.”]

    Defend the word: Yes that may be tempting, but if I did and you pointed this mistake out to me, guess what I would have accepted your judgement as correct. Courts are not the only places that can decide accuracy of science, and yes we should question whatever is being given. There are suggestions that material used in final judgement is modification of the previous case, that would suggest that judge had his/her mind made up. Or is this assessment simply disagreeing with your analysis of the situation?

    [“Here’s a test of your intellectual integrity: what evidence could be provided to change your mind?”]

    Defend the word: Here are few that will hopefully challenge your thinking, data that can not be interpreted in five different ways, consistency in approach to the subject, which is often missed by those who push evolution, interpretation that does not relay on limited information.

    [“The sad, sad answer is: absolutely nothing. Your mind is already closed, sealed, and impermeable to anything but your belief. That should scare you witless.”]

    Defend the word: You really should be careful, to paraphrase the Bible, “the way you judge others, you yourself will be judged” If you dish out such strong criticism will I be right to ask you same question with same intensity?

    The answer is I expect this, and I’m not offended, in fact I welcome comments like this, as they amply show what drives many atheists, I would suggest that such emotional pressurising is often used by Mr Hitchin’s when pointing to the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Obvious attempt is there to remove ones attention from the real issue, misuse of power of information does not make one wrong. I believe strongly that your arguments whilst logical, are only correct if they are addressed to someone who did not provide forum for people like yourself. I’m only sorry that you can’t see my sincerity in my dealings with you, I hope you can accept my pointing out your error in conclusion, again I accept that I get things wrong, and note that I have never pretended that I’m kind of scientist that demands others obedience and respect. In fact I have made it plain that I’m enthusiastic about the subject and love learning, but at the same time I refuse to accept derogatory insults that these things are misunderstood. I will actually argue that anyone with the IQ of greater than 70 could be thought the process of evolution in few hours. It is not a complicated concept to muster, complexity in data should not be mistaken in the simplicity of process. Often scientific conclusions are not based on facts but world views and preferences in philosophy.

    Anyway I have never intended to prove people wrong, and likewise I don’t teach or force anything on anyone. In fact I strongly believe that even with my children they must be thought to think for themselves. To use very well known saying, God does not have grandchildren, that means that each Christian must make that decision for themselves, I do not believe in emotional blackmail, but I do believe in providing all the necessary information. This is why I believe it vital that we provide information that is often pushed a side in order to simplistically give established dogma. We must challenge and we must engage, we must not rely on emotional bullying, and certainly not misrepresenting facts.

    If I didn’t already say it I wish you relaxing time with your family during this holiday season.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  11. [“I think you protest too much.”]

    Defend the word: Hang on who is the one coming out with the insults that are not justified?

    [“It is the creationists who are doing the attacking, the creationists who are abusing the law, the creationists who are undermining education in science, the creationists who are organizing and funding political interference, and you are part and parcel of this attack against scientific knowledge.”]

    Defend the word: I see that you are running out of arguments hence your attack.

    [“No matter what I present in direct challenge to the junk science you present here, you will accuse me of false evidence. But it’s not me, you see. Every single angle, every argument, every post you list from the ’scientists’ against evolution (read ‘in favour of creationism), has already been very accurately described here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItVGYa863k&NR=1 You are following another group’s agenda and are a foot soldier in their attack. What you are doing, however, is intellectually dishonest even if it seems agreeable to your beliefs.”]

    Defend the Word: Is this not little bit too judgemental on your part, have you got access to all the books that I read, do you know all the changes I have been during this process of my personal discovery? I doubt it, but you know what, if that makes you sleep easy at night, because it is easier to dismiss my rebuttal then consider the data then so be it. I would never dread of forcing my opinion on anybody else, note the difference in attitude here. Most ID proponents do not want Evolution removed from our curriculum only expanded, but most evolutionist will do everything possible to prevent ID from being considered. Why is that, honestly why?

    [“As I have stated repeatedly, evolution is as much a scientific fact as is gravity or germs or atomic theory. We use this knowledge every day throughout the modern world in medical technologies, the drugs you may take, the therapies we use, the research into inheritable diseases, the vaccinations that protects our children from mumps, polio, rhubella, and measles. There is no debate. There is no ‘counter’ evidence or ‘counter’ theory. There is simply religious belief in a supernatural creator covered up with the term Intelligent Design as if that makes it science and you’re willingly buying and further promoting this lie. You should feel shame for this. The fact that you don’t is a problem.”]

    Defend the word: Honestly I don’t know where are you going with this, you are building a straw man argument here, as I said to you previously why is it that physicist don’t say Gravity is as sure as Evolution. It is false and misleading statement to put it that way, just because I love reading books does not make me intelligent, let alone when I’m good at sports I could not make claims that I’m therefore good at science. Note the obvious misrepresentation, it is as I say, this confidence and selling that is greatly responsible for the fact that most people buy it. But how often did you get defective product, what you do then is return it to the shop and say keep your junk I would like my money back please.

    [“I know you will dismiss my point about evolution as a fact – regardless of its truth – because it stands diametrically opposed to your religious certainty. So do yourself a favour and put your certainty to the test.
    Stop using all medicine based on the knowledge we have from evolution. That’s all of it, in case you were wondering. Don’t vaccinate. Don’t seek modern medical opinions because they are based on evolutionary theory. Pull you kids from school where they teach the science of evolution. Use only the bible. Have the courage to live your certainty in the bible’s scientific veracity. You accept it as an authority for creationism so be consistent: use it as a dietary and parenting tool. See how that works for you. Stop straddling the intellectual integrity fence, using modern science when it so obviously helps and dismissing it when it threatens one of your cherished beliefs in creationism. My best guess is that you can’t do it. You can’t live your certainty – your authority, your bible – merely espouse it as an exercise in opinion. But it’s not just an opinion: denying evolution, like denying gravity, is nothing more and nothing less than a lie. You are living a lie.”]

    Defend the word: I am astonished that someone so bright could make such obvious mistake, if you carefully read through many replies that have been posted on this blog, you will not following.
    1. You could not claim science as secular achievement that is a mistaken distortion at best and dishonesty at worst.
    2. There are many Christian Scientist, some believe in Evolution some don’t. This is not argument to use when challenging ones belief in God. I’m sure that you would agree with that.
    3. Science is wrongly linked on your part with Evolution, you could still have biology even if you didn’t believe in Evolution. This goes too with Chemistry, Physics, Medicine and all other sciences. I am just surprised that you need me to tell you this.

    [“Virtue, Defend The Word, does not reside in religious belief: in resides in action. Lying is not virtuous. Be virtuous and live your beliefs. I dare you.”]

    Defend the word: Your comment here is as related to the subject as me saying that due to the law of gravity you must stop flaying to your holiday destination. It is just not logically coherent, this kind of argument is meant to frighten and humiliate but it does not clarify why should I forget about medicine, especially when it’s origins could be discovered many, many, many years before Evolution was established as western ideology.

    I appreciate your effort, however note your change in attitude, I don’t accuse you of laying, I sincerely believe that you are wrong, and I sincerely believe that you think that you are right. I don’t resort to patronising or accusation or emotional blackmail, I leave that to people who run out of answers and refuse to have honest debate. This blog is here to challenge and encourage people to talk rather than fight. I hope what I said makes sense to you, you will note that I have patiently eliminated my quotes from the Bible. But as this has been going on for a very long time now, I reserve the right to from now on use the good book. I find that very usefully especially when questioning motivation behind our actions.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  12. I never said that ID is science, in the same way I would never call Evolution Science; they are both possible explanations about the natural processes. Whilst they both use scientific subjects like Chemistry, Biology Physics and Mathematics they are in reality methods to explain things we analyse, therefore the best we could do is call them scientific methodologies to explain natural processes. All you would have to do is prove that this process is not usable but you would have to then treat this with equal severity your favourite subject. I.e. if one sub method is removed then same would have to be done to the opposing / competing theory.

  13. harry says:

    ”It’s not that I’m ‘running out of arguments’ but that I grow frustrated that you refuse to address their substance. You add more words in your reply, but don’t actually tackle the arguments themselves. ”

    Hey! So I am not the only one that realises that its all waffle waffle waffle. Lets bury the point so deep in endless text, that way I can actually get away with not having a point at all!

  14. misunderstoodranter says:

    “I never said that ID is science, in the same way I would never call Evolution Science; ”

    Evolution is science – it is a beautiful example of the scientific method. This is why is it is celebrated and taught. In the same way that Mozart is used to teach music students – Darwin is taught at school to show children how the scientific method works, because it is good science, that is very easy to understand and observe and execute yourself. If Evolution was not science (as you would call it), it would be ridiculed.

    Well financed and respected powerful people have tried and failed to discredit it for over 150 years, throwing resources, and brains at it to dismantle it and prove it is wrong – and have still failed. Yet the religious people, still say it is wrong, and even if you show them the evidence, they say it is a conspiracy, or Satan or something utterly ridiculous.

    The evidence for evolution is all around us – Darwin and others who working on similar work collected it and since then others have done the same, some of them with the goal of trying to prove it wrong. That is good science – exceptionally good science – because in the face of serious relentless academic attack it still stacks up and it is still useful, and provides people with inspiration, wonder and amazement. It has helped to save lives, because our understanding of biology has been accelerated fantastically.

    Now if you want you can believe that god created evolution as part of ‘his intelligent design’ but you can not say that evolution is not science.

    But if you do say it is an intelligent design, you need to start asking why is such an intelligent design have so many faults…

  15. Welcome back misunderstood ranter; I thought you give up on me. Thanks for coming back. It just goes to show that you can’t keep the good man down. You talk the talk but can you walk the walk as they say. Confident assertions are one thing but when it comes to looking at the facts you will come to different conclusion. I have called both Evolution and ID theories as that is what they are. Your misunderstanding is understandable, I was referring to the previous comments by Tildeb, by pointing out that science would do just fine even without Evolution and ID theory. Chemistry, biology, Physics and mathematics would still exist and make sure that the world continues to turn round. It is nothing short of preposterous to claim otherwise. Evolution is not an old science whilst we know that even Greeks think about it, as it stands with all the modification it is enjoying resurgence of interest amongst the atheists and is used as a hummer to beat Christians over their heads. But as I keep on pointing out despite of what people say, great deal of it is resting on faith of scientist that their interpretation is correct. I could not get it any clearer than that. I’m sorry you got upset over it, but as Socrates use to say run with the evidence go wherever it takes you. And all the information we have today still shows that whilst proposition is valid it is not the only one in town and we need to be smart about our actions not just go with the flow of what the other “smarts” are saying.

  16. Let me start with the opening that I’m surprised that you question my critical thinking yet you have failed to spot my answer to you. You either don’t like my answer, or didn’t pay attention to what I was saying because you have already prepared answers without considering what I said.

    What I said that you need to apply same kind of criteria to ID that you would put Evolution under. This is not complicated, equal treatment is required, that is very critical and demands that you don’t show favouritism, which is precisely what your video suggests. Your video however is flared in several points.

    1. What joint future is he suggesting? Is he saying that only people who use reason could and should be part of this new society. Sounds like loads of Communist psychology to me. It is taking responsibility for our thinking and questioning but as long as we agree with him.
    2. He assumes that religion and faith is not reasonable, how did he come to that conclusion; Did he use his critical thinking or his biases, second option is more feting considering that there are many logicians and philosophers of science who believe in God.
    3. He should have also paid more attention to the fact that you could have been brought up correctly and under the good guidance of reasonable faith in which case his argument also fails to highlight that our religious or cultural background may not be to our disadvantage. Especially in his case, as he was educated and brought up in society that values critical thinking. Therefore his argument is self defeating if he is only going to accept critical thinking theory. Some things are just known without the need to use critical thinking, and these basic self evident truths are not to be ignored even though we should continue to use our critical thinking. Fact is that if he used his critical thinking he would have thought of that.
    4. Lastly you could have diametrically opposing views with the friend your are debating and both of the concerned parties may be well informed of the subject. So critical thinking does not necessarily mean that you will come to same conclusion. Like it or not, you just like me have preferences, week points, your could in fact be desire to be recognised as intelligent, well informed person and you will therefore do everything possible to maintain that position with the recognised majority. His movement to different question when answer is not found from WHY to HOW is also revealing, it is precisely what theory of evolution advocates but note that simply ignoring WHY question will not answer it when you understand how things are made. Just consider this, your mother has made birthday cake, you can give it to the chemist and biologist and physicist and they can take this cake apart and explain its components to the smallest but only your mum will know why this was made. Hence we do need to stick with the relevant questions not simply avoid them because we don’t like them.

    On the issue of certainty, I am astounded that you should accuse me of doing that, precisely because this is open blog, and I have opened my posts to anyone to come and critique them. You should not make such fundamental logical error. Secondly why can’t you understand that I have read at least 20 different books on this subject and may, yes note that I just may know thing or two I’m talking about. I would say that actually your words reveal your position, it is very interesting and very skilful but your desire to entrap me with the desire to be recognised as intellectual that concurs with other smart people is just not going to change my critical thinking.

  17. Yes I have noticed that you have tendency towards ganging up mentality, it is about how many people agree with your view, and nothing about what is the truth. I am appalled that you feel it right to call my arguments waffle, when not realising that so much of what you said could be treated as such. I’m sorry you have failed to take the many points I give you on so many occasions plus all the links I have given to you personally and yet you are so ready to claim that your arguments are the correct ones. Is this logical critical thinking you want me to employ? Or is it that you are running scared due to realising that much of what you said could be interpreted in different way. Plus the fact that you keep on misrepresenting what is being said, to me that shows your luck of understanding of the subject. If you are going to continue with insults can I just warn you that I do not have any obligations to publish your opinions here, unless you bring new arguments please stop with your insults.

  18. Honestly what should I do with you?

    First of all it may surprise you that actually there is no definition of what constitutes proper science. This only exists in the minds of those who like to move the goal posts according to what suits them. I’m not convinced by your argument as this is totally incorrect. As I said to you before, you should consider what entrench means not as a definition but as an attitude. When you accuse someone of doing this, first check that you are not standing in your won trench. I have likewise given you plenty of things you should and must consider if you are to continue in this debate as informed people should. It is not true that ID is not accepted in the scientific community, it is however true that in some circles amongst scientist who are also atheists they will object. Yet they fail to spot and own up to facts that much of what they say and do dependent on their faith in materialistic explanation. This is not consistent with the modern science and is in fact philosophical not scientific claim. Secondly ID is testable, it predicts complexity, and this is not new claim this is been ongoing proposition that we should find complicated interlinked systems full of information that could not spontaneously come into existence apart by some guidance. This argument has been used by scientist for the last 200 years and has admittedly gone trough some refining but never the less is well established amongst many scientist who are theists.

    It is as weak an argument that Dr Dawkins gives when he claims that Anthropic principles is answer to design. When in fact it could simply be restating the fact that we live in finely tuned place in the universe when life is possible. If you don’t understand the complexity of what I’m saying may I suggest you go to reasons to believe web page and check it there. There you will find Dr Ross who is astrophysicist explaining it clearly that life is not a chance, so much so that many people of same learning have concluded that “Universe seams to have been rigged for life to exist” And we find this not only in the cosmological argument but where ever you look, mess with one part of our ecosystem and you will see the collapse of the entire system. One really has to have faith in chance, and ignore multiplicity of complexity and interlinking before you could comfortably believe that we are here by chance.

    Your final statement is just not correct, either if it was so innocuous and considered unimportant why all the fuss? It is precisely because it is presenting them with so much headache that they have to resort to playschool tactics. To ignore the fact that all humans have same problems and pretend that scientist are above ridicule is to ignore what is happening in the real world.

    Please lets look at the facts and leave assertions out if not supported by arguments that will support your position, after all when I comment I don’t commit same kind of atrocity on facts of the subject. My observations at least leaves some room for the opposition, in other words if I’m raising objection it is followed by the reasons behind them. Not simply because I wish them to be true. As I said before, here is my prediction to you in 10 to 20 years time, ID will be accepted as an alternative to the theory of Evolution by many countries that may have previously rejected this option. We are seeing this all across ex communist block that had such strong opposition to Christianity.

  19. tildeb says:

    Again, lots of words, but my fundamental question remains unanswered in your response: tell us what evidence or reasoning could conceivably make you aware that you are wrong about evolution?

    Please, DTW, answer this question, because if there is nothing, then that is that; your certainty disallows any kind of reasonable discussion… merely a restatement of your certainty using assertions and assumptions. If you have an answer, then let’s see if that evidence can be provided.

    In the meantime, once again you have failed to comprehend the meaning of the video.

    1) only by questioning and being open to honest answers can we learn to become responsible for ourselves. By turning to dogma, we merely believe that we have all the answers. The analogy is that someone has given us this belief, this fish. Questioning is like learning how to fish: we can continue to feed ourselves – to seek out what is probably true, correct, and accurate – by our own intellectual effort.

    2) The kind of thinking that assumes the answer first – religion and belief – is the absence of critical inquiry. There is no need for any inquiry because the answers are already provided. This is the faith that assumes that the answers from the religious beliefs are true. But are these answers meaningful in any kind of truth value? How do we know? If we have no way to judge the truth value, then there is no way to determine the truth of the religious claims. If we simply accept that the religious answers are true without critically inquiring about their truth value (see point 1), then our answers are not answers but unexamined assumption. Our answer is still just a fish that someone else has provided… a religious dogma that someone else has created for us.

    3) Critical inquiry is disciplined thinking that allows for independence of thought. On the one hand independence of thought is necessary for the exercise of free speech, free will, honest self-expression, and freedom of religion. Belief on the other hand is arrogant and lazy and simplistic because it is of the kind that cannot tolerate honest critical examination without collapsing into the dogmatic assumptions of truth, cannot cope with honest inquiry without giving up any claim to the truth, cannot sustain its truths in the face of the advancement of knowledge, cannot accept change in fundamental concepts when the evidence reveals it must without disintegrating into the empty and dishonest assertion and assumption it really is.

    The only kind of inquiry faith can cope with is the kind that leads exactly back to these and only these preset and acceptable dogmatic, archaic, regressive, intolerant, bigoted, misogynistic, brutally repressive answers, which we already know are mere assertions and not answers at all. That’s why it’s called faith: no intellectual energy is required and no honest investigation is tolerated. Here is the dogma and we’ll call it a Fish.

    4) The conclusion, if both parties accept that reasoning well means reasoning with shared understanding of what disciplined reasoning actually means, is that critical inquiry works well and allows parties to come together and reach consensus. By rejecting critical inquiry and replacing it with faith – meaning empty assertions and assumptions that cannot tolerate honest inquiry into truth value – the two parties cannot reach consensus. Religion is as likely to cause all kinds of problems with its practices (see 3 for a partial list) whereas critical inquiry creates an international body of people dedicated to extending the boundaries of truth, accuracy, correctness, in other words our knowledge without killing each other. Might that not count in its favour?

    You have not answered my charge of false certainty by allowing others to post. You are still certain in your beliefs after all. That’s not an error in my logic: that’s an error in your ability to answer honest inquiries with honest answers. Because your ability to comprehend commentary here that I assume must first pass through some religious filter, I don’t think it would matter how many books you read; your interpretation will always favour the tiniest shred of anything that backs up what you believe and will easily discard everything else that challenges those false certainties that inform your religious beliefs. After all, you are not after honest inquiry and you are not after finding out what is probably true, accurate, and correct. You are doing one thing only: defending the Word against all comers not with meaningful answers or honest counter evidence but with same old, same old: empty assertions and meaningless assumptions that pretend to be answers. Simply put, these answers are not good enough. They fail to provide any answers at all.

    So go back to my question at the top of this post, the one you have repeatedly avoided and answer it truthfully if you maintain any pretension to honest inquiry and providing answers with any intellectual integrity. Only then might we have anything more to discuss.

  20. That is fine you are allowed to believe whatever you please, this is the whole objective of this blog. What I encourage is critical thinking. Yet you fail to give me answers that I have demanded from you. Why is that? Does only your questioning count? Is that what they teach you in your school of critical thinking? Does your critical thinking only goes one way or does it cut both ways? By the way beside understanding Critical thinking I also hold very good understanding of psychology and I can see that you are trying to get me upset, but here is the question that should get you thinking. Why are you not answering my questions? Why are you hiding behind someone else’s assertions??

    That shows me that you have predetermined conclusions and are not prepared to listen, I on the other hand have opened this to all to see and have been openly showing you why I disagree with your assertions. Things like Cosmological argument, Irreducible complexity, Information and interconnection of multiple systems in nature. Yet you offer nothing when I raise sudden explosion of life 530 Mill years ago, sudden start of life, missing links etc. You have nothing to say except offer your faith statements deeply buried in your atheistic dogma. Tell me who is using critical thinking and who is hiding behind someone else’s back??

  21. [Again, lots of words, but my fundamental question remains unanswered in your response: tell us what evidence or reasoning could conceivably make you aware that you are wrong about evolution? Please, DTW, answer this question, because if there is nothing, then that is that; your certainty disallows any kind of reasonable discussion… merely a restatement of your certainty using assertions and assumptions. If you have an answer, then let’s see if that evidence can be provided.]

    Defend the word: Simply using the existing methods but be honest about it, don’t simply assume that there are links where there are multiple options available. Be truthful that our dating system is dependent on multiple variants and stop pretending that we know all the answers, use statistic properly and stop moving goal posts and changing the rules of the game, stop changing definition of what is science and use even-handed approach with competing theories. Stop pushing science as Dogma allow theories to be challenge not irrationally saying you are stupid if you disagree with me. Show me that I’m wrong don’t just shout down at me. Use live examples to prove your theory that goes beyond what most ID proponents already accept i.e. Micro Evolution is OK! The list goes on what else do you want, I refuse to go on anymore if you refuse to accept these and address them as they stand, otherwise we are going in the circle.

    [In the meantime, once again you have failed to comprehend the meaning of the video.]

    Defend the Word: No, you are misunderstanding my replies, I did not dismiss everything, there are some very good points and they are regularly used in my arguments. Stop pretending that you have monopoly over logic that is so ridicules and it makes you look silly. Your dismissive attitude is revealing and shows how much you are prepared to ignore what is said, you have not stopped for one second to consider what I said, have you?

    [1) only by questioning and being open to honest answers can we learn to become responsible for ourselves. By turning to dogma, we merely believe that we have all the answers. The analogy is that someone has given us this belief, this fish. Questioning is like learning how to fish: we can continue to feed ourselves – to seek out what is probably true, correct, and accurate – by our own intellectual effort.]

    Defend the word: Using examples can be good and has valid points but can sometimes be very deceiving, if the example is not big enough to encompass complexity of the issues at task. That example is too simplistic, not only do we need to equip people with one particular way of thinking we must inform them that there are other things which can be true even when seen /perceived to be as dogmas, and we don’t go about bashing people over their heads simply because they base some of their faith on their experience, this is precisely what you do when you respond to this reply, so some truths are immediately knowable and are known as self evident basic truths. Or did your critical training did not include this in your curriculum? Killing innocent babies is wrong! This can be counted as good example or do we disagree on that one too?

    [2) The kind of thinking that assumes the answer first – religion and belief – is the absence of critical inquiry. There is no need for any inquiry because the answers are already provided. This is the faith that assumes that the answers from the religious beliefs are true. But are these answers meaningful in any kind of truth value? How do we know? If we have no way to judge the truth value, then there is no way to determine the truth of the religious claims. If we simply accept that the religious answers are true without critically inquiring about their truth value (see point 1), then our answers are not answers but unexamined assumption. Our answer is still just a fish that someone else has provided… a religious dogma that someone else has created for us.]

    Defend the word: To use your kind of language that you could understand This is loads of baloney, you use faith as your starting point this is called propositional thinking, however what you need to do is question it, same as with science, from time to time we question and we find that we may have been wrong in some of our initial assessments. This is what happens with religion and science and anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or a liar, there is no other option left.

    [3) Critical inquiry is disciplined thinking that allows for independence of thought. On the one hand independence of thought is necessary for the exercise of free speech, free will, honest self-expression, and freedom of religion. Belief on the other hand is arrogant and lazy and simplistic because it is of the kind that cannot tolerate honest critical examination without collapsing into the dogmatic assumptions of truth, cannot cope with honest inquiry without giving up any claim to the truth, cannot sustain its truths in the face of the advancement of knowledge, cannot accept change in fundamental concepts when the evidence reveals it must without disintegrating into the empty and dishonest assertion and assumption it really is.]

    Defend the word: Look if you are going to go on like this can I suggest you go back to your blog and start preaching to your followers, you give me assertions and then you criticise me. You are so blind to the fact that my original proposition is in far worse position because it is ridiculed by people like you and needs rigorous brain exercising in order to defend against accepted dogma of Evolution and its links to atheism. Even though I have mentioned about million times that you could believe in evolution and believe in God who is a creator. I appreciate that there are people who are a bit slow but you strike me more of a person that just is not prepared to listen. There is plenty of material here, it is your prerogative to choose to ignore this, use of flowery language and hiding it in dogmatic teaching is precisely what atheists are doing yet somehow they have a nerve to accuse Christians despite all the multitude of information offered for free so you don’t even need to think too hard, all you need to do is compare the two and use your critical judgement to work out which one is sound logically. But I guess it is easier to love your hard work on atheism and its too bad that it’s incorrect, stick with changes and amend anything that is proved wrong, use broad examples, exaggerate and lie that is the atheist way.

    [The only kind of inquiry faith can cope with is the kind that leads exactly back to these and only these preset and acceptable dogmatic, archaic, regressive, intolerant, bigoted, misogynistic, brutally repressive answers, which we already know are mere assertions and not answers at all. That’s why it’s called faith: no intellectual energy is required and no honest investigation is tolerated. Here is the dogma and we’ll call it a Fish.]

    Defend the word: Yet all you give is assertions, hidden amongst quasi science and confident pretensions. You could be a good salesman but not good logician, you fail to answer many of my objections and all you do is asking me what would convince me? That is playing psychology game; for you it is about wining the argument not finding the truth. You should learn the difference; it is honesty and openness to the data, wherever that may lead you.

    [4) The conclusion, if both parties accept that reasoning well means reasoning with shared understanding of what disciplined reasoning actually means, is that critical inquiry works well and allows parties to come together and reach consensus. By rejecting critical inquiry and replacing it with faith – meaning empty assertions and assumptions that cannot tolerate honest inquiry into truth value – the two parties cannot reach consensus. Religion is as likely to cause all kinds of problems with its practices (see 3 for a partial list) whereas critical inquiry creates an international body of people dedicated to extending the boundaries of truth, accuracy, correctness, in other words our knowledge without killing each other. Might that not count in its favour?]

    Defend the word: You want to eliminate my assertions by feeding me your dogmatic assertions despite the fact that I have shown you that we all start with prejudicial faith whether it be scientific enquiry or theology. Question is, will we use critical questioning of our views? That should be considered as the heart of the mater. And that is your biggest problem, for people like you, anything goes as long as its not faith based argument even when this is supported logically and based on reasonable evidence. You are so blinded with your desire to be perceived to be intelligent and logical that you fail to spot your lack of logic in the fact that religion could be factually correct when tested!!! You accuse Christians of wanting to control the world that broad thinking, which is so ridicules but never the less deserves reply. It is True Christianity that encourages truth and science, it is atheism that has just as bad record as Catholic church did in fact much worse, and all in the name of teaching people, masses they use to call them, how to think. You should learn from history not simply make things as you go, that is called thinking on your feat but it has significant limits.

    [You have not answered my charge of false certainty by allowing others to post. You are still certain in your beliefs after all. That’s not an error in my logic: that’s an error in your ability to answer honest inquiries with honest answers. Because your ability to comprehend commentary here that I assume must first pass through some religious filter, I don’t think it would matter how many books you read; your interpretation will always favour the tiniest shred of anything that backs up what you believe and will easily discard everything else that challenges those false certainties that inform your religious beliefs. After all, you are not after honest inquiry and you are not after finding out what is probably true, accurate, and correct. You are doing one thing only: defending the Word against all comers not with meaningful answers or honest counter evidence but with same old, same old: empty assertions and meaningless assumptions that pretend to be answers. Simply put, these answers are not good enough. They fail to provide any answers at all.]

    Defend the word: It looks to me that unlike you I have done my home work, I have never said that this is forum for teaching logical thinking, though I encourage it, I have never said that I am open for persuasion, though I will accept my errors and correct my thinking. (These are your assumptions) You are coming to those conclusions based on my timid approach on my part to our exchanges, I am happy to hear your views and I am even more happy to show you why I think you may be right or wrong in your thinking. I have changed my opinions on number of issues, like not excluding Catholics, despite rejecting some Catholic theology, I don’t bother with the minor differences in theology like predestination I don’t expect you to understand this but, I don’t claim to have all the truth, but I do believe I have some of the truth. My confidence should not be confused with blind faith, I have shown again and again why I believe things I believe. Yet for people that profess atheism will very conveniently forget to mention that much of what they believe is based not on critical thinking but blind faith, that which they can not prove.
    When you explain to me, why do people like Dawkins say it looks designed but its not without giving coherent answer, (Blind watch maker as an argument is not acceptable, any more than God did it) When you can answer my question why we have comb rather than a tree of life, When you answer me why are to goal posts always moved by those professing adequacy of Evolution as single explanation on not only how we got here, but also how was it all started (But not based on faith and experiments that are rigged and produced in laboratory using existing material is a lie and is not true to the enquiry of the beginning) When you answer why we have antropic principle as an excuse to evade the question of design. Note that Antropic principle only states that we have complexity it does not offer explanation how this happen, so your favourite atheist Mr Dawkins like you is avoiding the question not answering it. I call this dishonesty of the intellectual nature. Think about DNA and RNA and complexity there, they don’t have miniature brains in there yet they have repair kit to fix copying errors, why do you think this is? I also happen to think that the question of our immune system is not answered satisfactorily by the evolutionist simply saying we have evolved every step of the way, according to Darwin you could not have positive and negative changes but how do you control this, how do we only have positive mutations incorporated in our self defence systems? Do I need go more refer to many other objections raised in previous exchanges and please, please stop ignoring them and then saying I don’t give you anything?

    [So go back to my question at the top of this post, the one you have repeatedly avoided and answer it truthfully if you maintain any pretension to honest inquiry and providing answers with any intellectual integrity. Only then might we have anything more to discuss.]

    Defend the word: Refer to the answer provided for the 3rd time. Please don’t ignore what I said take some time and think about it. It is in black and white for all to see, there is no use in saying you did not answer my question when its staring you in the face. If you don’t understand what I said it is OK to ask for clarification but it is not OK to ignore it and pretend it did not happen that is just plain rude. Stop following Harry and saying load of bla, bla, I can say same about your statements but I choose to show you some respect, and if you continue to preach as in the above comments I will moderate and reduce them to only relevant points. I hope you understand that, you have your own blog, any indoctrination is not welcomed here.

    Regards

    Defend the word

  22. misunderstoodranter says:

    Yuletide!!!! ‘DTW’, it is funny but the best place to meet atheists is on religious sites – so it is good to be back.

    I have been following your discussion with ’tildeb’ and I have no misunderstanding of your physiological position with regard to the existence or non-existence of god, nor do I have any doubts about the personal battle of conscience that you and your kin must be undertaking everyday.

    I would hate to live in a world that is too frightened to challenge the local community – a community of believers – so you have my deepest sympathy.
    “Chemistry, biology, Physics and mathematics would still exist and make sure that the world continues to turn round. It is nothing short of preposterous to claim otherwise.”

    No one is saying otherwise; chemistry, physicals and mathematics are all core disciples of science, they provide the foundation of everything we know about the world and the universe that we live in. They provide the technology that allows us to have this debate, and they also provide evidence towards the theory of evolution.

    “Evolution is not an old science whilst we know that even Greeks think about it, as it stands with all the modification it is enjoying resurgence of interest amongst the atheists and is used as a hummer to beat Christians over their heads.”

    You are right, science is not old, not even if you count the Greeks or Egyptians because modern human history is about 200,000 years old (that we know of) – Middle Palaeolithic age, and modern science is relatively new. Religion on the other hand is a very old concept, invented when we thought that fire and spear was technology was amazing (possibly even before), rather than when computer processors, DNA, lasers, medical science, hubble, space race, nuclear, electromagnetic were invented (i.e. when we started to think critically) We have come a long way since being afraid of the dark, and beasts, and needing to pray (i.e. put to chance) to the sun for our crops, or god to heal us.

    Evolution is not there to beat Christian’s over the head with, it is one theory in many that exist that support the natural development of the universe, creatures and plants around us. Nearly all biologist’s agree with it – not because they are bullied into it, but because they have tried to falsify it, or to find problems with it that need fixing, and have therefore convinced themselves that it is correct. A scientist that proves Einstein or Darwin wrong, will have to justify why their theory is better, and if it stands up to very strong debate it will win – if you like scientific theory – all of it is an example of ‘natural selection’, it is a circular control in the scientific method and it is very very strong, the combined thinking time that is placed on anyone theory is massive.

    Religion, is not challenged in this way – which is why it is NOT used for anything that requires serious intervention – did religion build a plane? Split the atom? Invent the MRI scanner? Cure my illness… er nope.

    What is the point of religion then? Why spend your time promoting something that clearly has no purpose – religion makes no sense at all.
    “And all the information we have today still shows that whilst proposition is valid it is not the only one in town and we need to be smart about our actions not just go with the flow of what the other “smarts” are saying.”

    Evolution is pretty much is the only explanation in town, but that does not prevent someone else from trying to come up with a alternative, so long as they have real observable evidence that supports it. However, it is important to note that other scientists came to similar conclusions to Darwin regarding the ‘Origin of the Species’ and natural selection. And since Darwin’s observations were published (please don’t forget that Darwin, didn’t just write a paper and said it was fact – he did masses of field work, collecting specimens for analysis) others have tried really hard to disprove him and have systematically failed, and this is with our advancement in technology and thinking – it is an outstanding piece of work.

    It is more than just ‘valid’!

  23. misunderstoodranter says:

    “What I said that you need to apply same kind of criteria to ID that you would put Evolution under.”
    ID is not a theory, it is a strategy to teach god to young children as the final fact – without evidence that stacks up.
    CID, is not interested in understanding why, it is interested in building an argument against evolution, because evolution threatens the very existence of religion, its churches and its control over society. Religion is a construct to control people at its worst, at its best it is a evolved response to threats we do not understand (“oh god save me, make me better, comfort me”).

    DTW – just read what you have written here “Therefore his argument is self defeating if he is only going to accept critical thinking theory.”

    Critical thinking is not a theory, it is a thought process that is the basis for making a reasonable decision based on the structuring and understanding of information. ID lacks critical thought – because in order to enact critical thought with religion you first need to discredit religion and its teachings – which is something ID does not do. ID scientists try to make the evidence fit their beliefs, which is not science.

    “First of all it may surprise you that actually there is no definition of what constitutes proper science.”
    Actually there is good science and bad science and the two are very easy to detect – if it were not the case, then any moron would become a doctor or an engineer – the fact that you need to have good understanding of what constitutes good science to perform a responsible role in science is proof enough that good science is recognizable and testable. ID theory is very poor science, because it claims to know the answer without trying to falsify it or proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
    “This only exists in the minds of those who like to move the goal posts according to what suits them.”
    Nope this is what religious people do, before DNA proved that we are related to monkeys (and it has proved that beyond any reasonable doubt in the same way that we know atoms are true) the religious people said don’t be ridiculous we are not related to monkeys – then when DNA came along they first didn’t believe DNA existed, then they started to say DNA was part of the design by a creator. Creationalists have had to hijack science in order to try and spread their word – it is they that have changed their goal posts, first dismissing science, and then trying to adopt science to fight their cause – it’s nonsense.
    ID is a problem for society, because it’s purpose is to dismantle science and critical thought in young minds. The same critical thought that has produced most of modern man’s achievements.

    As for measuring time, radio carbon dating is pretty accurate, there isn’t a dispute – if there was then we would not have to worry about radioactive decay from nuclear power stations – it is the same science – the same principles that power your computer. In fact many of the things you post about misconceptions in science and misunderstands and disputes are nothing of the sort. You fail to link modern life to our understanding of science – which is a massive flaw in your logic, and it is an insult to humanity. The fact that you and other religious people would breed ignorance to protect your belief in mythical deities is nothing short of criminal.

    The fossil record should be enough to convince most reasonable people, combined with DNA analysis the case for evolution is compelling, the only thing left to discuss is whether evolution is gods design or not – but this argument is flawed from the outset because the bible doesn’t mention anything about fossils, or DNA, it clearly states that everything was created at the same time.
    And here is the problem – evolution does not back up the bible, the creationalists are trying to make it and they can not without breaking some fundamental understandings in logic and reasoning.

  24. [ID is not a theory, it is a strategy to teach god to young children as the final fact – without evidence that stacks up. CID, is not interested in understanding why, it is interested in building an argument against evolution, because evolution threatens the very existence of religion, its churches and its control over society. Religion is a construct to control people at its worst, at its best it is a evolved response to threats we do not understand (“oh god save me, make me better, comfort me”).]

    Defend the word: You as usual give much assertions but I can’t see any evidence to your claims, I have addressed this previously with you so I will keep it simple, misuse of power is not a rebuttal that Atheists could use, we know from history that Atheism has much worse track record. Not that we are going to judge the truth on selfish and aggressive actions of people had their own interest only at heart.
    So you make the rules and we have to come to you and ask for what constitutes theory?? You should be careful of claims that you make.
    DTW – just read what you have written here “Therefore his argument is self defeating if he is only going to accept critical thinking theory.”

    [Critical thinking is not a theory, it is a thought process that is the basis for making a reasonable decision based on the structuring and understanding of information.]

    Defend the word: Thanks for your correction, you are right, but in my defence when you have 15 comments a day to deal with you can’t spend much time in making sure that every little thing is correct. Secondly when Evolution is acclaimed as critical analytical science then challenging that is a must, especially when it is easily demonstrated that number of issues are articles of faith not science data.

    [ID lacks critical thought – because in order to enact critical thought with religion you first need to discredit religion and its teachings – which is something ID does not do. ID scientists try to make the evidence fit their beliefs, which is not science.]

    Defend the word: You are not using critical thinking now, otherwise you would know that we all start with assumptions and then we test our assumption. I have already corrected others with this gross misunderstanding. I would have though you would have understood that point without need to be reminded of it.

    “First of all it may surprise you that actually there is no definition of what constitutes proper science.”

    [Actually there is good science and bad science and the two are very easy to detect – if it were not the case, then any moron would become a doctor or an engineer – the fact that you need to have good understanding of what constitutes good science to perform a responsible role in science is proof enough that good science is recognizable and testable. ID theory is very poor science, because it claims to know the answer without trying to falsify it or proving it beyond reasonable doubt.]

    Defend the word: This is gross misrepresentation of what ID stands for, you are confusing it with early creationism and extremist fundamentalist. You don’t see me telling you that all atheists are morons because someone who is silly does not believe in God.

    “This only exists in the minds of those who like to move the goal posts according to what suits them.”

    [Nope this is what religious people do, before DNA proved that we are related to monkeys (and it has proved that beyond any reasonable doubt in the same way that we know atoms are true) the religious people said don’t be ridiculous we are not related to monkeys – then when DNA came along they first didn’t believe DNA existed, then they started to say DNA was part of the design by a creator.]

    Defend the word: You talk the talk but could you provide us with scientific data. I have answered this before. Like much with evolution they take very large sample and anything that matches even partially is included. DNA could easily used to say that there is a common designer. So your argument is simply not testable, unless you have time travel machine and can observe these gradual changes. Why do you think ID proponents claim that there are many missing links.

    [Creationalists have had to hijack science in order to try and spread their word – it is they that have changed their goal posts, first dismissing science, and then trying to adopt science to fight their cause – it’s nonsense.]

    Defend the word: I see so science is a private property of atheists, that is just silly especially since Christianity give birth to the modern science.

    [ID is a problem for society, because it’s purpose is to dismantle science and critical thought in young minds. The same critical thought that has produced most of modern man’s achievements.]

    Defend the word: On the contrary it keeps science fresh and honest, as soon as you stop questioning you develop dogmas and that is precisely what happened with Evolution. Whilst there is some evidence for Micro Evolution there is absolutely no evidence for Macro Evolution and that shows need for a designer. End of story.

    [As for measuring time, radio carbon dating is pretty accurate, there isn’t a dispute – if there was then we would not have to worry about radioactive decay from nuclear power stations – it is the same science – the same principles that power your computer. In fact many of the things you post about misconceptions in science and misunderstands and disputes are nothing of the sort. You fail to link modern life to our understanding of science – which is a massive flaw in your logic, and it is an insult to humanity. The fact that you and other religious people would breed ignorance to protect your belief in mythical deities is nothing short of criminal.]

    Defend the word: You are so keen to prove me wrong that you have not read my comment properly that is typical of atheist, keen to answer but not keen to listen. What I said is that there are other issues that must be taken into account, i.e. if you have sudden increase in radiation then your data is contaminated. It is like going to the crime scene and finding loads of people walking all over it. When I say variables I mean external influences but I guess you failed to spot the obvious issue with that as nobody ever bothered to let you know about that little thing.

    [The fossil record should be enough to convince most reasonable people, combined with DNA analysis the case for evolution is compelling, the only thing left to discuss is whether evolution is gods design or not – but this argument is flawed from the outset because the bible doesn’t mention anything about fossils, or DNA, it clearly states that everything was created at the same time.]

    Defend the word: It is only compelling if you take someone else’s word for it and don’t question it. Again what you find is plenty of evidence for Micro Evolution but never would you see evidence of new limb being created. The best Evolution could do is lose function, any other work must be undertaken by intelligence. Nothing will cause nothing, it is an absolute travesty to suggest that DNA has miniature brain that dictates its replicates RNA to create new function that has never been observed. Case closed.

    [And here is the problem – evolution does not back up the bible, the creationalists are trying to make it and they can not without breaking some fundamental understandings in logic and reasoning.]

    Defend the word: Whist evolution is not backing up creator God, you are only moving this question by one step backwards, for even if the evolution is to have happened it would require input of intelligence and this is what number of Christian scientist have been arguing. But you are still left with the intelligent designer that used Evolutions as a guided process. Secondly Evolution would require much amendments and it would need to have them in order to stay scientifically viable. I don’t mind you making statements but really we need to move beyond high school mentality of simply accepting what we are thought.

    Lastly if you are going to challenge what is being said in the article that is put forward by a scientist, please use arguments that are appropriate and avoid assertions. Staring the obvious is one thing but when you have questionable methodology and possible inaccurate data. You must address those questions by giving relevant rebuttal.

  25. [You STILL haven’t answered the question! None of the ‘examples’ you have given are ‘evidence’; they are methods that will always leave you enough wiggle room to claim the fault lies somewhere else. I have given you the example of someone discovering a fossilized rabbit from the precambrian will be evidence that will overturn evolutionary theory. So, once again, I ask you to give an example of what evidence will accept that will falsify your beliefs!]

    Defend the word; Funny how you use one of the strongest arguments for Intelligent Design and can’t see it for what it is. It just goes to show when you have faith in Evolution nothing else matters. When you have burst of life during the same period and rather than tree you find multiple life forms just emerging on the scene, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that there is no time for evolution to work. Yet you continue to ignore my questions why is that???

    I think we also went through this that not all truth is falsifiable and some basic truths could be known without having the need to test them. Or did you miss that point again??

    [Look, you know and I know that you don’t really believe what you say you believe. If you truly believed in the afterlife and heaven, for example, you would kill your children upon birth so that they could spend eternity in the Happy Place, the place you truly believed existed. You would make sure that they had zero opportunity for displeasing god or committing a sin and risk hellfire and damnation and an eternity spent in suffering and you would do this because you loved them.]

    Defend the word: And that is your answer for your assertion, you are going to base it on my personal belief. Why is it then that when I say that I have found God personally you look at me like an idiot. You just can’t have it both ways.

    [But you don’t do this because you know deep in your bones that what we truly have is life and opportunity to live it. Your morality and common sense overpowers your false certainty of your belief, meaning (follow along if you can) that you like to think that you believe something but in fact don’t really believe it to be true. You suspect it may be true (like heaven and hell) but aren’t sure. You pretend you are sure, you pretend to always side with what you perceive to be god’s wishes for you, but you don’t really believe in what you say you believe.]

    Defend the word: It is your twisted Theology that is tripping you there. You should learn about the topics that you choose to criticise. Actually I am convinced that there is a personal God who is personally interested in every one of us. Otherwise why would I bother with you?? Many answered prayers are good enough evidence for me, I can share some of them if you are interested, or do you not want to find the truth as this may be less convenient. I.e. you may have to change the way you live your life.

    [So why not come clean? Why not admit that you what you argue here is your best guess, that it may be true but maybe not? Why not be truthful and admit that you would like to believe in a creator god and that you like to pretend you believe in all that entails and don’t really care what other evidence may counter that belief; that you want to continue to believe in your own belief.]

    Defend the word: Fact that I’m happy to dance here with you, take all the ridicule and abuse testifies to the opposite. I don’t mind what you think , but I would dearly love for you to see the truth and actually abandon your unfounded faith in system that has no foundation in logic.

  26. Yuletide!!!! ‘DTW’, it is funny but the best place to meet atheists is on religious sites – so it is good to be back.
    [I have been following your discussion with ’tildeb’ and I have no misunderstanding of your physiological position with regard to the existence or non-existence of god, nor do I have any doubts about the personal battle of conscience that you and your kin must be undertaking everyday.]

    Defend the word: I wake up every morning with a big smile on my face. Reason being I know that anything I will have to encounter will be manageable, not because my great strength but because God caser for us and provides us with necessary help. This is not wishful thinking it is based on personal experience to which I am more than happy to testify about. You know its called personal testimony for a reason.

    [I would hate to live in a world that is too frightened to challenge the local community – a community of believers – so you have my deepest sympathy.]

    Defend the word: Actually it is people like you that are in a position that I feel sorry for, if you were so confident about your position why come here? To help me? I don’t think so nobody is that kind, especially when you yourself doubt human goodness. May I suggest as I did before, lets raise the standard and talk logic not emotional tripe.
    “Chemistry, biology, Physics and mathematics would still exist and make sure that the world continues to turn round. It is nothing short of preposterous to claim otherwise.”

    [No one is saying otherwise; chemistry, physicals and mathematics are all core disciples of science, they provide the foundation of everything we know about the world and the universe that we live in. They provide the technology that allows us to have this debate, and they also provide evidence towards the theory of evolution.]

    Defend the Word: That is only in your own mind, these are personal rather than objective statements. There are millions of people who look at the same data and come to the opposite conclusion. Your bold statement only show your limited understanding of the information in question.

    “Evolution is not an old science whilst we know that even Greeks think about it, as it stands with all the modification it is enjoying resurgence of interest amongst the atheists and is used as a hummer to beat Christians over their heads.”

    [You are right, science is not old, not even if you count the Greeks or Egyptians because modern human history is about 200,000 years old (that we know of) – Middle Palaeolithic age, and modern science is relatively new. Religion on the other hand is a very old concept, invented when we thought that fire and spear was technology was amazing (possibly even before), rather than when computer processors, DNA, lasers, medical science, hubble, space race, nuclear, electromagnetic were invented (i.e. when we started to think critically) We have come a long way since being afraid of the dark, and beasts, and needing to pray (i.e. put to chance) to the sun for our crops, or god to heal us.]

    Defend the word: First of all you missed my point and as usual you only concentrate on a small unimportant subject but I’m glad to oblige and correct your logical fallacy. Andy you tell me that you use critical thinking, where is your evidence for what you are saying, your lack of understanding in linking scientific development and rise of atheism is not justifiable. On the contrary what we find is that percentage of Christian Scientist still stands around 40% this is for north America alone, I think last count was done in early 2,000. So your assertion is disconnected from reality.

    [Evolution is not there to beat Christian’s over the head with, it is one theory in many that exist that support the natural development of the universe, creatures and plants around us. Nearly all biologist’s agree with it – not because they are bullied into it, but because they have tried to falsify it, or to find problems with it that need fixing, and have therefore convinced themselves that it is correct. A scientist that proves Einstein or Darwin wrong, will have to justify why their theory is better, and if it stands up to very strong debate it will win – if you like scientific theory – all of it is an example of ‘natural selection’, it is a circular control in the scientific method and it is very very strong, the combined thinking time that is placed on anyone theory is massive.]

    Defend the word: Look I’m going to say this only once after which this message will self destruct. There are increasing documents that are submitted to the scientific community that challenge established dogma of Darwinism. And the increase in books published by qualified people only serves to show that your assertion is simply incorrect. You should find facts before you make statements that are not correct. Some of the books have been reviewed and mentioned on this blog.

    [Religion, is not challenged in this way – which is why it is NOT used for anything that requires serious intervention – did religion build a plane? Split the atom? Invent the MRI scanner? Cure my illness… er nope.]

    Defend the word: No religion deals with the most important thing you could think of, your immortal soul, and that is a big difference. It outstrips everything else in its importance to you and me personally. But also because, early scientist believed in orderly world, designed by God they followed principle that we could know and understand natural laws. And all the above mentioned by you own great deal of gratitude to people that Believed in personal God.

    [What is the point of religion then? Why spend your time promoting something that clearly has no purpose – religion makes no sense at all.]

    Defend the word: I believe I have answered this question in the above paragraph. Please lets move away from judgemental attitude and think about potential benefits to you. You are not going to be robbed of your freedom, in fact opposite is the truth. The only way you will find meaning to your life is through religion. Even scientists agree with that statement. Otherwise I would love to know what drives you, why do you come back, again and again? You know it makes sense and good for you, I hope that one day you will not only accept this as an argument but accept God as personal saviour.

    “And all the information we have today still shows that whilst proposition is valid it is not the only one in town and we need to be smart about our actions not just go with the flow of what the other “smarts” are saying.”

    [Evolution is pretty much is the only explanation in town, but that does not prevent someone else from trying to come up with a alternative, so long as they have real observable evidence that supports it. However, it is important to note that other scientists came to similar conclusions to Darwin regarding the ‘Origin of the Species’ and natural selection. And since Darwin’s observations were published (please don’t forget that Darwin, didn’t just write a paper and said it was fact – he did masses of field work, collecting specimens for analysis) others have tried really hard to disprove him and have systematically failed, and this is with our advancement in technology and thinking – it is an outstanding piece of work. It is more than just ‘valid’!]

    Defend the word: It is precisely because people like you equate Evolution with no need for god, that I tackle many problems with this theory. Secondly the only evidence for evolution that Darwin provided is for Micro evolution, lastly many false claims have been made in the past to justify this theory. Remember Piltdown man, remember moths that have been artificially mounted on tree trunks, which they don’t do in their natural behaviour, remember other examples where tooth and small fragment were used to reconstruct entire missing link? Remember doctored pictures of different embryonic states that have been used in text books until very recently. You should learn some of those interesting facts, before you make your assertions, and stop following blindly, what I say can be verified and I encourage you to do so, it may in fact help in remove this false notion that Evolution is without major problems.

    You should really learn about the subject if you are going to attack it or for that matter attempt to defend it (any subject) topics that you support, that solidify your world view.

  27. This is not correct on several accounts; Note that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between creationism and ID. It is easier for you not to bother with thinking about them and distinguishing as it serves your purpose. But this is not factually correct.

    Creationism states that Everything was created by God, ID states that multitude of information in complexity infers that it is likely that God created everything. Evolution on the other hand states whatever the evidence, it could not be God! I don’t care what you give me as long as its not God!

    Creationism states that world was created 6,000 years ago, ID says that may be so, but we have no evidence for that we only know that very likely God was involved in the creation process. Evolution says, it has to be 14 point something billion years as I need long time, I can use radio dating, red shift, speed of light and distance in the universe despite the fact that we don’t know if the speed of light has always been constant and we know that universe is expanding could this have also had some influence on the speed of light, and on the other dating methods? we are not bothered if the “evidence” was previously contaminated. So what is the answer for Evolutionists is to make claims that you could not prove, ignore the facts of many questions when raised by anyone who may question this “beautiful” theory.

    Creation states that we should start with the Bible. ID says we should look at what science is saying and if appropriate we could point to parallels we find in the Bible. Evolution says you can use anything you like “Theoretical physics” even when we have no means to verify what is being said, even when theoretical physicists will admit that we would never be able to test his/her theory. Talk about religious people believing in fairies.

    Fact is Evolution uses inference as much as ID does, and it also uses faith as it has to, there is just no other way, as not even science would walk otherwise, we have mentioned constancy of speed of light. People should really learn these facts before repeating them and just showing lack of understanding of the subject of science. Secondly ID had predictions as mentioned before, that we would find complexity and continue to find unexplained complexity, where evolution would not be satisfactory answer. We have found that in cosmology some 30 to 50 years ago. We have found sensitive interlinks in ecosystems we find that complexity exists in biology, we find sudden burst of life 530 million years ago according to Evolutionary theory. All of this and more, points to the need for intelligence in designing and creating environment that is conducive to life. Lastly only atheists will give us false impression that inference is not scientific approach, this is just not true, even reverse engineering could show us how things are put together and help in our understanding of what is and what is not possible. Simply saying its here therefore its possible does not answer the question that it may have been possibly due to influence and creativity of Intelligent Designer. Therefore in the end we can see that this is philosophical not scientific question, one that requires honesty not simply imagination. Whilst imagination is important in development of science, it should be noted that it can and has been significantly wrong in the past as we know as per many amendments that can be observed from History of science.

Comments are closed.