Evolution Exposed: AIG has published a new paperback and released interesting excerpts from the first two chapters.- Creation Museum: AIG responds to critics of its newly opened 50,000 sq ft. Creation Museum
- More Creation Museum: AIG responds to a critic who says the Creation Museum is a waste of money.
- ID Art: The Access Research Network (ARN) has put up a very pretty Intelligent Design ARTS site. Interesting how philosophy, art, and science interact.
- Darwinist Intolerance: At a recent ACLU sponsored anti-ID gathering, an extreme PZ Meyers quote was read, and to the surprise of the speaker, was cheered by the crowd. Scary that such closed-mindedness and vitriol exists in the scientific community, but I am sure that some people’s patience has run out with those who contradict their
religion,world view,facts, conclusions.
The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous
fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many
school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right
politicians…I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s
time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass
knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
In response to the “Darwinist Intolerance” and “Intelligent Design” articles, here is a link to Astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson lecturing scientists about STUPID Design
After watching this, it is no wonder that Scientists think Intelligent Design is just plain STUPID!!!
What is interesting is that he starts with a very different set of assumptions than many IDers, and definitely different from creationists. His assumptions about what intelligent design should provide, and what it should exclude, are very narrow, so in a sense, he is defeating a straw man.
First, he assumes that if the universe was ‘designed for life,’ then places other than earth should be more friendly to life. That is an interesting assumption, but not one shared by creationists, or such as the creators of The Privileged Planet.
Second, he assumes that design would mean no sickness or genetic malformations, “vicious” viruses that kill, etc. Again, his assumption of perfection is interesting, but certainly does not match what creationists would say – they would say that things were perfect in the beginning, but that all of creation fell with the fall of man, and things have been degrading since. So a creationist might say that, before man perverted himself and nature, things like retroviruses had a beneficial purpose, but just like anything with power, if you take it out of it’s intended environment, it can wreak havoc.
Star formation is inefficient
Well, I’m not exactly sure how he measures efficiency for star formation – against his blueprint for how it should be done? I’m sure he thinks that junk DNA is inefficient too, but of course, he would probably be wrong.
Coming near a supernova every 100M years would kill your atmosphere
Yes, I’m sure he’ll be here to say I told you so. That’s an argument? That “odds are” we’re gonna die because we will pass by a supernova? How convincing. I am already worried that I’ll see such in my lifetime.
The andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our galaxy
Yes, I’m sure his excellent calculations prove something important. Like maybe he bases his arguments on things that might happen on
millionbillion year time scales if his assumptions are correct? Please!One way expansion of the universe as we wind our way down to oblivion
Yeah, another hypothetical scenario. Scientists have little idea if that will happen. But even if so, that proves what? That there is no or bad design? Um, ok, it probably also proves that Elvis is alive too.
The earth
Again, his assumption that a designed world would be some perfect eden is interesting, but being an extremist, he can’t live with the evidence for design because his assumptions are extreme. And again, creationists would argue that the design we see are the vestiges of an original design, marred by generations of degredation. Just because there is degredation does not mean that there was no original design, nor does it mean that we can summarily dismiss evidence for design.
However, again, I don’t think that the ‘evidence’ or argument from design alone is conclusive, and neither is the evidence supporting creationism. On the same hand, the evidence supporting evolution is just as inconclusive, and in many cases, counters evolutionary claims. The whole debate on origins is one of openness.
Materialists don’t like creationist or designist assumptions, for some understandable reasons, but also, because of their errant belief that their assumptions are more reasonable, and because they are so convinced of their model’s correctness that they squelch all dissent with righteous, if not religious fervor.
Amount of time to form multicellular organisms
Ok, he assumes an old universe and evolution. Of course THAT would be inefficient if it were true. Circular.
Eating daily
I don’t get it. That’s bad design? Says him.
Again, without detailing all of his points, he makes assumptions about what HE thinks is efficient, that design means a perfect eden and an entirely habitable universe. Based on his straw man, he’s very convincing.
But he gives lip service to the marvels of design in nature. He’s basically playing to the crowd – he’s a stand up satirist. But not really a scientist, or even very convincing. At least not to me.
Seeker, lets talk about your ball sack. I will use Seekers balls to show how intelligent design is anything but.
This is the point you are missing. Any God who designed something like Seeker’s Ball Sack is not intelligent!
Well, yes, when I read reasoning like that, I wonder if a designer exists, but then i remember that creation is fallen.
But overlooking your crude and mocking, disrespectful humor, you make a lot of assumptions about what is best, what is efficient, and how you would do a better job.
By your definition, we should all be made with built-in armor, internal sex organs, and x-ray eyes.
—————————
By your definition, we should all be made with built-in armor, internal sex organs, and x-ray eyes.
Now this my friend, is a straw man.
But overlooking your crude and mocking, disrespectful humor…
I too am the owner of a stupidly designed ball sack, so don’t take it personally.
Well, yes, when I read reasoning like that, I wonder if a designer exists, but then i remember that creation is fallen.
What is your reasoning? Are you saying your ball sack is a consequence of being kicked out of Eden? Interesting! “And God said unto Adam, for punishment I shall furnish unto you and your descendants a Ball Sack!”
Cineaste, here is the problem you and Tyson make – you assume that because the human machine does not match your definition of perfection then it could not be intelligently designed.
If that is evidence that an intelligent designer is not involved then I can be sure that my truck has simply evolved because the transmission is about to fall out. My computer must have developed by chance because it has crashed a couple times this week.
It is simply silly to say that because something is not perfect it could not be designed by intelligence. It is also presumptious for us to assume that we know for a fact that our body would function better if we were designed differently.
Like with the military, many say we need more armor on the vehicles and on the soliders. Maybe we do, but some them say we don’t because when you add armor you lose speed and flexibility. Design is a tradeoff.
Furthermore the same reasoning could be used to dismiss evolution. If we humans have evolved why did we evolve with seemingly useless thing. Why didn’t evolution take care off all of the defects?
That is not a reason to dismiss evolution or intelligent design. It is simply straw men put in the way of a legitimate discussion of the issues.
“…you assume that because the human machine does not match your definition of perfection then it could not be intelligently designed.”
And you Aaron and Seeker, assume that Ball sacks, Body Odor, Birth Defects, Diseases, Tsunamis, etc. are all by intelligent design. It’s a stupid idea. For example, “God, please save us from that asteroid/flood/fire/disease you sent to kill us!” What nonsense. Why don’t you see this prayer as such?
“It is also presumptious for us to assume that we know for a fact that our body would function better if we were designed differently.”
No, it’s not. It’s quite obvious we have design flaws. For example, your balls. Why didn’t God simply design the testicles so that they function at the normal body temperature?
“My computer must have developed by chance because it has crashed a couple times this week.”
I totally agree. Evolution is not by chance either. Are you familiar with the term “Natural Selection?”
Is this child’s tail intelligently designed Aaron?
Design is a tradeoff.
Again, you are correct. Design is a trade off when you bound by limitations. However, God has no limits right? So, why did God design the birth defects shown in Neil Tyson’s video? Is being born with an external heart and one eye part of His grand scheme? You say, yes. I say, no.
“If we humans have evolved why did we evolve with seemingly useless thing. Why didn’t evolution take care off all of the defects?”
Right again! Your question goes to the heart of the matter. The answer is Evolution is imperfect and unguided. Organs like the appendix had a function in the past but are no longer used. That’s why we have appendectomies. Pointing out vestigial organs is evidence of our evolution. Did Adam and Eve have appendixes? If so, why?
Cineaste you continue to lump ID and creationism into two the same mold. They are not and it is difficult to defend one or the other when you do this. So I will try to give you an explanation from both.
Creationism – much of what you see today is not perfect because of sin that entered the world and corrupted creation. Birth defects, tsunamis, etc. are all part of the consequences of sin entering the world.
ID – makes no claim to explain away all of life’s mysteries. It simply points to issues of irreducible complexity and says that those cannot be designed through the evolutionary process, but had to have been intelligently guided in the process. This is why many ID’ers also believe somewhat in evolution.
So to a creationists the reason why that child has a tail is because the world is fallen and our bodies are no longer perfect. To an ID’er they are not seeking to answer such questions because it is out of the realm of the science they are seeking to produce.
To argue why God didn’t design something one way is a silly question – again it goes to a trade off. We have no idea the consequences (positive or negative) to changing the way our bodies are designed. Who knows what would happen.
Do you how fast the list of vestigial organs has shrunk? One hundred years ago humans had over 180 of them. As science has progressed we have discovered these organs do posess a function. That is not to say that we cannot live without them, but they do serve a purpose in a healthy human body.
Many of those that are claimed as vestigial are related to the immune system and not fully understood including the appendix, tonsils and thymus.
Take the appendix since you brought it up – In the medical textbook “Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology” the authors state: “The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.”
As to does God have limits – in designing humans? Yes, of course. He had to make us in a way to maximize our functionality on the earth. This is speaking of the normal healthy human. I would agree with you that external hearts and the like are not part of God’s plan and why he didn’t create humans with them and why most humans don’t have them – sin is an ugly thing that harms all that it touches, even the most innocent among us.
But simply asserting that we don’t know of a reason for a specific organ or condition proves neither creation or evolution.
As an aside, the reason you keep saying I’m correct but then disagree with me is that creation and evolution have the same evidence but simply draw different conclusions.
“Cineaste you continue to lump ID and creationism into two the same mold.”
Aaron, they both have an intelligent designer, some God. They are indeed in the same mold, the argument from design mode.
“Creationism – much of what you see today is not perfect because of sin that entered the world and corrupted creation. Birth defects, tsunamis, etc. are all part of the consequences of sin entering the world.”
This goes back to the point I made to Seeker, “Are you saying your ball sack is a consequence of being kicked out of Eden? Interesting! “And God said unto Adam, for punishment I shall furnish unto you and your descendants a Ball Sack!”
“ID – makes no claim to explain away all of life’s mysteries. It simply points to issues of irreducible complexity and says that those cannot be designed through the evolutionary process, but had to have been intelligently guided in the process.”
I know. Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of the world’s foremost astrophysicists, points how how stupid ID is in his presentation. ID’s stupidity was obvious to the rest of the world’s scientists, judging by their laughter.
To argue why God didn’t design something one way is a silly question.
I STRONGLY DISAGREE. It is the obvious question to ask. Without asking such questions we would still think that the Universe revolves around the Earth. It used to be thought that Geo-centrist theory was God’s design. Now, we know better. Darwin taught us that man is not the center of the animal world. This fact is what fundamentalist Muslims and Christians have a hard time accepting.
Many of those that are claimed as vestigial are related to the immune system and not fully understood including the appendix, tonsils and thymus.
They understand that tonsils and appendixes do more harm than good, appendicitis and tonsillitis. They remove these vestigial organs because they become infected. They are evolutionary relics.
I would agree with you that external hearts and the like are not part of God’s plan and why he didn’t create humans with them and why most humans don’t have them – sin is an ugly thing that harms all that it touches, even the most innocent among us.
It makes more sense that birth defects are genetic mistakes. They are not by design or sinfulness. This should be plain to any rational person.
But simply asserting that we don’t know of a reason for a specific organ or condition proves neither creation or evolution.
But this is exactly the assertion you have made.
“…creation and evolution have the same evidence”
This is patently false Aaron. Creation has ZERO evidence. Evolution has mountains of evidence. This is why evolution is considered a fact and creation is just faith. What is the mechanism for “species pop?” Creationists are confusing their faith with knowledge and that’s why they are laughed out of science.
———————————————————–
Aaron,
For further clarification here is a belief map: CONCEPTS OF DESIGN AND THEIR LOGICAL LIAISONS
Cineaste, I know how you feel sometimes when you think we don’t listen because sometimes debating with you (and me on your end) is like raming your head against the wall. We discuss the same things over and over again. We make basically the same point and conterpoints over and over again.
The basic argument you (and Prof. Raymond Bradley) present is that we cannot be designed because some things are bad and the “who created God” canard. I have answered those countless times before. Those arguments carry no weight at all with me, so I will simply move on to other things.
My point about it being silly to say God should have designed something one way as opposed to another, was not a reason to stop investigating our world – leaving us stuck at our current knowledge level. My point in that is saying that it would be like (in a vague way) me having limited knowledge of the workings of a computer and tell Apple how they should make it because something looks strange to me and I don’t think it serves a purpose. They understand exactly what that part is and what it does. My computer may even function without that part, but it was designed in a specific way for a specific reason – tradeoff.
They understand that tonsils and appendixes do more harm than good, appendicitis and tonsillitis. They remove these vestigial organs because they become infected.
When they are infected yes. Just as you have to remove kidneys and other organs or at least parts of them when they get infected, does that mean they are vestigial?
As you said, we used to believe that the universe was geocentric. We used to believe 180 organs were vestigial. Do you not think that in the future we will discover better the purpose of those organs?
Can you please explain to me what evidence at all McCabe has for stating that organs have no purpose and even if they do that is still proof of evolution in that they have been forced into secondary usage?
That’s pure propoganda. He, or anyone else, has no idea that those organs were anything else in the past besides exactly what they are right now and he hedges his bet completely by allowing for the possibility of a useage and still claiming that proves they are vestigial. Huh?
That would be like me saying the complexity of life proves creation and even if it can be explained that only proves creation more. That’s why I say that it is all in how you look at it and the conclusions you come up with. He (and you) look at “vestigial organs” and says that if they have no purpose that proves evolution and if they have a purpose that proves evolution. He has the conclusion in mind and then uses the data to suit it – just what you accuse ID and creation of doing.
The basic argument you (and Prof. Raymond Bradley) present is that we cannot be designed because some things are bad and the “who created God” canard.
No, that’s not his basic point. What about Bradley’s many other points? This guy is no slouch of a philosopher. Are you so certain of yourself that you simply dismiss his copyrighted syllogism and chart in one sentence?
My computer may even function without that part, but it was designed in a specific way for a specific reason – tradeoff.
My point is that when humans design things there must indeed be trade offs, like your apple computer. God however, does not need to worry about “trade offs.” This is where your analogy fails.
Can you please explain to me what evidence at all McCabe has for stating that organs have no purpose and even if they do that is still proof of evolution in that they have been forced into secondary usage?
Yes. The appendix no longer functions as a digestive organ. It’s lost it’s original purpose. Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because it’s through evolution that they lost their original function and/or all function. Here is the official explanation since you don’t listen to me but even so, I doubt you will give this any thought. Never the less, you asked me so I’ll be sincere in my answer…
That’s pure propoganda.
No Aaron, it’s not. I understand that you were taught it is propaganda but if you knew your evolution, you would understand McCabe makes perfect sense.
He has the conclusion in mind and then uses the data to suit it..
No. He has the facts in mind and he is drawing conclusions from the facts. The conclusions scientists draw from facts via experiment and inference are scientific theories. He then bases his assumptions on those conclusions. Our impasse is not one of perspective. Like gravity and heliocentrism, McCabe takes evolution as a conclusion drawn from fact. Where we differ is you confuse your faith with knowledge. Unlike scientific theory, creationism is not a conclusion drawn from fact. Creationism is drawn from Genesis, religious faith. Now, that’s a fact.
History of Earth (Redneck Style)