Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery at SUNY, has stirred up the hornet’s nest of evolutionary believers by asking one question, first in a Time Magazine piece, and then at PZ Meyer’s site Pharyngla (the most visited science site on the net, but I prefer New Scientist). The ad hominem and diversionary attacks, and lack of intelligent answers, is telling:
Two questions remain: (1) Why is such name-calling so common among Darwinists? and (2) How do Darwinian mechanisms produce truly novel biological information?
I’ve seen no good answers to question 2, and perhaps their lack of such
a good answer is driving the observations behind question (1).
He notes that gene duplication does not really count as novel information, but is merely a combination of existing information. You can listen to a short interview with Egnor here. He discusses his interaction with Meyers, and how good scientists welcome questions, yet this question seems most unwelcome.
Here is another question atheists hate:
Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!
This was ingenious. They've made it so nobody could possibly come up with a satirical response.
Seeker, if you can't access youtube you should be able to watch it on this site, thanks! http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/pea…
One question that creationists hate: If your beliefs are true (ie, that a creator-god exists), please provide proof.
I thought it was funny from a perspective that it was well done to look like a Christian program, but the point was silly and blasts a strawman all to pieces real good.
Any YouTube video that addresses the question?
Louis, you don't mean proof. You mean proof that fits within my understanding of the world. The whole reason for this argument is not the data and the information, it is the interpretation of that data and information that causes the conflict. Virtually everything that either side can point to and explain in one way, the other side can do the same.
Aaron, it's not a satire. Cineaste said as much in his original post. That video is a genuine attempt to convince people that evolution is false. It was produced by a serious evangelical organization.
I'm not saying there aren't Christians and creationists that can be that silly, but I'm questioning this one. If you can proof that it is a real Christain organization then I will admit my skepticism is wrong, but I don't think that it is real – ie a Christian using that as proof evolution is wrong.
Here's their website: http://www.khouse.org/
Cineaste, thank you. I haven't laughed so hard for a long time.
On a serious note, wouldn't it be wierd if Aaron or Seeker actually did something about this?
Imagine if they put up an article and condemned it.
Took a moral stand against this sort of sheer embarassing foolishness?
(…..thinking….)
Nah! Never happen.
Yes. Though, if God exists that picture is part of His plan.
That's interesting theology. What makes you think that is part of God's plan?
wouldn't it be wierd if Aaron or Seeker actually did something about this? Imagine if they put up an article and condemned it. Took a moral stand against this sort of sheer embarassing foolishness?
Um, *condemned* it? I save condemnation for real moral evils, not poor examples by sloppy creationists. Sure, the pb thing is dumb. But um, I don't look for every dumb outlier to condemn, who cares?
Condemning real stupidity like missing the links between Darwinism and social darwinism and eugenics, or justifying abortion, or trying to mainstream homosexuality as normal and healthy, those are things worthy of condemnation. A dumb 2 minute spot? Whatever.
And the points I repeat about evolution's flaws, which are constantly and poorly defended by evolutionary believers, such as the fact that evolution does not create genetic information (duplication, insertion, crippled but still somehow functional proteins, and deletions don't count as new information), or the question posed in this article, by what mechanism does Darwinism produce meaningful information, are just two of the real issues around evolution and creation, not this guy's poor pb example.
However, I will also say that the point he is poorly trying to make is a valid one. Not only have we not yet created life from non-life even under the most controlled and contrived conditions, something which evolution assumes and depends upon, but it goes counter to all we observe in nature. And questioning evolutionists on this only brings up self-righteous indignation, ridicule, and wrath, what I would expect from believers who can't doubt their faith. And that's what's really going on in this debate, as I indicated in Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.
Funny thing, I don't seem to think that this silly 2 minute video is as important as you do. I mean, maybe, if you think it is important, I should address it. You want me to condemn it? I think it is dumb. But I'm not angst filled because of it.
Does this somehow grossly embarrass and humiliate the creationist movement? Only if you think this guy speaks for creationists. But I'd never even heard of the guy, and I read about this stuff all of the time. He certainly isn't one of the big three or four creationist or ID people.
To me this just looks like some yokel that evolutionists found to try to represent creationism, as if to say "You see, here's their argument, are they stupid." Um, if this is what you think we should be addressing, you can think that. I don't think this guy or his argument are either representative, nor authoritative. I don't even think his argument is worth addressing. But I don't need an entire post on it unless someone really thinks it is important.
Again, it may be important to evolutionists looking for a creationist to kick around.
Well, they are real and they are stupid. Is that enough condemnation for you. Thanks for pointing to their website.
Like seeker, said they aren't too important or reputable. I too think he serves more as an example that evolutionists can use to avoid an actual discussion of issues. They can simply say, "Ha, ha peanut butter man." and then ignore everything.
But Cedric asked for it and I will deliver. I am going to condemn in a post something done by a VERY prominent Christian. I was already thinking about writing about it, but now its a go – because I like having you around Cedric. Honestly, I like having as many commenters, especially intelligent ones, on both sides of issues as possible. You even add a hint of sarcasm to things that's even better.
They can simply say, "Ha, ha peanut butter man." and then ignore everything.
Don't forget the Atheist's other Nightmare, the Banana.
This one makes it impossible to satirize Intelligent Design.
Non youtube link for Seeker: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/04/the…
Actually, that one was funny, though a little too snide to be attractive.
Aaron, You've hooked me. I'll stick around. :)
"He notes that gene duplication does not really count as novel information, but is merely a combination of existing information."
Interesting. According to that logic, this sentence that I'm typing doesn't qualify as 'new information' either, as it is just a combination of preexisting pieces of information (alphanumeric characters).
And before someone calls the 'information content' of my previous sentence 'intelligently designed', consider the fact that under selective pressures and over many, many generations, rearrangement or duplication of specific information bits could (even intuitively, not taking into account the loads of scientific evidence supporting it) certainly produce new function, somewhat analogous to random rearrangement and duplication of letters in a word, over a large number of variations, producing a new word with a completely different meaning.
The Peanut Butter Christian video is doing the rounds on the science blogs.
Panda's Thumb, Mike the mad biologist etc.
(Can't imagine why.)
Typing in just "Peanut Butter" on Goggle, the youtube link was just 12th.
The words "petard" and "hoist" comes to mind.
I wonder what the damage control will look like?
PRobably none, if you ask me. Only hard left anti-creationist fanatics really care. I, personally, don't. It's making a mountain out of a molehill, so amuse yourselves all you want.
Cedric, the peanut butter video is one of my most popular stumble upon finds. It's gotten over 100,000 views since I reviewed it.
Seeker,
"Only hard left anti-creationist fanatics really care."
Psst, Seeker, you forgot to mention that they are all poopy-heads, kitten-stranglers and hate America.
(Don't forget that part.)