Phi for All

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to Other Sciences.

I always assume the creationist poster isn't going to listen if they've come with the typical, oft-refuted claims. It's more about the person who comes afterward, or the person who follows the discussion out of sincere curiosity without posting. We do get some who seem sincere, and they start out asking questions. Hopefully our desire to set the record straight with correct science will be highlighted by the creationist's willfully closed minds. And frankly, as long as the science is presented honestly, I don't care what people believe about the rest.

Hey, this thread is about the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. Abiogenesis is a whole other topic, and I don't want this all muddled together. Please stick with this topic, John316, until we've talked it out. I have to say, you don't bother to acknowledge when someone clearly refutes one of your claims, or pokes holes in the evidence you provide as support for those claims. I can guarantee that when YOU make a good point, it will be acknowledged by every rational person here. How about you give the same courtesy? Or could you send someone else from your church, maybe the guy who is writing your "stuff"?

I'd actually hoped we could use that one to start the thread, answer all the questions about irreducible complexity, and then move on to the next claim. Unfortunately, that poster is just copy-pasting from creationist sites, so we're not really getting a discussion. Too bad. We could still use it, but I don't think we'll invite John316 to discuss the next claim. Hopefully we'll get someone who can talk to us.

I agree. If we do this, I'd like to start with a single thread. If a need for more arises, we can address that, but I don't think there's enough meat on the bone of creation science to warrant more. They have a limited number of claims for which science is the appropriate tool. I don't know if this will work, but it seems like a compromise that opens learning opportunities. And I like that it will be treated as any other speculation, requiring more than waving hands and arguments from incredulity.

Wow, John316, that's a really massively mis-aimed attempt to look scientific. The problem here is, most reading your citations know what they mean, and you don't, so you think they apply to this situation. That's the problem, isn't it, when you're just given a bunch of quotes to copy/paste that you don't understand, you have no idea when they're appropriate or not. Yours aren't. Please don't use this tactic anymore. It's been done to death. Can't you just talk to us honestly? Maybe with your own voice instead of copypasta from creationist websites? Have you ever typed anything of your own? So far, we've shown where your science was wrong, but you haven't acknowledged any of it. Now it's almost like you're just leaving trash around because you don't like the party anymore.

I see where you're coming from on this, but science actually goes out of its way to remove as much subjectivity from it's process as possible, something none of the other "beliefs" you mentioned attempt. The scientist who spent a year on his theory, only to have it improved by someone else, may be unhappy, but science is looking for the best explanations, so it's unlikely his unhappiness is going to impact the science. Peer review will most likely choose the best of the theories, the way it should be. Dealing with science really isn't a "belief". Nobody is asking you to have faith in something that can't be supported rationally. Nobody is asking you to believe strongly in something you can't possibly know. When science makes a claim, the data it's based on becomes freely available so you can check it if you have the knowledge to understand what you're looking at. If you can do that, you don't have to believe, you can trust instead. "Entirely ruled out" is NEVER going to happen. No theory is ever going to give us that, but they do give us what faith can't, and that's trustworthiness. You can trust that a mainstream theory is one of the best explanation we currently have, and is constantly being tested and improved. I'm not sure what you're saying regarding scientifically proving god(s) existence wouldn't mean anything to you. Does this mean that if the Christian God suddenly became available for observation and measurement, and all claims proved to be true, it would just be a fact to you, it wouldn't cause you to do anything differently? I recall reading that He has quite a few hoops to jump through for believers. If He was scientifically proven, would you be a worshipper? I also prefer neutrality on the issue, as long as neutrality doesn't mean I'm equally divided. My neutrality is more like "I'll believe in what I can trust. I'm open to being persuaded rationally that god(s) exist, but I'm not holding my breath." My atheism is more implicit than explicit.

If our societies were set up where basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing, education were provided by common funds as long as you were part of the work force driving the economy, it might change our perspective on money. If you only needed money for upgrades on the basics, major travel, or luxuries, would it drive you to work harder to earn them, or would you be OK with just a place to stay, good food, healthcare, and schooling through college? It's easy to look at money as the root of all evil, but it's also hard to think of an alternative that doesn't remove all the good things about money. And there are good things, like incentive, and freedom to experience. Having money can spark generosity just as much as it feeds the greed. I think as long as we're willing to provide common monies for common programs and infrastructure, we continue to progress. Often people who focus on amassing money lose sight of the fact that the common funds from taxes helped them get where they are, and they decide they're paying too much. It does seem like a focus on money, rather than on the things you build/create/work for to earn it, causes many to lose sight of important things. Money is definitely a tool, usable for a whole spectrum of good and bad, all dependent on the wielder.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not a blog. This is soapboxing, and we don't let anyone do it, it's against our rules. Thread closed.

Alas, I'm the poor student in those courses. Usually to be found over in the corner, wearing a designer hat from Dunce.

Just a nitpick, but earth and water are the only "things" on that list. Wind and fire are events (I can't ask to borrow a cup of wind or fire like I can water or earth). They can only happen when certain other things are present and conditions are just right for them. They are emergent phenomena. I agree with the rest. Better to assume the whole argument is a no-starter since it can be refuted at every point that's mentioned so far, than to assume there's a point where it becomes meaningful. There's no more God in the Irreducible Complexity gap, it's all science. From here, the only argument is a religious one, that the Christian God purposefully put geological and biological evidence in place to mislead the intellectually unfaithful. And that's when science can step back, shrug, and say, "When you have a claim that can be tested naturally, let us know." Imo, the whole complexity argument is really about science being presented in a complex way. I remember getting the whole IC argument about the human eye in a face-to-face discussion once, until I stopped the guy and asked him if he knew that eyes started out as light-sensitive patches that did little other than to tell a creature when the sun was out, and if a predator passed closely between them and the sun. It stopped the whole argument. He simply didn't know that. Since they don't study evolution, creationists often think these incredible systems were just magicked into place fully developed, created that single day when God made men (or animals, depending on whether you use Genesystem I or Genesystem II).

Please don't mistake any efforts to streamline staff processes as a reluctance to engage in the effective discussion of science. If we can save time by being thoughtful beforehand, that's one thing, but the goal here is to take the time to address sincere emotionally-derived arguments with sincere critical thinking and civility. We have some members who are VERY good at expressing critical thinking in a way that doesn't seem to criticize. It's an art, and I think this is the approach that's needed. I for one have to work very hard not to use language that, while accurate, often comes off as inflammatory (mentioning intellectual ignorance in a specific area gets emotionally interpreted as, "Wow, you are incredibly STUPID!"). Accuracy is normally important, but when talking to some groups, it can be counterproductive, and their are always less divisive words that can be chosen (probably - I really do need to take more time to mellow out some of my replies). If we put all the creationist arguments under the spotlight in a single thread, one at a time, not moving on until each is answered and the replies acknowledged (at least that; I'd really prefer a concession, from either side, when an argument truly supports a position), I think we'll have an ongoing talk that has the best chance of laying out the scientific information anyone should have before deciding to trust an explanation. Creationists are usually pretty well indoctrinated by the time they start posting on the web, so we're simply wanting to show them the cool facts. They can then decide how those stack up against the hot sermons they've heard.

But this isn't about expressing religious beliefs or accepting religious people. This is about creationism, and the misrepresentation of science. It's about correcting the misinformation so as many people as possible can have the knowledge that allows them to fix their ignorance, if they so choose. If there was a religion that claimed we understand gravity very poorly and it's really the Earth inhaling, and only their god can save us when the inevitable exhale happens, I would expect the scientific response to focus on where the religion runs afoul of reality, not on the god or it's believers. Because of this, I still like the idea of compiling a single thread where the arguments are all in one place. Easier to moderate, and hopefully we can avoid redundant arguments this way. I like the suggestion about treating creationism as a speculation, because again, our interest in discussing it isn't religious. In this discussion, nobody should be trying to tell creationists their God isn't real (and that's the part of the Q&A I didn't like much, DevilSolution, it comes off as preaching). We should be trying to show why the Lucy's knee argument is misleading, or why the fossil record is so misunderstood by many fundamentalists. We should be focusing on those areas where the creationist arguments can be rationally shown to be false, and we should stay away from invective. Just remember you're really discussing this so someone in the future who is on the fence about accepting a reasoned explanation can get some facts, and not someone trying to recruit them.

This is not a completely honest statement. NOTHING is fully understood, right? NOTHING. So this statement implies that the process of gene regulation is poorly understood. That's what you read into it, that's what any creationist reads into it, am I right? But the truth is, we know AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT about this process. You don't, and that's why when you hear "not yet fully understood", your brain equates that with the amount you know about it, which is practically nothing. You form a bias against the process of gene regulation, and then everything you read (but don't check for accuracy) seems to confirm your bias.

Actually, I found your response to be more of an attempt to honestly appraise the situation with as much perspective as you could offer. You didn't seem to want me to feel anything, you were just informing me. I didn't want to derail the discussion, but I found the immediate responses intriguing. I'm perhaps overly sensitive these days to appeals to emotion, especially when it's in reaction to military engagements. This is a tense situation, and I don't think it helps to throw up your hands and immediately declare we'll be lucky not to die because Obama is a coward and NATO is doomed. I usually don't mention my positive rep votes, but perhaps I should have in this case. I enjoyed the rational response, Ophiolite. Thanks very much, +1.

Can Putin afford to take aggressive steps against Turkey when the more obvious enemy is still there? It's interesting to note that so far, the two conservative viewpoints shared are really slim on reason / heavy on emotional opinion. I don't mind it so much anymore. I find it highlight posts where some thought was involved, and some concern was shown for informing me rather than trying to bias me.

I'm probably wrong, but I thought the C-14 argument was a pretty firmly established fallacy of Composition. Creationists claim that because C-14 was in error in some instances, it can't be trusted to accurately date anything. Using logical fallacies is a dishonest tactic, but we have rules in place for that already. For the thread we're talking about though, I think we need to be very clear about what is considered hitting-below-the-belt, and what is considered viable for discussion purposes.

And it may be received as such, but this isn't a refusal to discuss. It's more like stipulations. "I'll box with you but you aren't allowed to kick me in the groin, or gouge my eyes", that type of thing. No deceitful tactics, no dirty tricks like the Gish Gallop. I think when it's put this way, it will have at least as good a chance of being read as the Q&A sticky (I think we need both lists, actually). If it's a tad humorous, it may help people take the message on board less defensively.

Oooh, that reminds me! No referencing Darwin when you're talking about modern evolutionary theory. It's like claiming the Wright Brothers barely got off the ground on their first flight, so they obviously would have crashed an airplane the size of a 787, therefore the theory of flight is flawed and the controversy needs to be investigated. I can already tell this is going to be important if we do allow this creationism thread. Anyone who chooses to participate is expected to be uber civil and present the best, coolest, calmest side of science. Creationists love to pretend you're afraid of their questions when you get angry.

Consider this. My statement about the Bible being a metaphorical book was limited to the context of metaphorical versus literal interpretations. You misread my statement (admit it, in rereading it's pretty clear), and are now berating Strange for his reading and cognitive skills. I think you're trying to make this personal for some reason, and the emotion is clouding your better judgement. Your attitude is affecting your behavior, which is affecting Strange's attitude and thus his behavior. None of this happens in a vacuum. Now my attitude sucks.

Maybe instead of a Q&A, which has a low probability of being read, we could do a sticky list of Those Things Up With Which We Will NOT Put. The Gish Gallop Moontanman mentioned should be on the list. Questioning radiocarbon dating is also a dead end.

Much, much better than a Pb bullet would.

So, avoid suppression as well as subjects you don't like? It's OK to talk about creationism because it won't make us look bad for very long? I've never heard of the Admins being able to put a cap on posts in a thread. Mods can't do it, but I'll check. Hmmm. Nobody new coming in to talk about the Great Designer is going to put their post in an established thread, so we'll have to do that for them. But this would help a lot to show how an argument has already been made and refuted ("Did you have anything new to add, maybe something you thought of yourself?"). Maybe we can have an official Creationism thread.... This also is a great idea. Are there any other known devious tactics we can restrict to help make the discussions less frustrating? But Carbon-14 dating isn't trustworthy... http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html https://carm.org/carbon-dating http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regarding-radiocarbon-dating/ That's essentially what we do now, plus we link offsite to TalkOrigins.org. There's NEVER any new material when it comes to ID and creationism, just new ways science is misinterpreted, or logic is twisted into an unrecognizable mess.

This seems like a lot more work, but I agree that many of the posts are worthless in terms of discussion. Perhaps if we did as Arete suggested, and restrict certain arguments we KNOW are either false or long-refuted, it might make discussions more interesting and shorter.

Don't you think Behe is being intellectually dishonest with the bolded part of this statement? Did you parse this out, to see what he's really saying? "Since it looks designed, in spite of what science knows about it, we can conclude it IS designed." That's what "notwithstanding" means. It means Behe is choosing to ignore what science knows about evolution, willfully, in order to draw his conclusion that the universe has a designer.