Where is Dawkins wrong?-trimmed our creationist BS

[atinymonkey]

There is also the piece that was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

The term 'intelligent design' simply means that evolution happened exactly as biologists and paleontologists have said, but it was 'guided' but the hand of God. There is no proof for or against this, and it's not a factor that's important in the theories of evolution. If you want to believe that God guided evolution, then that should not mean you need to dismiss evolution as a concept.

 

You need to work on your terminology, as you are obviously confused as to the difference between Intelligent Design and Literal Creationism. Perhaps if you understood the difference, you would not feel the need to argue against evolution. Then we would all be happy:-

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

 

I suppose it's more entertaining for you and the others to just call them "crack-pots"? Seems rather juvenile. So I suppose if all else fails, make personal attacks to better qualify your credentials and belittle those you don't agree with. I fail to see the effectiveness in that. I hope your family members and friends don't disagree with very often, for their own sake.

Look, it's really simple. Literal Creationism has been dismissed by every major religion, Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhism, Hindus, etc, etc. Pope John Paul even published a statement calling on the Church to accept the Theories of Evolution as the most likely method of life developing.

 

http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm

 

You are in a backwards minority, who ignore the facts and propagate what is generally seen as mistruth. You have no merit behind your arguments, and no substanciation. You have no major religions who agree with you and no academics. You searched for a science forum and posed what you knew would be inflamatory comments, and antagonised people by skipping past counter arguments to raise disconnected points and not debate the issue at hand. It is not suprising that people are being rude to you at this point, as you are dismissing all counterports and actually looking to attack anyone with a counter veiwpoint. Your not here to discuss, you are here to preach. Mokele was being very patient with you, and trying to explain why your view is simply not factual or correct, and he got a little exasparated. That's no need to play the martyr card, you are not a martyr; you are an idiot.

[gregw74]

What do you mean that Mokele has been patient with me?? LOL!!!! You have got to be kidding me. In his first response, he accused me of editing the video clip. Give me a break. Right from the get go he called me out as being dishonest. I wasn’t looking to ruffle any feathers (or scales rather?? LOL, just kidding) or "preach" as you call it. I’ve seen nothing but judgment against my character by Mokele, and false ones at that. It's the original clip! Big deal! His arrogant responses have been nothing short of humurous. His credentials were lost from the very beginning, or at least much more difficult to accept.

 

There IS a difference between a "Creationist" and someone who supports ID. A Creationist backs their ideas around what Genesis says (usually literally). ID isn't restricted to any religion, religious text, or theistic beliefs, just the facts, facts that suggest intentional design. I am supporting ID in this thread, not Creationalism. I do no totally discredit evolution either, please don't get me wrong. There are obvious occasions and evidence of evolution, to a degree. I just don't see how it can be stretched so far as to include progression from one species to another, even the origin of the first life form which evolutionists often claim, or gloss over. It’s the discovery of design and high complexity that defies chance and gradual progression. In the end, there may be religious implications but that's where science ends and religion/philosophy begins. If one chooses to cross that bridge, so be it, but they are not obligated.

 

I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone. Again, this was not my intent whatsoever. It’s a touchy topic, I understand that, but I think it’s one worth delving into. Even if ID isn’t taught, the gaps in evolution should at least be discussed and debated and it shouldn’t be referred to as fact because it’s simply too general. Often times, it doesn’t even clarify that the origins of life (not transitions) are at least unknown or unproven and that the origin of such intricate biochemical systems is yet to be explained by chance and random mutations. It should further be clarified that the transitions between species is still being researched. That’s the least bit that ID'ists are asking.

[Sayonara]

What do you mean that Mokele has been patient with me?? LOL!!!! You have got to be kidding me. In his first response, he accused me of editing the video clip. Give me a break. Right from the get go he called me out as being dishonest.

Since he doesn't know who edited the clip, just that it has been edited [in some fashion], it's fairly obvious that when he says "you edited the clip" he means "you or your source".

[PhDP]

ID isn't restricted to any religion, religious text, or theistic beliefs, just the facts, facts that suggest intentional design.

 

Intelligent Design is mostly an christian and American ideology, condemned by most biologists. In term of education, it make the U.S. look like a country of the third world. I don't see France, Quebec, US, Germany or Sweden considering teaching religious ideology in a science class.

 

I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone.

 

I think it IS offending that you defend ID before reading about evolution more deeply. You'll encounter lot of agressivity from evolutionists, when you are repeating the claim Intelligent Design is gaining ground, it's very frustrating, because every evolutionary biologist know it's false. ID can convince non-biologist and the public, biologist won't fall that easily. Most people who defend ID have a very limited understanding of evolution.

[gregw74]

Intelligent Design is mostly an christian and American ideology

This is irrelevant. Christianity nor any other religion is even endorsed or mentioned in the theory. That's not even the goal of ID, though many would like to propose it as such so that they can say there's a violation of religion and science. It's simply a universal concept. A theory has to originate somewhere? If it originated in Russia, Europe, or the Galapagos Islands, would that make ID any more palatable? I doubt it.

 

when you are repeating the claim Intelligent Design is gaining ground, it's very frustrating, because every evolutionary biologist know it's false. ID can convince non-biologist and the public, biologist won't fall that easily. Most people who defend ID have a very limited understanding of evolution.

Every "evolutionary biologist"? sure, but it cannot be said that every biologist is convinced of evolution. Is a biologist who doesn't support evolution considered a non-biologist?? Anyway, there are quite a few biologists listed in this document. Hit CTRL+F within the file and search for "bio". Do the Ph.d's of the biochemists and biologists serve as a red flag that they have "limited knowledge" or could it simply be that the theory isn't convincing to them, despite the studies revealed on evolution? I don't buy the "limited knowledge" argument. Even Einstein saw design despite his research in the realms outside of biology. Is he considered a crack-pot as well? We won't go there though since he wasn't a biologist. ID isn't just limited to biology but it's easily applicable. Just as important, it can also be applied on an atomic and cosmological level all the same. But I digress.

[Mokele]

There is also the piece that was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

 

More...

 

Well, the paper is crap, as expected, and I have no idea why they published something so clearly beneath their standards.

 

Based on the following I hardly see Wells as a crack-pot, or Behe (why the name calling anyway? Now, who's the kid again?):

 

I suppose it's more entertaining for you and the others to just call them "crack-pots"? Seems rather juvenile. So I suppose if all else fails, make personal attacks to better qualify your credentials and belittle those you don't agree with. I fail to see the effectiveness in that. I hope your family members and friends don't disagree with very often, for their own sake.

 

I call them what they are. If you don't like it, since you're evidently a similarly intellectually dishonest crackpot, I suggest you leave.

 

If I claimed to refute relativity and wrote books about it, I would be a crackpot, because, while I know a bit about it, I have *zero* formal education in it, and would undoubtedly make numerous slipups that can easily be corrected.

 

Similarly, I have read both the works of Behe and Wells. They lack basic understanding of evolution, and are totally unfamiliar with modern thought on the subject. Every single one of the "arguements" can be *easily* refuted by anyone who has bothered to educate themselves even at the most pedestrian level. They fail to take into account ideas that have been so important in evolutionary theory (such as exaptation, neutral genes and evo-devo) that the only possible explanations are either total lack of knowledge of the primary literature (which means they are speaking from ignorance) or willful ignorance (aka intellectual dishonesty). So either they're liars or poor researchers, and from either of those, they can be adequately classed as 'cranks'.

 

What do you mean that Mokele has been patient with me?? LOL!!!! You have got to be kidding me.

 

Yes, believe it or not, I have. I have been mean and rude, but in a *very* restrained way. You do NOT want to see me lose my temper.

 

In his first response, he accused me of editing the video clip. Give me a break. Right from the get go he called me out as being dishonest.

 

And I was right.

 

I wasn’t looking to ruffle any feathers (or scales rather?? LOL, just kidding) or "preach" as you call it.

 

Bullshit. You come into a science forum and post your BS *SOLEY* to preach. Your entire participation has been limited to this thread, in which you do nothing *but* preach your discredited views.

 

You have done nothing *but* preach, and your entire posting history here amounts to trolling. I have already recommended to the admins you be permanently banned for this.

 

I’ve seen nothing but judgment against my character by Mokele, and false ones at that. It's the original clip! Big deal! His arrogant responses have been nothing short of humurous. His credentials were lost from the very beginning, or at least much more difficult to accept.

 

You presented false information (the video). Either you are a liar or a moron. Pick one.

 

As for my credentials, hands up everyone here who's actually got a degree in biology. Oh, gee, gregw74, why is your hand down while mine is up?

 

Maybe it's because I actually *learned* about evolution from *reputable* sources (namely, sources who don't lie).

 

ID isn't restricted to any religion, religious text, or theistic beliefs, just the facts, facts that suggest intentional design.

 

What facts? Put up or shut up, kid.

 

I am supporting ID in this thread, not Creationalism.

 

They're the same thing. Oh, wait, you have to lie and cover that up, or your pathetic ploy to get Jesusology taught in public schools will fail.

 

just don't see how it can be stretched so far as to include progression from one species to another

 

We've witnessed speciation. I win. Next feeble objection.

 

even the origin of the first life form which evolutionists often claim, or gloss over.

 

Strawman, for which you have been warned. Evolution is *NOT* abiogenesis. You have had this explained to you before, in detail.

 

If you don't like being called intellectually dishonest, stop doing it.

 

It’s the discovery of design and high complexity that defies chance and gradual progression.

 

Not a single instance of which has *EVER* been demonstrated.

 

Even if ID isn’t taught, the gaps in evolution should at least be discussed and debated and it shouldn’t be referred to as fact because it’s simply too general.

 

As I said earlier, the gaps are minor questions of mechanism, not significant flaws in the theory. Claiming that they refute evolution is like claiming that, because we don't completely and 100% understand turbulent flow, all of aerodynamcis is crap and planes are really held up by angels.

 

As for fact, evolution is a fact. A fact is something that has been empirically observed. Guess what we've seen, but below and above the species level. Therefore it is fact.

 

Often times, it doesn’t even clarify that the origins of life (not transitions) are at least unknown or unproven

 

Second strawman, abiogenesis again. I'm being nice and not sending in another warning.

 

and that the origin of such intricate biochemical systems is yet to be explained by chance and random mutations.

 

Arguement from ignorance. Just because we don't *currently* know something does not mean there is no explanation, nor does that mean that you can just plug in God to fill that gap and claim it's scientific.

 

Go to school, kid. You have a lot left to learn.

 

It should further be clarified that the transitions between species is still being researched. That’s the least bit that ID'ists are asking.

 

Yes, and their questions are invaraibly crap. On the other hand, REAL scientists are actually examining speciation by *experiment* and *observation*, rather than sitting in their offices mastrubating to the Answers in Genesis website.

 

That's not even the goal of ID, though many would like to propose it as such so that they can say there's a violation of religion and science.

 

Bullshit, pure and simple. ID was *created* to find a loophole around the Supreme Court's decision that creationism in schools violated the 1st ammendment.

 

If I'm wrong, why did ID first appear a) in the literature of the Discovery Institute, a *creationist* think-thank (though 'think' is a debatable word for these people), and b) why it appears *immediately* after the 1982 court decision?

 

Sorry, we aren't as stupid as you are. We can see through the transparent lies.

 

Every "evolutionary biologist"? sure, but it cannot be said that every biologist is convinced of evolution. Is a biologist who doesn't support evolution considered a non-biologist??

 

The only biologists (and there are *very* few such ignorant zealots) who reject evolution are those whose prior education in the subject and whose general knowledge of it are very lacking.

 

See above: Behe didn't even know what exaptation was until the term jumped up and bit him in the ass, destroying his 'irreducible complexity' bullshit, yet the term was around for more than 15 years before he put forth his hogwash. If these people cannot do a simple journal search and briing themselves up to date on the subject, how can they be considered qualified to speak on it?

 

Anyway, there are quite a few biologists listed in this document. Do their Ph.d's serve as a red flag that they have "limited knowledge" or could it simply be that the theory isn't convincing to them, despite the studies revealed on evolution?

 

You can have a PhD in bio and not have ever taken a single evolution course or ever gained an understanding of it or the data. This is especially true to people at the molecular level of things.

 

I don't buy the "limited knowledge" argument.

 

Tough shit, it's correct, whether you like it or not. Just like evolution. Now stop your infantile whining, act like a logical adult, and face facts.

 

Even Einstein saw appearent design in science

 

Bullshit. Prove it.

 

ID isn't just limited to biology but is easily applicable.

 

ID is limited to psuedoscience.

 

Now, hopefully I won't have to see any more of your drivel, either because I leave saturday morning for fieldwork in Guam (fieldwork, it's something us *real* biologists do) or because you have been banned. The latter would be ideal (and is only a matter of time, I assure you), but the former means at least I won't have to listen to your intellectually dishonest and ignorance bullshit for 2 weeks (plus however long it takes to recover from jetlag).

 

Now, go play somewhere else, kid. It should be painfully apparent by now that we see through your lies and moronic claims. You are not welcome here.

 

Mokele

[PhDP]

I don't buy the "limited knowledge" argument. Even Einstein saw appearent design in science.

 

You don't buy the limited knowledge argument, yet you attack evolution without knowing it, no ? Just look in this forum, it's full of creationist who doesn't have a clue about evolution, you won't heard from them rational argument about population genetics or serious critics about peer-to-peer reviewed articles, it's always the same kind of argumentation; ID is gaining ground, teach the controversy, lack of fossils, new informations on genome... I give you a mechanism which increase the quantity of informations on the genome, polyploidy, but I think (I might be wrong), but I think you don't have a clue what it is, the only thing you can do is looking for ID websites of books to answer to that. Do you know what evolution is, or did you reject it before knowing it ?

 

About Einstein...

 

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

 

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

He didn't believe in a personal God, so how could he believe in design ? Also, he DID have a very limited knowledge of biology, he was monomaniac.

[bascule]

gregw, are you done being a blowhard-by-proxy? I'd still like to see some more "evidence" as to how evolutionary theories are "wrong"... I answered the last you tried to present, it was something any sophomore biology student could've told you.

[gregw74]

Phil...

 

"...I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead."

- Einstein

 

"God does not play dice with the Universe"

- Einstein

 

Einstein was clearly a scientist, not a theologian or philosopher. It may have been an idea he struggled with, a God of any kind, like many. Comprehending an infinite intellect is certainly a challenge for any one of our finite minds. That latter quote, was taken as a perspective on design. Though, I suppose he may have been suggesting otherwise. If that's the case, I do apologize if this was taken out of context. I have no problem accepting that.

 

This is mainly for those who put great faith into the results of chance, such as our planet being the result of a cosmic lottery. I wonder if the same evolutionary mechinism formed our planet?? Hmmm.... Afterall, you need a planet such as ours and all the laws that have thus far been defined to even start and conclude such a long chain of diverse life. It's an excellent area to delve before even considering our own existance and the existance of other species. I will end with, "consider the probabilities", for the odds are not in our favor in establishing the very core foundations of life. It's just something to take into consideration, that's all..

Some figures of probability to chew on.

http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts/TXThome1.php

http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts/TXThome2.php

 

Hey Buck-a-roo!....

Enjoy yourself in Guam. I'm sure it'll be fascinating

[PhDP]

That latter quote, was taken as a perspective on design. Though, I suppose he may have been suggesting otherwise. If that's the case, I do apologize if this was taken out of context. I have no problem accepting that.

 

It IS out of context and it is NOT a perspective on design. You really need to look further before making claims like that. Einstein was a pantheist, he believe God = Universe, he didn't believe in any intelligent, sentient God. When he said "God doesn't play dice", he was just refusing the indeterministic aspect of quantum physics, it have nothing to do with evolution.

[gregw74]

I agree Phil, 100%. I realize that it had nothing to do with evolution, you're totally right. I was thinking from an atomic and cosmological perspective, that's all. ID within those domains, aside from biology. But he still could have been referring to something else.

[Bill Nye Guy]

gregw74 Quote:

Intelligent Design is mostly an christian and American ideology

 

 

This is irrelevant. Christianity nor any other religion is even endorsed or mentioned in the theory. That's not even the goal of ID, though many would like to propose it as such so that they can say there's a violation of religion and science. It's simply a universal concept. A theory has to originate somewhere? If it originated in Russia, Europe, or the Galapagos Islands, would that make ID any more palatable? I doubt it.

 

do you know how BS that is. I have been on many ID sites and i have read some articles about ID and most of the time ID is mentioned, the context proves that ID is mainly christian. You dont see OTHER COUNTRIES supporting ID. You also don't see other countries with people who have such a problem with evolution. No that problem is ONLY in america.

 

 

 

 

Also with the rest of the arugment did you notice that ID people believe in MICROEVOLUTION. It is a pure fact.

 

atinymonkey

The term 'intelligent design' simply means that evolution happened exactly as biologists and paleontologists have said, but it was 'guided' but the hand of God. There is no proof for or against this, and it's not a factor that's important in the theories of evolution. If you want to believe that God guided evolution, then that should not mean you need to dismiss evolution as a concept.

 

You need to work on your terminology, as you are obviously confused as to the difference between Intelligent Design and Literal Creationism. Perhaps if you understood the difference, you would not feel the need to argue against evolution. Then we would all be happy:-

 

More proof.

 

Microevolution is hard to disprove. If you look it up and learn about it i think you will find that it has been 100% proven.

 

It would be interesting to see from the people you talk about so much, how much of evolution they believe happened. If they don't believe evolution happened at all then they are seriously stupid. If they only believe in microevolution and not macro then they need to read more about macroevolution. If they believe in both and yet for some reason are IDers, then they should be shoot for sheer stupidity.

 

I hope i didn't offend anyone here ...........

[Sayonara]

Every "evolutionary biologist"? sure, but it cannot be said that every[/b'] biologist is convinced of evolution.

I really don't see why they should be (other than, of course, the fact that evolution is as real as gravity, and what you're actually arguing about is just one proposed mega-mechanism).

[Sayonara]

Anyway, who cares? Clearly a case of "Inconsistent With Our Purpose".

[bascule]

I'm certainly not going to say anything like "evolution is 100% correct." If you can't objectively weigh alternatives and instead cherrypick the facts to fit your desired result, you aren't practicing science, you're practicing bigotry.

 

However, I'm yet to see anyone, namely gregw74, point out either a valid flaw in current explanations or providing an explanation which has any evidence that intelligence is somehow involved in the evolutionary process, epsecially when the natural selection model works fine on its own and doesn't need "help" from an intelligent entity.

 

Ambiogenesis is still up in the air, but that's an entirely seperate issue which isn't tied into evolution/natural selection. We don't know how life started... we have some good ideas, but if you want to say "God sparked life" I'm not going to argue with you.

 

However, natural selection/evolution is on firm scientific ground and the natural selection model can do all the heavy lifting of creating the illusion of design without a designer. The natural selection process does the "designing" with no intelligence involved. So bottom line, "design by natural selection" is in direct opposition to "intelligent design," because any interference in the process by an outside intelligent entity would constitute... unnatural selection.

 

So gregw, I answered your bogus claims (which weren't even yours, but rather those of some random botanist at Answering Genesis). I asked you twice for something new and you've simply ignored me.

 

Put up or shut up. Where is Dawkins wrong?

[Urbansquid]

*Sigh*

 

Another thread hijacked... It is almost enough to drive one to outright antitheism.

 

I have no formal education in evolution but am fascinated by how well Mr. Dawkins can explain the mechanics and wonders of evolution to a layperson such as myself. History may render many of his works irrelevant, (if not only because he panders to the casual reader), however I appreciate them for the clarity if nothing else. Here is a couple of quick links to some additional Dawkins information if anyone might be interested.

 

Bill Moyer's interview of Dawkins (Video)

 

Dawkin's post on Huffington

(Read on through his link to Sam Harris' article for more interesting arguments..)

[Mokele]

However, I'm yet to see anyone, namely gregw74, point out either a valid flaw in current explanations

 

I don't think you're going to, see below:

 

gregw74

Permanently Banned

 

So much for an answer...Not that he'd have one anyway...