The Watchmaker

[grayman]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

You could begin by pointing out that watches don't tend to reproduce themselves, which makes them a piss-poor analogy for evolution.

[bobcarp]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

You could ask, "Who designed and created god?". Of course they will respond that God always was, contradicting their own analogy.

[Beerina]

Exactly. What watchmaker made the watchmaker?

[Starrman]

I just got stupider from watching that. The only thing they got right was about not daring to compare a watch to a living cell.

[TheAntiLuddite]

You could ask, "Who designed and created god?". Of course they will respond that God always was, contradicting their own analogy.

This is one of the simplest and most logical counterarguments to ridiculous "Watchmaker" appeals. But just for grins, thank your brother and tell him that the oh-so-cute childrens' cartoon* has caused you to finally see the light...


...and you're converting to Zoroastrianism.


Watchmaker appeals work equally well for all deities, much to the dismay of (Un)Intelligent Design proponents, who desire to use it as a tool to shovel Christianity into the classrooms.

* After all, the Scriptures tell us to become like children (i.e. unquestioning and credulous) in order to fully understand God's "truth".

[Kochanski]

How about this:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Design

Personally, I find any website with the word Truth in its title to be suspect ;)

[jmercer]

Easy enough.

1) Watches are high-order complex things requiring high-order complex tools to build. The original single-celled organisms were simple and required no tools at all, merely the correct conditions.

2) (As pointed out) Watches don't replicate - therefore, they cannot evolve.

3) The first cells almost certainly utilized heat and/or sunlight as input for energy; the watch requires a higher-order external source that's (obviously) not available at the time of creation unless an external being is present. This is an subtle misdirection that helps promote the idea that a self-created watch is absurd.

4) The video compares life to a mechanical dead object. Hardly a valid comparision. :D

Hope this helps!

[Ginarley]

Search youtube for the Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker documentary - covers this question directly and with pictures ;)

[RandFan]

Search youtube for the Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker documentary - covers this question directly and with pictures ;) Seems reasonable, so long as Dawkins doesn't come across as an upper-class "Pommy twat" (whatever the hell that means) to grayman's brother.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This from the same website that says, "Scientists still haven't figured out why atoms (small particles that make up all matter) holds together. If atoms followed established scientific laws, then they and all matter would fly apart." And says that since there are so many Bibles, it is more TRUE than all those other "religious" books. Watches don't undergo reproduction, or mutation, or natural selection. This video is one of those "random chance" fallacies.

I feel justified in my conclusion that kids are idiots :D .

[Dark Jaguar]

Keep in mind when you point out "watches don't reproduce" that you point out that that basically means the argument of it having come from evolution is ruled out right there. Without pointing out the logic, you may just get a "well duh" look and absolutely no realization as to your point.

[T'ai Chi]

Exactly. What watchmaker made the watchmaker?

But then you might get the

'Well what natural phenomena produced X?'

(where X is the oldest natural phenomena they have mentioned so far)

[Ginarley]

But then you might get the

'Well what natural phenomena produced X?'

(where X is the oldest natural phenomena they have mentioned so far)

Answering the "what produced what" question is complicated enough without the added complication of not only a supremely complex supernatural explanation, but also the need for an explanation as to what caused that supernatural "thing" to exist as well - it just adds additional complications where they aren't needed.

[T'ai Chi]

Answering the "what produced what" question is complicated enough...


So complicated that there aren't any naturalistic reasons apparently. And apparently the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang oddly enough.


...without the added complication of not only a supremely complex supernatural explanation, but also the need for an explanation as to what caused that supernatural "thing" to exist as well - it just adds additional complications where they aren't needed.

Either way it is a difficulty. Either way seems to be turtles all the way down, whether supernaturalistic or naturalistic ones.

[T'ai Chi]

The original single-celled organisms were simple...


Actually **** is an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.

[Foster Zygote]

Seems reasonable, so long as Dawkins doesn't come across as an upper-class "Pommy twat" (whatever the hell that means) to grayman's brother.

Ah thinks it means that there Dawkins feller don't talk lahk reg'ler folks. Simple people. The salt of the Earth. You know, morons.

[KilgoreTrout]

So complicated that there aren't any naturalistic reasons apparently. And apparently the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang oddly enough.

Yes, it's very odd that our current understanding of physics would break down for something that is very difficult to observe.:rolleyes:

Either way it is a difficulty. Either way seems to be turtles all the way down, whether supernaturalistic or naturalistic ones.

The question is, with which viewpoint are you able to actually observe the turtles?

[Meadmaker]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

You've got your work cut out for you. It's a simple, but powerful, message. Not powerful in the sense of logic, but powerful in the sense of persuasiveness.

You could point to all the experimental evidence showing how cells evolved from mixtures of organic chemicals. Hmm...on second thought, that doesn't seem like a great path to take.

Ok. You can't really do that, because we don't have experimental evidence. All we have are mathematical models that demonstrate how it could have happened, with simulation results showing the steps involved. Hmmm...wait. Maybe that's not such a good approach either.

There is something that we do have, so the next suggestion isn't nearly as smart-alecky as the last two. You could try pointing out that the universe is extremely consistent with evolution. The world really looks like it evolved. However, there are a couple of problems with that approach as well. First, we really don't know darned near anything about how the first cells came about, and "The Watchmaker" really focuses on that. The fact that the universe is extremely consistent with evolution could be because it was designed in a particular way.

So, what to do?

You have a problem because the Intelligent Design argument is, as most people here are aware, an argument from ignorance. It says, "We don't know how cells came about, so God must have done it." Immediately, the average JREFer jumps up and down to point out the problem. "Aha! The argument from ignorance is a fallacy!" It's like saying....' (fill in the blank with anything that it's like here. It's like a lot of things. Pick one' "

So, problem solved. You have shown that it's a fallacy. Good. That's done. You've won the argument, right?

Well, of course you haven't. Even if you get to a logical argument, demonstrating the flaw, what you are left with is "We don't know how cells came about, so God might have done it." That's really not where you want to be, either, but that's as far as you are going to get with that line, because, the truth be told, we don't know how cells came about. We can't come up with any explanation that makes sense. Our ignorance is quite real. Surely, it is a fallacy to make any arguments based on that ignorance, but it is just as fallacious to assert that one answer is impossible, based on that ignorance.

To win the argument, you have to get at one of the core assumptions, and show where it's wrong. That's enough for now, so I'll just outline where I would start. One of the assumptions of most people who accept ID is that evolution is Godless and wrong. The explanatory materials you can click on after "The Watchmaker" cite Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box". He is indeed an intelligent design celebrity. He also believes in evolution. It turns out the two aren't incompatible, no matter what you read here, or in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Get them to accept Behe, and the truth is you're three quarters of the way to getting where you want to go.

(More to come.)

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, it's very odd that our current understanding of physics would break down for something that is very difficult to observe.:rolleyes:


Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.


The question is, with which viewpoint are you able to actually observe the turtles?

Neither. Some of us just admit it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

All we have are mathematical models that demonstrate how it could have happened, with simulation results showing the steps involved. Hmmm...wait. Maybe that's not such a good approach either.
Actually, it is the perfect approach. The approach does fail at proving how cells came to be, but that is not what it is intended to do in the first place. The argument from design herein couched in Paley's watchmaker terms is an assertion that cells could not have formed without a designer. As such, any (plausible) argument which shows cells could form without a designer is a valid counter-example to the claim.

It proves nothing, true, but it puts the burden of proof right back where it belongs--on the design proponent.

[thaiboxerken]

According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics.

I doubt that your interpretation of the theory is even remotely close to what it really states.

[Elizabeth I]

You could begin by pointing out that watches don't tend to reproduce themselves, which makes them a piss-poor analogy for evolution.
You could also point out that rhyming iambic pentameter may very possibly be the most annoying thing on the face of the earth.

[Jimbo07]

Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.


Errr...

I think they say that the laws of Physics break down, because the universe may have come from a singularity. At that stage you'd have to have things like infinite density and other bizarre concepts... physics would be broken. :boggled:

It's a damned sight different than 'nothing.'

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.

Hmmm... Reminds me of this (http://www.proctorhs.org/faculty/ricci/images/miracle.jpg)... :)

I am fairly sure that is not how it goes.

[jmercer]

Actually **** is an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.

Not hardly, as compared to a watch. What you're missing is the underlying complexity of non-natural elements required to create a mechanism: i.e., metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

In other words, a watch is complex not only because of it's mechanism, but because of all the supporting factors (natural and artificial) that have to be exist in order to manufacture one. The oldest cells may have been subtle in terms of molecular interaction, but they were *not* complex in the same sense of the word.

[jmercer]

Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.


Incorrect.

Something was around. And it's entirely possible - perhaps even probable - that quantum physics was in effect. In fact, that may have been the only physics capable of being in effect then.

And that's a rather transparent effort to mystify things by even humorously citing "magic" as the starting event of the Big Bang.

Woefully weak argument.

[zizzybaluba]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

Ugh. I think Dr. Seuss is rolling over in his grave...

[Glen.Nogami]

Evolution doesn't happen by chance. By definition, it happens by a process that could be described as, oh, I don't know. Natural selection, or something. Meaning that nature, not god, selects for desirable traits. Those traits favor increasing complexity.

Also, yes, the rhyme and meter were mind-numbingly terrible.

[Ausmerican]

Seems reasonable, so long as Dawkins doesn't come across as an upper-class "Pommy twat" (whatever the hell that means) to grayman's brother.

RandFan:
Pommy: Derived from the designation on the shirts of convicts sent to Australia I believe. P.O.M.E. stood for Prisoner Of Mother England. Australians then reversed that by claiming that the ones still in England were the true prisoners, therefore the true P.O.M.E, which was pronounced pommy.
Twat: Vagina.
Hope this helps.

[RandFan]

RandFan:
Pommy: Derived from the designation on the shirts of convicts sent to Australia I believe. P.O.M.E. stood for Prisoner Of Mother England. Australians then reversed that by claiming that the ones still in England were the true prisoners, therefore the true P.O.M.E, which was pronounced pommy.
Twat: Vagina.
Hope this helps.:D Yes that helps. I got the twat part but I asked for it so that's fine.

So is it intended to be derisive of any and all people from England or is it reserved for a particular class? I had taken it as derisive of the upper class but that was just a guess.

[Ausmerican]

Generally any derisivness has been lost. For most Aussies it's no different referring to the English as pommies than it is referring to New Zealanders as Kiwis or Americans as Seppos.

[RandFan]

Generally any derisivness has been lost. For most Aussies it's no different referring to the English as pommies than it is referring to New Zealanders as Kiwis or Americans as Seppos. Got it. Thanks.

"Seppos"?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Got it. Thanks.

"Seppos"?
Short for "supreme beings".

[Ausmerican]

Australian rhyming slang is weird in that once the rhyming phrase has been invented it is shortened usually by getting rid of the part that actually rhymed in the first place. Thus "me old mate" = "me old china plate" but then is generally shortened to "me old china." Similarly Yank = Septic Tank which was then shortened to seppo.

[RandFan]

Australian rhyming slang is weird in that once the rhyming phrase has been invented it is shortened usually by getting rid of the part that actually rhymed in the first place. Thus "me old mate" = "me old china plate" but then is generally shortened to "me old china." Similarly Yank = Septic Tank which was then shortened to seppo. :D It's all that Vegimite I'm sure.

[Ausmerican]

Perhaps 'Skeptic Tank' or Skeppo would be more fitting here huh?

[RandFan]

Perhaps 'Skeptic Tank' or Skeppo would be more fitting here huh?Those are great. I like "Skeptic Tank".

[Megalodon]

Evolution doesn't happen by chance. By definition, it happens by a process that could be described as, oh, I don't know. Natural selection, or something. Meaning that nature, not god, selects for desirable traits. Those traits favor increasing complexity.

No they don't. Remember that the modal organism on Earth is still (and always will be) the bacteria. We are a side-show of evolution, not it's pinnacle.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Ok. You can't really do that, because we don't have experimental evidence. All we have are mathematical models that demonstrate how it could have happened, with simulation results showing the steps involved. Hmmm...wait. Maybe that's not such a good approach either. Damn, but you’re ignorant, oh wait, you’re a creationist so that goes without saying.

We do have experimental evidence. In fact we’ve had experimental evidence since at least the 1960s.

Ossai

[KingMerv00]

No they don't. Remember that the modal organism on Earth is still (and always will be) the bacteria. We are a side-show of evolution, not it's pinnacle.

Evolution doesn't have a pinnacle or a sideshow.

[KingMerv00]

'Well what natural phenomena produced X?'

(where X is the oldest natural phenomena they have mentioned so far)

The answer? No one knows....not mindblowing but at least it is accurate.

Invoking God explains absolutely nothing. Instead, it inflates the problem 1,000,000 fold.

[Megalodon]

Evolution doesn't have a pinnacle or a sideshow.

Yeah, whatever... my point was that the model in which organisms evolve into greater complexity is demonstrably wrong. Obviously, evolution doesn't have a literal sideshow or pinnacle. But we can look at the size distribution on existing species, and we'll see that it is drastically slanted to the left, with the median very close to the smaller sizes.

But then, if I was to notice that we are an infimous branch in the tree of life, some nitpick would probably remark that life is not a tree ;).

[KingMerv00]

Yeah, whatever... my point was that the model in which organisms evolve into greater complexity is demonstrably wrong. Obviously, evolution doesn't have a literal sideshow or pinnacle. But we can look at the size distribution on existing species, and we'll see that it is drastically slanted to the left, with the median very close to the smaller sizes.

But then, if I was to notice that we are an infimous branch in the tree of life, some nitpick would probably remark that life is not a tree ;).

Well we are on the nitpickiest twig. That's got to be worth something.

[grayman]

Here it is, my 1000th post, and I will use it showing the response I received from my brother with only the rule 8 thing editted.

After reading all the comments it seams that most of the ones that replied are a bunch of altheas a** holes and you can tell them I said so. Just goes to show why the world is so f###ed up.Next they will be siding with that fag Elton John to ban all religion and the c@ck suckers out in California who banned the pledge of allegiance from their school . It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

Yes, he and I are related. Must be something to the nature vs. nurture thing I guess. :D

[KingMerv00]

Here it is, my 1000th post, and I will use it showing the response I received from my brother with only the rule 8 thing editted.

Nice guy. Good luck at Thanksgiving.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker
Damn, but you’re ignorant, oh wait, you’re a creationist so that goes without saying.

We do have experimental evidence. In fact we’ve had experimental evidence since at least the 1960s.

Ossai

You are wrong on so many different levels.

The last book I read on the subject of biogenesis was "Spark of Life", recommended on these forums I might add. Good book. Recommended for anyone with interest on the subject. It is of recent vintage, and it gives a pretty good overview of what we know on the subject as of its writing.

And what do we know? Precious little.

The argument from ignorance works because we really are ignorant. Fallacy or no fallacy, until you can show how chemicals dumped into a vat end up as cells, you won't persuade the faithful. At least, not that way.

By the way, if anyone has even more recent vintage stuff that advances the state of the art on the subject, I would love to hear it.

Grayman's brother may be wrong about evolution, but he's right about the people, and in the end that will win more arguments than anything else.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I had a teacher named Althea. I have to admit, she was a bit of a b:Dch.

[tdn]

The question of "Who made the first cell?" is not a hard one to answer. The answer is simply that cells themselves evolved. How? We don't know. But one has merely to consider that at one point, proteins began replicating. If they were able to do so imperfectly, it's turtles all the way up from there.

Of course, to grayman's brother, I'm just another altheas a** whole. I wish I could be filled with Christian love, like grayman's brother.

[Foster Zygote]

Here it is, my 1000th post, and I will use it showing the response I received from my brother with only the rule 8 thing editted.



Yes, he and I are related. Must be something to the nature vs. nurture thing I guess. :D

Oddly enough, this is one altheas a**hole who will fight to protect anyone's rights. Even the rights of your brother.:D

[CFLarsen]

Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.

BEEP!

Wrong.

Right after Big Bang, there were no galaxies, stars, not even atoms.

Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang)

[zizzybaluba]

bolding mine.

Grayman's brother may be wrong about evolution, but he's right about the people, and in the end that will win more arguments than anything else.

Can you please elaborate on your offensive opinion?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Can you please elaborate on your offensive opinion?
It seems he agrees that evolutionists are as:Doles who like fags and c:Dksuckers. That sums me up pretty well, I guess.

[KingMerv00]

There are no atheists in fox holes. - Gen. Jack Pershing

" 'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes." - James Morrow

[zizzybaluba]

It seems he agrees that evolutionists are as:Doles who like fags and c:Dksuckers. That sums me up pretty well, I guess.

gotcha. count me in as a proud as:Dole then too.

[tdn]

gotcha. count me in as a proud as:Dole then too.

I myself have a particular fondness for c:Dksuckers.

[Apathia]

Grayman's brother may be wrong about evolution, but he's right about the people, and in the end that will win more arguments than anything else.

Yes, that points out the challenge we have in education.
I read a book about Human evolution and immediately chucked my creationism in a dumpster. But most people aren't like that. There are more reasons they believe religious and philosophical things than Science, reason, evidence, sound argument. The way they compose their own persons, the way they relate to others, their core values, and so on, are intertwined with their beliefs about origins. That's no surprise. Origin myths have always being crucial to the inner life of cultures. The majority of people will be persuaded by what gives them a ground to affirm their own existence and their significance as a person. The Creationists play that card again and again and win most games. So the Science Educator must address more than just intellectual arguments pro and con.

One approach is to point out that since one isn't a predeisigned unit that is defective unless it performs according to the maker's intent, we are free to be ourselves and affirm ourselves as who we are. That may not have meaning for most who are looking for the security of being an acceptable thing, but it begins addressing the heart issues that can't be ignored.

[Euromutt]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.That old chestnut just never gets retired, does it? Creationists would argue it's because it's so good; I'd say it's because they still haven't managed to come up with anything better.

Okay, so you're walking on Hampstead Heath, you come across a watch. It's obviously out of place in its environment, so instead of assuming that it just grew there naturally, you assume it was made by some watchmaker elsewhere. So far so good.

A few steps further, you come across a large rock. Do you assume the rock was made by the watchmaker as well? Or the tree next to it? Or the grass, or the birds, the occasional badger or even Hampstead Heath itself? Well, no, you don't. The reason you assumed the watch came from elsewhere was because it is so obviously out of place in that environment. The rock, the tree, the grass, the birds and the badger do not strike you as being out of place, therefore you not only don't assume they were made by the same watchmaker, you actually assume, even without giving it conscious thought, that they were not.

So here's the problem with "Paley's" argument: while, in the way Paley and others framed the analogy, the watch is remarkable because it's obviously out of place in its environment (an environment teeming with objects which are implicitly acknowledged not to have been designed, evidently), we cannot say the same about the universe (or "all of Creation," if you're inclined to use that term). The universe ("Creation") encompasses everything in existence, so unlike the watch, we have nothing to compare it with.

[KingMerv00]

So here's the problem with "Paley's" argument: while, in the way Paley and others framed the analogy, the watch is remarkable because it's obviously out of place in its environment (an environment teeming with objects which are implicitly acknowledged not to have been designed, evidently), we cannot say the same about the universe (or "all of Creation," if you're inclined to use that term). The universe ("Creation") encompasses everything in existence, so unlike the watch, we have nothing to compare it with.

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. What if you found the watch in a shop containing hundreds of timepieces? Would it seem "natural" then?

[Euromutt]

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. What if you found the watch in a shop containing hundreds of timepieces? Would it seem "natural" then?Well, first off I'd point out that isn't actually the way the "Paley's argument" is commonly presented. Secondly, your revised example only points out a second flaw (or maybe it's just an extension of the first) in the basic assertion, namely that, without explicitly acknowledging this, it makes the leap from asking us to assume that a watchmaker made the hundreds of watches in the shop (not an unreasonable claim on the face of it), to asking us to assume that the watchmaker therefore also built the shop, the street outside, the city the street is in, etc. etc. Now note that even if I restrict myself to artificial things (buildings, streets, etc.), all of which were (one may reasonably assume) made by someone, there's no reason to assume that that someone was this one watchmaker. Similarly, even if there were something to Intelligent Design, there is zero reason to assume that we're dealing with a single Designer, as opposed to multiple. As a consequence, the argument from design fails to support the notion of a Prime Mover.

And that's leaving aside the parts of the world outside the watchmaker's shop for which we have no evidence that they are artificial.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

After reading all the comments it seams that most of the ones that replied are a bunch of altheas a** holes and you can tell them I said so. Just goes to show why the world is so f###ed up.Next they will be siding with that fag Elton John to ban all religion and the c@ck suckers out in California who banned the pledge of allegiance from their school . It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

You have made a fine use of the others,
That I should waste my third counsel upon you!
To give counsel to a sleepy ignoramus
Is to sow seeds upon salt land.
Torn garments of folly and ignorance cannot be patched.
O counselors, waste not the seed of counsel on them!

"The Counsels of the Bird", Masnavi

[T'ai Chi]

I think they say that the laws of Physics break down, because the universe may have come from a singularity. At that stage you'd have to have things like infinite density and other bizarre concepts... physics would be broken. :boggled:

It's a damned sight different than 'nothing.'

Where did the singularity come from?

[T'ai Chi]

...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.


I doubt it.

[T'ai Chi]

Something was around. And it's entirely possible - perhaps even probable - that quantum physics was in effect. In fact, that may have been the only physics capable of being in effect then.
...
Woefully weak argument.

Strengthen it up then! Cite where quantum physics, the singularity, or whatever it is you want to vaguely appeal to, came from.

A hint: citing "something" and "entirely possible" and "probable" and "may" won't cut it.

[Foster Zygote]

Where did the singularity come from?

It didn't come from anywhere. There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time begins there. People expect that there must have been something before the Big Bang because of the way we commonly think of time. But cosmologists don't think of time that way.

I wonder what would happen if T'ai were to debate someone face to face. Would he simply stare straight ahead and pretend the other person wasn't there until he/she went away in disgust? Would he break down in tears? Because of the fact that he seems to take personal offense at having his claims criticized the latter doesn't seem all that improbable to me.

[Foster Zygote]

Strengthen it up then! Cite where quantum physics, the singularity, or whatever it is you want to vaguely appeal to, came from.

A hint: citing "something" and "entirely possible" and "probable" and "may" won't cut it.

'Cause we all know that to admit there are things that are not yet known and things that may never be known is to provide a gap into which Justin can hammer God to fit and paint him to match.

[Dog Boots]

It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

LOL - In Denmark we have some sweets called "Althea". Appearently, not so in fox holes. Is this a spelling mistake or is there some intended pun I'm not getting? :boggled:

I did get the "are guys are fighting", that should've been "our guys". :covereyes

So, it makes him sick that "our guys" (ours too, actually) are fighting to protect the rights of people with ideas he can't argue against? Seems fair. :rolleyes:

[Dog Boots]

Ok, so now I saw the movie too. Quite beautifully made, idiotic content. One big strawman.

What's with the presupposition of the CELL being the fundamental building block, that had to form all by itself? That's the way it always is in this discussion, but in the beginning of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks of just a single, self-replicating molecule...why all this talk about cells?

[Glen.Nogami]

I myself have a particular fondness for c:Dksuckers.

Where's the shoutout to the fags? Yay fags! Grayman, reading your brother's comment made my day. Funny stuff, even if it wasn't intentionally so.

[Dark Jaguar]

I think it can simply be summed up with, "we've actually seen people make watches, and watches don't reproduce".

As to where that singularity came from, there's the "time started there" argument, which is sound. However the more fundamental question they are asking is "why does anything even exist at all?". You know, just the HARDEST QUESTION EVER. I'll tell you this very simple answer. I don't know. More importantly, neither do the religious. However, at least scientists attempt to figure it out rationally and with evidence instead of just guessing. Guessing at it and saying "it's as valid as saying it "just is"" is not an answer. Scientists don't really say it "just is". They just say "this is what we know to be the case, and the rest we don't know, and there's no point speculating". And there IS no point speculating. A random guess is not equivilant to "I admit ignorance on this".

[Glen.Nogami]

Yeah, whatever... my point was that the model in which organisms evolve into greater complexity is demonstrably wrong. Obviously, evolution doesn't have a literal sideshow or pinnacle. But we can look at the size distribution on existing species, and we'll see that it is drastically slanted to the left, with the median very close to the smaller sizes.

But then, if I was to notice that we are an infimous branch in the tree of life, some nitpick would probably remark that life is not a tree ;).
Evolution doesn't happen by chance. By definition, it happens by a process that could be described as, oh, I don't know. Natural selection, or something. Meaning that nature, not god, selects for desirable traits. Those traits favor increasing complexity.No they don't. Remember that the modal organism on Earth is still (and always will be) the bacteria. We are a side-show of evolution, not it's pinnacle.

Right, sorry. Occasionally, though, selection does favor increasing complexity, and that's how...increasing complexity happens.

Thanks for catching the generalization :covereyes .

[Meadmaker]

bolding mine.


Can you please elaborate on your offensive opinion?

Oh, why not. So here's what he said:


After reading all the comments it seams that most of the ones that replied are a bunch of altheas a** holes and you can tell them I said so. Just goes to show why the world is so f###ed up.Next they will be siding with that fag Elton John to ban all religion and the c@ck suckers out in California who banned the pledge of allegiance from their school . It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

Grayman's brother is an interesting piece of work, obviously. Seems he needs a spelling and grammar lesson or two, and a bit of diplomacy. However, what did he say?

He said that the posters were a bunch of atheists. He also applied a descriptive term that is somewhat derogatory. Well, the posters are a bunch of atheists, for the most part. He's right. As for the derogatory terms, that's subjective.

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.

He then says that many who contributed their thoughts would side with Elton John when Sir Elton said that he would ban religion. As it turns out, there is a thread on that very subject, and no one seems to be rushing to condemn Sir Elton, although one or two have suggested that perhaps he shouldn't have gone quite so far. Oh, he also used a derogatory term in his description of Elton John, but again, that's rather subjective. Some are disgusted by the use of such terms, calling them "hate speech". I agree. However, in this particular case, it's hard for me to have sympathy for someone as a victim of hate speech, after he called for banning religion. For him to be the target of hate speech seems in this case more like "Karma" than anything else.

There's also a thread on JREF about the people in California who banned the pledge of allegiance. The general concensus was in support of those people, so Grayman's brother was correct. Once again, one might object to his angry denunciation.

He obviously doesn't like the way things are going, and he's quite bitter about it. However, he's right. The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?


Now, here's my point. I wrote my comments after someone began a post to me with, "Damn you are ignorant." As I noted, he was wrong on several levels, but that's only part of the point. Grayman's brother is being mocked, somewhat deservedly, for spewing a bunch of personal attacks laced with profanity. Ossai did the same thing, but he is not being mocked or attacked. I note two major differences between Ossai and Grayman's brother.

First, Ossai is more articulate, including being a better speller. Second, Grayman's brother was right on those things which can be measured objectively, whereas Ossai was wrong.

[RandFan]

The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct? This is a blanket statement. Who are these "people"? Do you think all of the posts are hostile?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Damn, Janeane's really let herself go.

[DeviousB]

And says that since there are so many Bibles, it is more TRUE than all those other "religious" books.

I've not heard that before, that's quite interesting.

I suppose many of the bibles will vary in some small way. A slight change in nuance or some such.

Some of those bibles might be more popular than others. Slightly more readable perhaps, or a better fit to the moral environment they find them selves in.

I might guess that these bibles would sell better, hence more are likely to be reprinted.

As the bible is hardly in copyright, other publishers would be free to copy the more successful formats. Probably with minor changes to the cover design, etc.

So some of these bibles would vary in some small way. A slight change in nuance or...

Hmm, you know there's something very familiar about all this.

[Meadmaker]

Damn, Janeane's really let herself go.:D

(I was trying to decipher the hidden meaning of that one for several seconds. I think I figured it out, and it was really funny.)

[Meadmaker]

This is a blanket statement. Who are these "people"? Do you think all of the posts are hostile?


Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?

[KingMerv00]

Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?

Were you at the last Amazing Meeting? Shermer asked the crowd how many people there believed in some form of God. About 40% raised their hands.

The remaining 60% then proceeded to burn them at the stake because JREF is full of bigots.

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
Originally Posted by jmercer
...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.
I doubt it. ?!? Please explain.


Meadmaker
He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.
Based on what?
The vast political power atheists hold.
The fact that a politician can not be elected in the US without declaring their atheism.
The atheist only business directories.
The large number of businesses that promote based on a person’s lack of faith.
The atheists outposts (churches) that dot the American landscape.
The door to door atheist campaigns.
The exclusive atheists clubs.
The atheist after school programs, that may or may not be publicly funded.
The Boy Scouts of America forcibly removing anyone that proclaims a religious belief.


He obviously doesn't like the way things are going, and he's quite bitter about it. However, he's right. The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct? How to define core. Is it based on number of posts over a given time span? If so then the religiously motivated seem to outnumber a large number of regular posters.

Now, here's my point. I wrote my comments after someone began a post to me with, "Damn you are ignorant." As I noted, he was wrong on several levels, Actually you said I was wrong, yet you didn’t bother to actually specify.

Second, Grayman's brother was right on those things which can be measured objectively, whereas Ossai was wrong. Got any evidence for that? I’m thinking not.

"Damn you are ignorant." As I noted, he was wrong on several levels, but that's only part of the point. Damn was an exclamation and ignorant isn’t generally derogatory. It can be used as such, but I was using the uneducated meaning.

Ossai

[Apathia]

Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?

Privately speaking, I doubt it. But when it comes to posting there are more strident, vocal, anti-religionists than thereare outspoken proponents for the different religious world views members have. In general it's a venue where it is easier to declare what you don't believe than what you do.

Personally I hesitate to post when axes are being brandished, Atheistic axes, Theistic axes, any kind of axes. I treasure intelligent feedback, but as soon as hostiles with poor reading comprehension and stunted critical thinking skills start swinging their axes, I shy away and just read. But I want to make it clear that such bozoids are in the minority in spite of being very vocal in certain sections of the forum.

[KingMerv00]

Where did the singularity come from?

What part of "no one knows for sure" do you have trouble understanding?

[Lothian]

Where did the singularity come from?Don’t know. But what we can say is that the chances that everything started when an incredibly complex being popped out of thin air and lit the fuse causeing a big bang, is such a silly idea that we can reasonably discount it. Whatever caused the big bang it was not god.

[Meadmaker]

Actually you said I was wrong, yet you didn’t bother to actually specify.

Got any evidence for that? I’m thinking not.

Ossai

Ok. Let's go back to what you said.



Meadmaker
Damn, but you’re ignorant, oh wait, you’re a creationist so that goes without saying.

We do have experimental evidence. In fact we’ve had experimental evidence since at least the 1960s.

Ossai

Your first assertion: "you're ignorant". Ignorance is relative. I'm quite confident I know more about the subject than darned near anyone who hasn't studied it at the college level. I thought about it, and I've only read five books I can think of on the specific subject of evolution. That's no great quantity, but it's five more than most Americans.

Your second assertion: "you're a creationist". No, I am not. I'm not even an ID advocate. I have said, repeatedly in other threads, that ID is wrong, but not stupid. Not everyone agrees with that last part.

Your third assertion: "We do have experimental evidence." If you can point to the experimental evidence we have of cell formation from a mixture of chemicals, I would love to see it. We have the Miller-Urey(sp?) experiment, and a few slight variations on it. If I recall from "Spark of Life", someone actually managed to get a peptide out of a test tube, but I could be mistaken about that.

So, it seems you are 0 for 3. Of course, if you could cough up some experimental evidence, you could raise it to 2 for 3, because you would also demonstrate that I was indeed ignorant about the subject, but I'm guessing you can't do that.

[tdn]

You know, just the HARDEST QUESTION EVER. I'll tell you this very simple answer. I don't know. More importantly, neither do the religious.
And neither do I. But I once heard an explanation that I thought sounded pretty cool.

Particles are blinking in and out of existance all the, um, "time." Normally a matter particle and an anti-matter particle will arrive at the same time, and mutually anihilate. But suppose that in a universe of zero dimensions, zero matter, and zero time, a particle appeared. Tiny as it is, it would have infinite mass and energy, as compared to the null universe it inhabits. Something of infinite mass and energy would have no choice but to expand rapidly.

I don't know how true that is, but I think it's mighty rad that all the glory and wonder of the universe may be due to a divide by zero error.

[tdn]

T'ai Chi
?!? Please explain.
I'll take a guess here that he means that a cell is far more complex than a watch. Being that I'm neither a biologist nor a watchmaker...

Actually, I once built a clock from a kit. The damn thing never did work, but that was due to my own incompetence. But it was fairly simple in its workings. A weight pulls a wheel that moves a gear which moves a gear which moves a gear which moves a hand. And a pendulum moves a cam that regulates the timing of it all.

A cell holds DNA which holds information rivalling most encyclopedias, has the ability to split itself and copy all of that data, and do a bunch more nifty stuff. I'd agree that a cell is more complex by orders of magnitude.

That doesn't, of course, mean that a cellmaker is necessary.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So some of these bibles would vary in some small way. A slight change in nuance or...

Hmm, you know there's something very familiar about all this.

:D

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.

Disagreed. Presumably grayman's brother lives in the US, where the number of atheist representatives in government is equal to zero and Evangelicals are a powerful block vote. Furthermore, the current policies which are secular in nature which have offended him are in the vast minority.

He then says that many who contributed their thoughts would side with Elton John when Sir Elton said that he would ban religion. As it turns out, there is a thread on that very subject, and no one seems to be rushing to condemn Sir Elton, although one or two have suggested that perhaps he shouldn't have gone quite so far. Oh, he also used a derogatory term in his description of Elton John, but again, that's rather subjective. Some are disgusted by the use of such terms, calling them "hate speech". I agree. However, in this particular case, it's hard for me to have sympathy for someone as a victim of hate speech, after he called for banning religion. For him to be the target of hate speech seems in this case more like "Karma" than anything else.

No. A clean statement showing dislike of an abstract concept such as organized religion is not equal to a vulgar filled rant spewing defamatory slurs about an individual and a group of individuals.

He obviously doesn't like the way things are going, and he's quite bitter about it. However, he's right. The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?

The burden of evidence is on him, or you, as you seem to be supporting his assertions. However, did all of the individuals who responded in this thread also respond with an "anti-religion" attitude in the threads specified? No. He was referring to the individuals who posted in this thread, not the general consensus of the Forum, whatever it may be.

[grayman]

Disagreed. Presumably grayman's brother lives in the US, where the number of atheist representatives in government is equal to zero and Evangelicals are a powerful block vote. Furthermore, the current policies which are secular in nature which have offended him are in the vast minority.

Vermont

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Vermont

Ah, figured it would be out East. But Vermont... Blaming the atheist activist judges for ruling in favor of fag marriage and destroying society, perhaps?

:D

[Meadmaker]

Ah, figured it would be out East. But Vermont... Blaming the atheist activist judges for ruling in favor of fag marriage and destroying society, perhaps?

:D
Why the smiley? It seems a reasonable hypothesis. Of course, the destruction of society has gone largely unnoticed by most citizens of Vermont, but grayman's brother brings a perception, evidenced by his words, that is unique.

I don't want to be in a position of defending the guy. I must admit, posts that begin "Damn but you're ignorant" put me in a frame of mind that even extremists on the opposition start to look good.

And that brings me to what I actually find interesting about the topic. Why are so many arguments against ID so unpersuasive? Some will object to that characterization, but it's simply a definition. Many Americans are unpersuaded. The arguments aren't persuading. They are unpersuasive.

You could blame the audience, but I think that's inaccurate. I do not believe that the problem is that people are too stupid or too uneducated to grasp the arguments. I think there is a flaw either in the arguments themselves, or the presentation of the arguments.

Let me end on a related note. Please don't make a mistake that has been made by Ossai and by a few others on JREF when I say that there is a problem with the arguments. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I think ID is true. I don't. As anyone who claims to understand logic must understand, an invalid argument can nevertheless have a true conclusion.

The reason that this is related to why the arguments are so unpersuasive is that it's clear that so many people advancing the arguments want to clearly draw a line between US and THEM. US are logical, rational, people who believe in evolution, and THEM are ignorant, superstitious people who who are creationists. The reality is that there is lots of middle ground there, but the people drawing the line draw it so close to US that they end up classifying everyone else as THEM, and end up saying that everyone who doesn't agree with their arguments must be a creationist. They're wrong, and when they say it, it distracts from any other argument they might make. They also misread their opposition badly.

Grayman began by asking how to counter "The Watchmaker". As we have learned since then, his brother has unique qualities that might make it difficult to create understanding. However, his brother isn't representative of most ID supporters. If this topic interests you, it would by wise to take up the challenge that grayman set, and honestly critique the proposed arguments, and really ask yourself which ones might actually work.

I hope to contribute to that conversation. You have something to look forward to.;)

Or, you could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Why the smiley? It seems a reasonable hypothesis. Of course, the destruction of society has gone largely unnoticed by most citizens of Vermont, but grayman's brother brings a perception, evidenced by his words, that is unique.

I was merely making sure that people do not misunderstand and think that those words reflect upon my opinions.

And that brings me to what I actually find interesting about the topic. Why are so many arguments against ID so unpersuasive? Some will object to that characterization, but it's simply a definition. Many Americans are unpersuaded. The arguments aren't persuading. They are unpersuasive.

You could blame the audience, but I think that's inaccurate. I do not believe that the problem is that people are too stupid or too uneducated to grasp the arguments. I think there is a flaw either in the arguments themselves, or the presentation of the arguments.

One could reach either conclusion, as neither has support. I would disagree with the assertion that since nearly half of Americans are creationists, the arguments refuting ID are unpersuasive. The most likely conclusion, in my opinion, is that many are simply ignorant. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying these people are stupid, I am saying that they have been introduced to strawmen of evolution and nothing more than that (Which was the conclusion gathered from my ID project). Schools do not spend time on the issue in basic Biology classes (At least, not here) and so the parents are typically the source for information. Given this, it would be easy to see why many find ID to be reasonable. Not everyone takes time to research the issues. However, this is merely hypothesizing, and your conclusion may be true as well.

But, in this particular case, the extreme response received would lead one to the conclusion that it is the fault of the brother more so than any argument here.

The reason that this is related to why the arguments are so unpersuasive is that it's clear that so many people advancing the arguments want to clearly draw a line between US and THEM. US are logical, rational, people who believe in evolution, and THEM are ignorant, superstitious people who who are creationists. The reality is that there is lots of middle ground there, but the people drawing the line draw it so close to US that they end up classifying everyone else as THEM, and end up saying that everyone who doesn't agree with their arguments must be a creationist. They're wrong, and when they say it, it distracts from any other argument they might make. They also misread their opposition badly.

My outlook is ME against THE WORLD and it has worked well.

Grayman began by asking how to counter "The Watchmaker". As we have learned since then, his brother has unique qualities that might make it difficult to create understanding. However, his brother isn't representative of most ID supporters. If this topic interests you, it would by wise to take up the challenge that grayman set, and honestly critique the proposed arguments, and really ask yourself which ones might actually work.

There is only one argument, and it has been shown to be invalid and the source has lost all possible honor in the matter. The brother did not reply to anything said in the thread, so it is impossible to go further.

In conclusion, us c@ck sucking fags are much more intelligent that you stupid creationists :p .

[jmercer]

...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.


I doubt it.

Really? Very well then. Here's a brief history of clocks (http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html) for you to peruse; perhaps then you can begin to grasp just how much in the way of physics, metullurgy and other sciences had to be developed before anything resembling a "watch" could be constructed.

A watch is far from simple when you consider what had to be learned and developed before one could be created.

[jmercer]

Strengthen it up then! Cite where quantum physics, the singularity, or whatever it is you want to vaguely appeal to, came from.

A hint: citing "something" and "entirely possible" and "probable" and "may" won't cut it.

Ah, you want a definitive answer. None are available at this time, although there are a number of scientific theories. Pick any one that suits you.

[T'ai Chi]

A watch is far from simple when you consider what had to be learned and developed before one could be created.

It is far from simple. It is not, however, more complex than what is involved with biology, as you are begging it to be.

[T'ai Chi]

Ah, you want a definitive answer. None are available at this time, although there are a number of scientific theories. Pick any one that suits you.

All the ones I've seen simply beg the question of what came before it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

All the ones I've seen simply beg the question of what came before it.

It is hard to see with eyes wide shut. If the Big Bang was the beginning of space and time, then there was nothing before it.

[Apathia]

I remember when the Watchmaker Argument was persuasive to me. Of course I'm loath to say I was stupid then. It was simply that I hadn't seen beyond certain either-ors yet. This one being it was either designed by a conscious intelligence or it could not be. I didn't understand yet that natural processes are more subtle and smarter in a sense than the "tornado in a junk yard" comparison Creationists make.

And lets face it, at the level of education and understanding most people have, the Watchmaker Analogy has intuitive merit. You have to work with them, educate them about concepts such as Emergence, Smart Systems, and even a dash of Chaos Theory, before they can grasp there is an alternative to the anthropomorphic designer. Add to that the other concerns and values people have around believing in a Theistic God, and it's a challenge. Everyday people find confirmation for their Theistic world view in Jack Chick and Watchtower sound bytes.

They reach them where they are, while we need to somehow take them by the hand and lead them to a new way of seeing. An Us vrs. Them doesn't help. I personally resist anyone trying to convert me to anything.

Yeah, I know, since i don't have any answers I should shut up. The best I can say is that we need to listen to individuals in a non judgmental way, understand why they believe what they do, and share our own understanding.

Show them the process. Show how eyes evolved. And if we don't have a robust enough theory of the evolutionary process yet, show them the overwhelming physical evidence that it has and is taking place.

My own Creationism was dependent on ignorance. When I began reading about the fossil record, I had to make some big adjustments to my thinking. Creationists make claims about the fossil record, but if they actually paid attention to it, they would have no argument.

It cones to paying attention again. that's a virtue our society is fast losing.

[RandFan]

I remember when the Watchmaker Argument was persuasive to me. Of course I'm loath to say I was stupid then. It was simply that I hadn't seen beyond certain either-ors yet. This one being it was either designed by a conscious intelligence or it could not be. I didn't understand yet that natural processes are more subtle and smarter in a sense than the "tornado in a junk yard" comparison Creationists make.

And lets face it, at the level of education and understanding most people have, the Watchmaker Analogy has intuitive merit. You have to work with them, educate them about concepts such as Emergence, Smart Systems, and even a dash of Chaos Theory, before they can grasp there is an alternative to the anthropomorphic designer. Add to that the other concerns and values people have around believing in a Theistic God, and it's a challenge. Everyday people find confirmation for their Theistic world view in Jack Chick and Watchtower sound bytes.

They reach them where they are, while we need to somehow take them by the hand and lead them to a new way of seeing. An Us vrs. Them doesn't help. I personally resist anyone trying to convert me to anything.

Yeah, I know, since i don't have any answers I should shut up. The best I can say is that we need to listen to individuals in a non judgmental way, understand why they believe what they do, and share our own understanding.

Show them the process. Show how eyes evolved. And if we don't have a robust enough theory of the evolutionary process yet, show them the overwhelming physical evidence that it has and is taking place.

My own Creationism was dependent on ignorance. When I began reading about the fossil record, I had to make some big adjustments to my thinking. Creationists make claims about the fossil record, but if they actually paid attention to it, they would have no argument.

It cones to paying attention again. that's a virtue our society is fast losing. I used to be an ID proponent. One of the things that contributed to my becoming an atheist and Darwinist was a meeting I had with a very decent chap who also happened to be an atheist. He was very smart and listened, really listened to what I had to say and then gave me some things to think about. I was receptive because he wasn't arrogant and rude.

I wish I was more like that.

[AmateurScientist]

I used to be an ID proponent. One of the things that contributed to my becoming an atheist and Darwinist was a meeting I had with a very decent chap who also happened to be an atheist. He was very smart and listened, really listened to what I had to say and then gave me some things to think about. I was receptive because he wasn't arrogant and rude.

I wish I was more like that.

That's cool. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with accepting that we're not all good teachers. You don't need to beat yourself up over that.

AS

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Your first assertion: "you're ignorant". Ignorance is relative. I'm quite confident I know more about the subject than darned near anyone who hasn't studied it at the college level. I thought about it, and I've only read five books I can think of on the specific subject of evolution. That's no great quantity, but it's five more than most Americans. You do realize that biology at the high school and casual reading level doesn’t really qualify as ‘knowledgeable’. I’m not saying your not more familiar with it that the average person on the street. But, when your appeal to authority is to yourself, it’s only as good as a WAG.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point for me. You are ignorant of biology.

Your second assertion: "you're a creationist". No, I am not. I'm not even an ID advocate. I have said, repeatedly in other threads, that ID is wrong, but not stupid. Not everyone agrees with that last part. Funny that, your earlier posts and a number of your later posts indicate that you’re a Christian fundamentalist, at least to an large extent. If you’ve changed since then, it hasn’t been apparent.

Your third assertion: "We do have experimental evidence." If you can point to the experimental evidence we have of cell formation from a mixture of chemicals, I would love to see it. We have the Miller-Urey(sp?) experiment, and a few slight variations on it. If I recall from "Spark of Life", someone actually managed to get a peptide out of a test tube, but I could be mistaken about that. So the only experimental information you have is four decades old. And you say you’re up on biology?

I also noticed you’ve still avoided responding to, what I take, as the primary response to you in my last post.
He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct. Based on what?
The vast political power atheists hold.
The fact that a politician can not be elected in the US without declaring their atheism.
The atheist only business directories.
The large number of businesses that promote based on a person’s lack of faith.
The atheists outposts (churches) that dot the American landscape.
The door to door atheist campaigns.
The exclusive atheists clubs.
The atheist after school programs, that may or may not be publicly funded.
The Boy Scouts of America forcibly removing anyone that proclaims a religious belief.



tdn
I'll take a guess here that he means that a cell is far more complex than a watch. Being that I'm neither a biologist nor a watchmaker... Probably, but then that is just a strawman, because what jmercer actually wrote was
...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

Ossai

[Foster Zygote]

All the ones I've seen simply beg the question of what came before it.

How does 'God' not beg the same question? What came before God?

[jmercer]

It is far from simple. It is not, however, more complex than what is involved with biology, as you are begging it to be.

Well, let's examine this a bit closer.

Watches require:

1) Evolution from a single primitive cell species to complex, multi-celled, conscious and thinking tool-using beings over millions of years.
2) Complex, multi-celled, conscious and thinking tool-using beings to determine and document the physics and physical principles required to create a watch over centuries of effort.
3) Complex, multi-celled, conscious and thinking tool-using beings to develop metallurgical materials suitable for watchmaking over centuries of effort.
4) Complex, multi-celled, conscious and thinking tool-using beings to develop tools over multiple years suitable for watchmaking.
5) Complex, multi-celled, conscious and thinking tool-using beings to design a working watch.
6) Complex, multi-celled, conscious and thinking tool-using beings to create the watch.

The most primitive cells (discounting viruses) require:

1) The right environment, including proper chemistry, temperature and other circumstances.
2) An enormous amount of time for the above to succeed in generating the most basic form of life.

Oh. Wait a minute.

So, making a watch requires the single cell to evolve into a complex organism that can create the watch? Gee, that would make the single cell an early, simpler part of the process, wouldn't it?

So, while the mechanism of a watch may be simpler than the mechanism in a single cell, the complexity comes into play from all of the circumstances required to create a watch versus a single cell. Hence the "Watchmaker' scenario is essentially a strawman for Intelligent Design.

[Lothian]

How does 'God' not beg the same question? What came before God?I am reliably informed that god comes under a different set of rules and therefore did not need a predecessor or a designer.

I didn’t clarify but I presume that god comes under different rules because she is imaginary and not real.

[KingMerv00]

How does 'God' not beg the same question? What came before God?

I think Tai is having serious problems not knowing how the universe began. He simply NEEDS God to terminate infinite regress, he won't let it go.

[jmercer]

I think Tai is having serious problems not knowing how the universe began. He simply NEEDS God to terminate infinite regress, he won't let it go.

Agreed. :)

[Apathia]

I propose the Scissors-Rock-Paper Model of the Universe, self contained, no regress or ultimate cause necessary.
(Scissors cuts paper, rock breaks scissors, but paper covers rock.)

[Meadmaker]

Funny that, your earlier posts and a number of your later posts indicate that you’re a Christian fundamentalist, at least to an large extent. If you’ve changed since then, it hasn’t been apparent.


Funny, and in fact, extremely funny. 22 years ago, I was a Catholic, but I've never been a Christian since. I have attended Unitarian churches and Buddhist temples. I am currently a member of a Reform Jewish synagogue, and I participate in Jewish ritual both there and in my home. I'm also an atheist, although I sometimes describe myself as either an agnostic or a pantheist, depending on context.

I have defended, and will continue to defend, religious people and ideas. From that, you and a few others have concluded that I must be religious myself. You're wrong. (But you did inspire my sig.)



So the only experimental information you have is four decades old. And you say you’re up on biology?


When it comes to the question of the formation of the first cells from pre-biotic components, there is no new experimental data. It just doesn't exist. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as it turns out, I'm not.

You're still 0 for 3, although the ignorance is debatable. However, the specific question that led to the charge of ignorance was relating to experimental evidence of cell formation. I am indeed ignorant of any such experimental evidence, but I believe that is caused by the fact that there is no such evidence.

Facts would help your case. Do you have any?

I also noticed you’ve still avoided responding to, what I take, as the primary response to you in my last post.

Two things: First, the atheists have been very much involved in the secularist agenda very apparent in the United States. Second, last I checked, Europe was part of the world.

[Meadmaker]

Randfan cited himself as an example of someone who was persuaded against ID, and in so doing provided valuable insight into what makes a persuasive argument. He noted that the important thing is that the person who persuaded him took him seriously, listened, and made him think. That's really the key, isn't it?

Hyparxis noted that there is a lot of background knowledge required to really understand evolution. That would appear to be an obstacle to persuading uneducated people, and it is, but I don't think it's an insurmountable obstacle. Perhaps more on that later. For now, I think the important element of that observation is that you shouldn't think that evolution is obviously correct, or that anyone who doesn't buy into it must be some sort of uneducated hick. Really, it's hard stuff. The question is whether it can be simplified to the point of making someone understanding it without a degree in biology or mathematics.

With that said, I want to go back and analyze some attempts to counter "The Watchmaker". I'll start at the beginning.

You could begin by pointing out that watches don't tend to reproduce themselves, which makes them a piss-poor analogy for evolution.

This argument seems to me to fall into a couple of traps. First, it might not be obvious that the reproduction is a key difference between the watch and the cell. It is, because evolution allows something that starts out as simple to produce slightly imperfect copies of itself, and those copies may be more complex than the original. So, this isn't truly a flaw in the argument, but it might appear so.

The real problem is that the reproduction requires a level of complexity itself. The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell. Behe's "contribution" to ID literature was noting that even at the cellular level, life is incredibly complex. That was the theme of "Darwin's Black Box". So, this argument is basically saying that reproduction allows something that is not much like a watch to evolve into something that has the complexity of a watch.

Unfortunately, to make the argument work, you would have to have something that isn't nearly as complex as a watch, but is capable of reproduction. To the best of my knowledge, you can't come up with such a system using today's knowledge of biology. As a result, all this argument does is move you to the simplest reproducing cell, and "The Watchmaker" says that the cell is still very much like a watch. Therefore, there's no refutation here.

A noble effort, but ultimately ineffective. Also, the vulgarity is all well and good among friends, but let Randfan's conversion serve as a warning. Anything that makes your contempt obvious turns off a potential convert.

[KingMerv00]

Unfortunately, to make the argument work, you would have to have something that isn't nearly as complex as a watch, but is capable of reproduction. To the best of my knowledge, you can't come up with such a system using today's knowledge of biology. As a result, all this argument does is move you to the simplest reproducing cell, and "The Watchmaker" says that the cell is still very much like a watch. Therefore, there's no refutation here.

What about prions? I don't think we have the ability to make prions in a lab but that is only a limitation of technology.

[Correa Neto]

I can't help but think the "you can't make a bacteria at a lab" argument is flawed, ingorant and in some cases used dishonestly.

The IDer or creationist who raises this line wants us, with the limitations of our current technology, to make a living organism out of chemicals, but they conveniently ignore the fact that it took a lot of time through trial-and-errors for the chemical soup to become something that could be called a simple living unicellular creature. The whole proccess probably took some tens or hundreds of millions of years!

I guess that even if we could simulate the process at some übersupercomputer, the IDer would say "oh, its just a simulation, its not true" or "see? You designed it"...

And even if we could manufacture a critter out of chemicals, they would just say we can't build the atoms that compose the chemicals or make some sort of Frankoid appeal to TLOP.

Bottomline: some die-hard believers will never give up.

[Foster Zygote]

I can't help but think the "you can't make a bacteria at a lab" argument is flawed, ingorant and in some cases used dishonestly.

The IDer or creationist who raises this line wants us, with the limitations of our current technology, to make a living organism out of chemicals, but they conveniently ignore the fact that it took a lot of time through trial-and-errors for the chemical soup to become something that could be called a simple living unicellular creature. The whole proccess probably took some tens or hundreds of millions of years!

I guess that even if we could simulate the process at some übersupercomputer, the IDer would say "oh, its just a simulation, its not true" or "see? You designed it"...

And even if we could manufacture a critter out of chemicals, they would just say we can't build the atoms that compose the chemicals or make some sort of Frankoid appeal to TLOP.

Bottomline: some die-hard believers will never give up.

They also ignore the fact that the first "organisms" were no doubt simply molecules that could make copies of themselves. Cells came much later.

[Meadmaker]

What about prions? I don't think we have the ability to make prions in a lab but that is only a limitation of technology.


Can't say I know much about prions, but they need a host system to reproduce, don't they? Like viruses. That's why I didn't include them, because the entire system of virus+host is still as complex as a watch.

On the other hand, this is a good approach. ID is an argument from ignorance. It says, "We can't see how it happened by itself, so there must have been a designer at work." At the present time, the first part can't be contradicted. We really don't know how it happened by itself. A really lousy argument is to say, "There is no God so it must have happened naturally." Not very convincing. On the other hand, one could say "We don't know how it happened, but we have many candidates for testing. One of them might work." The more possibilities that can't be dismissed easily, the more likely someone might say that perhaps there is some other way than design.

[Meadmaker]

I can't help but think the "you can't make a bacteria at a lab" argument is flawed, ingorant and in some cases used dishonestly.

They're saying, "I'll believe it when I see it."

They're very selective in applying skepticism, but they are applying skepticism.

Bottomline: some die-hard believers will never give up.

Undoubtedly. However, that doesn't bother me. I just want to get enough that they can't win the election.

[KingMerv00]

I think the issue here is one of parsimony.

We have seen nature generate "impossible" things before. Things that seemed absolutely designed. We shouldn't act too surprised when we find out life is just another one of those things.

Throwing in an intelligent designer is adding to the problem, not subtracting.

[Lothian]

I can't help but think the "you can't make a bacteria at a lab" argument is flawed, ingorant and in some cases used dishonestly.
Indeed you can’t predict this weeks lottery numbers in a lab either, but someone somewhere will.

As you say the process took 100’s of millions of years. I would add to that and say it took 100’s of millions of years on a billion planets. The ‘labs’ on Mars and Venus haven’t done it yet.

We only needed one to strike lucky, and naturally it is only someone that has struck lucky that can ponder how lucky they were, but like the lottery,someone somewhere was going to win.

[Meadmaker]

Indeed you can’t predict this weeks lottery numbers in a lab either, but someone somewhere will.

As you say the process took 100’s of millions of years. I would add to that and say it took 100’s of millions of years on a billion planets. The ‘labs’ on Mars and Venus haven’t done it yet.

We only needed one to strike lucky, and naturally it is only someone that has struck lucky that can ponder how lucky they were, but like the lottery,someone somewhere was going to win.

This whole line of argument makes perfect sense....if there is no God.

How do we know that we "struck it lucky"? We know it because we are here, so we must have struck it lucky. Unfortunately, that isn't a valid argument. It isn't valid, because it assumes that God didn't stir the pot and force it to happen. Maybe we struck it lucky, or maybe it was part of a divine plan.

The ID movement wants to claim that we could not have struck it lucky, because it is so incredibly, amazingly, lucky that it simply couldn't have happened by luck alone. Our job is to convince them that it could have.

We could say, "They are making the claim. The burden of proof is on them." Fine. You'd get points in logic class, but in the meantime, they get to vote. Worse yet, their claim seems quite plausible to a lot of people, and those people get to vote as well. The burden of proof is actually on the person who wants to win the argument.

[Lothian]

This whole line of argument makes perfect sense....if there is no God.

How do we know that we "struck it lucky"? We know it because we are here, so we must have struck it lucky. Unfortunately, that isn't a valid argument. It isn't valid, because it assumes that God didn't stir the pot and force it to happen. Maybe we struck it lucky, or maybe it was part of a divine plan.
I can live with the choice between us striking it lucky and a Deist God fiddling with the numbers so we struck it lucky. Although I don’t see it as a 50:50 probability. The extra compilation in the second example makes it far less likely

That is not the ID claim however. They can not understand the numbers so default to an argument from ignorance; however I agree their simplistic view; god finished it (as opposed to the Deist God started it) is appealing to those with similar innumeracy.

While the burden of proof is undoubtedly on the ID crowd, the burden of persuading the pubic is on us. To do that we have a choice, dumb down our arguments or intellect up the audience. The last option is slower but it is surely the right one.

[Meadmaker]

I don't think they have to be "dumbed down". Indeed, in some cases, they have to be smartened up, because some of the common arguments aren't very good.

Also, while many disagree with me, I don't think the audience is dumb, so smartening up our audience is not necessary, in my opinion.

I think part of a very good argument would be to make sure it's understood that evolution and religion aren't incompatible. I once saw an article, I think it was in Skeptical Inquirer, about debates between evolution and creation. The folks at ICR were staging them in the '80s, and the article was asking if it was wise to participate. The audience was never evolution friendly, and the scientist representing evolution frequently ended up looking bad. The writer of the article was saying that the venue just wasn't fair to the scientist.

I thought that was really, really, wimpy. Cowardly. A cop out. I wondered how I would try and participate in such a debate, and I decided my opening line in my opening statement would be "The heavens are telling the glory of God." (It's from psalms, and has been used as a moderately popular hymn.) Then, go on to explain to the audience that if you want to know more about God, you should look to His creation. And what does His creation tell us?

At that point, the arguments get a bit trickier, and there might be some dispute, but it tells us that it's really, really, old. And, it tells us it evolved.

That was addressing creationism, which is not ID, but that was a different era. The important thing was that I thought it would get the audience thinking in their terms. Sure, you wouldn't leave with a bunch of converts, and there would be some who thought you were Satan incarnate for twisting the Holy Bible that way. However, if you did it right, you would leave with one in ten willing to listen. That's a darned sight better than Dawkins usually does.

[Meadmaker]

That is not the ID claim however. They can not understand the numbers so default to an argument from ignorance; however I agree their simplistic view; god finished it (as opposed to the Deist God started it) is appealing to those with similar innumeracy.


I don't think it's fair to cite innumeracy. We don't have the numbers. "Millions of years" is not a number.

What we have is that the development of life was highly improbable, but we had so many chances that (at least) one got lucky. Until we can quantify "highly improbable" and "so many chances", we don't have numbers.

[elaine]

How about pointing to good scientists who are christian and accept evolution, such as Francis Collins.

[Apathia]

How about pointing to good scientists who are christian and accept evolution, such as Francis Collins.

Yes, there's is a polarization created by fundamentalists and the media to the effect that Christianity is on one side and evolution is on the other. There are millions of Christians who can't be so pigeon holed.

[Meadmaker]

How about pointing to good scientists who are christian and accept evolution, such as Francis Collins.

I think that needs to be a part of any argument. On a related note, that's why I brought up Michael Behe. He's a main promoter of Intelligent Design, and he believes in evolution.

Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually.

[elaine]

I think that needs to be a part of any argument. On a related note, that's why I brought up Michael Behe. He's a main promoter of Intelligent Design, and he believes in evolution.

Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually.


At least with the those who are not thoroughly convinced that the evidence for evolution is planted by Satan. ;)

[Lothian]

I think part of a very good argument would be to make sure it's understood that evolution and religion aren't incompatibleI once saw an article, I think it was in Skeptical Inquirer, about debates between evolution and creation. The folks at ICR were staging them in the '80s, and the article was asking if it was wise to participate. The audience was never evolution friendly, and the scientist representing evolution frequently ended up looking bad. The writer of the article was saying that the venue just wasn't fair to the scientist.

I thought that was really, really, wimpy. Cowardly. A cop out. I wondered how I would try and participate in such a debate, and I decided my opening line in my opening statement would be "The heavens are telling the glory of God." (It's from psalms, and has been used as a moderately popular hymn.) Then, go on to explain to the audience that if you want to know more about God, you should look to His creation. And what does His creation tell us? 'His creation' tells us that that there are natural explainations for the things he takes credit for. It tells us that a simpler more realistic model of the universe does not have a god in it.
The important thing was that I thought it would get the audience thinking in their terms. Sure, you wouldn't leave with a bunch of converts, and there would be some who thought you were Satan incarnate for twisting the Holy Bible that way. However, if you did it right, you would leave with one in ten willing to listen. That's a darned sight better than Dawkins usually does.Yes you could meet them half way. "Look when I drop this ball it falls to the floor. We call it gravity. God makes it happen." When we are talking science we can not bring in the supernatural and unprovable.
'Faith' is not a scientific answer. What we need to do is to make people understand and accept the scientific evidence, where it exists. If the religious then want to build a god of the gaps they can. Science however can never accept that gods fills gaps with out evidence. We don't know how the big bang started. It might have been god. However, the flying spaghetti monster has just as much supporting evidence.

Dawkins is right science and faith don’t mix. If we try to mix them we weaken science. I am sure that evolution would be more popular if science included an [insert your own preferred deity here] in the theory but that is no longer science.

I don't think it's fair to cite innumeracy. We don't have the numbers. "Millions of years" is not a number.

What we have is that the development of life was highly improbable, but we had so many chances that (at least) one got lucky. Until we can quantify "highly improbable" and "so many chances", we don't have numbers.What we have is people who in respect of the origins of life mistake a fantastically small chance multiplied by billions of opportunities with no chance. In reality the odds in first calculation are quite high as our existence demonstrates.
Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually. Science is a threat to any religions whose revealed truths are contradicted by the evidence. Evolution is a massive threat to the Christianity of the 1800’s. It is not a threat to Catholicism today who I understand accept it (unless Benny has changed his mind again).

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
You're still 0 for 3, OK, so you can’t count either.

although the ignorance is debatable. Not really, you’ve more that qualified yourself as ignorant of the subject.

However, the specific question that led to the charge of ignorance was relating to experimental evidence of cell formation. I am indeed ignorant of any such experimental evidence, but I believe that is caused by the fact that there is no such evidence.

Facts would help your case. Do you have any? Yep, tons in fact. But since you claim to be so knowledge of biology, you won’t need my help in researching them will you? For a quick reference try Talk Origins. We don’t know everything but research as been and is still ongoing.

Two things: First, the atheists have been very much involved in the secularist agenda very apparent in the United States. What secularist agenda would that be?

Second, last I checked, Europe was part of the world. Why you must be referring to those atheist riots in Europe set off by those Danish cartoons.

The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell. Wrong again.

Ossai

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, there's is a polarization created by fundamentalists and the media to the effect that Christianity is on one side and evolution is on the other. There are millions of Christians who can't be so pigeon holed.

Jimmy Carter for example. He is a devout evangelical who fully accepts the theory of evolution and strongly supports the separation of church and state.

[Foster Zygote]

At least with the those who are not thoroughly convinced that the evidence for evolution is planted by Satan. ;)

Oh come on! Everyone knows that fossils were buried by the Jews in 1926.:D

[Meadmaker]

The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell.


Wrong again.

Ossai

I'm all ears. What's simpler?

I know viruses are simpler, but they need a host. The host+virus is more complex. I believe the aforementioned prions need a host as well. DNA and RNA replicate, but only in very elaborate conditions, such as inside cells. Dawkins speaks of replicators, but the Holy Grail of the current search for the origin of life is to find one simple enough that it could have arisen from something other than another replicator. Where did the first replicator come from?

A quick google search revealed papers like this one:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1083737



EMBO Rep. 2000 September 15; 1(3): 217–222.
doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kvd063.
Copyright © 2000 European Molecular Biology Organization

Composing life
Daniel Segré and Doron Lanceta

Department of Molecular Genetics and The Crown Human Genome Center, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

Received June 15, 2000; Revised July 28, 2000; Accepted August 4, 2000.

Abstract:

Textbooks often assert that life began with specialized complex molecules, such as RNA, that are capable of making their own copies. This scenario has serious difficulties, but an alternative has remained elusive. Recent research and computer simulations have suggested that the first steps toward life may not have involved biopolymers. Rather, non-covalent protocellular assemblies, generated by catalyzed recruitment of diverse amphiphilic and hydrophobic compounds, could have constituted the first systems capable of information storage, inheritance and selection. A complex chain of evolutionary events, yet to be deciphered, could then have led to the common ancestors of today’s free-living cells, and to the appearance of DNA, RNA and protein enzymes.

As long as that alternative remains elusive, and the complex chain of evolutionary events have yet to be deciphered, I will stand by my assertion that there is no experimental evidence of the original cell formation.

So, sorry Ossai, you made three assertions. I am ignorant. I am a creationist. And we have tons of evidence.

You're still 0 for 3, although the first assertion would be true to some extent for everyone. After all, we are all ignorant to some extent, as I'm sure you would agree. On second thought, I'm not sure you would agree, but it's true nonetheless.


Here's one tip for anyone trying to argue against "The Watchmaker" effectively. Don't overstate your own knowledge, and since the knowledge of the biological community itself is fairly limited, don't claim that scientists know how those "watches" were assembled. They don't know that, and if you say they do, you look foolish.

In the end, anything short of experimental demonstrations will be unconvincing. Instead, you have to focus on the possibility that someday, science will find the answer. In reality, biogenesis is no more than an hypothesis, awaiting experimental confirmation. Even evolution has limits in what you can absolutely claim. Yes, it's a confirmed theory, but be cautious claiming more knowledge than you have. It's an area of study still in its infancy.

ETA: I read the paper I linked. Cool stuff. Check out Polymer Gard and the Lipid World, if you're into the biochemical origins of life, and not afraid of some big words.

[Megalodon]

I'm all ears. What's simpler?


Ice cristals...

[Meadmaker]

Ice cristals... I thought about crystals, but in context, I think it was clear that crystals don't fit the bill as self-replicating molecules.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
So, sorry Ossai, you made three assertions. I am ignorant. I am a creationist. And we have tons of evidence.
1. You’re still ignorant.
2. Whether or not you are currently a creationist, you’ve argued that side in the past.
3. I told you where to look, at least a good starting point. Apparently you didn’t even bother. Go have fun in your ignorance.

Ossai

[Megalodon]

I thought about crystals, but in context, I think it was clear that crystals don't fit the bill as self-replicating molecules.

The context I replied to was:

The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell.

Other than that, there are a number of self-replicating peptides. I will not go deep into their properties, since is far from my field of expertise.

But I should say that I agree that we should not over-stress the knowledge we have from the origins of life, since we're lacking to much of it.

On the other hand, I'm sure you'll agree that even the current incomplete status of science beats the "goddidit" hypothesis...

[Meadmaker]

On the other hand, I'm sure you'll agree that even the current incomplete status of science beats the "goddidit" hypothesis...

As a scientific hypothesis, certainly, because of course "godidit" isn't a scientific hypothesis, nor does it claim to be.

ID makes a slightly different claim, and asserts it as a hypothesis. Its claim is "Godhaddadoit". (God had to do it.) It's easy to refute that the hypothesis has been confirmed, but it's much harder to refute the hypothesis itself.

In different terms, the argument for ID is basically:

1. The probability of life arising by natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)
2. Therefore, supernatural phenomena were involved.

Step 1 is the hypothesis.

You can demonstrate that they haven't proved that the probability is really 0. However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.

[Megalodon]

However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.

I disagree with that. From the moment you show that self-replication does not require "life", the probability of "life" arising is different from 0. I would go as far as to say that, given enough time and resources, the probability equals 1.

[Tricky]

As a scientific hypothesis, certainly, because of course "godidit" isn't a scientific hypothesis, nor does it claim to be.

ID makes a slightly different claim, and asserts it as a hypothesis. Its claim is "Godhaddadoit". (God had to do it.) It's easy to refute that the hypothesis has been confirmed, but it's much harder to refute the hypothesis itself.

Not exactly. In order to make that hypothesis a valid one, a comphrehensive definition and description of "God" is required so that we will know what it is that did it. Since most religious people, including yourself IIRC, say "God is beyond our knowledge", the hypothesis resolves to "some unknown supernatural phenomenon did it".

In different terms, the argument for ID is basically:

1. The probability of life arising by natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)
2. Therefore, supernatural phenomena were involved.

Step 1 is the hypothesis.

You can demonstrate that they haven't proved that the probability is really 0. However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.
I disagree. Again, since we don't have full universal knowledge, argument 1 must be amended to:

1. The probability of life arising by known natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)

And you could also say:
The probability of life arising by known supernatural phenomena is also 0. (since zero supernatural phenomena are known at this time).

So once again, we come down to saying that the the question of origins is unknown. Either unknown natural phenomena, or unknown supernatural phenomena.

But of course, more and more natural phenomena are becoming known, so the probabilities of life arising by natural phenomena is constantly increasing. By contrast, the number of supernatural phenomena becoming known is holding steady at zero. So you can see which way the answer is trending. Of course, discovery of a single supernatural phenomenon could change this trend dramatically.

[Foster Zygote]

Not exactly. In order to make that hypothesis a valid one, a comphrehensive definition and description of "God" is required so that we will know what it is that did it. Since most religious people, including yourself IIRC, say "God is beyond our knowledge", the hypothesis resolves to "some unknown supernatural phenomenon did it".


I disagree. Again, since we don't have full universal knowledge, argument 1 must be amended to:

1. The probability of life arising by known natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)

And you could also say:
The probability of life arising by known supernatural phenomena is also 0. (since zero supernatural phenomena are known at this time).

So once again, we come down to saying that the the question of origins is unknown. Either unknown natural phenomena, or unknown supernatural phenomena.

But of course, more and more natural phenomena are becoming known, so the probabilities of life arising by natural phenomena is constantly increasing. By contrast, the number of supernatural phenomena becoming known is holding steady at zero. So you can see which way the answer is trending. Of course, discovery of a single supernatural phenomenon could change this trend dramatically.

Nominated.

I'm sure you aren't the first person ever to make this point but you've stated it so clearly and economically that I must applaud you. I can't wait to use this argument myself.:)

[Tricky]

Nominated.

I'm sure you aren't the first person ever to make this point but you've stated it so clearly and economically that I must applaud you. I can't wait to use this argument myself.:)
A nomination? (sniff) I don't know what to say. Thank you to all the people who made this possible, especially you, AdoptedEmbryo and you, Meadmaker.
:cry1

[Meadmaker]

A nomination? (sniff) I don't know what to say. Thank you to all the people who made this possible, especially you, AdoptedEmbryo and you, Meadmaker.
:cry1

Now we have a real fight on our hands. I'm on the nominee list this month, too.
:catfight:

FWIW, your argument is extremely logical, and correct in all its particulars, but is it persuasive? The problem is that it depends on acceptance of one your premises, which is that there are zero known supernatural phenomena.

No known supernatural phenomena? What about the resurrection of Jesus?:jaw-dropp


(For the slow-witten in the audience, I'm not a Christian and don't actually believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I'm just pointing out that Tricky's argument, as well spoken as it is, asserts that there are no miracles, so it's a non starter for persuading anyone who might be inclined to believe "The Watchmaker".)

[Tricky]

Now we have a real fight on our hands. I'm on the nominee list this month, too.
:catfight:
Well, I hope we both make it to the semis. HawkOne is the man to bribe. You are at a disadvantage though because your views are a minority here. Not fair, but hey, that's life.

But frankly, I look at the nominees this month and I'm afraid we're both toast.:flamed:

FWIW, your argument is extremely logical, and correct in all its particulars, but is it persuasive? The problem is that it depends on acceptance of one your premises, which is that there are zero known supernatural phenomena.

No known supernatural phenomena? What about the resurrection of Jesus?:jaw-dropp What about it? Is it known? I have no evidence of it other than a book which pretty much assumes the truth of it. I have equal evidence for the gods in the Iliad.

(For the slow-witten in the audience, I'm not a Christian and don't actually believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I'm just pointing out that Tricky's argument, as well spoken as it is, asserts that there are no miracles, so it's a non starter for persuading anyone who might be inclined to believe "The Watchmaker".)
I think that I asserted that there are no "known" miracles. Lots of "claimed" ones, of course. In every case that I have ever seen where good data on the "miracle" was available, a mundane explanation has been shown to be better than supernatural ones. But I agree that anyone who is inclined to believe "The Watchmaker" is not likely to be convinced by me. Or anyone. Or anything.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually. How is evolution (or any knowledge really) not a threat to religious belief? Those chrisitian sects that aren’t threaten have usually declared a god of the gaps and then quit looking at the gaps, or require a needless addition.

To put it another way, god is knowledge growth inhibiter. Once a <any> religion has posited god as an answer, anything that doesn’t agree with it is fought, belittled, or if lucky, ignored.

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker
How is evolution (or any knowledge really) not a threat to religious belief?

Lots of Christians, including a few ID supporters, believe in evolution. It doesn't seem to be a threat to their belief.

[Apathia]

Meadmaker
How is evolution (or any knowledge really) not a threat to religious belief? Those chrisitian sects that aren’t threaten have usually declared a god of the gaps and then quit looking at the gaps, or require a needless addition.

There are what you would consider unlikely creatures about, lots of them, who are Christian Deists or Christian Pantheists, or Christian Non-Theists who don't have a God of The Gaps, but a God of the Whole.
Every advancement in Science thrills them as an encounter with the Divine Nature. Evolution doesn't cause them to stumble. Science is welcome because it has refined their faith and helped free it of addictive superstitions.

But they don't get much press. Their Faith is a quiet, tolerant conviction, as opposed to the noisy display of the Fundamentalists. And the press likes controversy and the sensational. Once in a while you'll get a story on a Christian who is also an evolutionary researcher. But more often its news about controversy in Kansas.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Lots of Christians, including a few ID supporters, believe in evolution. It doesn't seem to be a threat to their belief. Currently, look at the past. Knowledge of evolution has been around for over a century and a half and some of the religious sects have adapted. Look at the historical accounts when knowledge of evolution was in it infancy.


Hyparxis
There are what you would consider unlikely creatures about, lots of them, who are Christian Deists or Christian Pantheists, or Christian Non-Theists who don't have a God of The Gaps, but a God of the Whole.
Every advancement in Science thrills them as an encounter with the Divine Nature. Evolution doesn't cause them to stumble. Science is welcome because it has refined their faith and helped free it of addictive superstitions. What sect(s) would that be exactly? It sounds more like personal conviction than anything taught as a basis for Christianity.

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

What sect(s) would that be exactly?


Certainly Catholics, but I'll bet there are others. (Although Catholics are not deists, pantheists, or nontheists. The rest of the description fits them quite well.)

[Meadmaker]

Of course the proof of any theory is in the results of the experiments. So, I would like to try out my ideas.

Does anyone know of a good counterpart to JREF on the "other side". It should be a place to discuss intelligent design, dominated by believers, but tolerant of respectful unbelievers (like me).

In google searching, the boards I found usually excluded unbelievers entirely, or ended up with unbelievers dominating the discussion with tons of threads that were of the form..."And another thing. What about ....?"

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Certainly Catholics, but I'll bet there are others. (Although Catholics are not deists, pantheists, or nontheists. The rest of the description fits them quite well.)
Apparently you missed the first part of my last post.
Currently, look at the past. Knowledge of evolution has been around for over a century and a half and some of the religious sects have adapted. Look at the historical accounts when knowledge of evolution was in it infancy.
Catholicism got smacked upside the head with reality and lightly embraced biology to not be left too far behind.

Again what sect didn’t repress in some manner new scientific knowledge that threatened their status.

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

Again what sect didn’t repress in some manner new scientific knowledge that threatened their status.

There was that incident with Galileo, but since then, the RCC has been pretty cool with science, including Darwin.

A couple of popes have issued statements relating to evolution that have stated it was an as yet unproven theory, but at the time they issued the statements, that was true. Furthermore, that wasn't the focus of the papal statements. The focus was that you shouldn't infer theological notions about the role of God in the universe from a scientific theory about the mechanism used by God to create the universe. JPII embraced evolution, and several high ranking officials of the church have attacked intelligent design.

If you could convince ID believers to become Catholics, you would be almost to where you wanted to be. They would be able to accept Jesus, and evolution. Unless, of course, your real goal wasn't to get them to accept evolution. If your real goal was to get them to reject Jesus, you'd still be out of luck, but that wouldn't be a scientific goal.

[Ossai]

If you could convince ID believers to become Catholics, you would be almost to where you wanted to be. So you haven’t been keeping up with pope b and his ID leanings.

[Art Vandelay]

This is just another piece of evidence that creationists are dishonest and not interested in having a real discussion of the issue. No evolution claims that cells just fell together ex nihilo.

Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?I would say it's more of an opposition than hostility.

but grayman's brother brings a perception, evidenced by his words, that is unique.Actually, his bigotry is quite common.

And that brings me to what I actually find interesting about the topic. Why are so many arguments against ID so unpersuasive? Some will object to that characterization, but it's simply a definition. Many Americans are unpersuaded. The arguments aren't persuading. They are unpersuasive.So if I am not entertained by the sixth season of 24, would you ask why the show is not entertaining?

You could blame the audience, but I think that's inaccurate. I do not believe that the problem is that people are too stupid or too uneducated to grasp the arguments. I think there is a flaw either in the arguments themselves, or the presentation of the arguments.Are those mutually exclusive? I would say that the problem largely is that people are too unintelligent, uneducated, close-minded, and intellectually lazy and dishonest, AND that the arguments are flawed in that they often fail to address these factors.

Anyone who does not believe in evolution is uneducated. There's simply no way anyone can understand evolution and not believe in it. Note that I draw a distinction between evolution as a process, and evolution as an explantion. One can dispute whether particular phenomena are the result of evolution, but not evolution itself, must as one can dispute whether OJ knifed his ex-wife to death, but no one in their right mind can dispute that knives exist.

As we have learned since then, his brother has unique qualities that might make it difficult to create understanding. However, his brother isn't representative of most ID supporters. I disagree.

If this topic interests you, it would by wise to take up the challenge that grayman set, and honestly critique the proposed arguments, and really ask yourself which ones might actually work. None of them will work. People like grayman's brother can't be reasoned with. You might as well ask what argument will keep a rabid dog from biting you.

Or, you could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.This particular person who disagrees with me is. Along with bigoted, vile, and completely undeserving of any respect. He as much as said that he hopes to see me dead, and the feeling is mutual.

I am reliably informed that god comes under a different set of rules and therefore did not need a predecessor or a designer. To clarify, here are the rules: if you try to include the God hypothesis in your scientific investigations, that is not allowed, because God is supernatural and therefore not within the realm of things that can be rationally investigating. If you do not include the God hypothesis in your scientific investigations, that's not allowed either, as that is preemptively disallowing the possibility of supernatural explanations. The only allowed course of action is to skip the scientific investigation in the first place and just swallow whole everything your pastor tells you.

Randfan cited himself as an example of someone who was persuaded against ID, and in so doing provided valuable insight into what makes a persuasive argument. He noted that the important thing is that the person who persuaded him took him seriously, listened, and made him think. That's really the key, isn't it?No, the key is that HE was willing to listen.

For now, I think the important element of that observation is that you shouldn't think that evolution is obviously correct, or that anyone who doesn't buy into it must be some sort of uneducated hick. But evolution is obviously correct, and anyone who doesn't buy into it is uneducated.

Really, it's hard stuff. The question is whether it can be simplified to the point of making someone understanding it without a degree in biology or mathematics.
1. There are variances between individuals.
2. Some of those variances are due to properties that pass from parents to offspring. These variances are known as "heritable traits".
3. Some heritable traits affect the probability of an individual passing on those traits. Traits that increase that probability are known as imparting greater "fitness".
4. The prevalance of traits that impart greater fitness will, by definition, increase.
5. There is therefore a tendency of individuals in succeeding generations to have greater "fitness" than those of previous generations, where "fitness" is the property of having a high probability of passing on one's heritable traits.

What's so complicated about that?

The real problem is that the reproduction requires a level of complexity itself.Reproduction as it is generally known require complexity.

Unfortunately, to make the argument work, you would have to have something that isn't nearly as complex as a watch, but is capable of reproduction.No, you just need to pursuasively argue that such a thing is possible.

To the best of my knowledge, you can't come up with such a system using today's knowledge of biology. More precisely, you can't find one that satisfies creationist. And you never will, because it is essentially a "world's shortest giant" argument. There's no clear line between "reproduction" and "creating conditions favorable for things sort of similar to arise". I mean, strictly speaking, humans don't reproduce. They just create beings that are somewhat similar, and share half their genes. So where do you draw the line between that and one protein causing another, somewhat similar protein, to form? Anything able to clearly be "reproducing" is going to be too complicated to have arisen directly from definitely non-living predescessors. That's not a valid argument against evolution, though, because it's possible for things are clearly reproducing to arise from things that aren't clearly reproducing.

As a result, all this argument does is move you to the simplest reproducing cell, and "The Watchmaker" says that the cell is still very much like a watch. Therefore, there's no refutation here.How can "The Watchmaker" make any claims about the simplest reproducing cell, when no one has seen it?

A noble effort, but ultimately ineffective. Also, the vulgarity is all well and good among friends, but let Randfan's conversion serve as a warning. Anything that makes your contempt obvious turns off a potential convert.[/QUOTE]

They're saying, "I'll believe it when I see it."But, then, when they see it, they don't believe it.

They're very selective in applying skepticism, but they are applying skepticism.No, merely denying, and refusing to acknowledge evidence, is not skepticism.

This whole line of argument makes perfect sense....if there is no God.It's not an "argument". It's a clarification. There is an implied argument, but the implied argument is in response to the claim that evolution is too unlikely. And that argument proceeds from the assumption that evolution is true and purports to calculate probability from that, so it is perfectly valid to continue with the premise of evolution (that the creationists introduced). Finally, evolution being true is not the same as there being no God.

We know it because we are here, so we must have struck it lucky. Unfortunately, that isn't a valid argument.And it's not the argument being made.

I think that needs to be a part of any argument. On a related note, that's why I brought up Michael Behe. He's a main promoter of Intelligent Design, and he believes in evolution.Then that'sa a rather limited form of belief in evolution. It's like saying "Yeah, I believe in gravity, but I also believe that there are fairies that can make anything float any time they want to." What's the difference between that and not believing in gravity at all?

I thought about crystals, but in context, I think it was clear that crystals don't fit the bill as self-replicating molecules.Of course not. Anything that replicates is rejected as an example, for whatever excuse they can think of.

ID makes a slightly different claim, and asserts it as a hypothesis. Its claim is "Godhaddadoit". (God had to do it.) It's easy to refute that the hypothesis has been confirmed, but it's much harder to refute the hypothesis itself."God had to do it" is logically equivalent to "there is some known principle that would be violated if God didn't do it". And that's quite trivial to refute.

You can demonstrate that they haven't proved that the probability is really 0. However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.They amount to pretty much the same thing. To say that the probability is zero is to say that we have a way of accurately calculating the probability. If there is no such method, then the probability cannot be zero. If you just say "I find it incredibly unlikely", you're not talking about probability, you're talking about your personal opinion.

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. What if you found the watch in a shop containing hundreds of timepieces? Would it seem "natural" then?You're proceeding from the premise that cells and watches are equivalent, which in turn means that cells are designed, which means you're begging the question.

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.You seem to be deliberately distorting his statement to come up with something that's true. He didn't merely state that they had contributed to the state of the world, but that they had "f-ed" it up. And actually, most of what's attributed to atheists is actually due to secularists, but of course people like him have absolutely no interest in paying attention to such distinctions.

He then says that many who contributed their thoughts would side with Elton John when Sir Elton said that he would ban religion. As it turns out, there is a thread on that very subject, and no one seems to be rushing to condemn Sir Elton, although one or two have suggested that perhaps he shouldn't have gone quite so far. Link?

However, in this particular case, it's hard for me to have sympathy for someone as a victim of hate speech, after he called for banning religion. For him to be the target of hate speech seems in this case more like "Karma" than anything else.First, just because someone calls for something to be banned, that doesn't make it "hate speech". Is calling for banning steroids "hate speech"? Second, it was directed against an abstract concept Grayman's brother engaged in hate speech against people. Third, it's rather hypocritical to call this "Karma", since Elton John's "hate speech" is is response to a lifetime of being subjected to actual hate speech. And fourth, I see nothing wrong with engaging in hate speech against someone because of their ideology. I do see something wrong with it when it's based on orientation.

There's also a thread on JREF about the people in California who banned the pledge of allegiance.
:rolleyes:
No one's banned the Pledge of Allegiance. The addition of the phrase "under God" has been declared unconstituitional, and only a vile bigot like grayman's brother could disagree.

The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?His idea of "anti-religion" is not allowing Christians to act like jackasses. And his idea of having one's perception "colored" is not uncritically accepting the crap that spews from bigots like him.

Grayman's brother is being mocked, somewhat deservedly, for spewing a bunch of personal attacks laced with profanity. Ossai did the same thing, but he is not being mocked or attacked. No, he didn't.

First, Ossai is more articulate, including being a better speller. Second, Grayman's brother was right on those things which can be measured objectively, whereas Ossai was wrong.Ossai said that you are. You aren't claiming to not exist, are you? This is the sort of mental gynastics you went through to defend Grayman's brother. You can't objectively prove anything Ossai said is wrong.

Either way it is a difficulty. Either way seems to be turtles all the way down, whether supernaturalistic or naturalistic ones.The difference is that the Christians claim that science must be rejected, because it has no ultimate explanation, but then fails to produce an ultimate eplanation.

Actually **** is an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.How about actually responding to what people say, rather than presenting strawmen?

[T'ai Chi]

I would go as far as to say that, given enough time and resources, the probability equals 1.

GIven enough time and resources, you'd probably agree that unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies have existed or will exist?

[T'ai Chi]

The difference is that the Christians claim that science must be rejected,...

That Newton! Always rejecting science.


How about actually responding to what people say, rather than presenting strawmen?


Sure:

Someone who talked about cells being simple is speaking about an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.

[Art Vandelay]

That Newton! Always rejecting science.I didn't say all Christians.

Someone who talked about cells being simple is speaking about an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.What part of "How about actually responding to what people say, rather than presenting strawmen?" do you not understand?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Art Vandelay, saying all those things I am too afraid to say... :D

[Art Vandelay]

In that vein...
While the burden of proof is undoubtedly on the ID crowd, the burden of persuading the pubic is on us.
Of what are trying to persuade the pubic, and why?

[Lothian]

In that vein...

Of what are trying to persuade the pubic, and why?Bloody 'L'

[Tricky]

There was that incident with Galileo, but since then, the RCC has been pretty cool with science, including Darwin.
With a few exceptions, especially as regards birth control. They accept the "rhythm" method, and so women are now allowed to use mathematics to control their child-bearing, but are still forbidden to use physics or chemistry.

[a_unique_person]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

Kids4truth? How old is that narrator?

[a_unique_person]

It's a little long, and wordy, but what's wrong with that? The ABC Radio National Science Show just happens to have had a topic that is very relevant to this topic just this week.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1791448.htm#

There is no watchmaker! There is no need for watchmaker! These events, and much more , happen without any watchmaker.



Robyn Williams: Can music represent life? Does it give you a better picture of life than those swarms of robots or those trillions of cells acting like bits of chips in cyber men? John Gregg referred just now to the cover of Time magazine this week which pits Richard Dawkins against Francis Collins, atheist versus believer. But today in this Science Show we look at Dawkins' other famous figure, the selfish gene, now 30 years old, and how his celebrated colleague, Denis Noble, has taken a completely different slant on life and on mission control in his book The Music of Life.
Denis Noble: Yes, absolutely because I think I'm about 180 degrees away from Richard. He looks at life from the viewpoint of the gene, and the selfish gene is the metaphor that has captured everyone's imagination on that, and let me say Richard is a brilliant writer, but I do think that his metaphor is correct in, it seems to me, a fairly limited range of application. But for most biological organisation of function, which is, after all, at levels much higher than the genes, what you need is to see that genes have to cooperate rather than to act as selfish entities. Of course, I realise the metaphor, 'the selfish gene', is not intended to be taken literally. Nevertheless, my view as a physiologist is very much at the higher level, it is that genes have to cooperate in order to produce a function, and as John Maynard Smith said, they can't help it, they're all in the same boat, they sink or swim together. So selection, in my view, occurs at the higher levels, not just at the gene level.
Robyn Williams: And of course what you're doing in your book is talking about an orchestra where you've got lots of specialist players who are organised together and who must work together otherwise there's no music.
Denis Noble: Yes, that's right, and that development has taken the best part of two or three billion, four billion years, and I totally agree with Richard's viewpoint and the viewpoint of 99.9% of biologists today that that process is blind, there's no one up there who directed it. Those are central issues on which I would totally agree with Richard. It's this question though of what level do you understand the logic by which life operates. And my view is that you can understand it at a whole series of different levels and there's no privileged level of causality in biological systems. So I do not think there is a program at the level of the genes.
Robyn Williams: So what about the question of there being a book of life? If you look at DNA as a computer instruction, why is that image limited?
Denis Noble: First of all because there are huge gaps in the book of life. Remember this so-called book of life only forms a template for the production of one type of molecule in biological systems, proteins. Nothing else, absolutely nothing else. Just imagine that all you had was DNA and you worked out that it encodes for some other molecule, the proteins...you don't know about lipids, you don't know about water, you don't know about all the structures inside cells that make it all work, and in particular you don't know about the machinery that proceeds to read the genes. That machinery, remember, is passed on from the mother, so inheritance is not by genes alone. That's the key message of my book.
Robyn Williams: I was delighted to see how many chapter headings you could get out of music such as 'CD', the first chapter, 'The Organ', 'The Score'. You've got the conductor, of course, the rhythms and so forth. And it comes from your own (just as a personal aside) background in music. You're a singer, aren't you?
Denis Noble: I sing, yes, I sing in the language of the troubadours, the old love poets of the Perigord, and that's because 35 years ago I bought a house in the Perigord. I'm a vain man of course, I who is proud of my French, and I spoke to some people in the village who welcomed me very warmly. And when they were speaking to me in their peculiar accent of the south, I could understand them very, very well, but when they spoke to each other I understood not a word. So I thought, my goodness, there is another language in this village, and I discovered that this is the language of the old troubadours. And you know there's an unbelievable musical tradition that goes all the way from those 11th and 12th century troubadours to brilliant singers today. So I now have a group, I call it the Oxford Troubadours, who perform, and they performed at the launch of my book. We had a huge concert in Balliol College to launch The Music of Life, totally appropriate of course. And of course I sang, yes.
Oh, I still sing, oh yes, I take it very seriously. I have guitar lessons and singing lessons with a professional, and most of the group are professionals actually. The only amateurs are myself and my brother.
Robyn Williams: I won't embarrass you in the Oxford Club to ask you to sing, we might startle some of the occupants. Let me ask you about two aspects; the score and, let's say, the harmony. First, the score.
Denis Noble: Yes, my view is that first of all there is no overall conductor, so if you think of the elements of a biological system-all its organs, all its cells and so on-as being a little bit like an orchestra, the natural thinking is to think there's got to be something there that directs it all. It's either the genome or it's some higher organisation. What I try to convince people of is there is absolutely no conductor, there is no program, there is no score. What I do is to play a game because I take people through the various stages of saying, well, it's not in the genome because that's just a database, it's like a CD, you put it in your hi-fi and you listen to it and of course you get a reconstruction of the music. And in a similar way, genes are the encoding of the information necessary to reconstruct an organism in the next generation, and just like putting the CD in the hi-fi. The hi-fi in the case of the biological system of course is the egg cell of the mother which, once fertilised, proceeds to read this CD. That's one of my metaphors.
But then I say, okay, if the genome is not the overall conductor, where is the program of life? And one of the joys of the book that I've had feedback from successive readers on, very positive feedback, incidentally, is you take us through it all, all the way up to the brain, and even at the level of the brain you say there's no self, there's nothing that conducts this vast orchestra. So that's what I see as the best way to bring people to realise, first of all, there's nothing up there that directed it all and created it all, and indeed there's nothing inside us that directs it all. There is a self-organising system which we don't really very well understand. Now to harmony? Shall I deal with that?
Robyn Williams: Deal with harmony because I was just thinking my body is now 62-and-a-half years old and somehow it's managed to be harmonised without my necessarily planning this. During the night obviously not, and I don't get up in the morning before breakfast and say, 'Keep going, coordinate'. So where does the harmony come from?
Denis Noble: I think that...I agree with Sydney Brenner that the level of organisation at which you've got to seek for a genuine understanding above the level of the genome is the cell. Sydney Brenner, at a lecture three years ago, I think it was in Columbia at New York, simply said, 'I strongly believe that the focus should be not on the genome,' despite the fact that he was one of the originators of course of sequencing which he...
Robyn Williams: He got the Nobel Prize for it.
Denis Noble: He got the Nobel Prize for it, exactly, that's right. What he says is something I strongly agree with; you've got to understand the cell. So I imagine some visitors from outer space, they are so tiny but they're extremely clever, they know enough about genome sequencing, they know the difference between viruses, bacteria and other forms of organism, but they're so tiny that they don't see organisms bigger than a cell. So what I'm doing is saying suppose we were restricted to looking at cells alone. And then I say, well, what they find on Earth is extraordinary because just like Darwin they found some islands in which there were different species...this sort of resembles the Galapagos story of course and the tortoises and the birds, up to a point.
What they find on these islands is 200 species, in addition to all the viruses and bacteria, 200 species of eukaryotes, normal cells, the cells in your and my body. They've all got the same genome, but they do totally different things. Some of them crawl around and feel and contract, some of them send great long processes out that communicate from one part of the organism to another, some of them secrete insulin, some of them...they all do different things, and yet they've got the same genome. Why? It's because as the cells develop, extra coding is imprinted on top of the genome. People now call it epigenetics, of course, and that coding determines whether a muscle cell is a heart muscle cell or whether it's a skeletal muscle cell, or whether the cell becomes a liver cell.
And of course because they were trapped at the level of not understanding multicellular organisms, they think these are all separate species. My point is simply this; first there is a level in multicellular organisms at which what we would normally call Lamarckism (that is the inheritance of acquired characteristics) is rampant, it's everywhere, because each muscle cell finds itself in a colony of muscle cells and it becomes a muscle cell because it finds itself in that colony, not because it's written in its genome. Now I ask the following question; suppose that kind of transmission occurs down the generations. And there's evidence for that now. What we call epigenetics can actually be transmitted down...we open up a great big Pandora's Box, particularly from the point of view of understanding evolutionary theory. So I have a suspicion that a form of Lamarckism is waiting in the wings to come creeping back to haunt us, 150 years...nearly 200 years after Lamarck. Lamarck's book was 1809, so we're almost at the 200th anniversary of it.







A little controversial, but relevent. Any responses?

[CapelDodger]

There was that incident with Galileo, but since then, the RCC has been pretty cool with science, including Darwin.
There was also some unpleasantness with Fra Bruno, no house arrest in that case as I recall. But it's so often Galileo that people bring up.

[CapelDodger]

With a few exceptions, especially as regards birth control. They accept the "rhythm" method, and so women are now allowed to use mathematics to control their child-bearing, but are still forbidden to use physics or chemistry.
I'm not sure this is strictly accurate. The policy is spun that way, but as I understand it each act of, you know, it, should involve the possibility of procreation. But I may be wrong.

[T'ai Chi]

I didn't say all Christians.


You wrote


The difference is that the Christians claim that science must be rejected,...


And the implication "the Christians claim" means 'all Christians claim', because "the Christians" is an entire group. You were speaking about an entire group.


What part of "How about actually responding to what people say, rather than presenting strawmen?" do you not understand?

All of it, which is why I responded to the ignorant things you wrote and are unable to defend.

Now what?

[Iamme]

You could begin by pointing out that watches don't tend to reproduce themselves, which makes them a piss-poor analogy for evolution.

This quote is from post number 2 on page one. This is the first I have read this thread.


My response is this: Maybe...but maybe not. It could be this instead: The watch is complex. It took man with a brain to design it. And because nature is even MORE sophisticated, and has as one of it's features, procreation, that this then could imply that not only were brains behind the design of making organisms, which are far more complex...FAR more complex... than the watch...but procreation seals the deal, in believing that an endless God, would design in his supreme creation, something that would endure, endlessly, with procreation...which is the only means by which entropy can be defeated. Only a God could defeat entropy.

There. That'll seal the deal for me being granted passage to heaven. :)

[Earthborn]

Ah, yes... The old Watchmaker argument. Repeated over and over again by Creationists and IDers alike. It's probably their best argument. The problem is, none of them ever come close to presenting it as eloquently and persuasively as William Paley himself, in the 1809 book Natural Theology. I invite everyone to read it here (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=HTML&rgn=TEI.2&byte=53049319). It really is a persuasive argument.

It just isn't an argument against Darwinian evolution, which hadn't been conceived of yet. Darwinian evolution provides explanations for things that would otherwise require a "contriver". To use the Watchmaker argument against it is like using epicycles against heliocentrism; at the time it may have been a good argument, but the new theory explains everything it explains and more.

And Creationists and IDers always forget about the most elegant part of Paley's argument. In Natural Theology, the watch does reproduce.

SUPPOSE, in the next place, that the person who found the watch, should, after some time, discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement, another watch like itself (the thing is conceivable); that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us inquire, what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion.

The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism, by which it was carried on, he would perceive, in this new observation, nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done,--for referring the construction of the watch to design, and to supreme art. If that construction without this property, or which is the same thing, before this property had been noticed, proved intention and art to have been employed about it; still more strong would the proof appear, when he came to the knowledge of this further property, the crown and perfection of all the rest.

[Art Vandelay]

And the implication "the Christians claim" means 'all Christians claim', because "the Christians" is an entire group. You were speaking about an entire group.So then does "Either way seems to be turtles all the way down, whether supernaturalistic or naturalistic ones" mean "all supernaturalistic [sic] and naturalistic [sic] explanations are turtles all the way down"?

If I say that Iraqis invaded Kuwait, am I claiming that every single Iraqi citizen went into Kuwait?

All of it, To be clear: you just stated that you don't understand all of "How about actually responding to what people say, rather than presenting strawmen?".

which is why I responded to the ignorant things you wrote and are unable to defend.And are you stating that every single thing that I wrote was ignorant? The only accusation of ignorance you've made has been based on pedantry.

Now what?I suppose now you'll continue to pretend that your statement about cells being complex is actually responding to someone's point, rather than being yet another strawman.

Ah, yes... The old Watchmaker argument. Actually, it's not the old watchmaker argument. I was thinking of posting a refutation of that one, but I realized it doesn't really apply to this one. The old one says that if you were to find a watch, you would assume that it has been designed. My refutation to that is that the reason one assumes watches are designed is that we have a lot of experience with watches, and we have good reason to believe that the ones that we've already encountered were designed, so when we come across a new one, it makes sense to assume that it is designed as well. This logic simply does not extend to life, because we are starting with the assumption that it is designed, rather than proceeding from previous cases of known design.

As I said, this refutation does not apply in this case, since here the argument doesn't actually give the watchmaker argument, it just presents a strawman, alludes to the old watchmaker argument, then declares its point to be proven.

[Meadmaker]

There was also some unpleasantness with Fra Bruno, no house arrest in that case as I recall. But it's so often Galileo that people bring up.

Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching pantheism, not for his science or science-like musings.

[RandFan]

Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching pantheism, not for his science or science-like musings.Seems reasonable. Damn pantheists, that'll teach 'em.

[Meadmaker]

Art, you wrote a whole bunch, and I'll pick one or two things to comment on. If you would really like a response to something in particular that you said, repost it.

But evolution is obviously correct, and anyone who doesn't buy into it is uneducated.


Sort of. My point was that you could know a great deal of information about a great many things, including biology, geology, etc. and yet you might not believe in evolution and/or you might believe in intelligent design. I would agree that if you set out with an unbiased mind to determine whether or not evolution happened, you would have to conclude that it did, in fact, happen. However, you could learn a heck of a lot of information about an awful lot of things, and not make that conclusion. The real message is that you won't persuade anyone by trying to tell them that they are uneducated, or by telling them that their "authorities" on the subject are uneducated. They might be extremely educated, and extremely intelligent, but they might never have approached this particular subject with an unbiased mind. They think they are educated, and they appear to be educated, so it doesn't do any good to say, as part of an argument, that they aren't.

To be persuasive, you have to convince people that their education, or that of the authorities on whom they depend, has failed them.

So if I am not entertained by the sixth season of 24, would you ask why the show is not entertaining?


If the show gets cancelled for lack of viewers, I would call it not entertaining, despite the fact that somewhere, there is someone who was entertained. Likewise, I'll call the arguments against ID unpersuasive, because they aren't persuading.

Sure, some people are persuaded, but in America, somewhere around 50% are not.


Then that'sa a rather limited form of belief in evolution. It's like saying "Yeah, I believe in gravity, but I also believe that there are fairies that can make anything float any time they want to." What's the difference between that and not believing in gravity at all?

(This was in reference to Michael Behe, who believes in ID and evolution.)

Behe believes that all life is descended from common, single celled, ancestors. That's evolution. However, he doesn't believe that natural selection is adequate to drive evolution. He believes that God had to help it along by making sure the mutations occurred at just the right times. So, it's arguable whether he believes in "the theory of evolution".

[Meadmaker]

So you haven’t been keeping up with pope b and his ID leanings.

I have followed Ben's comments. He is leaning toward theistic evolution, which has been compatible with the position of the church ever since the subject came up, which was before Darwin. I haven't seen any comment he has ever made that seems to endorse intelligent design, although I have seen comments he made misinterpreted in that manner.

Relating this more directly to the thread topic, when arguing against The Watchmaker, it helps to understand the differences between intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution. The Watchmaker supports ID. It is neutral on the other two.

[Art Vandelay]

Relating this more directly to the thread topic, when arguing against The Watchmaker, it helps to understand the differences between intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution. The Watchmaker supports ID. It is neutral on the other two.I believe that there is much less difference than they would have us believe. ID is motivated by creationist and Christian viewpoints, and while it pretends to be neutral about theidentity of the designer, it's clear that it's meant to be God, and that the proponents are proceeding from a Christian worldview.

If the show gets cancelled for lack of viewers, I would call it not entertaining, despite the fact that somewhere, there is someone who was entertained. Likewise, I'll call the arguments against ID unpersuasive, because they aren't persuading.I guess my point got lost in the ambiguous verb tenses of English. I meant for my question to be in the present tense. Currently, the sixth season of 24 hasn't aired, so if I say that it doesn't entertain me, the logical conclusion is that it's because I haven't seen it, not because it isn't entertaining. Similarly, if half of Americans are unpursuaded, it is not a legitimate conclusion to conclude that the arguments for evolution are unpersuasive. Many people have never heard the arguments, and of those that have heard them, most don't really listen. When I look at creationist "rebuttals" to pro-evolution arguments, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's quite clear that the author is not honestly looking at the pro-evolution argument.

[CapelDodger]

Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching pantheism, not for his science or science-like musings.
Because that was what was on the charge-sheet? Not the same as what he was burned for, or put another way, the reason why he was burned. Could he in fact have been burned on a charge of science? What was the evidence of his pantheism - his suggestion that there are many inhabited worlds in the Universe? Which naturally removes our world from the centre of things, with implications for a (no longer unique) pope supposedly at the centre of the world. Nobody ordered that, thank you very much. It was the Pope and the papabile in the Curia that were most keen on torching him. I rest my case.

[CapelDodger]

Seems reasonable. Damn pantheists, that'll teach 'em.
Fra Bruno should be a Sci-Fi legend. Straight from Copernicus to stars being suns, with planets, with people, with their own popes - frickin' A! In the 16thCE. Damned if I can remember the pope of the time, don't much care. The Wars of Religion were bearing down - and Catholicism came out of it as a third-world religion :) . Bless.

[Meadmaker]

I believe that there is much less difference than they would have us believe. ID is motivated by creationist and Christian viewpoints, and while it pretends to be neutral about theidentity of the designer, it's clear that it's meant to be God, and that the proponents are proceeding from a Christian worldview.

The designer is most certainly God, although some of them pretend it isn't in the hopes of sneaking past some legal rulings. That's not the point. There is still a difference between ID, creationism, and theistic evolution. When you're arguing against them, it is good to know which you are arguing against.

[Meadmaker]

What was the evidence of his pantheism

Type "pantheism" and "Bruno" into google. I haven't done it myself, but I'm quite confident there will be ample evidence.

I don't think pantheists ought to be burned at the stake, and I'm glad that doesn't happen anymore, but it has nothing to do with being a scientist.

[Ossai]

Tricky
With a few exceptions, especially as regards birth control. They accept the "rhythm" method, and so women are now allowed to use mathematics to control their child-bearing, but are still forbidden to use physics or chemistry. Know what they call the lady that uses the rhythm method as birth control? Mother.

Yes it is an old joke, but it’s still true. They rhythm method has been shown to be unreliable. Google, if you’re interested.

Meadmaker
I have followed Ben's comments. He is leaning toward theistic evolution, which has been compatible with the position of the church ever since the subject came up, which was before Darwin.
Theistic evolution, intelligent design
tomato, tomahto


Ossai

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
I though you would have responded to my other post by now, but this still cried out for attention.
Relating this more directly to the thread topic, when arguing against The Watchmaker, it helps to understand the differences between intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution. The Watchmaker supports ID. It is neutral on the other two. ID wasn’t even around when the Watchmaker argument was presented. By you declaring such you underscore the similarity of creationism, theistic evolution and ID; primarily ID and theistic evolution. They are identical. Read the definition; handily supplied by any number of Christian sites.

Ossai

[Kochanski]

I need help! My brother sent me this (http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html), and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

Someone at work just sent it to me yesterday. I had to seriously resist the urge to tell her that this 200 year old chestnut was refuted 150 years ago. Now, if someone outside of work had sent it...there would be NO HOLDS BARRED.

[CapelDodger]

Type "pantheism" and "Bruno" into google. I haven't done it myself, but I'm quite confident there will be ample evidence.
Ample hits, but come on ... The records of the case and the proceedings are fragmentary. Bruno was up-front, public sort of chap. He made speeches, lectures, wrote down his thoughts and had them published. The evidence of pantheism out to pretty clear.

What is certain is that the case for clemency was advanced by prominent individuals and that the Pope and Curia wanted him torched, which he duly was.

If you want to pick gems from Google dross, knock yourself out.

I don't think pantheists ought to be burned at the stake, and I'm glad that doesn't happen anymore, but it has nothing to do with being a scientist.
Why was the Papal cabal so keen on making an example of Fra Bruno? That can only be understood in the light of the times. The removal of the Earth from centrality in the Universe - a scientific discovery - was too obvious an analogy for the removal of the Pope's centrality in Christendom, which was already being challenged. So it did have to do with science, and I think it's reasonable to call Bruno a scientist.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker
I though you would have responded to my other post by now, but this still cried out for attention.
ID wasn’t even around when the Watchmaker argument was presented. By you declaring such you underscore the similarity of creationism, theistic evolution and ID; primarily ID and theistic evolution. They are identical. Read the definition; handily supplied by any number of Christian sites.

Ossai

Surely creationism was around when the watchmaker arguement was first presented, and if they are all identical, then ID must have been around too. However, I digress. I was just pointing out the self contradictory nature of your post.

I was referring to "The Watchmaker", the piece of propaganda that started this thread, not to the general argument from design, cast by Paley in terms of Watches. "The Watchmaker" is about intelligent design. It is not about creationism, nor is it about theistic evolution.

Quick definitions: Theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred, guided by God.

Intelligent Design - The belief that the existence of a designer can be inferred from characteristics of life.

Creationism - The belief that plant and animals species were created in something like their current form, with little or no evolution occurring since.

Those strike me as quite different things. The first and third are actually contradictory. Of course, there are people who believe more than one of them simultaneously, but that doesn't make them identical.

[Meadmaker]

Ample hits, but come on ... The records of the case and the proceedings are fragmentary. Bruno was up-front, public sort of chap. He made speeches, lectures, wrote down his thoughts and had them published. The evidence of pantheism out to pretty clear.

And it is. "De la causa, principio et uno" is especially pantheistic.


So it did have to do with science, and I think it's reasonable to call Bruno a scientist.

Hmm. What science did he actually do? He accepted and preached Copernican theory. Does that make him a scientist? It seems to me that he was a philosopher allied with scientists.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
I was referring to "The Watchmaker", the piece of propaganda that started this thread, not to the general argument from design, cast by Paley in terms of Watches. "The Watchmaker" is about intelligent design. It is not about creationism, nor is it about theistic evolution. What I was pointing out was the watchmaker argument was in support of creationism. ID didn’t exist because ‘creationism’ hadn’t yet been banned from being taught in public schools. ID is creationism with a bit more hand waving and that hand waving is theistic evolution.

Quick definitions: Theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred, guided by God.

Intelligent Design - The belief that the existence of a designer can be inferred from characteristics of life. ID proponents, Behe and his ilk specifically, believe that the design can be inferred due to theistic evolution.

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

ID proponents, Behe and his ilk specifically, believe that the design can be inferred due to theistic evolution.

Ossai

Most ID proponents are creationists who don't believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise. Behe believes in evolution, but because he also believes in intelligent design, he believes that the evolution must have been theistic. It is possible to believe in theistic evolution without believing in intelligent design.

One sure way to lose an argument is by telling someone else what they think, and getting it wrong.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Most ID proponents are creationists who don't believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise. Ahem, I’ve already mentioned Behe and his supporters.

Behe believes in evolution, but because he also believes in intelligent design, he believes that the evolution must have been theistic.

[quote]It is possible to believe in theistic evolution without believing in intelligent design. No it’s not. Theistic evolution is intelligent design. Think about it. Theistic evolution is evolution guided by god. Intelligent design, as defined by Behe is evolution that was started and guided by god.

One sure way to lose an argument is by telling someone else what they think, and getting it wrong.Yep, which is why you shouldn’t do it anymore. :)

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

No it’s not. Theistic evolution is intelligent design. Think about it. Theistic evolution is evolution guided by god. Intelligent design, as defined by Behe is evolution that was started and guided by god.

The key feature of "intelligent design" is that it states that the evidence for design is present in biological systems. They claim it is a scientific theory.

Theistic evolution makes no such claims. They say that God guided evolution, but this belief makes no claims about God being detectable in the process.

Intelligent Design claims to be scientific. Theistic evolution does not claim to be scientific.

You could express it as a series of questions.

1. Did evolution happen?
2. Did God play a role in evolution?
3. Can you detect, through observation and reason, without faith, that God played a role in the creation of life? (Or the evolution of life, if you believe that sort of thing?)

If you answered no to the first question, that's creationism.
If you answered yes to the second question, that's theistic evolution.
If you answered yes to the third question, that's intelligent design.

If you answered yes to 2, but no to three, you believe in theistic evolution without ID. That's most Christians.
If you answered yes to 2, and yes to 3, you believe in theistic evolution and ID. That's Michael Behe and some of his friends.
If you answered no to 1 and yes to 3, that's a typical ID believer.
If you answered no to 1 and no to 3, that's just a plain old creationist. This set includes the folks who think God buried dinosaur bones to test our faith.