774 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Dude, I did a search on intelloigent design and all I got was two pages with less than a half dozen related news articles. Who are you trying to kid. Nothing here that disproves intelligent design in any way. What a joke and you think you won something with this! This has nothing to do with peer review.

Have you considered that perhaps a demon has clouded your perception in these issues? I hear demon possession is a common problem with Christians.

I'll repeat myself just in case i can get past your personal demons: ID is not a scientific theory since it has not produced any peer-reviewed publications. These are the facts, now deal with them.

Never ending flow of Logical Fallacies and name calling. It doesn’t bother me and I am used to atheists doing this when that is all they got. On the other hand it is so juvenile and childish its boring. Not one fact to deal with. Ho hummm

[shadowhawk]

Dude, I did a search on intelloigent design and all I got was two pages with less than a half dozen related news articles. Who are you trying to kid. Nothing here that disproves intelligent design in any way. What a joke and you think you won something with this! This has nothing to do with peer review.

There is not an ounce of evidence to support it, either. Kind of like the lack of any evidence for that intelligent designer that supposedly has a gene labor up in the clouds.

Obviously you are only repeating something you have heard. I would have more respect if you actually dealt with the evidence.

[platypus]

ID is not a scientific theory, but a strain of cretinism.

[shadowhawk]

Back Reference to five posts on God and Evolution.
http://www.longecity...post__p__492998

Post # 5
http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

POST #6 ON GOD AND EVOLUTION
“Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's professor of the public understanding of science, is quick to dismiss religious belief as are some posting here in this topic.. He calls anyone advocating a creator God 'scientifically illiterate". Dawkins" most famous book is The Blind Watchmaker, the title of which comes from William Paley's design argument from the similarities between the complex workings of a watch, which we know has a designer, and the complex workings of nature, which by analogy probably have a designer too. Dawkins admits that living things are analogous to watches, and that they appear to be designed. He even defines biology as "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Why is Dawkins so confident that design in living things is only apparent? Because, although the subtitle of The Blind Watchmaker is "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a world without design", Dawkins "excludes design on philosophical grounds." "The kind of explanation we come up with", says Dawkins, "must not contradict the laws of physics. Indeed it will make use of the laws of physics, (MORE ON LAWS NEXT TIME) and nothing more than the laws of physics." I will deal with phisics later and natural laws. Here, as philosopher William Dembski notes: "we are dealing with a naturalistic metaphysic that shapes and controls what theories of biological origins are permitted on the playing field in advance of any discussion or weighing of evidence." To approach biology without Dawkins" atheistic assumption doesn't mean ruling out evolution as an adequate, or even the best available, scientific account of biology; but it does mean letting the evidence speak for itself.

Dawkins fudges the issue here. According to him, Paley was right about the complexity of nature, but wrong about its explanation: "The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing - was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer. . . The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin." It's crucial to realize that Dawkins has just "pulled a fast one". He has just implied that either Paley was right to argue that nature is a work of art, or Darwin was right to argue that biological organisms are the result of nature and chance. But of course, this is a false dilemma. It's possible that Paley and Darwin are both right. The theist, no less than the atheist, can acknowledge the existence of a "blind watchmaker", simply by attributing that "blind watchmaker" itself to God's design!

Dawkins thinks that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Before Darwin was that there was no naturalistic candidate for an explanation to fill in the blank labelled "blind watchmaker". Evolution fills that blank. However, Dawkins is wrong to think that evolution undermines Paley's watchmaker argument, contradicts belief in the doctrine of Creation, or supports atheism. Darwin's theory may fill in a blank created by the assumption of atheism, but that doesn't prove atheism (or evolution). Father Christmas may fill in a blank left by the assumption that "parents don't deliver Christmas presents", but that hardly proves the existence of Father Christmas!

The theory of evolution does not "reveal a world without design" as Dawkins claims, because science is incapable of doing any such thing. Why is the coffee getting hot? Scientific answer: because the flow of electrons through the element in the kettle is causing the water molecules to vibrate. But why is this happening? Because I want my coffee hot! This is an explanation in terms of design and purpose, and it doesn't conflict with the scientific explanation. You don't have to choose one explanation over the other.

Moreover, the fact that we can give a scientific description of the physical mechanism of a kettle doesn't disprove the existence of a kettle designer! Similarly, a scientific description of a physical mechanism that results in living organisms would not disprove the existence of a designer of that system. Science doesn't "reveal" a world without design, atheism demands a world without design. The theory of evolution is irrelevant to the doctrine of Creation. As philosopher Keith Ward says: "The argument that the evolutionary process is incompatible with design misses the mark completely." I suggest that the next question on your agenda therefore ought to be:

Question Two: "If we don't assume that matter came before mind, is evolution an adequate explanation given all the available scientific evidence, or is there a better explanation?"

Someone who believes in Creation can afford to be much more open-minded about evolution than the atheist can be. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes:

a Christian (naturally) believes that there is such a person as God, and believes that God has created and sustains the world. Starting from this position... we recognize that there are many ways in which God could have created the living things he has in fact created: how, in fact, did he do it? ...Did it all happen just by way of the working of the laws of physics, or was there further divine activity..? That's the question... Starting from the belief in God, we must look at the evidence and consider the probabilities as best we can.

Question two is an interesting and important question - but it isn't a crucial question for everyone to answer. You could quite happily be a Christian, or become a Christian, without having an answer to this question.

Evolution may be a wholly adequate theory, a partially adequate theory, or an inadequate theory, but the right way to find out - whether you believe in the doctrine of creation or not - is to let the evidence speak for itself without support from the assumption that the natural world must be able to account for itself.

If you have decided your answers to our first two questions, you are now in a good position to ask a third question:

Question Three: "Which picture of Creation is the most plausible one?"

This is an interesting and important question - but it isn't a crucial question for everyone to answer. You could quite happily be a Christian, or become a Christian, without having an answer to this question. Christians certainly shouldn't elevate belief in any particular picture of Creation into anything more than the peripheral issue that it is.

If you do pursue this question, there is no shortage of interpretations you could adopt. In-between the extremes of a completely literal "young-earth" creationism and an essentially non-literal creationism (often associated with "theistic evolution", but compatible with other theories), you might adopt an essentially literal "old-earth" or "progressive" creationist interpretation which I currently like. But as Professor J.P. Moreland warns: "there are sufficient problems in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 to warrant caution in dogmatically holding that only one understanding is allowable by the text."

Giving a responsible (but non-dogmatic) answer to our third question involves asking a whole bunch of subsidiary questions. As theologian David Winter explains: "The phrase "The Bible says . . ." begs a lot of questions . . . What does the Bible say? To whom is it saying it? What is the context, background and literary form of the passage in question? Is it to be taken literally, or figuratively, or allegorically?" With Alvin Plantinga I will merely say: "the proper understanding of the early chapters of Genesis... is a difficult area, an area where I am not sure where the truth lies." What I am sure of is that there can't be any conflict between God's Word and God's World, although there can be conflicts between incorrect human understandings of Gods Word and God's World. As Charles Hodge warned: "Theologians are not infallible in the interpretation of Scripture." Nor are scientists infallible when they think about nature. Science is almost always wrong to its credit.

For anyone who believes in the doctrine of Creation, the fundamental question is not "what is the best scientific account of reality" (let alone "what is the best naturalistic account of reality") but "what is the best account of reality given everything we know?" This only seems odd on the assumption that, as Richard Lewontin asserts, 'science is the only begetter of truth." But of course, the claim that 'science is the only begetter of truth" isn't something that science can establish as being true! It's a philosophical claim, and a self-contradictory one at that; in which case, there must be more truth than can be known through science, and Christians are right to seek to understand reality by employing what we think we know from thinking about God's Word as well as what we think we know from thinking about God's World. Our picture of creation (as distinct from the doctrine of creation) is not the best place to start this project of integration, but it shouldn't be excluded from the process. To do so would be like a jury deciding a murder case purely on the basis of the forensic evidence, without taking into account the testimony of witnesses: "we cannot... pursue theology without bringing to that study all that we know about the world, nor can we... pursue science without bringing to that study all that we know about God"

Conclusion of posts 5 and 6

Let's go back to the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3) This is the Christian doctrine of Creation: we are here for a reason, life does have an objective purpose because - through whatever means - God created us for a reason. But John goes on to tell us that: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) Whatever you make of the scientific merits of the theory of evolution, and whatever you make of the relative merits of different pictures of Creation, so long as the doctrine of Creation is true, then John 1:14 might be true as well. "Is it true that "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us... full of grace and truth"?" is a question that trumps all the other questions we've asked, because if it is true, it's a truth that dwarfs every other truth and which can change your life forever. Why? Because it would mean that our purposer has personally come to us to tell us exactly what the meaning and purpose of life is and to help us embrace it: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)”

[shadowhawk]

The kalam cosmological argument defended in a peer-reviewed science journal

Here’s the peer-reviewed article. It appears in a scientific journal focused on astrophysics.
Here’s the abstract:

Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the universe. The ultimate question remains why the universe exists rather than nothing. This question led Leibniz to postulate the existence of a metaphysically necessary being, which he identified as God. Leibniz’s critics, however, disputed this identification, claiming that the space-time universe itself may be the metaphysically necessary being. The discovery during this century that the universe began to exist, however, calls into question the universe’s status as metaphysically necessary, since any necessary being must be eternal in its existence. Although various cosmogonic models claiming to avert the beginning of the universe predicted by the standard model have been and continue to be offered, no model involving an eternal universe has proved as plausible as the standard model. Unless we are to assert that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of nothing, we are thus led to Leibniz’s conclusion. Several objections to inferring a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe are considered and found to be unsound.

The whole article is posted online here.
Here’s an excerpt in which Craig explains the Big Bang cosmology:

The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe “was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable.”{8} But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble’s measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies,{9} which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. “Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries,” exclaims John Wheeler, “was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?”{10}
As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.{11}

The popular expression “Big Bang,” originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no “outside,” just as there is no “before” with respect to the Big Bang).{12}
The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,–and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.“{13}
[...]On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.
Now such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannot be suppressed: Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? In light of the universe’s origin ex nihilo, one can no longer dismiss this question with a shrug and a slogan, “The universe is just there and that’s all.” For the universe is not “just there;” rather it came into being. The beginning of the universe discloses that the universe is not, as Hume thought, a necessarily existing being but is contingent in its existence. Philosophers analyzing the concept of necessary existence agree that the essential properties of any necessarily existing entity include its being eternal, uncaused, incorruptible, and indestructible{14}–for otherwise it would be capable of non-existence, which is self-contradictory. Thus, if the universe began to exist, its lacks at least one of the essential properties of necessary existence-eternality. Therefore, the reason for its existence cannot be immanent, but must in some mysterious way be ultra-mundane, or transcendent. Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that “I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it–except myself.”{15} He finally felt forced to conclude, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”{16}
I find that most scientists do not reflect philosophically upon the metaphysical implications of their theories. But, in the words of one astrophysical team, “The problem of the origin [of the universe] involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting.”<a href="http://www.leaderu.c...ml#text17">{17}

Every theist should able to understand and defend this argument. It is a scientific refutation of materialism, and it is supported by six lines of scientific evidence – all of which emerged as science has progressed.
Scientific evidence:

• Einstein’s theory of general relativity (GTR)
• the red-shifting of light from distant galaxies
• the cosmic background radiation (which also disproves the oscillating model of the universe)
• the second law of thermodynamics applied to star formation theory
• hydrogen-helium abundance predictions
• radioactive element abundance predictions

Several naturalistic/materialistic cosmologies are refuted in Craig’s peer-reviewed paper, including the steady-state model, oscillating model, the vacuum fluctuation model, the chaotic inflationary model, and the quantum gravity model. These naturalistic (no God) alternatives all have theoretical or observational difficulties. Atheism is at odds with modern cosmology – and the progress of science itself.
This is the kind of evidence I expect all my readers to be using when discussing whether God exists. Scientific evidence. Please do not talk about your testimony, or the Bible, or what your pastor said on Sunday. We need to show that we understand science, because science is a reliable and respected way of getting knowledge about the universe. Science (experimental, testable, repeatable science) should set limits on what we can believe. Leave the wishing and hoping and praying and dreaming to the atheists.
You should definitely print this article out and read it, then send it to your atheistic friends. I have tried this out on atheists, and the response I get is that scientific discoveries will soon emerge that falsifies all of these six scientific discoveries, and the kalam cosmological argument, and will prove that the universe is eternal. When I ask them for reasons to believe that these discoveries will be forthcoming, they appeal to science fiction novels, television shows and movies. I will take a peer-reviewed research paper over Star Trek any day of the week.
Atheism hates science

• Physicist Frank Tipler weighs in on Stephen Hawking’s theory
• Peter Atkins claiming that nothing exists, (the physical universe is actually nothing)
• Stephen Meyer debating Michael Shermer on the origin of life
• How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?
• Richard Dawkins cites fraudulent research, runs from public debate
• Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
• Analyzing Christopher Hitchens’ case against God

Theism loves science

• The origin of the universe from nothing
• The fine-tuning of the cosmological constants to permit life
• The fine-tuning of the galaxy, solar system, and planet to permit life
• Origin of the building blocks in the simplest replicating cell
• Origin of biological information in the simplest replicating cell
• Sudden origins of all major body plans in the Cambrian explosion
• Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
• The limits on what natural selection and random mutation can do
• Peer-reviewed paper says there is no atheistic explanation for the Cambrian explosion
• Does the Cambrian explosion disprove Darwinian evolution?

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Scientific view

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 January 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[Link]

Obviously you are only repeating something you have heard. I would have more respect if you actually dealt with the evidence.

Dude nearly every one of your posts is simply cutting and pasting some biased propaganda piece and putting that forward as an argument on your behalf. You are more guilty than anyone of "only repeating something you have heard".

[shadowhawk]

Obviously you are only repeating something you have heard. I would have more respect if you actually dealt with the evidence.

Dude nearly every one of your posts is simply cutting and pasting some biased propaganda piece and putting that forward as an argument on your behalf. You are more guilty than anyone of "only repeating something you have heard".

We have been arguing Intelligent Design. I have used both personal argument and support. For example I cited peer reviews. The ones I was arguing with, presented nothing against Intelligent Design except false claims with no evidence. There were no peer reviews of Intelligent Design.. Do you have some?

You claim I presented biased propaganda without the slightest support in your evaluation of me. You called it propaganda without any argument. This is a logical Fallacy. Attack the messenger by calling names. You are the one with no evidence. Typical empty Fallacy.

[platypus]

Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, i.e. a scam for idiots. I recommend peer-reviewed science instead.

[Link]

Not biased?

From what i can see nearly every one of your videos is by a guy named William Lane Craig, a guy who is not a scientist but has a PhD in philosophy. This guy has no doubt made millions selling his books on intelligent design to fundamentalist christians, and his whole argument seems to be "Science can't prove that God does not exist therefore that proves that intelligent design is true" and you want to talk about logical fallacies?

The video at the top of the page is a talk from a "scientist" from the Discovery Institute, an organisation who's entire purpose is basically to try and push intelligent design. This is a snippet on them from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia....overy_Institute

Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, critics, members of the press and former institute fellows consider the Discovery Institute to be an explicitly Christian conservative organization,^[22][48][49] and point to the institute's own publications and the statements of its members that endorse a religious ideology. Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers." The 2005 judge in the "Dover Trial", Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, came to a similar conclusion about the Institute in his ruling: "CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones."



I find it interesting that you've found time to respond to every one of my posts except the one that actually mattered.

shadowhawk, perhaps if you could explain in your own words (i.e. without simply cutting and pasting videos and links to external websites) exactly how you believe intelligent design is superior to evolution in explaining the diversity of life on Earth. Specifically what do you believe are the holes in evolutionary theory which cannot be explained by anything other than a divine creator? Again, no propaganda videos please, explain it in simple straight forward English.

[shadowhawk]

Link: shadowhawk, perhaps if you could explain in your own words (i.e. without simply cutting and pasting videos and links to external websites) exactly how you believe intelligent design is superior to evolution in explaining the diversity of life on Earth. Specifically what do you believe are the holes in evolutionary theory which cannot be explained by anything other than a divine creator? Again, no propaganda videos please, explain it in simple straight forward English.

Below, is an argument for intelligent design which I presented with nothing but Logical Fallacies, one after another, from Atheists as answers.. Two get to play the same game. In your own words, without reference to any outside propaganda show me how the DNA code is not intelligent. I have presented leading evolutionists who believe in God so I do not believe evolution makes the answer to the question, “Is God Theatrically Possible,” NO. I believe the answer is, YES.

Are you taking the NO position?

I have 12 full years of college and graduate work and have written hundreds of papers. I have taught college classes for years Your restrictions on sources is nonsense and childish. Forget it, it’s a scam to make discolurse difficult. What, can't handle source materials?

Here is my argument again. No use repeating it.
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476
2 http://www.longecity...post__p__491932
3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066
4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250
5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433
6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

By the way my own personal position which I favor is not Intelligent Design which I have said before but I am willing to defend it. God’s existence does not depend on me being right. I am open to a number of views. What would Atheists do if ID was correct? Theists are the real friends of science and are open to the truth, no matter where.

[shadowhawk]

Link: From what I can see nearly every one of your videos is by a guy named William Lane Craig, a guy who is not a scientist but has a PhD in philosophy.

This Logical Fallacy, attacks the person rather than the argument. I presented lots of supporting evidence beside Craig. You never dealt with any of the issues, not one. Typical. Name one instance where He is in error. Then you also comint a genetic fallacy as if something is the matter with the source. Even a child can have truth which you attempt to deal with by calling names..

Link: This guy has no doubt made millions selling his books on intelligent design to fundamentalist christians, and his whole argument seems to be "Science can't prove that God does not exist therefore that proves that intelligent design is true" and you want to talk about logical fallacies?

Perfect example of several Logical Fallacies. Ad Hominem attacks on Christians and an outright lie in quotes no less. The slanderous ridicule and baseless charge that Craig is in it for the money is typical Atheist practice. Attack the person and then the lie with a false strawman putting words into Craig’s mouth. He did not say the absurd “Science can’t prove that God does not exist therefore that proves intelligent design is true.” There is a lie for you and a logical fallacy of the first order. A perfect example of an evil conclusion based on a lie

Link: The video at the top of the page is a talk from a "scientist" from the Discovery Institute, an organisation who's entire purpose is basically to try and push intelligent design.

Typically not one intelligent response to what was said. This bigoted observation lacks the slightest support.

I hope you are not planning more of the same nonsense.

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 January 2012 - 02:20 AM.

[Link]

I have 12 full years of college and graduate work and have written hundreds of papers. I have taught college classes for years Your restrictions on sources is nonsense and childish. Forget it, it’s a scam to make discolurse difficult. What, can't handle source materials?

So what are you a doctor in bible studies?

Here is my argument again. No use repeating it.
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476
2 http://www.longecity...post__p__491932
3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066
4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250
5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433
6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

By the way my own personal position which I favor is not Intelligent Design which I have said before but I am willing to defend it. God’s existence does not depend on me being right. I am open to a number of views. What would Atheists do if ID was correct? Theists are the real friends of science and are open to the truth, no matter where.

Your links don't work college boy.

[platypus]

It's moronic to even try to defend ID against peer-reviewed science with youtube-clips. ID is pseudoscience, pure and simple and this is a fact.

[shadowhawk]

I have 12 full years of college and graduate work and have written hundreds of papers. I have taught college classes for years Your restrictions on sources is nonsense and childish. Forget it, it’s a scam to make discolurse difficult. What, can't handle source materials?

So what are you a doctor in bible studies?

Here is my argument again. No use repeating it.
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476
2 http://www.longecity...post__p__491932
3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066
4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250
5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433
6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

By the way my own personal position which I favor is not Intelligent Design which I have said before but I am willing to defend it. God’s existence does not depend on me being right. I am open to a number of views. What would Atheists do if ID was correct? Theists are the real friends of science and are open to the truth, no matter where.

Your links don't work college boy.

THE ARGUMENTS I PRESENTED FOR DESIGN - (THE Links all work)
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476

2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932

3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066

4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250

5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions from, the previous posts. Love it.

No I do not have a degree in Bible. Wish I did. My formal studies are philosophy, history, and psychology. However my interests go much wider. I am not afraid of studying anything How about you? Seems as if you get all emotional and upset, if you have to get information from a multimedia source. Is this an atheist trait? Do you ever watch documentaries, like movies or audio? Ever watch a speaker who uses audiovisuals in her presentation? What was your emotional reaction. Hmmm

[shadowhawk]

It's moronic to even try to defend ID against peer-reviewed science with youtube-clips. ID is pseudoscience, pure and simple and this is a fact.

More of the same. You have many posts just like this. PEER REVIEW - intelligent design papers Meyer and Nelson on a Failed Explanation for the Origin of the Genetic Code - Evolution News & Views Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education - Evolution News & Views A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Evolution News & Views Evolution News & Views: Search Results Peer-Review and the Corruption of Science - Evolution News & Views

[Link]

Below, is an argument for intelligent design which I presented with nothing but Logical Fallacies, one after another, from Atheists as answers.. Two get to play the same game. In your own words, without reference to any outside propaganda show me how the DNA code is not intelligent. I have presented leading evolutionists who believe in God so I do not believe evolution makes the answer to the question, “Is God Theatrically Possible,” NO. I believe the answer is, YES.

Are you taking the NO position?

1. If you believe that DNA is intelligent then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Nobody debates that living systems are incredibly complex, but this is not proof that a man in the sky tinkers with them.

2. Whether or not God is possible, depending on your definition, has nothing to do with intelligent design vs. evolution. God may or may not exist but even if he does that doesn't mean that he designs life, and complexity in living systems is not dependent on the existence of God.

Besides if you are from a Judeo-Christian religion aren't you supposed to believe in Genesis? Intelligent design is just a way for religious people to try and hang on to their religion and not look stupid, because nobody with half a brain can keep a straight face and seriously propose that the Earth is 4000 years old and that we are all descended from two people named Adam and Eve who lived for hundreds of years and were evicted from the Garden of Eden for eating forbidden fruit. And yet, that is in the book that they say is the word of the same God they now say designs evolution, of which the Bible mentions nothing. The whole thing is complete contradictory BS. If God uses evolution as a tool then why does his book completely contradict everything about it?

Intelligent design is just pushing the "God did it" argument further down the line into the the smallest areas that science does not yet have complete understanding. Nobody claims that science understands everything there is to know about evolutionary biology, and new areas are still being investigated such as epigenetics, but there is no evidence of a divine creator of life other than "you can't prove there's not".

[Link]

THE ARGUMENTS I PRESENTED FOR DESIGN - (THE Links all work)
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476

2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932

3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066

4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250

5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions from, the previous posts. Love it.

No I do not have a degree in Bible. Wish I did. My formal studies are philosophy, history, and psychology. However my interests go much wider. I am not afraid of studying anything How about you? Seems as if you get all emotional and upset, if you have to get information from a multimedia source. Is this an atheist trait? Do you ever watch documentaries, like movies or audio? Ever watch a speaker who uses audiovisuals in her presentation? What was your emotional reaction. Hmmm

I can handle multimedia sources just fine, the difference is i don't feel that simply cutting and pasting an hour long youtube video constitutes an argument, i prefer to actually respond by using my own words. If you'd prefer i can cut and paste some videos on my behalf, and lazily sit back and expect you to deconstruct their arguments, as you seem to prefer to do, but i don't consider that to be intelligent discourse.

Also i can't handle having to listen to William Lane Craig for more than about 30 seconds without wanting to shoot myself in the face.

As for your arguement for intelligent design:

1. This post seems to be more for Creationism than anything, it seems you are arguing that there are no transitional fossils. The number of transitional fossils is too great to list them all here but wikipedia has a fairly long list.

http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils

My personal favourite is the Archaeopteryx, one of the links between dinosaurs and birds.

Also the idea of the Cambrian "explosion" and that millions of new species arose "overnight" has since been challanged.

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia....he_explosion.3F


2. Your argument seems to be that random mutations are always harmful.

This is not true infact mutations are neither inherently helpful nor harmful, it all depends on the environmental pressures in which the animal is trying to survive. Take white and black skin. Black skin is helpful in the harsh african sun as it prevents you from sunburn and skin cancer. White skin is better in the far north of Europe where people get little sunshine as white skin is able to synthesize Vitamin D more efficiently.

It is the environment which determines which mutations will survive so if you are the recipient of a random mutation, it all depends on whether you are in an environment in which your mutation will give you an advantage. If yes, then you will survive and your offspring will carry your genetic mutation forward and their children until it becomes a staple of the populace of the species. If your mutation is disadvantageous then you will likely die before you have the chance to reproduce and your genes are removed from the pool. Thus advantagous genes are carried forward and disadvantageous genes are eliminated, all without the help of a divine creator.

Besides random mutations it is now known are not the only way that an organisms genome can change. Horizontal DNA transfer, interspecific hybridization, genome doubling and symbiogenesis`are other ways in which a species genome can incorporate new genetic material.

3. Your main argument seems to be here:

A leading scientist in this field is Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago discovered.

***A protozoa under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved protozoa.***

Re-read that short paragraph and really consider the significance of it. The protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves intelligently.

For the record i haven't been able to find anything about an experiment showing a protozoa "splicing its DNA into 100000 pieces and a program sensing variables so it can redesign itself into a new better protozoa". I'd appreciate a link to the original experiment written by Dr. James Shapiro.

Dr. James Shapiro actually addresses this idea that he calls "natural genetic engineering" in an article response to another journalist who claimed it was evidence of intelligent design.

Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is a design theory -- organisms are intelligent and do their own designing. But the structures they need to do their own engineering are themselves devastatingly complicated. How did these arise? Indeed, why should it be a stretch to think that these structures are themselves the product of design? But since they are presupposed by living systems (all cells do natural genetic engineering according to Shapiro), they must derive from a non-biological source.

Dr. James Shapiro: I don't follow the logic of Dembski's argument here. All we know is that natural genetic engineering is ubiquitous in living cells today. Like cells themselves, when and how NGE originated is unknown. Does Dembski have any empirical basis for asserting "they must derive from a non-biological source"? If so, I would appreciate learning what it is.

http://www.evolution...ir_1055151.html

So Dr. James Shapiro does not even believe that this phenomenon in any way provides evidence of design by a supernatural being.


4. I don't really understand what you're getting at here, comparing computer programs to biological evolution.

It seems like you are now trying to propose another type of intelligent design where instead of a supernatural being guiding evolution and the individual changes that develop amongst species, that God has designed an initial system so brilliant that after he designed it he could sit back and watch it to continue to evolve and adapt without further interference from him.

This is just further backpedalling by the religious community once again trying to reconcile their faith by finding areas that science has not yet explained.


5. So now you are quoting Genesis. I don't know why religious people feel they can say things like that the creationist story is "open to interpretation". If God of the Bible is the true God then he does a very good job of shooting himself in the foot. If your God designed animals through evolution then why does his book completely contradict this and if he knows that Genesis is not how it really happened can he really blame people for thinking that his whole religion is BS if it doesn't get it right from the start?


6. Again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it seems to be that Christians are somehow more open minded than aethiests, or that agian the creationist story is open to many different interpretations.

a Christian (naturally) believes that there is such a person as God, and believes that God has created and sustains the world. Starting from this position... we recognize that there are many ways in which God could have created the living things he has in fact created: how, in fact, did he do it? ...Did it all happen just by way of the working of the laws of physics, or was there further divine activity..? That's the question... Starting from the belief in God, we must look at the evidence and consider the probabilities as best we can.

This is something that really irritates me about modern Christians.

Christians don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in and redefine and re-interpret them as they would like them to be, whilst omitting the parts that they would rather forget.

If you are a Christian then you believe in the Bible as the word of God.

If you believe the bible is the word of God then you believe God created the heavens, earth and all the animals and plants in seven days. Adam and Eve are the descendants of all living humans. Job lived in a whale. Moses parted the Red Sea. That god will destroy the world as it is stated in revelations.

You believe in slavery, condemn homosexuality and that people should be stoned for adultery.

If you don't believe in these things than you believe the Bible is wrong, either because because God is wrong or because the Bible is not the word of God.

[shadowhawk]

Below, is an argument for intelligent design which I presented with nothing but Logical Fallacies, one after another, from Atheists as answers.. Two get to play the same game. In your own words, without reference to any outside propaganda show me how the DNA code is not intelligent. I have presented leading evolutionists who believe in God so I do not believe evolution makes the answer to the question, “Is God Theatrically Possible,” NO. I believe the answer is, YES.

Are you taking the NO position?

1. If you believe that DNA is intelligent then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Nobody debates that living systems are incredibly complex, but this is not proof that a man in the sky tinkers with them.

2. Whether or not God is possible, depending on your definition, has nothing to do with intelligent design vs. evolution. God may or may not exist but even if he does that doesn't mean that he designs life, and complexity in living systems is not dependent on the existence of God.

Besides if you are from a Judeo-Christian religion aren't you supposed to believe in Genesis? Intelligent design is just a way for religious people to try and hang on to their religion and not look stupid, because nobody with half a brain can keep a straight face and seriously propose that the Earth is 4000 years old and that we are all descended from two people named Adam and Eve who lived for hundreds of years and were evicted from the Garden of Eden for eating forbidden fruit. And yet, that is in the book that they say is the word of the same God they now say designs evolution, of which the Bible mentions nothing. The whole thing is complete contradictory BS. If God uses evolution as a tool then why does his book completely contradict everything about it?

Intelligent design is just pushing the "God did it" argument further down the line into the the smallest areas that science does not yet have complete understanding. Nobody claims that science understands everything there is to know about evolutionary biology, and new areas are still being investigated such as epigenetics, but there is no evidence of a divine creator of life other than "you can't prove there's not".

1. I have already discussed how DNA contains a “code.” Intelligent Design says nothing about what the intelligence is. Obviously you don’t have a clue what ID is. Should I go to the bother of repositing what I have argued when you don’t have a clue? Follow what I posted and then lets argue. I don’t want to start all over again just to give you a education. Then the next atheist comes along and we start all over.

THE ARGUMENTS I PRESENTED FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476
2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932
3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066
4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250
5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433
6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211


2. I think ID raises the additional question of what the source of ID is. Since the topic of this thread is the possibility of God, it has everything to do with our topic. You don’t understand the topic. Atheists can’t, because of their groundless faith, even consider the possibility of Intelligent Design scientifically

Whether I believe in Genesis or not, is likewise off topic. You don’t have a clue what that means. One Ad Hominem after another. You are the Logical Fallacy King.

I posted my view of Genesis earlier in this thread. This is nothing but a straw man showing your complete ignorance of Genesis issues. I could post it again??? . Want me to do so you will know what you are talking about and don’t have to use childish straw men to put down Theists? The Intelligent Designer could be the God of the Bible.

And how did you find out it is 4000 years???

[Link]

1. I have already discussed how DNA contains a “code.” Intelligent Design says nothing about what the intelligence is. Obviously you don’t have a clue what ID is.

Um.. So now it's not God doing it it's someone else?

Will you make up your mind?

2. I think ID raises the additional question of what the source of ID is. Since the topic of this thread is the possibility of God, it has everything to do with our topic. You don’t understand the topic. Atheists can’t, because of their groundless faith, even consider the possibility of Intelligent Design scientifically

Whether I believe in Genesis or not, is likewise off topic. You don’t have a clue what that means. One Ad Hominem after another. You are the Logical Fallacy King.

I posted my view of Genesis earlier in this thread. This is nothing but a straw man showing your complete ignorance of Genesis issues. I could post it again??? . Want me to do so you will know what you are talking about and don’t have to use childish straw men to put down Theists? The Intelligent Designer could be the God of the Bible.

And how did you find out it is 4000 years???

My apologies, it was 6000 years.

http://en.wikipedia....sher_chronology

[shadowhawk]

Link: I can handle multimedia sources just fine, the difference is I don't feel that simply cutting and pasting an hour long youtube video constitutes an argument, I prefer to actually respond by using my own words. If you'd prefer I can cut and paste some videos on my behalf, and lazily sit back and expect you to deconstruct their arguments, as you seem to prefer to do, but I don't consider that to be intelligent discourse.

Also I can't handle having to listen to William Lane Craig for more than about 30 seconds without wanting to shoot myself in the face.

Good multimedia is simply a commutation tool. Don’t shoot yourself. Perhaps you should stay away from multimedia with reactions like that..

Link: As for your arguement for intelligent design:

1. This post seems to be more for Creationism than anything, it seems you are arguing that there are no transitional fossils. The number of transitional fossils is too great to list them all here but wikipedia has a fairly long list.

http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils

My personal favourite is the Archaeopteryx, one of the links between dinosaurs and birds.

Also the idea of the Cambrian "explosion" and that millions of new species arose "overnight" has since been challanged.

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.[4]

http://en.wikipedia....he_explosion.3F

Nothing here that I have argued. Where? You love to set up the straw man fallacy don’t you. It neither proves or disproves ID. Lots of debate going on and many views beside ID. ID has different views as well. Are you ignorant of this? http://www.discovery.org/

Link: 2. Your argument seems to be that random mutations are always harmful.

This is not true infact mutations are neither inherently helpful nor harmful, it all depends on the environmental pressures in which the animal is trying to survive. Take white and black skin. Black skin is helpful in the harsh african sun as it prevents you from sunburn and skin cancer. White skin is better in the far north of Europe where people get little sunshine as white skin is able to synthesize Vitamin D more efficiently.

It is the environment which determines which mutations will survive so if you are the recipient of a random mutation, it all depends on whether you are in an environment in which your mutation will give you an advantage. If yes, then you will survive and your offspring will carry your genetic mutation forward and their children until it becomes a staple of the populace of the species. If your mutation is disadvantageous then you will likely die before you have the chance to reproduce and your genes are removed from the pool. Thus advantagous genes are carried forward and disadvantageous genes are eliminated, all without the help of a divine creator.

Besides random mutations it is now known are not the only way that an organisms genome can change. Horizontal DNA transfer, interspecific hybridization, genome doubling and symbiogenesis`are other ways in which a species genome can incorporate new genetic material.

I didn’t say mutations are always harmful. They usually are. Show me the science backing this up. We have already had a long discussion on the topic in this thread. Perhaps you should read it. Again, another straw man. Must feel good!

Link:
3. Your main argument seems to be here:

A leading scientist in this field is Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago discovered.

***A protozoa under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved protozoa.***

Re-read that short paragraph and really consider the significance of it. The protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves intelligently. YES

For the record I haven't been able to find anything about an experiment showing a protozoa "splicing its DNA into 100000 pieces and a program sensing variables so it can redesign itself into a new better protozoa". I'd appreciate a link to the original experiment written by Dr. James Shapiro.

Dr. James Shapiro actually addresses this idea that he calls "natural genetic engineering" in an article response to another journalist who claimed it was evidence of intelligent design.

Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is a design theory -- organisms are intelligent and do their own designing. But the structures they need to do their own engineering are themselves devastatingly complicated. How did these arise? Indeed, why should it be a stretch to think that these structures are themselves the product of design? But since they are presupposed by living systems (all cells do natural genetic engineering according to Shapiro), they must derive from a non-biological source.

Dr. James Shapiro: I don't follow the logic of Dembski's argument here. All we know is that natural genetic engineering is ubiquitous in living cells today. Like cells themselves, when and how NGE originated is unknown. Does Dembski have any empirical basis for asserting "they must derive from a non-biological source"? If so, I would appreciate learning what it is.

http://www.evolution...ir_1055151.html

So Dr. James Shapiro does not even believe that this phenomenon in any way provides evidence of design by a supernatural being.

So do you think this disproves Intelligent Design? How? I was pointing to Intelligent Design, not God. Possibly God?

link: 4. I don't really understand what you're getting at here, comparing computer programs to biological evolution.

It seems like you are now trying to propose another type of intelligent design where instead of a supernatural being guiding evolution and the individual changes that develop amongst species, that God has designed an initial system so brilliant that after he designed it he could sit back and watch it to continue to evolve and adapt without further interference from him.

This is just further backpedalling by the religious community once again trying to reconcile their faith by finding areas that science has not yet explained.

Not at all. You just have misunderstood ID

.

Link:
5. So now you are quoting Genesis. I don't know why religious people feel they can say things like that the creationist story is "open to interpretation". If God of the Bible is the true God then he does a very good job of shooting himself in the foot. If your God designed animals through evolution then why does his book completely contradict this and if he knows that Genesis is not how it really happened can he really blame people for thinking that his whole religion is BS if it doesn't get it right from the start?

Since the very beginnings of history Jews and later Christians have had various views of Genesis. For example the word ‘Yom” is Hebrew for both day and age. There are many places in the Bible where it is used for a period of time. The first days in Genesis one, came before there even was a sun, so we are not talking about 24 hours. Then there is the issue of point of view and such issues as relativity. How does this affect time? Again I have posted on this earlier. I think you have shot yourself in the foot with ignorance. You treat these issues like a Sunday School child.

Link:
6. Again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it seems to be that Christians are somehow more open minded than aethiests, or that agian the creationist story is open to many different interpretations.

Shadowhawk:
“a Christian (naturally) believes that there is such a person as God, and believes that God has created and sustains the world. Starting from this position... we recognize that there are many ways in which God could have created the living things he has in fact created: how, in fact, did he do it? ...Did it all happen just by way of the working of the laws of physics, or was there further divine activity..? That's the question... Starting from the belief in God, we must look at the evidence and consider the probabilities as best we can.”

This is something that really irritates me about modern Christians.

Christians don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in and redefine and re-interpret them as they would like them to be, whilst omitting the parts that they would rather forget.

If you are a Christian then you believe in the Bible as the word of God.

If you believe the bible is the word of God then you believe God created the heavens, earth and all the animals and plants in seven days. Adam and Eve are the descendants of all living humans. Job lived in a whale. Moses parted the Red Sea. That god will destroy the world as it is stated in revelations.

You believe in slavery, condemn homosexuality and that people should be stoned for adultery.

If you don't believe in these things than you believe the Bible is wrong, either because because God is wrong or because the Bible is not the word of God.

What baloney! The problem you have is your ignorant view of Theism. I suggest you get more exposure to what faith is all about. Being a Christian does not mean we have to believe your ignorant, dumb view of our faith.

[shadowhawk]

1. I have already discussed how DNA contains a “code.” Intelligent Design says nothing about what the intelligence is. Obviously you don’t have a clue what ID is.

Um.. So now it's not God doing it it's someone else?

Will you make up your mind?

You don't know what ID is.

2. I think ID raises the additional question of what the source of ID is. Since the topic of this thread is the possibility of God, it has everything to do with our topic. You don’t understand the topic. Atheists can’t, because of their groundless faith, even consider the possibility of Intelligent Design scientifically

Whether I believe in Genesis or not, is likewise off topic. You don’t have a clue what that means. One Ad Hominem after another. You are the Logical Fallacy King.

I posted my view of Genesis earlier in this thread. This is nothing but a straw man showing your complete ignorance of Genesis issues. I could post it again??? . Want me to do so you will know what you are talking about and don’t have to use childish straw men to put down Theists? The Intelligent Designer could be the God of the Bible.

And how did you find out it is 4000 years???

Link
My apologies, it was 6000 years.

http://en.wikipedia....sher_chronology

This is a view some had hundreds of years ago. Bishop Usher. Only the ignorant think most Christians hold that.
Never answered my question. Want another view or are you committed to your straw man?

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 January 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

[Link]

Nothing here that I have argued. Where? You love to set up the straw man fallacy don’t you. It neither proves or disproves ID. Lots of debate going on and many views beside ID. ID has different views as well. Are you ignorant of this? http://www.discovery.org/

That is what was in the video that you posted.

This is what i was talking about. If you are going to be so lazy as to simply post videos of other people talking then i assume that those are your own opinions as well. If you don't agree with what is in the videos you are posting don't post them.

I didn’t say mutations are always harmful. They usually are. Show me the science backing this up. We have already had a long discussion on the topic in this thread. Perhaps you should read it. Again, another straw man. Must feel good!

Whatever. Here are your own words from that post:

What is meant by "random variation"?

Thousands of biology books say it's accidental copying errors in DNA. Cause ‘random variation.”
They say, essentially, that it's corrupted data that occasionally turns out to be beneficial instead of harmful.

Nowhere is corrupted data helpful instead of harmful." It's ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt it.

....

Technically, this is because random mutation is noise and noise *always* destroys a signal. Claude Shannon called it information entropy. Entropy is not reversible. Noise never improves a signal. It only mucks it up.

So do you think this disproves Intelligent Design? How? I was pointing to Intelligent Design, not God. Possibly God?

Again, i don't have to disprove intelligent design, that is your burden, to prove it. I was simply showing that what you stated is not proof of intelligent design, even the guy you were quoting doesn't think it is.

Not at all. You just have misunderstood ID

Ok.

Since the very beginnings of history Jews and later Christians have had various views of Genesis. For example the word ‘Yom” is Hebrew for both day and age. There are many places in the Bible where it is used for a period of time. The first days in Genesis one, came before there even was a sun, so we are not talking about 24 hours. Then there is the issue of point of view and such issues as relativity. How does this affect time? Again I have posted on this earlier. I think you have shot yourself in the foot with ignorance. You treat these issues like a Sunday School child.

Perhaps Yahweh in his great wisdom could have maybe clarified this then so there was no confusion.

What baloney! The problem you have is your ignorant view of Theism. I suggest you get more exposure to what faith is all about. Being a Christian does not mean we have to believe your ignorant, dumb view of our faith.

You can "believe" whatever the hell you want. I honestly couldn't care less.

[platypus]

It's moronic to even try to defend ID against peer-reviewed science with youtube-clips. ID is pseudoscience, pure and simple and this is a fact.

More of the same. You have many posts just like this. PEER REVIEW - intelligent design papers Meyer and Nelson on a Failed Explanation for the Origin of the Genetic Code - Evolution News & Views Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education - Evolution News & Views A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Evolution News & Views Evolution News & Views: Search Results Peer-Review and the Corruption of Science - Evolution News & Views

Yes, more of the same. I'm against pseudoscience masquerading itself as ascience, or even as valid critique of science.

Your 1st reference: Bio-complexity is a new open-access Journal and is therefore only weakly peer-reviewed. I doubt the Journal even has an impact factor and for all we know it might be founded just to pass pseudoscience through peer review. You need to have something published at least in a mid-tier Journal that is widely read among evolutionary biologists.

Your 2nd reference is to Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, this is only very marginally better than Bio-complexity as at least it appears to be a Journal. The same critique applies - this is not even near good enough to count. Publish in at least a mid-tier Journal and we can talk.

3rd reference: Someone published something 25 years ago. What did it lead to and how does it argue for ID?

The last reference is not peer-reviewed but appears to contain some bitching about peer-review. It's too bad that peer-review is not perfect and it's also too bad that ID produces unpublishable pseudoscience. Tough luck.

edit: Bio-complexity is a bullshit-journal founded to publish "studies" about ID. Founding Journals to publish pseudoscience is a scientific crime - are all Christian Cretinists this screwed up and dishonest? Maybe demon-possession made them do it!?

Edited by platypus, 26 January 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[churchill]

@shadowhawk.
Not sure if you have covered this one already but what is your view on why the human body seems to have been designed poorly in some respects. Two examples come to mind.
1) The appendix which seems to be redundant but can cause a fatality in human.
2) Birth which is a very strenous procedure and use to cause many female fatalities until the advent of modern medicine.

[Link]

@shadowhawk.
Not sure if you have covered this one already but what is your view on why the human body seems to have been designed poorly in some respects. Two examples come to mind.
1) The appendix which seems to be redundant but can cause a fatality in human.
2) Birth which is a very strenous procedure and use to cause many female fatalities until the advent of modern medicine.

This is a good point but i would even take it a step further.

If the DNA code is intelligent why do we see both humans and other animals that are born with horrible birth deformities (often these are so severe that a child is stillborn or dies shortly after birth), or genetic illnesses such as muscular dystrophy and hemophilia.

Surely an intelligent system would recognise these as damaging genes and repair them or replace them with functioning ones, but it does not.


Of course genetic inheritance is explained and studied very well and we know that genes traits are assigned randomly from both parents and we are often able to predict the probability of a child being born with a particular illness, depending on whether one or both parents is a carrier or sufferer and whether a particular trait is dominant or recessive. All because we know that genes are assigned randomly.

This link explains it quite well.

http://anthro.paloma...el/mendel_2.htm

[shadowhawk]

@shadowhawk.
Not sure if you have covered this one already but what is your view on why the human body seems to have been designed poorly in some respects. Two examples come to mind.
1) The appendix which seems to be redundant but can cause a fatality in human.
2) Birth which is a very strenous procedure and use to cause many female fatalities until the advent of modern medicine.

Great question. It is a broader issue then bad design in nature. This is just a subdivision of the larger Problem of Evil Why do things not work? What is physical evil such as the example you brought up and spiritual evil.

Atheists complain about "bad" designs in biology and everything else. It has to be God’s fault. God is even responsible for the great evil atheists have done in history. http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM
http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5527 You ought to see how they blame theists for their own evil

The implication in biology is that a divine designer could not do such a poor job. Let's look at some famous examples of "bad design" and see what the latest published literature says about that design. I am going to give you a source to avoid writing a book.
http://www.godandsci...igngonebad.html
This is about the larger Problem of Evil.
http://www.barnesand...nXBFa30M-_-10:1

http://www.barnesand...n=9780743296229

http://www.arn.org/