Say Anything Blog

Isn’t that the way debate is supposed to work?

I’m not sure that intelligent design theories rise to the level of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Dave.

Not that I buy into ID theories even a little bit.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Approximately 80 percent of the people in our nation believe in a God and that God created the universe and the rules in which it evolves.  Shouldn’t the views of this vast majority be heard, in academia as well as elsewhere?  Why should the views of these people be suppressed to appease the views of the aetheistic minority?

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Shouldn’t the views of this vast majority be heard, in academia as well as elsewhere?  Why should the views of these people be suppressed to appease the views of the aetheistic minority?

Oh I don’t know, maybe because there isn’t a shred of real scientific evidence to support ID. However, I do think it’s a good debate to have. The more information, the better. I’m not saying ID couldn’t be possible (heck, anything’s possible I guess), but until there’s actual scientific evidence, it’s a hard theory to buy into.

I’m with Andrew.  It isn’t something I buy into personally, but it is a good debate to have.

I don’t think you can ever go wrong by choosing the side of free speech in a given circumstance.  I wouldn’t even support shutting down 9/11 conspiracy theorists on campus...though I would likely be out in front of their gathering with a sign proclaiming them to be the idiots they are.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, Andrew, I’m glad that you both support free expression regardless of the subject or the apparent absence of scientific proof.  The reality is that there is little scientific proof on any creation theory so there should be ample room for free discussion on all and every theory.  [Evolution theory is not concerned with creation but the changes in species AFTER the core species have been already created and even that is on shakey ground because of the absence of transitional fossils]

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

DocDave:

[Evolution theory is not concerned with creation but the changes in species ...

If you are saying it doesn’t concern itself with the origins of life itself, I agree with you.  That’s why its called “evolution” rather than “creation”.

...and even that is on shakey ground because of the absence of transitional fossils

Well that isn’t so much the case these days, literally thousands of transitional fossils have been discovered, and when they are absent perfectly reasonable explanations for their absence exists.  See this for discussion.

My feeling is that if God had left proof around that it wouldn’t be that big of a deal to believe in Him.

God’s about belief, not about proof.

So if you’re looking for proof of His existence you’re not going to find it.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

So if you’re looking for proof of His existence you’re not going to find it.

Well then, that makes a debate over ID impossible, now doesn’t it? Why have a debate if you don’t have proof to offer? Like I said, I don’t have any problem with debating the issue, but its hard for the secientific community to adopt or even study ID until there’s some evidence to offer.

[Evolution theory is not concerned with creation but the changes in species ...

Is that why its main scripture is entitled “The Origin of Species”?

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Well then, that makes a debate over ID impossible, now doesn’t it? Why have a debate if you don’t have proof to offer?

Well you can argue some logic issues without definitive proof.  For example how likely is it that we would get to this point by random chance out of some primordial condition.

I just don’t think you’re going to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Is that why its main scripture is entitled “The Origin of Species”?

That’s the unfortunate title of Darwin’s original thesis which evolutionts today general don’t support.  Darwin was did not believe in God so he had ever reason to construct an alternate to Godly creation.

Well you can argue some logic issues without definitive proof.  For example how likely is it that we would get to this point by random chance out of some primordial condition

Right, there is absolutely no proof of the creation of life from primordial conditions but that hasn’t stopped ‘scientists’ from continual research in that direction.  It seems to me that the Godly creation theory should rightly get the same latitude.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Well that isn’t so much the case these days, literally thousands of transitional fossils have been discovered, and when they are absent perfectly reasonable explanations for their absence exists

I’ve checked your reference and see mostly excuses for fossil gaps.  I particularly enjoy this one.

Why don’t paleontologists bother to popularize the detailed lineages and species-to-species transitions? Because it is thought to be unnecessary detail. For instance, it takes an entire book to describe the horse fossils even partially (e.g. MacFadden’s “Fossil Horses"), so most authors just collapse the horse sequence to a series of genera. Paleontologists clearly consider the occurrence of evolution to be a settled question, so obvious as to be beyond rational dispute, so, they think, why waste valuable textbook space on such tedious detail?

Indeed!!!!  Why ask for proof when we can accept the word of the evolutionist high priests.  What a neat separation from real scientific work which would record everything in detail and in published papers.  This only goes to show that evolution is more a religion than a science.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Oh I don’t know, maybe because there isn’t a shred of real scientific evidence to support ID.

This is an unfair statement.
God is outside the parameters of scientific investigation and therefore to conclude no evidence exist because the method of investigation excludes all but natural causes is circular as I have posted and extensively argued in a reader blog. 

Intelligence demands a sufficient cause—one greater than the effect.  Forces demand the same, as well as laws in nature.  These and others are legitimate proofs of a greater being.  However, the observation ends there.  Who or what created is then a matter of faith.  The scientific method can only begin after the philosophical presumption than “nature is all there is” is made. Where philosophical observation ends, science begins.

Therefore, to claim that science proves there is no Creator is a circular fallacy.  Even honest scientists will admit that the scientific method cannot prove God does or does not exist because science (as practiced and defined) excludes all but natural causes.

Robert108:

Is that why its main scripture is entitled “The Origin of Species”?

Yes, Robert108, that’s why it’s “scripture” is called Origin of Species, as in how species came into being.

If it had dealt with the origin of life, no doubt the title of the book, er “scripture”, would be “Origin of Life”.

A better title might have been “On the Principle of Natural Selection,” which is mostly what the detailed treatment including hundreds of pages of data from his journeys to the Galapagos Islands, in the process laying the foundations of modern ecology…

DocDave:

Darwin was did not believe in God so he had ever reason to construct an alternate to Godly creation.

This is wrong.  Although an ardent Christian as a youth, Darwin accepted the existence of God as the prime mover, but doubted His beneficence and certainly did not except the Christian Bible (especially the Old Testament) as infallible.  I have a theory that part of his turning away from God was the result of the vociferous attacks he received by ardent theists, but that’s just my theory.

Therefore, to claim that science proves there is no Creator is a circular fallacy.  Even honest scientists will admit that the scientific method cannot prove God does or does not exist because science (as practiced and defined) excludes all but natural causes.

Exactly correct.

DocDave:

I’ve checked your reference and see mostly excuses for fossil gaps.

Which I would describe as “reasonable explanations for the gaps”, which over time get smaller and smaller.  But there is mostly just one explanation (what other “explanations” are you referring to?):  If there are periods with no fossil formation, then one cannot expect fossils from those periods.

Yet you appear to demand we produce fossils, which of course is an impossible demand.

I suppose we can conclude that the absence of fossils implies no living creatures from those periods where fossils are not present?  (That was not a serious comment.)

By the way, DocDave, to an extent we fill in gaps by finding geological exploration, discovering in the process layers of fossilized rock which fill in missing gaps.  That’s why the number of missing transitional fossils decreases over time.

Robert108:

Is that why its main scripture is entitled “The Origin of Species”?

Yes, Robert108, that’s why it’s
“scripture” is called Origin of Species, as in how species came into being.

If it had dealt with the origin of life, no doubt the title of the book, er “scripture”, would be “Origin of Life

Sorry I ruffled your feathers, Carrick. My reply specifically addressed this claim:

[Evolution theory is not concerned with creation but the changes in species ...

That is an untrue statement.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Robert108:

[Evolution theory is not concerned with creation but the changes in species ...

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I said.  What I meant by “creation” was the origin of life.  Darwin’s Origin of Species is, as I have said, primarily about the principle of natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and does not deal with origin of life questions.

Primordial Soup! With oyster crackers. Mmmmm. Proto-algae.