Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins’ Latest Book Sees Criticism of Evolution in Same Vein as Holocaust Denial

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The TimesOnline (go here) has an extract from Dawkins’ latest book, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. Here’s an extract of the extract:

…Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time…

Comments
R0b,
(Without bringing up the tautological “If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident”...)
How is that a tautology?Clive Hayden
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Barry:
Your assertion that that Dembski-Marks paper does not support the basic premises of ID is risible.
Then by all means, share the joke. The paper presents a relativized measure of search performance and applies it to various searches. How do you connect the dots to ID? (Without bringing up the tautological "If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident", please.)R0b
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Barry
I can see Kintyre from my house.
The above sentence, which I co-wrote with my dog, supports a flat earth. My dog agrees with me.
5. Your assertion that that Dembski-Marks paper does not support the basic premises of ID is risible. Do you know better than the authors themselves, both of whom say the opposite? That question was rhetorical Blue. Stop typing.
So lets leave the Humpty-Dumpty arguments from authority at the door... Blue did not assert that the D&M paper does not support ID. He merely noted that the paper fails to mention ID, and asked you to specify how it supports ID. It is, OTOH, D&M who appear to be doing the asserting.DNA_Jock
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
1. In [101] Blue Lotus claims ID proponents have had 2,000 years to develop a scientific case. Is the Darwinist camp so intellectually bankrupt that it attempts to divert attention from its failures by suggesting that ID proponents should have made a scientific case for ID 1,600 years before the scientific method was invented? Blue, evolution has an ancient pedigree going back to the Greeks too. So in the spirit of your question I could ask you why the ancient evolutionists did not apply the yet-to-be-invented scientific method to their theories? Hmmmm? 2. Blue then claims that he has never heard of Darwinists yelling fact! fact! fact! in an attempt to stifle the debate. Is that all you’ve got? You want me to demonstrate that which has been demonstrated dozens (if not hundreds) of times before on this site? Are there any other obvious and non-controvertible facts you want me to demonstrate again? How about I provide quotes demonstrating the Pope is Catholic? Give me a break. Don’t be tedious. 3. Blue then points to orthodoxy to support his position. Blue, let me clue you in. Scientific orthodoxies come and go. A theory is orthodox up until the time it isn’t. Let me give you two examples. Plate tectonics went from lunacy to orthodoxy in a matter of decades. The steady state universe was orthodoxy until it was not longer tenable and had to be replaced by the standard model. In summary, your appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic would make a medieval churchman blush and proves nothing. 4. You point to some defunct websites to demonstrate . . .what? That those websites are defunct. I’ll grant you that. So? The action has moved on to other forums. Do try to keep up won’t you Blue. 5. Your assertion that that Dembski-Marks paper does not support the basic premises of ID is risible. Do you know better than the authors themselves, both of whom say the opposite? That question was rhetorical Blue. Stop typing. If I ever have doubts that Darwinism is in trouble, all I have to do is read its supporters and my doubts are laid to rest.Barry Arrington
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Barry
Darwinists have had 150 years to develop their theory.
But you've had 2000+ years plus to develop yours? Why only starting the scientific investgations now?
Yet, no matter how often they act like petulant children, getting red in the face and jumping up and down screaming “fact! fact! fact!”
Who does that? What are you basing that on?
it is plain that they have experienced a catastrophic failure to seal the deal
Yet 99%+ of biologists disagree. Is that a "catastrophic failure" in your terms?
and their flailing about serves only to bring that failure into stark relief.
Does it? How does that go then? Can you give me an example of such happening?
ID as a scientific project is less than 15 years old, and already it has made impressive gains in laying the framework for further research
Already eh? I used to keep up on developments at the international society for complexity information and design. http://www.iscid.org/ Not much been happening the last, oh, half decade or so. Or we could visit the nexus for researching intelligent design http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org No edits for, oh, coming up to half a decade.
and peer-reviewed articles supporting its basic premise (e.g. the Dembski-Marks article published this month) are starting to appear.
The Dembski-Marks paper starts off assuming "Darwinism" is true. They don't mention or allude to intelligent design anywhere in the paper itself. If it supports ID can you tell me in what specific way it does so? Be specific.
Scoff now while you still can. 20 years from now we will see who was on the wrong side of history.
You do know there is a website that notes how people down through the years have claimed "Darwinism" is about to fall and collects the quotes together. As yet, "Darwinism" has not fallen and they have many decades of quotes and no sign of stopping yet.
I suspect you will get to know first hand how dedicated Marxists felt the day after the Soviet Union fell and America won the cold war.
And how was that then? And how do political power plays relate to the simple fact of imperfect reproduction and selection?Blue Lotus
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Blue Lotus, re your comment at [99]. Darwinists have had 150 years to develop their theory. Yet, no matter how often they act like petulant children, getting red in the face and jumping up and down screaming “fact! fact! fact!”, it is plain that they have experienced a catastrophic failure to seal the deal, and their flailing about serves only to bring that failure into stark relief. ID as a scientific project is less than 15 years old, and already it has made impressive gains in laying the framework for further research, and peer-reviewed articles supporting its basic premise (e.g. the Dembski-Marks article published this month) are starting to appear. Scoff now while you still can. 20 years from now we will see who was on the wrong side of history. I suspect you will get to know first hand how dedicated Marxists felt the day after the Soviet Union fell and America won the cold war.Barry Arrington
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Barry
ID theorists do not “assume” design. They demonstrate that the markers universally associated with design are found in living things and therefore infer design based on the evidence.
Do they? Have they?
As a scientific enterprise, ID seeks to ground its conclusions on data, not speculations.
This seems at odds with what Phillip Johnson said
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world"
If the time has indeed come where markers associated with design have been found in living things then could you provide a list? As ID seeks to ground its conclusions on data, not speculations, where can I find that data that indicates markers universally associated with design have been found in living things? As far as I know, only one such example has been claimed by the ID camp, the bac flag. Are you counting IC as a "marker" then?Blue Lotus
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Barry, that was a great apologetic for ID. Probably the best I've heard to date. Of course, the others were mostly from the opposition.IRQ Conflict
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
First, ID theorists do not “assume” design. They demonstrate that the markers universally associated with design are found in living things and therefore infer design based on the evidence. Those “markers” are universally associated with human designs, and are invariably the result of certain characteristics inherent in humans and the things we make. Our designs reflect the fact that we are causal agents, for example, limited by the standard logical causality rules. Similarly, we are always limited by scarcity; no human designer ever has infinite time, resources, or knowledge with which to create a design. The “markers” that our designs carry reflect those limitations. Can we accordingly conclude that the Designer sought by ID shares our limitations, if its designs share our markers? A mainstream science would engage the question directly, as it impacts the search for “markers” of design. Natural and supernatural designers would probably leave very different designs, and some investigation into that delineation is a natural outgrowth of ID’s existing methods. But for unclear reasons, ID strictly abstains from any serious look at methodology. I don’t agree with your explanation; an investigation into the methods of design would be founded on the same “data” as an investigation into the existence of design. An alternate explanation is that IDists disagree on the characteristics of the presumed Designer; whether it is natural or supernatural, for example. Opening up an investigation into the characteristics of the Designer would alienate some parts of the movement, and make it much more vulnerable to accusations of being thinly-veiled religious ideology. I find the latter explanation more persuasive. Incidentally, you remark that “ID theorists . . . demonstrate that the markers universally associated with design are found in living things. . . .” Have those theorists ever actually demonstrated an ability to identify such markers? This relates to my prior points in that, like ID’s refusal to ask inevitable and relevant questions, it seems to be a way in which ID distinguishes itself from traditional science. One would expect scientists who have discovered a way to identify “markers associated with design” to be able to demonstrate a repeatable ability to detect design. Has ID ever applied its tools and methods in a blind test, to discover whether they are actually capable of discovering signs of human design where the testers are unaware of the subject’s origins?Learned Hand
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Learned Hand writes: "I observe . . . ID’s self-imposed embargo on any research into the methods of design. While the existence of design may be severable from the mechanisms of design, there is no reason to presume that it must be so, and even less to refuse to draw even preliminary conclusions at all about the nature of the presumed designer from the characteristics of what is assumed to be design." First, ID theorists do not “assume” design. They demonstrate that the markers universally associated with design are found in living things and therefore infer design based on the evidence. You should try to obtain a rudimentary understanding of the most basic principles of a discipline before you presume to criticize it. To your specific point, you misunderstand the ID project. As a scientific enterprise, ID seeks to ground its conclusions on data, not speculations. Ruminations about the methods used (and the nature of) the designer cannot be so grounded. Therefore, they are beyond the scope of ID proper.Barry Arrington
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Vjtorley, Thus imposing these methodological restrictions on the quest for signs of intelligent agency in the cosmos would severely constrain scientific research in a legitimate field of enquiry. In fact, I would go so far as to call such a methodological requirement a science-stopper. Here, we agree, except that the only "methodological limitations" I observe are in ID's self-imposed embargo on any research into the methods of design. While the existence of design may be severable from the mechanisms of design, there is no reason to presume that it must be so, and even less to refuse to draw even preliminary conclusions at all about the nature of the presumed designer from the characteristics of what is assumed to be design. ID's line-drawing appears to be more related to ideology and strategy than sound science; I'm not aware of any scientific field in which researchers declare that certain questions are absolutely off limits, as ID has. Spitfire, I'm no biologist, but I was under the impression that mutation was only one engine of evolution. Genetic drift also causes evolution, doesn't it? Aren't the morphological changes you identify caused by a change in allele frequency?Learned Hand
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Upright: While I understand your unhappiness with G et al, please, in recent weeks there has been a tendency to use vulgarities. That does not help the tone problem. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
Graham,
I was hoping that you would accept my admission with good grace.
I accept it just fine. And, I use the same general level of grace you used in making it in the first place.
As for whether investigators of creation are liars, thats not how I would put it. Its your term, not mine.
Let’s see how you put it. In between repeating Dover, you put it like this: “If you go there you will see, um, a religious site. Its even got an appeal to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Yep, its all there. So, Jones got it right at Dover. Scratch ID and you uncover religion. Its always there, just beneath the surface.” And also - “its a credibility thing”. So no, you don’t call them liars outright, you simply group them all together, and then deride them for no other reason than because they believe that there was a creation. You allow the subtle innuendo to do the heavy lifting so that you may keep your gentlemanly character intact. After all it’s a credibility thing, right? The fact that you were wrong in everything you were saying is…well…an unfortunate mistake. Who could have known, with such an easy rush to judgment.
At one extreme are the religious fundamentalists, and probably no comment needed there. At the other extreme are people like your Mr Abel who seem to be making a real effort to investigate the issues.
Who are the religious fundamentalists? Are those the ones that really believe or are they someone else? The reason I asked is that I didn’t see you making any distinctions when you thought you were beating up on Dr Abel. Shall we go ahead now and make no distinctions in non-believers as well? If we want to talk about, say, a public figure who has said they have doubts about the existence of God, can we then lump them in with those who perhaps go on vampire killing sprees, ala Rod Ferrell? Of course not, and neither should you. But, you do it anyway.
My beef with the supernatural/spiritual is that it is unproductive.
This is a comment that says more loudly than any I have recently heard: “I don’t care about the truth.” Actually I take that back; it was Megan in here a week or so ago arguing the same thing. "What good is the truth if it doesn’t cure cancer" she asked. Of course it was certainly clear; the real problem had more to do with protecting her worldview than curing cancer, but I am certain she felt better about wrapping herself in the flag. I told her I thought her comment was intellectually primitive. I now say the same to you.
My doctor doesnt usually pray for my health
Having made a complete mess of your argument, one might have thought you’d be wary about going even further. Yet, here you go anyway. Graham, take some advice. Since you attacked David Abel without any merit whatsoever, perhaps you can set things straight by taking the time to critically read and understand his work. When you’re through you might then turn back to the comment about your doctor praying and ask yourself if your comments are “productive” (or if they are just plain old bullshit).Upright BiPed
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
To Upright Biped, I made a mistake, and when I do I admit it. I was hoping that you would accept my admission with good grace. As for whether investigators of creation are liars, thats not how I would put it. Its your term, not mine. At one extreme are the religious fundamentalists, and probably no comment needed there. At the other extreme are people like your Mr Abel who seem to be making a real effort to investigate the issues. In between are most people who probably accept the results of their upbringing without being too analytical about it. My beef with the supernatural/spiritual is that it is unproductive. The main institutions that we trust with the truth are the courts, medical bodies, etc etc, and without exception all these bodies run on a purely materialistic basis. (My doctor doesnt usually pray for my health). So, when a priest cures a disease, or conjures up a mathematical formula, maybe the science community will take notice, but in the meantime they are not impressed.Graham1
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
Graham, I posted two papers that did not have any links to ministries of any kind. You were being deceitful when you said that the papers lead you to a ministries website. You can neither Google, nor use Yahoo (Alta Vista, Bing, Dogpile, Lygo, MSN, etc) in a way that did not take you directly to LifeOrigin.org. And, you would not find David Abel’s name anywhere else. That’s did not stop you from making your ad homenum attack on the authors of the paper. Then when I posted the text directly from the site in #80 and you could CLEARLY see what the Origins site was about, you still came back in #82 with the same old canard. Then when I posted additional text AND the actual web address in #83, you then came back in #86 with the same old attack. So, the bottom line is that you didn’t want to address the evidence presented by the papers, and you found a way not to have to. So be it. Not to worry, neither have any of your cohorts. They simply ignore it, misrepresent it, or speculate preposterous events around it - perhaps as you should have done. - - - - - - - - Since you will not address the evidence in a factual manner, then it’s on to the root of the attack you were willing to make. (Personally, I’d pass on the discussion, but then again, I wanted to talk about the science). So anyway, here is my question: Do you believe that anyone who believes in a creation is a liar? Can these people that you repeatedly group together and deride be trusted to analyze empirical evidence within their scientific specialties? If not, then please be specific as to why not. I would like to understand your logic as to why you are so adamant that people who have a faith in a God cannot be trusted investigators, yet those who have a faith that there is no God can be trusted – apparently at all times. And, when I say “trusted” I am talking about “trusted” in a way that would lead someone to ignore what was directly in front of them in order to carry on about a creationist website that has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation at hand.Upright BiPed
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
To Upright Biped & Yakky D, Jeez, your right. The creationist website is merely referring to the origin-of-life thingy. I apologize for my mistake. Now thats a post I know the moderator will let through.Graham
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
As I said earlier, his is the centerpiece of the materialist' defense of their ideology. Nothing matters as long as you don't have to address the evidence itself.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
yak, Graham knows that he is pulling words from the wrong website. It doesn't matter. He needs what he needs when he needs it. And right now he needs a flank. Pulling lines from a website that he knows is not the related to David Abel is of little consequence. The only thing that is important is to not have to address the evidence.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Graham, Erm, I think you need to work on your google-fu. Are you looking at this website: http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/index.htm That's not it.yakky d
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
To Upright Biped, To disclaim all connections with religion, then give your site the bold title: Creation Insights ... cmon, get real. The contact person has the title Missionary to academic communities But its not religious. Yeah, right.Graham
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
PaulB and Learned: 1. Darwin's finch beaks are NOT an example of microevolution. Darwin never witnessed finches turning into different species. He witnessed variation in beak sizes within -- which is caused by variation within the existing gene pool, NOT mutations. 2. Peppered moths have dark and light phases within their existing gene pool. Not caused by mutation, not microevolution. 3. Dogs have a significant variance (as do all species) within their highly flexible existing gene pool. Not mutations, not microevolution. Yet all of these have been used as evidence of microevolution. In fact, the finches and the moths are taught as "hard facts" of evolution, which shows how valid Darwinian hard facts are. Variation within an existing gene pool is constantly used FALSELY as an example of microevolution. Paul, that is why your inches/gallons comment is not accurate. You ARE comparing inches to gallons, not to miles. PaulB gets 2 out 3, not bad. Learned, 0 out of 3, time to reassess the data.SpitfireIXA
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Barb: One and the same argument can be: 1 --> An improper appeal to blind modesty in the face of the alleged authority of today's neo-magisterium [the class of "reputable scientists" . . . (no authority, on any topic of consequence, is better than his or her facts, reasoning and assumptions.)] 2 --> A No True Scotsman fallacy [terms of expulsion from the class . . . failing to toe the partyline] 3 --> An ad hominem. [expelled scientists and their followers are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" -- lo and behold, the same CRD] 4 --> A blame the victim tactic [It's YOUR fault you were expelled] 5 --> A turnabout accusation [YOU are the one who is absurd for doubting the partyline put out by the new Ministry of Truth -- cf Lewontin's notorious remarks] 6 --> A red herring diversion from the track of truth and a strawman mischaracterisation of both the case made by dissidents and an ad hominem attack against their character and/or qualifications [put the above together] 7 --> A wedge tactic designed to divide and polarise the audience, while clouding and confusing the issue in the heat and noxious smoke spewed forth by the resulting high-emotion exchange. [Red herring led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to distract, cloud and confuse and polarise. (Notice how the discussion now is NOT on the outrageous thought police tactics of trying to equate seriously grounded doubts of the assertions of evolutionary materialism with Holocaust Denial. And, somehow no-one is pointing out that when someone on my side of the exchange so much as points out the historical exemplars for such tactics, Godwin's law and calls for moderation are shouted for. Clive, please note.)] Sadly, fallacies often gain power from synergy. And uncivil, destructive agendas gain power from bad arguments. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT
Graham, to continue the lie is just pathetic. From the Origin of Life Foundation homepage: "The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation should not be confused with "creation science" or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature. http://lifeorigin.org/Upright BiPed
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
To Upright Biped, Not a religious site ? Lets see, Contact information: A ministry of the Collegiate Discipleship Ministry (the very 1st line) 1st page of the site: Presenting Creation Evidence 2nd page: Bible Science Sounds kind of religious to me.Graham
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
Learned Hand (#52) Thank you for your post.
ID refuses investigate the mechanisms of design. Why is that?
ID proponents are not opposed to investigating mechanisms of design. They simply believe in solving scientifically tractable questions first, and addressing the less tractable questions last. That's why investigating how an artificially designed structure was made ranks low on ID theorists' list of scientific priorities, when the designer of the structure in question was not human. Many scientists believe that there are alien civilizations inhabiting our galaxy. As they are likely to be millions of years ahead of us, technologically speaking, it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to apprehend their modus operandi. However, there is a possibility that we may be able to identify some of their designs, which they may have left scattered around the galaxy, purely on the basis of their formal and functional features. It would be even better if we could identify designs containing a built-in code for generating the functions, as well. That would be a better place to begin our scientific investigation. Having identified some promising candidates for designs manufactured by aliens, we might then try to date them. Only after we had exhaustively described their form and functionality - and perhaps met their designers as well - could we even begin to speculate about how they were made. Thus the correct order of investigation is: (1) Which of the patterns around us are good candidates for being the products of intelligent agency? (2) When were they made? (3) By whom were they made? (4) How were they made? Critics of ID take issue with the above line of reasoning. They contend that on the contrary, we will never be able to conclusively identify an alien-manufactured design as being the product of intelligent agency until we are well-acquainted with both the biology and culture of the alien designers. In reply: I guess that depends on how much certainty you want, when atttributing a design to intelligent agency. If you really want to be absolutely sure, then you would need to meet the designers. But let's face it: the only alien designers we'll be able to recognize are ones whose biology is not too dissimilar to our own, and whose technology is not much more advanced than our own. Finding aliens meeting these specifications would be like finding a needle in a haystack. Thus imposing these methodological restrictions on the quest for signs of intelligent agency in the cosmos would severely constrain scientific research in a legitimate field of enquiry. In fact, I would go so far as to call such a methodological requirement a science-stopper.vjtorley
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
Graham @ 44 Whatever credibility you had on this forum has instantly evaporated with your last post. You pissed it away with a blatantly demonstrable falshood. You state: “I followed both links and both lead to papers prepared as part of the Origin-of-Life Foundation. The lead author David Abels is the director. If you go there you will see, um, a religious site. Your comment is nothing less than an outright lie – it’s not a mistake, nor is it a misunderstanding. It is a lie. Clearly, you told this lie for a singular reason. That reason is that you cannot address the evidence for ID within DNA, and therefore must spread lies in place of simply admitting that you cannot cut it with the evidence. While other materialist ideologues here will choose better to ignore the evidence, or will misrepresent the arguments being made, or post wishful appeals to speculative nonsense, you on the other hand, are a more simple-minded individual. Your response is to simply tar and feather anyone who might present evidence that suggests you are wrong about your “enlightened” conclusions. The question quickly becomes, how enlightened are your conclusions if you must lie about other people in order to support them? David Abel does not go onto the web to defend himself against your brand of sleaze. He makes no such associations with either side of this argument. The most I have ever seen him do is to issue a polite demarcation between the warring factions, and make an appeal to people to remain courageously honest with the evidence, and to be honest with themselves and others within the debate. In this regard, you have failed miserably. Here is what the Origin of Life Foundation states on their website: The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature. The Foundation's main thrust is to encourage interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects by theoretical biophysicists and origin-of-life researchers specifically into the origin of genetic information/instructions/message/recipe in living organisms. Concerning their “Origin of Life Prize” the website states the following: "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® is being offered to stimulate research into chaos, complexity, information, probability, self-organization, and artificial life/intelligence theories as they relate directly to biochemical and molecular biological reality. The Foundation wishes to encourage the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms of initial "gene" emergence within nature. The subject of interest is the genesis of primordial functional information itself rather than its physico-chemical matrix of retention and transmission. Bioinformation fits into the category of "prescriptive information" ("instruction," rather than mere probabilistic combinatorics [Abel, 2000]). By what mechanisms do stochastic ensembles acquire instructive/integrative potential? In other words, what are the processes whereby random biopolymeric sequences self-organize into indirect, functional code? In their “Suggested Texts” column they present the following list of appropriate material: Schroedinger, E. What is Life? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1955) Donald M. MacKay. Information, Mechanism and Meaning (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1969) Jacques Monod. Chance and Necessity (New York: Knopf, 1971) Leslie E. Orgel. The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection (New York, John Wiley, 1973) Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel. The Origins of Life on Earth (Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974) R. W. Hamming. Coding and Information Theory (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice- Hall, l980) M. Kimura. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen. The Mystery of Life's Origin (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley, 1984) A. G. Cairns-Smith. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Freeman Dyson. The Origins of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) Now second edition, (1999). Robert Shapiro. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit Books, 1986) John Maynard-Smith. The Problems of Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) Bernd-Olaf Küppers. Information and the Origin of Life (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990) Cyril Ponnamperuma and F. R. Eirich, Editors Prebiological Self-Organization of Matter (A. Deepak Publishing: Hampton, VA, 1990) Christian De Duve, Blueprint for a Cell:The Nature and Origin of Life (Burlington, NC: Patterson, 1991) Hubert P. Yockey. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). H. J. Morowitz. Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992) Cyril Ponnamperuma and Julian Chela-Flores. Chemical Evolution: Origin of Life Proceedings of The Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, 26-30 October, 1992 (Hampton, VA: A Deepak Publishing, 1993) Walter James ReMine. The Biotic Message (Saint Paul, MN: St. Paul Science, 1993) Stuart A. Kauffman. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) David W. Deamer and Gail R. Fleischaker. Origins of Life: The Central Concepts (Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994). Periannan Senapathy. Independent Birth of Organisms (Madison: Genome Press, 1994). Julian Chela-Flores, Mohindra Chadha, Alicia Negron-Mendoza, Tairo Oshima, Editors. Chemical Evolution: Self-organization of the Macromolecules of Life Proceedings of The Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, 25-29 October 1993 (Hampton, VA: A. Deepak Publishing, 1995) John H. Holland. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity (Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1995) Christopher G. Langton. Artificial Life: An Overview (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995) Stuart Kauffman. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Christian De Duve, Vital Dust--Life as a Cosmic Imperative (New York: Basic Books, 1995) Syozo Osawa, Evolution of the Genetic Code (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) Lynn Margulis and D. Sagan. 'What is Life' (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995) Rizzoti (ed.): 'Defining Life' (Padua, Italy: University Padua Press, 1996) Geoffrey Zubay. Origins of Life on the Earth and in the Cosmos (New York: WCB/McGraw Hill, 1996) Michael J. Behe. Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 1996). Julian Chela-Flores and Francois Raulin. Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origins and Evolution of Life, Proceedings of the 4th Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution, Trieste, Italy, 4-8 September 1995 (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996) Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler-Oswatitsch. Steps Toward Life: A Perspective on Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) Dean Overman. The Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997) Christoph Adami. Artificial Life (New York: Springer-Telos, 1998) William A. Dembski. The Design Inference, in Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Noam Lahav. Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) André Brack. The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling the Pieces of the Puzzle (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998) Michael Gross. Life on the Edge (New York: Plenum Press, 1998) John Maynard Smith. Shaping Life: Genes, Embryos, and Evolution (UK, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1998; U.S., Yale University Press, 1999) James P. Ferris, Editor. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Papers presented at the 1996 ISSOL Meeting in Orleans, France. Volume 28, Nos.4-6 October 1998 (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998) Martin J. Medhurst and John Angus Campbell, Editors Rhetoric & Public Affairs (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, Vol 1, No 4, Winter 1998 Entire issue) Fred Hoyle. Mathematics of Evolution (Memphis, Tenn: Acorn Enterprises, 1999) John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary. The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origins of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) Gesteland, R. F., Cech, T. R. & J F. Atkins, eds. The RNA World (Plainview, 2ND Edition, (NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, 1999) Werner R. Loewenstein. The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) Hans Kuhn and Horst-Dieter Forsterling. Principles of Physical Chemistry (England: Wiley Press, 1999) pp 880-921; see also p 953 Gyula Palyi, Claudia Zucchi, Luciano Caglioti (Eds.) Advances in BioChirality., (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999) Freeman Dyson. The Origins of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, (1999) David Berlinski. The Advent of the Algorithm: the Idea That Rules the World (New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2000) Iris Fry. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview (N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2000) L Kay. Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code (Stanford: Stanford Univeristy Press, 2000) Richard Sole and Brian Goodwin. Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology (New York: Basic Books Persius, 2000) Stuart Kauffman. Investigations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada. The Spark of Life, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Persius, 2001) Gyula Palyi, Claudia Zucchi, Luciano Caglioti (Eds.) Fundamentals of Life, (Paris: Elsevier, 2002) William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch, (New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002) Henry Harris, Things Come to Life: Spontaneous generation Revisited, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) J William Schopt, Ed, Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution, (Ewing, N. J., Univer. of California Press, 2002) Tom Fenchel, Origin and Early Evolution of Life (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003) Marcello Barbieri, The Organic Codes: An Introduction to Semantic Biology (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2003) Tibor Ganti, The Principles of Life (Oxford, UK, Oxford Unversity Press, 2003) Nancy Forbes, Imitation of Life: How Biology is Inspiring Computing (MIT Press, 2004) Clive Trotman, The Feathered Onion - Creation of life in the Universe (John Wiley and Sons, 2004) William Day, How Life Began, Marvin Solit, Foundation for New Directions, Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005) Robert M. Hazen, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.2005) Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart: The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005) Samir Okasha: Evolution and the Levels of Selection (Clarendon Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006) Jastrow and M. Rampino: Origins of Life in the Universe (Cambridge Univ Press, New York, 2008) And finally, in the list of 200-something judges for the Origin of Life Prize, the institutions of which they are associated include: Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, University of Glasgow, Dept. of Molecular Biology - Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., Hong Kong Univ.of Sci.& Tech, Physics Dept - University of California at Berkeley, Appl Math & Theor Physics, Cambridge, Institut fur Polymere ETH-Zurich, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, The Scripps Research Institute, Skaggs Institute, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, M.I.T.; Inst Adv Stud in Biology at Berkeley, Department of Chemistry New York University, Academy of Sciences - Centre de Neurochemie, California Institute of Technology, Dept.of Molecular & Cell Biology at Univ.of Connecticut, Nagoaka Univ.of Technol - Dept.of Bioengineering, Biologie/Chemie, Universitat Bremen, Internat Instit of Genetics & Biophysics, Biology Department - Yale University, The Scripps Research Institute, JPL, Geol & Planetary Sciences – Caltech, The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture, Mol Biol, Mass Gen Hosp - Harvard Medical School, Biochemical & Biophysical Sci - Univ. Houston, Inst. de Genetique et Microbiol – Universit Paris, Dept Membrane Res & Biophys, Weizmann Inst Sci., Lab Physique Statis - Ecole Normale Supervieure, Biomolecular Recognition - The Panum Institute, Biologica Gen, Inst. Ciencias Biol, Dept. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at Princeton, NASA Ames Research Center, Department of Biochemistry - Indiana University, Biol. Sciences - Univ. Wollongong, Max Planck Institut Biophysikalische Chemie, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Cognitive & Computing Sci U. Sussex, Department of Physics, Inner Mongolia University, Oxford University, Institute of Applied Biochemistry - Univ.of Tsukuba, Biological Inst., Konan Univ., California Institute of Technology, Planetary Sciences, Cornell University, Dept.of Chem.and Biotech - Yokohama Nat.Univ., Organic Catalysis - Moscow State U., Inst for Inorganic & Theor Chem., etc, etc. - - - - - - - - - This is what you call a religious site? Sure, Skippy….sure. The rest of us look at it as you giving out one weak-assed defense after another. Let’s just be honest: your brand of argument is the cornerstone of the materialist’s defense of their worldview. You will do ANYTHING but address the evidence on its face. You and yours gave up on the science long ago.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
You’re right. It’s another logical fallacy called argument from authority. Still proves nothing. It's not that, either. It would be an argument from authority if he said, "This argument is correct because I am a learned doctor." The cited statement is just an observation that no reputable scientist rejects evolution, and a prediction that no unbiased reader will reject his arguments. The merits of that statement aside, it's not logically fallacious. An argument can be untrue without being a fallacy.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
"About evolution, Dawkins writes: “No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.” Note the clever ad hominem argument here. This is not an ad hominem. You may read it as an insult, but an ad hominem argument is something different." You're right. It's another logical fallacy called argument from authority. Still proves nothing.Barb
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
"SpitfireIXA" (#63) asked me: " To back up your claim, Paul, would you say that the following items are a process of microevolution: 1. Darwin’s finch beaks. 2. Peppered moth coloration. 3. Labrador retrievers and other modern dog breeds." #1 is evolution (different species), possibly microevolution under some definitions; #2 is not evolution (therefore not microevolution) but random variation plus natural selection (remaining the same species but a different color morph); #3 is not evolution (therefore not microevolution) but artificial selection of exaggerated random variation (remaining the same species). (My opinion as a non-biologist.)PaulBurnett
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
"Joseph" (#49) asked: "Dover? The trial in which the judge wouldn’t let the publisher defend its book? The book that was the center-piece of the anti-IDists?" The book whose intermediate draft gave us the derisive term "cdesign proponentsists"? The publisher whose president did appear in Judge Jones' court and made a laughingstock of himself? The publisher whose president clumsily lied about the religious affiliation of his company in spite of being shown his signature on a "begging letter" to churches and his initials on his IRS "religious exemption" form? See http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/11/21/fte-and-jon-buells-day-in-court/ for the gory details. Jon Buell (along with Messrs. Buckingham and Bonsell) led Judge Jone to remark in his decision "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."PaulBurnett
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply