Design inference Evolution Intelligent Design

Do You Believe in Evolution?

Spread the love

When someone asks “Do you believe in evolution?” they probably want a short answer, and don’t have the patience to listen to a 15-minute lecture on the different meanings of “evolution” and how you stand on each. So how do you answer this trick question?

Here’s a very short answer that works for me:

Yes, I believe in the evolution of life, and I believe in the evolution of automobiles.

Optionally, to make sure they get the point, you could add “but I don’t believe either could have happened without design.”

It is actually a pretty good analogy, see my April 2,2015 post at ENV, In Biology as in Technology, Similarities Do Not Prove Absence of Intelligent Design

89 Replies to “Do You Believe in Evolution?

  1. 1
    awstar says:

    how do you answer this trick question?

    As one labeled as a Biblical Creationist the short answer that works for me is:

    Yes and No. I believe in the evolution of automobiles and computers, but I only believe in the devolution of life.

  2. 2
    harry says:

    Do you believe in evolution?

    If you discovered a factory run entirely by robots who were manufacturing more robots like themselves, and often added enhancements to the robots they produced, would you just assume these self-replicating, self-improving robots came about mindlessly and accidentally? Or would you assume some very intelligent engineering had taken place to get this process started?

    That people who would automatically assume that a mere transmission of a series of prime numbers received from deep space would prove the existence of alien intelligence, just assume that the digital information-based nanotechnology of life, the functional complexity of which is light years beyond that of an automated factory run by robotic equipment, came about mindlessly and accidentally, only proves the power of “fundamentalism” in the negative connotation of the word (we should all be fundamentalists when it comes to defending the fundamental truths of Christianity).

    Atheism rejects the simple fact that some phenomena can only come about via intelligent agency. Contemporary atheism, in its denial of reality for the sake of its faith-based belief system (the belief that God isn’t there cannot be proved, it must be taken on faith), are the world’s worse case of fundamentalism in the negative sense of the word.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Do I believe in Evolution?

    Who doesn’t?

  4. 4
    Truth Will Set You Free says:

    Taking for granted that they are referring to Darwinian evolution, I answer as follows:

    “No. I am not convinced that natural selection working on random mutations can account for the incredible complexity of life, including the chemical alphabet and information coding systems found in the DNA molecule.”

    This usually gets the conversation going.

  5. 5
    Indiana Effigy says:

    For the vast majority of people, this is not a trick question. Even for many who believe in ID, when evolution is talked about, they are talking about non-ID evolution.

  6. 6
    Andre says:

    There is no such thing as non ID evolutuon. Time and chance can’t do Jack……

    Litrally…..

  7. 7
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Andre: “There is no such thing as non ID evolutuon. Time and chance can’t do Jack……”

    Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.

  8. 8
    Andre says:

    IE

    It’s a matter of fact. You can prove me wrong very easily…. Can you give a single example where time and chance made anything? Has a horse or a universe ever popped into existence by any observation from anyone? Just one example and you win.

    Good luck

  9. 9
    Roy says:

    You can prove me wrong very easily…. Can you give a single example where time and chance made anything? Has a horse or a universe ever popped into existence by any observation from anyone? Just one example and you win.

    Can you give a single example where God was seen to make anything? Has a horse or a universe ever been seen created by God by anyone? Are you aware that non-ID evolution does not require horses or universes to “pop into existence”? Can you explain why you are using different standards of evidence for ID vs evolution? Is that honest?

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Roy, you’re misunderstanding ID. ID takes no position on God.

    ID is simply a paradigm for investigating phenomena that appear to be designed as if they were.

    Darwinism is a paradigm for investigating phenomena that appear designed as if they came about by chance.

    With “junk DNA,” it seems that Darwinism has slowed scientific progress by assuming that non-coding DNA has no function. ID makes no such assumption.

    As to not seeing God create anything as being anything but a hilarious cop out, do you also disbelieve in subatomic particles because you’ve never seen one? Do you disbelieve in George Washington because you never met him? Do you disbelieve in justice because it cannot be measured in grams, candelas, or centimeters?

    -Q

  11. 11
    ppolish says:

    Good point Q – as usual.

    Although I’m cutting Ray some slack for linking the awesomeness of ID to the Awesomeness of God. He could have gone the “Universe is a Simulation” route. Many Scientists have taken that angle on ID.

    Good on you Ray:)

  12. 12
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Andre: “It’s a matter of fact. You can prove me wrong very easily…. Can you give a single example where time and chance made anything?”

    Nylonase, aerobic citrate use in E. coli, AIDS, every new strain of flue, and thousands of other examples found in nature and in the lab.

  13. 13
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Querius: “Roy, you’re misunderstanding ID. ID takes no position on God.”

    How convenient. But when it was called scientific creationism, it certainly did.

    With “junk DNA,” it seems that Darwinism has slowed scientific progress by assuming that non-coding DNA has no function. ID makes no such assumption.”

    And evolution doesn’t either. Please point me to all of the research papers published about junk DNA authored by ID proponents. It seems to me that all of the research into junk DNA (and there is a lot of it) is being done by the same scientists that you claim are hampered by their biases.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Biochemists solve the structure of cell’s DNA gatekeeper – April 15, 2016
    Excerpt: The NPC (nuclear pore complex) is one of the largest and most complex structures inside the cells of eukaryotes, the group of organisms that includes humans and other mammals, and it is vital for the survival of cells. It is composed of approximately 10 million atoms that together form the symmetric core as well as surrounding asymmetric structures that attach to other cellular machineries. The NPC has about 50 times the number of atoms as the ribosome,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2016-04-b.....eeper.html

  15. 15
    awstar says:

    BA @ 14

    The NPC (nuclear pore complex) is one of the largest and most complex structures inside the cells of eukaryotes, the group of organisms that includes humans and other mammals, and it is vital for the survival of cells.

    Boy, thank evolution for NPC’s. Sounds like we are very lucky this glob of protein made it through the natural selection process!

  16. 16
    gpuccio says:

    BA:

    The NPC is a fascinating structure, perhaps the largest protein complex in the cell. Another fascinating macro complex could be the eukaryotic proteasome.

    Are we exaggerating when we say that believing that such structures were generated by RV + NS must truly be some form of insanity?

    I don’t think so. I really don’t think so.

  17. 17
    Andre says:

    IE

    These things poofed into existence? You really believe that? Guess I’m not the feeble mind superstitious one…

  18. 18
    asauber says:

    This would be a fun game for everyone:

    Define scientifically the Evolution *you* believe in.

    It’s rock lyrics until then. 😉

    Andrew

  19. 19
    Mung says:

    I believe in the kind of evolution that can do anything, the kind that can write a Shakespeare sonnet. The more extraordinary the better.

    After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, doncha know. Unless you’re a DarwinDrone.

  20. 20
    Origenes says:

    Only two things cannot happen by chance, automobiles and life, and I’m not sure about the former.

  21. 21
    mike1962 says:

    Just close your eyes and believe

    It also helps to tap your shoes together

  22. 22
    Mung says:

    There’s no place like a warm little pond.

  23. 23
    Me_Think says:

    I believe Designer created everything, just that He forgot He had immense powers to create everything in a jiffy – He created Big Bang and then waited and waited and waited and waited idly billions of years, then decided to create Earth 4.6 billion years ago then waited and waited and waited idly, then decided to create life 3.8 billion years ago and waited and waited idly to create Eukaryotes 2.1 billion years ago, then waited and waited and waited to create First sexually reproducing organism 1.1 billion years ago, then waited and waited and waited idly till 570 million years ago to create arthropods…. now he intervenes in complex processes using magic mechanism and magic interface to guide temporal processes in cells.

  24. 24
    jimmontg says:

    Evolution from WHAT?

    The unknowable equation for which there isn’t a single viable explanation. How did life occur? This Universe isn’t big enough or old enough to create a living cell no matter how old or even eternal you may think it is. The Evolution argument is moot unless and until the materialists can come up with a scientific answer for LIFE.

    “I am the Truth and the LIFE,” Jesus said. I spent a lot of time on the Gospel of John. Why was he writing so differently? The Gnostics had something to do with it, but I think John wanted to go past that. Jesus said some outstanding things, especially in John and Matthew.

  25. 25
    bFast says:

    harry (2) “would you just assume these self-replicating, self-improving robots came about …” You seem to be implying that first life was the product of an external designer, but that the resulting life can do its own “self-improving”. While life does have a wee bit of power to self-improve, the kind of improvements that we see in the real world are far beyond what life’ self-improvement ability justifies.

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    Andre,

    Apparently, IE is arguing that

    Nylonase, aerobic citrate use in E. coli, AIDS, every new strain of flue, and thousands of other examples found in nature and in the lab.

    indeed simply popped into existence. I wouldn’t know how to argue against this version of creationism.

    That mutations occur in organisms is amply demonstrated. That such mutations can create anything useful from multiple mutations is exactly what Mike Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, is all about.

    -Q

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    Indiana Effigy @ 13,

    How convenient. But when it was called scientific creationism, it certainly did.

    Wrong. Apparently you haven’t a clue how and when ID was formulated. Conflating it with creationism is like conflating Darwinism with spontaneous generation.

    And evolution doesn’t either.

    Of course it does. Go read Susumu Ohno’s 1972 paper where he assumes that what later became called non-coding DNA is labeled evolutionary “junk.”

    Please point me to all of the research papers published about junk DNA authored by ID proponents.

    No, do your own homework. The ID paradigm assumes that an unknown function or structure has a function that’s undiscovered. Darwinism assumes that an unknown function or structure has no function, and is a vestige of evolution.

    So, in the 1925 Scopes trial, Robert Wiedersheim presented a list of 86 vestigial organs in humans. How many on that list are left? Previously, ductless glands such as the thyroid were also considered to have no function.

    As anyone with an open mind can see, evolutionary presuppositions have slowed scientific progress. If so called “junk” DNA has no function, what institution in their right mind would fund research into it? They generally don’t.

    I’ll give you other examples.

    – How much funding is going into finding DNA in the blood cells and tissue samples found in unfossilized dinosaur bones?

    – Is anyone bothering to carbon date these samples?

    I’ll give you the answer. No, researchers aren’t carbon dating these samples for the reason that since these samples are assumed to be at least 60 million years old, it would be pointless to test them so since we *know* that there couldn’t possibly be any carbon 14 left, and we don’t bother looking. And that’s the problem.

    -Q

  28. 28
    mw says:

    A huge statue should be made in remembrance of Darwin’s whale-bear with twelve stars around its head to symbolise celestial evolutionism from gaseous materials out of nothing, and placed on top of Mount Improbable.

    Darwin constructed a whale-bear from his imagination. Indeed, every seat of common descent learning should have a whale-bear in the hall, fed on shredded scripture, as the answer to the universe and everything: the beast whale-bear, number 42, as indicated by Deep Thought, http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/42

    Nevertheless, Darwin’s publisher removed any such reference to the whale-bear from the later editions of Origin, as it was too much; an embarrassment.

    Still, it is believed, God sent a worldwide flood, in order to start again, as more or less, human imagination/thoughts had gone rotten (Gen 6:5). Strongly suggested by worldwide and coincidental flood evidence, reduced to fossilised stone.

    In relation to believed evolution theory, copying errors, mutations, chance and such like, are better controlled by natural selection. The question still must be raised; we surely must by now have some form of a corrupted informational disc in us, even by evolutionary standards. Are our thoughts reliable, and when based theoretically on lesser intelligence; for once an animal, always an animal, in whole or part.

    Yes, I believe in evolution, that is evolution within the limits of archetypal images or forms. Set to be fit for always within the limits of kinds, brought about by an intelligent powerful being, who wrote the matter in stone created in a day, and that miraculous act of intelligent communication, witnessed by humans in recorded history.

    Still, human imagination prefers to tell and hear a different tale. There is no higher intelligence than humans. Well, for a theory based on imperceptible steps when it suits, then immediate steps when it doesn’t suit such as Punctured Equilibrium, the total fitness advantage between a simian and a human is godlike.

    Such a common sense observation and statistic need no seat of learning to spell out the theory is badly flawed in its final application. Even Wallace pointed that out to Darwin, the difference between a so-called savage and a civilised person is negligible; that is in relation to their relative potential or capabilities.

    Evolutionism believes perceptions of the human imagination and watered down dead animal fossil bones points to the origin of human life, not by listening to the recorded words of a powerful higher intelligence.

    Evolutionary theory has created a god in our own image worshiping ourselves, and be afraid of no other.

    The answer to evolutionism, life and the multiverse, is, of course; 42 non-intelligent cosmic whale-bears.

  29. 29
    harry says:

    bFast @25

    You seem to be implying that first life was the product of an external designer, but that the resulting life can do its own “self-improving”. While life does have a wee bit of power to self-improve, the kind of improvements that we see in the real world are far beyond what life’ self-improvement ability justifies.

    I agree with you.

    Darwin proposed that the “wee bit of power” creatures have to adapt to changing environments — micro evolution — justified the belief that a species could adjust itself into an entirely different species over a long period of time, or belief in macro evolution.

    Dog breeders had already demonstrated two things. First, that there can be a wild variety of a given kind. Second, that a given kind, even if there are many different expressions of it, stubbornly remains that kind. The first explained why Darwin noticed what he did about the beaks of finches; the second protested against the conclusion Darwin drew from that adaptability. We now know that the reason dogs remain dogs, and can’t be bred into cats or anything else other than a dog, is because the information to build something else just isn’t present in the canine genome.

    Darwin’s proposal was one of those ideas that might sound good until one gets a close look at the facts. We now know that new biological functionality, like an optical system or an auditory system, requires massive quantities of new digital information in the creature’s DNA; this would also be required for dogs to evolve into something other than a dog. To believe that the massive quantities of extremely precise, functionally complex, tokenized, digitally stored information required for such things to happen can be arrived at mindlessly and accidentally is simply irrational.

    Anybody who does the math finds out that the Universe simply doesn’t provide the probabilistic resources required for such a lengthy and precise composition to be arrived at by chance. Those who refuse to take a close look at the facts could be convinced that self-replicating robots actually came about mindlessly and accidentally, or they are willfully ignorant, or their intent is to deceive others.

  30. 30
    gpuccio says:

    bFast:

    I would definitely say that eukaryogenesis, the origin of metazoa, and many other key points in life evolution are at least as complex and improbable as OOL itself.

    Indeed, any new complex protein cannot be explained in “non design” terms, but it is certainly true that the great steps mentioned above are absolute and outstanding “miracles of design” in a natural history which is in itself a constant miracle of design.

  31. 31
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Andre: “These things poofed into existence? You really believe that? Guess I’m not the feeble mind superstitious one…”

    I must have missed the part of evolutionary theory that says that anything “poofed” into existance. There are only two mechanisms that postulate things “poofing” into existance are magic and ID.

  32. 32
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Querius: “That mutations occur in organisms is amply demonstrated. That such mutations can create anything useful from multiple mutations is exactly what Mike Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, is all about.”

    Are you suggesting that my list is not a list of “useful” things?

    Wrong. Apparently you haven’t a clue how and when ID was formulated. Conflating it with creationism is like conflating Darwinism with spontaneous generation.”

    Thank you for providing me with a good laugh on a Saturday morning.

    Scientific creationism: God (a designer) is responsible for facilitating the creation of all life on earth.

    Intelligent Design: A designer (who may be God) is responsible for facilitating the creation of all life on earth.

    Yes, now I see how they are very distinct. Thank you for correcting my misperceptions.

    Of course it does. Go read Susumu Ohno’s 1972 paper where he assumes that what later became called non-coding DNA is labeled evolutionary “junk.””

    No it doesn’t. Junk DNA is not precluded by evolution, but it is not a necessary prediction from the theory.

    No, do your own homework.”

    I have. I have found thousands of peer-reviewed papers on junk DNA but have failed to find a single one that is authored by a known ID scientist, or even concludes that this is strong evidence for ID. That is why I asked. Maybe I missed some.

    So, in the 1925 Scopes trial, Robert Wiedersheim presented a list of 86 vestigial organs in humans. How many on that list are left?”

    I have no idea. But I also suggest that you look up the definition of “vestigial”. It does not mean that there is no function.

    As anyone with an open mind can see, evolutionary presuppositions have slowed scientific progress. If so called “junk” DNA has no function, what institution in their right mind would fund research into it? They generally don’t.”

    Hence the thousands of published papers on junk DNA.

    – Is anyone bothering to carbon date these samples?

    I’ll give you the answer. No, researchers aren’t carbon dating these samples for the reason that since these samples are assumed to be at least 60 million years old, it would be pointless to test them so since we *know* that there couldn’t possibly be any carbon 14 left, and we don’t bother looking. And that’s the problem.”

    No, that is a case of using the right tools for the right job. Multiple independent procedures confirm that dinosaur fossils are 65+ million years old. C14 can only be reliably use for organic matter up to approximately 50,000 years old. This doesn’t mean that you won’t get a value for older samples, just that the value obtained is useless. Physics doesn’t lie.

  33. 33
    Querius says:

    IE,

    Are you suggesting that my list is not a list of “useful” things?

    Please enlighten us as to what AIDS is useful for.

    And that’s besides the point, because Andre was arguing against the macro evolutionary origin of living things, to which you responded with a list of arguably micro evolutionary examples. Based on his research on malaria, Mike Behe made some calculations on the probability of a certain combination of two mutations to predict how long it would take for the mutation to show up. It turns out that he was right.

    Intelligent Design: A designer (who may be God) is responsible for facilitating the creation of all life on earth.

    Wrong again. ID is a paradigm in which one assumes unknown structures and functions that look designed should be treated as if they were. That’s it. If you want to attribute the design to God or to an alien intelligence from among the “billions and billions” of planets in the universe, that’s your prerogative, but it’s philosophical speculation.

    Yes, now I see how they are very distinct. Thank you for correcting my misperceptions.

    You’re welcome. Glad you’re open minded enough to acknowledge that you don’t understand ID.

    Q: Of course it does. Go read Susumu Ohno’s 1972 paper where he assumes that what later became called non-coding DNA is labeled evolutionary “junk.”

    IE: No it doesn’t. Junk DNA is not precluded by evolution, but it is not a necessary prediction from the theory.

    You didn’t read Ohno’s paper, did you? The paper is quite short, but he includes some ingenious possibilities that deserved more attention at the time. But since he *assumed* that what we now call non-coding DNA was “junk,” (his term), science did not pursue investigating it for years, being satisfied that “junk” DNA was yet more evidence for evolution. It turned out that they were wrong.

    I have found thousands of peer-reviewed papers on junk DNA but have failed to find a single one that is authored by a known ID scientist, or even concludes that this is strong evidence for ID. That is why I asked. Maybe I missed some.

    And the majority of them turned out to be wrong. ID papers are routinely rejected from publication on ideological grounds. And when one does get published, there’s a firestorm of protest. The tyranny of the mainstream also extends to many other discoveries in science. For example, this is why Watson and Crick had to publish their discovery of the structure of DNA in Nature rather than a scientific journal in their field.

    Q: So, in the 1925 Scopes trial, Robert Wiedersheim presented a list of 86 vestigial organs in humans. How many on that list are left?”

    IE: I have no idea. But I also suggest that you look up the definition of “vestigial”. It does not mean that there is no function.

    In the scopes trial, “vestigial” was defined as a non-functional vestige of evolution. Because of the numerous embarrassments when it turned out that these “vestigial” parts did have a function after all, the definition was changed to mean that they were vestiges of evolution, but DID have a function. Of course, that definition would apply to ALL parts of human anatomy, wouldn’t it? The eye is a vestige of evolution, isn’t it?

    Hence the thousands of published papers on junk DNA.

    Which are mostly wrong. Non-coding DNA is not “junk” after all. But who cares when you have to “publish or perish.”

    Q: . . . it would be pointless to test them so since we *know* that there couldn’t possibly be any carbon 14 left, and we don’t bother looking. And that’s the problem.

    IE: No, that is a case of using the right tools for the right job. Multiple independent procedures confirm that dinosaur fossils are 65+ million years old. C14 can only be reliably use for organic matter up to approximately 50,000 years old. This doesn’t mean that you won’t get a value for older samples, just that the value obtained is useless. Physics doesn’t lie.

    Indeed, physics doesn’t lie. That’s why mainstream researchers ARE AFRAID to test the pliable tissue samples from inside the unfossilized bones of dinosaurs.

    There should be essentially zero C-14 in those samples. If there’s a significant amount of C-14 found in them, you can’t just discount it based on preconceptions! As you said, physics doesn’t lie. You would first verify whether there’s any verified biological contamination of the samples and that the labs didn’t mess up. This can happen. But once you establish the presence of C-14, you are ethically obligated to follow the data.

    You probably aren’t aware of this, but significant amounts C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones! Read what happened next.

    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    -Q

  34. 34
    mw says:

    Hi, Indiana Effigy # 32,
    ——————-
    “Physics doesn’t lie.”
    ——————–

    Against the datum of pure physics that would be true. Against throwing away the key to why physics; certainly in terms of radiometric dating, gives flawed readings; is because, according to certain belief, creation was matured in six days, and other factors need to be considered.

    The measurements you advocate are fallible, relative to supernatural origins, which you call “magic,” unable to acknowledge the possibility of miracles: well, neither could Darwin, casting out documented historic history to follow natural explanations shrouded in leaps of common descent magic.

    When children have to be coerced into believing what looks like designed is not designed, then an iron curtain evolutionist belief system and mentality shackles education facilities.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02776.html

    That is the real damaging “lie,” that apparently you wish to perpetuate?

    As for “magic;” it is magic to believe you can extract biologically, out of Darwin’s hat, so to speak, a human from a worm. Or should I say, a powerful delusion?

  35. 35
    Querius says:

    Darwinism takes facts and observations as if they were shards of colored glass that they can piece together using the grout of speculation to form a mosaic of any image you desire.

    For example, imagine someone writing a book titled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and then writing a book titled, The Descent of Man, in which he concluded that man (sic), having evolved from apes, continued evolving into various races, judging the “white race” more advanced than “lower organisms” such as pygmies.

    Naturally other racists took this information to justify “genetic hygiene” in cleansing the German gene pool of inferior elements.

    The amazing part of Darwinism is that beginning with the wooden masted ships of the British Empire, it could justify colonialism and all sorts of atrocities in Africa and Asia . . evolve into justifying Margaret Sanger’s ideals that excluded blacks, Christians, and her other undesirable elements of society, followed by the horrors of Nazi racism and genocide, and now an imaginative story in support of today’s narrative.

    Think of Darwinism as intellectual modeling clay that can justify anything in the name of science.

    For example, isn’t it obvious that the planet is dangerously overpopulated? Hasn’t it been scientifically demonstrated that the excess human population is severely damaging the biosphere? If there are too many animals, what do you do? You humanely, and with deepest sensitivity, cull them, right?

    But who do you cull? A modest proposal would be anyone who is not contributing to society or supportive of the modern enlightened narrative. This would certainly begin with the elderly and incurably infirm, including “retirees” (with exceptions, of course).

    I had a professor in college who advocated abortion of a child up to the age of two, citing that maintaining an unwanted child was the worst form of child abuse.

    Yes, a professor.

    -Q

  36. 36
    Querius says:

    Dean_from_Ohio,

    LOL!

    A coke bottle most likely became entangled in the ring of a window sash cord, and the wind made the bottle tap a nearby Morse code key that was connected to a large medium frequency transmitter in San Francisco.

    While this might seem improbable, given billions and billions of years, not to mention the multiverse, this series of events not only becomes probable, but a virtual certainty!

    Well done! 🙂

    -Q

  37. 37
    Indiana Effigy says:

    There is in fact no evidence that Roy exists. A coke bottle most likely became entangled in the ring of a window sash cord, and the wind made the bottle tap a nearby Morse code key that was connected to a large medium frequency transmitter in San Francisco.”

    On the Beach. With Gregory Peck, Fred Astaire and Ava Gardner.

  38. 38
    Roy says:

    Roy, you’re misunderstanding ID. ID takes no position on God.

    No, I’m not. The ‘intelligent designer’ of ID is synonymous with ‘God’.

  39. 39
    Roy says:

    There is no Roy, and besides, if he really existed, everyone knows he would write in French.

    Idiot.

  40. 40
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Querius: “ID papers are routinely rejected from publication on ideological grounds. And when one does get published, there’s a firestorm of protest.”

    I keep hearing this trope from the ID side, yet when I ask them to post one of these rejected papers along with their reviews, they become silent. So I will ask you the same. Post one of your rejected ID papers along with the reviews and we can discuss the merits of your paper.

    And your statement about a firestorm is just nonsense. If the paper can’t withstand scrutiny, it deserves to be seriously criticized. As are many papers by biologists “within the fold”. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

  41. 41

    The person who asks “do you believe in evolution?” knows that it’s a loaded question. Frankly, I’m not sure if I want to get in a discussion with such a person.

    So I would simply say, “Yeah, sure.”

    Now if somebody had the insight to ask me which type of evolution I believe in, Darwinian, or some other type, then the conversation begins.

  42. 42
    Robert Byers says:

    I don’t agree evolution is true by the mechanisms claimed in evolutionism.
    its not about design alone. Remember evolution could not be true if the earth is only 6000 years.
    Selection has done very little work. Other mechanisms did all the work since creation week and the fall.
    To the author of the thread.
    If evolution is true WHat evolved? What did it look like and then look like? Did people evolve to bring the different looks?

  43. 43
    Querius says:

    Sure, IE. Here’s an example.

    This is a paper that was published in a refereed journal:
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

    And here’s the firestorm that resulted:
    http://www.albertmohler.com/20.....ntroversy/

    -Q

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article – Granville Sewell episode – June 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47121.html

    How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....76101.html

    Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives
    Casey Luskin – August 20, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75541.html

    ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe – September 22, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-microbe/

    At the beginning of the following video Dr. Behe tells of how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracise him for supporting Intelligent Design:

    TEDxLehighU – Michael Behe – Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCP9UDFNHlo

    The Letter that Science Refused to Publish – November 8, 2013
    Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
    See more at:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78871.html

    Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? – David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014
    Excerpt: Charles Darwin himself, whose birthday is commemorated on the day bearing his name, insisted that getting at the truth, sorting true from false, requires an unimpeded airing of views: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Ironically, it is his latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum — such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81261.html

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

    Academic Freedom Under Fire — Again! – October 2010
    Excerpt: All Dr. Avital wanted to do was expose students to some of the weaknesses inherent in Darwin’s theory. Surely there’s no harm in that — or so one would think. But, of course, to the Darwinian faithful, such weaknesses apparently do not exist.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38911.html

    BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-­REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN – UPDATED – Dec. 2015
    http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....8;id=10141

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: podcast – Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....evolution/

  47. 47
    mw says:

    Querius @ 47, referencing “Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy” http://www.albertmohler.com/20.....ntroversy/

    ——————–
    “Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise.”
    ————————-
    And thanks bornagain77 for more no-nonsense references.

    My own impression of intelligent design in nature, is that, a multiplicity of parallel interconnecting complexities exists in any life unit or component.

    However, even simple or utter complexity, would not jump start into life by itself.

    We breathe automatically, without conscious effort or will, the same for heart beats. Now it’s seems, any single step evolutionary mechanism, as Darwin envisaged, would simply never get past go, to suddenly live.

    When banned are flaws in a scientific system, such leads to a greater increase in depleted scientism.

    The world, in human terms is held together by thought, by belief. Darwinism is the prevailing belief; however, that does not guarantee truth. From the problems associated with the theory, it is far from the truth in its essential elements.

    In terms of ID, that is, in the context of a proportional intelligent increase of information, by some means; there appears another problem that ID may address – the instantaneous irreducible interconnected complexity of a life component, life unit, life organ in order to burst into life.

    You may say, but that is irreducible creationism. However, keeping to the terms of ID, that is not necessarily the case, no more than Darwinism may be part of atheism or Judaeo-Christianity.

    No creator is defined, no intelligence is defined, expect the axiom; complex intelligent grouping has existed, and is inbuilt from the beginning of any life form; as with design. That perception is grounded in observation, past and present.

    Nevertheless you would think that such intelligence, would communicate intelligently, and simply. However, that is not in the remit of ID. It fights a difficult enough battle as it is.

    Non serviam was basically Darwin’s axiom: a block-head type of nature serves us.

    Still, in atheistic terms, such nature is a god, as we certainly did not produce ourselves, nor had any free will in the matter of being created.

    The choice would be simple if we knew we had a choice, to acknowledge a higher intelligence or not, the consequences ours. How can we know. Belief, but based on the minimum of supernatural evidence, for the maximum effect in human free will.

    Belief in Darwinian terms is based on intelligent beings being totally absent at origins.

    At the centre of Darwinism is a belief system imposed on everybody. Darwin certainly gained the world…..

  48. 48
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Querius: “Sure, IE. Here’s an example.”

    All this shows is that peer-review is not a perfect process. Which is why journals have a process for retracting papers. If anything, this simply disproves the oft-repeated claim that journals will not publish ID research.

    Now, the second part of my question. Post a paper that was rejected, along with the reviewers’ comments, and we will discuss its merits.

  49. 49
    Origenes says:

    Indiana Effigy,

    wrt your question in #51, have you read posts #47 and #48?

  50. 50
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Origenes: “wrt your question in #51, have you read posts #47 and #48?”

    My apologies. I, like many others, routinely scroll past BA77’s cut-and-pastafests as they are seldom on topic.

    I looked at a few of his links and see a couple papers that were published. Again, disproving the claim that ID research can’t get published. It may be more difficult, as is the case with any research that goes against any currently accepted theory. Remember cold fusion? Or continental drift?

    I am still waiting for someone to post a paper that was rejected, along with reviewer comments, so that we can discuss the merits. This should be easy to do given the claims that have been made.

  51. 51
    Andre says:

    Please stop feeding the troll

  52. 52
    es58 says:

    deleted

  53. 53
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Andre: “Please stop feeding the troll”

    I made a very simple request for people to support the oft-repeated claim that scientifically valid papers are being rejected simply because they support ID. And I am being labeled a troll. If that is the best you can do then ID has lost.

    Again, a simple request. Post a scientifically valid paper that was rejected, along with the reviewers’ comments, and we can discuss the paler’s merits. Surely one of these papers should be easy to find given the claim being made.

  54. 54
    Querius says:

    IE,

    Did you read this part of the journal’s apology?

    Within days, the Biological Society of Washington, intimidated by the response of the evolutionary defenders, released a statement apologizing for the publication of the article. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the society’s governing council claimed that the article “was published without the prior knowledge of the council.” The statement went on to declare: “We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” The society’s president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, blamed the article’s publication on the journal’s previous editor, Richard Sternberg, who now serves as a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health. “My conclusion on this,” McDiarmid said, “was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor’s part.”

    I did a search on rejected journal papers and intelligent design, and found mostly ones that were published and then retracted by the journal. Along the way, I found the information in this link very amusing, especially the comments.

    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi.....n_rejected

    Then I ran across a diatribe by Dr. Warren D. Smith (mathematics and computer science):

    . . . All the above numerical figures are based on my experience as a professional scientist. However, my opponents could attack them as merely my biased special anecdotal claims. To respond to that, consider the following study [PLACE CITE HERE LATER]:
    The authors of the study took 18 random already-published scientific papers, changed the authors and titles, and sent them in to the same journal as submissions, in all cases within a few years of their publication date (thus the articles were still reasonably up to date).

    Result: 16 of the 18 got rejected. (In 0 cases was the plagiarism detected.) I think this study totally supports my “anecdotal” conclusions from my personal experience, don’t you? Case closed.

    Here’s some correspondence between an editor of a journal and Dr. Behe in which one can see that a paper that Dr. Behe proposed was rejected before it was even written due to the subject material:

    https://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.php

    Since Dr. Meyers’ paper was officially withdrawn by the Biological Society of Washington along with apologies, what do you find in it that’s objectionable or unscientific?

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

    Incidentally, I found the search both illuminating and entertaining.

    -Q

  55. 55
    Querius says:

    BTW,

    Here’s a good article on rejected articles in general with numerous references:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56221.html

    Here’s one on peer-reviewed ID submissions, along with a list of those that were accepted:
    http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

    -Q

  56. 56
    Andre says:

    IE

    You are not searching for truth… you are just another person with an agenda. You don’t have to ask for the information you just need to find it yourself.

  57. 57
    Querius says:

    IE wrote:

    It may be more difficult, as is the case with any research that goes against any currently accepted theory. Remember cold fusion? Or continental drift?

    Yep. There was a time when continental drift was considered crackpot pseudo-science. And it would still not be accepted if there were any ideological dissonance attached to it.

    Oh, and here’s an interesting link to an article asserting that “big science” is broken.

    http://theweek.com/articles/61.....nce-broken

    Comments?

    -Q

  58. 58
    RexTugwell says:

    Me_Think @ 23 How does it follow that everything should be created in a “jiffy” if one has immense powers? I continue to be astonished at atheists’ juvenile concepts of the Creator and their limitless ability to anthropomorphize an eternal and infinite being. I submit that fine-tuning the expansion of the universe to one part in 10^60 is just as powerful as creating one in a “jiffy”.

    An eternal creator did not wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait. The eternal creator’s eternity is tota simul i.e. “all at once”. The Big Bang is present to him as well as the heat death of the universe and everything in between. There is no waiting and waiting and waiting. You don’t get to redefine “eternity” just as you don’t get to redefine “nothing”.

    I suggest an introductory course in metaphysics before you turn on the snark. And what’s with the Me_Think moniker? It clearly does not fit.

  59. 59
    Querius says:

    And apparently Indiana Effigy has tiptoed away. I guess it’s best to boogie when facts start emerging.

    Summary:

    Intelligent Design is a paradigm in which things that look designed are investigated as if they were. ID takes no position on the designer.

    Darwinism is a paradigm in which things are assumed to not have any design or purpose until proven.

    Publishing in technical journals seems to suffer from a random selection process that’s become disconnected from scientific signficance. Additionally, anything even remotely connected with ID is either rejected out of hand or in some cases withdrawn after a firestorm of protest.

    While the peer review process filters out some crank science (not enough in some cases), it also filters out new discoveries and anything that challenges the current consensus. It’s been estimated that around a third of published results have not been able to be duplicated.

    -Q

  60. 60
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Querius: “And apparently Indiana Effigy has tiptoed away.”

    Then you must be blind and deaf. But I have had recent experience with KF deleting my comments without even leaving a placeholder, so forgive me if I question the desire of this site to actually have a discussion.

    Did I ever say that it wouldn’t be more difficult for a paper to be published that went against the commonly held consensus? Of course it will. But ID presents that this only occurs with ID papers. Which is bullsh-t. The history of science is strewn with examples of valid theories that were not initially accepted. Darwin’s theory amongst them. But history has shown that the theories that are supported by evidence eventually become accepted. ID has not even come close to this. Probably because their entire research involves poking holes in other theories rather than testing their own.

  61. 61
    Me_Think says:

    RexTugwell @ 61

    An eternal creator did not wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait. The eternal creator’s eternity is tota simul i.e. “all at once”.

    Your fancy term doesn’t change the fact that universe is 13.8 billion years old, so if the creator did create the universe, He did wait for billions of years.

  62. 62
    Querius says:

    IE @ 63,

    Oh, there you are! If you actually read 62, you would know that ID is a paradigm, not a theory. Do you know the difference?

    Regarding the perversities of trying to get a scientific paper published, you can see that I provided the links, plus the links where ID proponents’ submissions were withdrawn for no other reason that the person was associated with ID.

    You never answered any of my questions. For example, what do you find objectionable in Dr. Meyers’ paper linked above?

    That you’ve resorted to an ad hominem attack against KF indicates that you’re conceding the argument.

    -Q

  63. 63
    Querius says:

    Me-Think,

    Your fancy term doesn’t change the fact that universe is 13.8 billion years old, so if the creator did create the universe, He did wait for billions of years.

    Interesting. From Einstein’s theory of relativity, we know that time depends on velocity. For example, from the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment, synchronized Cesium clocks aboard passenger jets and the ground diverged due to time dilation.

    MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder computed that for a photon traveling at the speed of light, the universe is only about a week old.

    So, can you please explain how it is a fact that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old, making the Creator wait billions of years?

    -Q

  64. 64
    Mung says:

    That you’ve resorted to an ad hominem attack against KF indicates that you’re conceding the argument.

    No, it just means that he’s a jerk.

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    IE, I glanced in the recent comments and saw an exchange in a thread that I took no part in hitherto and do not own, which accuses me. Now, to my knowledge I have deleted no comments of yours (certainly in any fairly recent time), and I just don’t know about leaving or not leaving placeholders for deleted comments. If there is a vulgar and abusive language problem in a thread I own, after warning I might close the thread or delete defiantly offensive posts but as a rule I will leave an explanation. At first level I would snip vulgarities, leaving usually that word in their place and a warning. I do not hold general moderator powers. BTW, IIRC you used a vulgarity in a thread I own very recently, but for the moment I do not have time just now to go through and sift the length of the thread to deal with what else may be wrong. Consider this a caution. KF

  66. 66
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Mung: “No, it just means that he’s a jerk.”

    Finally, someone who understands me.:)

  67. 67
    Querius says:

    Sorry but I disagree, Mung. We can all be jerks at times.

    When a person has been presented with information or logic contrary to their opinions or worldview, one of several common responses is a flurry of ad hominem attacks. A more mature, cultured response would be, “I can see your point. Let me think about it some more. Thanks.”

    Among people who are less adept with verbal expression, a bar fight usually follows that’s “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)

    -Q

  68. 68
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 66

    MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder computed that for a photon traveling at the speed of light, the universe is only about a week old.

    Yeah, that was funny.For a physicist, he didn’t even know (or more likely ignored) the fact that photons travel at the same speed in all reference frames (which is the key to make Biblical days equivalent to actual age of universe). He didn’t know ( or ignored) the difference between mass and weight, ignored that KE is proportional to twice the velocity. The funniest mistake was equating the variable energy of moving particle in Planck’s black body equation to the rest mass energy!
    The saddest part in this sad story of Gerald L. Schroeder fall from grace is that the Creationists were livid that he messed up with Biblical story line! There were angry posts even in Creation Ministries International site (creation.com). Even archeologists – of all people – were not happy that he deliberately (or ignorantly) changed the bronze age to suit his narrative. In the end, he just made a fool of himself.

  69. 69
    Querius says:

    Me_Think,

    What are you talking about?

    A day at 0.99999999999999 C is nearly 20,000 years for an observer at rest. The value continues to increase dramatically as velocity further approaches C. I think the point he was trying to make was that the passage of time depends on the velocity of the observer. So what was God’s velocity for the first six days? We can assume that God was at rest on the seventh day. 😉

    When did Gerald Schroeder ever confuse mass with weight? That’s a ridiculous charge!

    Gosh, and I thought KE=1/2 mv^2. What happens to KE when I triple the velocity?

    A moving particle in Planck’s Law? Ohhh, you must be confusing the Greek letter nu with v.

    How did Gerald Schroeder “mess up” with the “Biblical story line” and why should anyone be “livid” with him? You do know that he’s an Orthodox Jew, don’t you?

    How did Gerald Schroeder change the bronze age to suit his narrative making which archaeologists unhappy?

    If you’re going to slime someone, at least provide some evidence for your claims.

    -Q

  70. 70
    mw says:

    The speed of God to create equales the speed of His thought or will, I assume.

    That appears to be instant, but can vary at will, considering the many reported miracles.

    It seems, some believe, that is why it took God six days to create with a blessed rest; created for humans, not for God.

    In the Flesh, that is in Jesus, the Sinai law He fulfilled. If God fulfilled a lie, a gross elastication of truth. Then the Judaeo-Christian faith would be useless, from the top down.

    Creation could have been instant, if God willed.
    Proof? Well, we have the proof of reported witnesses at Sinai. We have witness statements. Meaning, we had the proof of His recorded word. Basically an oath on stone by Yahweh. Whether we believe or not in the existence of Almighty power, Personal, is not the issues under the terms of such a Creator.

    Then we have Uncle Charlie, who tore up a nations miraculous history in pursuit of his degrading theory. Who shredded scripture. Who intellectually crucified Jesus in favour of his pet whale-bear. His imaginary toy later confiscated by his publisher.

    The theory we get we deserve.

  71. 71
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 72

    What are you talking about?

    Refer Schroeder’s book Pages 161 -164 “Shrinking of time”. According to STR, photons always move with the same speed in every frame of reference. If a frame of reference in which photons are at rest existed, time would stop in such a frame. No such frames of reference is possible hence Schroeder’s concept is meaningless.

    A day at 0.99999999999999 C is nearly 20,000 years for an observer at rest. The value continues to increase dramatically as velocity further approaches C. I think the point he was trying to make was that the passage of time depends on the velocity of the observer. So what was God’s velocity for the first six days? We can assume that God was at rest on the seventh day

    The formula for Time Dilation is t0/Sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)], where t0 is proper time, substituting 0.99999999999999 C in v and t0 as 1 day, we get 7.0739*10^6 days! As God’s speed (Notice we are not talking about photons any more ) approaches light speed c, time dilation will be infinite! Notice that even at far more reduced speed, Schroeder’s implicit calculation for equating Biblical days with Proper time Tn = 1.6 x 10^10/2n, where n =1 for the First day of creation, n=2 for the Second day, etc., and Tn is the duration of the day of creation number n on our time scale, expressed in the number of conventional years. does not gel with actual Lorentz transform.
    Even if we take his simplistic calculation, as shown in creation.com –

    Moreover, Dr Schroeder’s arbitrary numbers are not consistent with each other. He chooses to divide the 15 billion years by the degree of expansion of the universe, which he defines as a million million (1,000,000,000,000), and then multiplying that by 365 for the number of days in a year. He states that the answer is approximately 6, proving his theory. However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.

    When did Gerald Schroeder ever confuse mass with weight? That’s a ridiculous charge!

    Page 37 and Page 40 of Genesis and the Big Bang, The discovery of the harmony between modern science and the Bible.

    Gosh, and I thought KE=1/2 mv^2. What happens to KE when I triple the velocity?

    Of course that’s correct formula. As you see KE proportional to v^2 and not v as claimed by Schroeder in page 37 –“It acquires velocity and in so doing acquires kinetic energy proportional to the velocity.” Then with reference to Centrifugal force in Page 117: “The centrifugal force of the spin flattened the cloud into a disk.”. Centrifugal force is fictional force in Physics. The real force in this case is centripetal force caused by gravitation.

    A moving particle in Planck’s Law? Ohhh, you must be confusing the Greek letter nu with v.

    No. The formula used by Schroeder is hf=mc^2. This may seem correct since it can be derived from E=hf – Equation1 (Planck’s quantum of energy emitted by a black body formula) . and E=mc^2 – Equation2. However, the E in Equation 1 denotes the variable energy of a moving particle, related to that particle’s momentum, whereas E in equation2 is a constant for a given particle and denotes the rest energy. He actually equated a variable with a constant!! Also note he doesn’t mean total relativistic mass and energy, which could have made the equation correct!

    How did Gerald Schroeder “mess up” with the “Biblical story line” and why should anyone be “livid” with him? You do know that he’s an Orthodox Jew, don’t you?

    I will just quote from creation.com :

    He does not rest this choice of variable “day” lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any biblical basis for such a division. We are merely supposed to accept his re-definition of the word “day” and ignore all the biblical evidence (such as Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 20:8–11) that each creation day was essentially the same length of time as an ordinary day of the week today.

    However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.

    Dr. Schroeder continues by saying that because we are in the “sixth day” of creation, the Sabbath Day, the seventh day of rest, has not yet occurred. However, Genesis 2:1–2 clearly states that God “ended his work”, “he rested”, and “he blessed it and sanctified it because in it he rested.” All of these statements are made in the past tense. How could this be if we are still in the sixth day as Dr. Schroeder claims?

    In Dr Schroeder’s creation scenario, the sun was actually created on Day Two. However, since the atmosphere was merely translucent, it could not be visibly discerned from the earth until the atmosphere became transparent on Day Four. In contrast, Genesis 1:14–19 clearly states that the sun and moon were made on Day Four and placed in the firmament. This is another standard claim of the old “day-age” theory, a claim which evaporates upon examination of the passages involved. For example, the biblical account does not use the Hebrew word for “appear” to say the sun and moon “appeared” on the fourth day. Instead, Genesis 1:16 says he “made” them then.

    Proceeding with this argument nonetheless, Dr. Schroeder asserts that this shows the universe started with the chaos of the big bang and was later ordered by God. Does this then mean that each “day” started with chaos and ended with order? Did things go through a six “day” cycle of chaos-to-order-to-chaos-to-order?

    Since Dr Schroeder offers no details supporting his alleged Hebrew word relationships, readers should not take him seriously on this point. (In any case, even if there were a root word relationship, there are logical fallacies and dangers involved in using word roots to interpret the Bible, which have led people astray on many issues.

    You can read more at:
    http://creation.com/gerald-sch.....ory-part-1
    http://creation.com/gerald-sch.....ory-part-2

    How did Gerald Schroeder change the bronze age to suit his narrative making which archaeologists unhappy?

    Schroeder says (refering to Genesis 4:22.)that Tuval-Cain, according to the Bible, was the inventor of bronze. Hence, according to Schroeder the Bronze age started about 4400 years ago.However Tuval-Cain made tools not only of copper or bronze, but also of iron, then we can place his lifetime at a much later date than Schroeder wants us to believe. The use of iron started, roughly, some fifteen centuries after that of bronze. Hence, just one word omitted by Schroeder in his reference to the biblical text makes his chronological exercise ingloriously collapse.
    In the second book , the onset of the Bronze age is said to have happened about 5000 years ago, i.e. about 600 years earlier than in the first book Furthermore, on page 130 of Schroeder maintains that the time interval between Adam and Tuval-Cain was 700 years, instead of the 1350 years he indicated in 1st Book. Since in the second book the lifetime of Tuval-Cain is shifted back by some 900 years, it makes it even farther in time from the iron age as determined by archeology. This completely undermines Schroeder’s chronological exercise.

    If you’re going to slime someone, at least provide some evidence for your claims.

    No, that wasn’t my intention. Everything quoted here can be found with more vitriol on the web

  72. 72
    Querius says:

    Me_Think,

    Refer Schroeder’s book Pages 161 -164 “Shrinking of time”.

    Since you have the book, would you mind quoting or summarizing the part where Dr. Schroeder confuses weight and mass?

    . . . we get 7.0739*10^6 days!

    And how many years is that?

    However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day.

    Haha! You’ve never taken a course in astrophysics, have you? If you get within a few orders of magnitude for some calculations, it’s considered close. Considering that the inflation factors he chose had only one significant digit, 5.475 days is in the same order of magnitude as 7, and your objection collapses.

    Of course that’s correct formula.

    But you evaded my question. What happens to kinetic energy when the velocity triples?

    However, the E in Equation 1 denotes the variable energy of a moving particle . . . etc.

    And what might that particle be? And where is the velocity that you referred to in E=hv?

    Obviously the reviewer in Creation magazine assumes that a day is a fixed unit of time. All Gerald Schroeder was saying is that the exterally observed time that elapses in a day is different depending on the velocity relative to the speed of light—that one day and 14.8 billion years could both be correct. The only new thing is that Dr. Schroeder is exploring the implications in Genesis 1.

    However, since the atmosphere was merely translucent, it could not be visibly discerned from the earth until the atmosphere became transparent on Day Four.

    Yes, I know some people take that position. Considering that we now believe that light existed before stars formed, the “greater lamp” on day four is not as farfetched as it once was considered. Other people believe that the first part of Genesis is a polemic. The sun and moon are simply lamps, not glorious gods to be worshipped. To me, it seems reasonable that this is why the sun and moon are not named.

    However Tuval-Cain made tools not only of copper or bronze, but also of iron, then we can place his lifetime at a much later date than Schroeder wants us to believe.

    I’m not that familiar with archaeological classification, but it’s my understanding that the three-age system is somewhat arbitrary and varied depending on region, culture, and resources available. Dr. Schroeder’s PhD is in physics, not archaeology. Imposing an object-based classification system invented in 1837 on Biblical text is unwise.

    I’m glad to hear that it wasn’t your intention to slime Dr. Schroeder. There’s too much vitriol on the web as it is.

    -Q

  73. 73
    ellazimm says:

    Querius #75

    And how many years is that?

    Just divide by 365!!

    What happens to kinetic energy when the velocity triples?

    I’m trying to figure out why you’re asking such elementary questions. It’s easy enough to figure out given the formula.

    And where is the velocity that you referred to in E=hv?

    That would be the ‘v’.

    All Gerald Schroeder was saying is that the exterally observed time that elapses in a day is different depending on the velocity relative to the speed of light—that one day and 14.8 billion years could both be correct. The only new thing is that Dr. Schroeder is exploring the implications in Genesis 1.

    Genesis contains the root of relativity?

  74. 74
    Querius says:

    ellazimm,

    My questions are directed at Me_Think.

    I’d like Me_Think to do the math as an opportunity to see where he/she went wrong.

    -Q

  75. 75
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 77

    I’d like Me_Think to do the math as an opportunity to see where he/she went wrong.

    My calculations are correct. There is simply no way to equate Universe’s age to Biblical days using SR or GR. Also, our universe is 13.8 billion years old. Gerald Schroeder didn’t revise his calculation to take this into account.The point is, even his target audience doesn’t agree with his results.
    3 times velocity is irrelevant for the speeds we are talking about, not just because 3 x 0.99999999999999c is FTL and is impossible (at least scientifically)- but because for relativistic velocity, we use a different formula: KE=m*c^2 - m0*c^2 where m0 is rest mass and m is relativistic mass.
    Coming to the black body equation, E represents the energy of photon. The nu in your comment (f in my comment) is the frequency of the particle and depends on particle’s momentum. It is not a constant and not equal to rest energy represented by the other equation. You can’t equate a variable with a constant.

  76. 76
    Querius says:

    Me_Think,

    My calculations are correct.

    Well then, why don’t you actually give the answers to my questions in 75? You’re still evading my questions. You originally wrote:

    He didn’t know ( or ignored) the difference between mass and weight, ignored that KE is proportional to twice the velocity. The funniest mistake was equating the variable energy of moving particle in Planck’s black body equation to the rest mass energy!

    – How does Dr. Schroeder confuse weight and mass in the book pages you referred to?

    – How many years are the days that you computed (7.0739*10^6 days)?

    – what happens to kinetic energy when the velocity triples?

    – Where is the velocity and the particle that you referred to in Planck’s law?

    -Q

  77. 77
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 79
    ????I don’t know what you are trying to prove. Aren’t you able to calculate these yourself? If not, I don’t think you will understand what we are trying to discuss.

    – How does Dr. Schroeder confuse weight and mass in the book pages you referred to?

    He describes mass of particle as mass or weight. As you probably know,rest mass is intrinsic to the particle and does not depend on reference frame , weight depends on gravity and relativistic mass depends on velocity of particle and both depend on reference frame All three are different.
    I have already answered other questions in comment # 78:

    3 times velocity is irrelevant for the speeds we are talking about, not just because 3 x 0.99999999999999c is FTL and is impossible (at least scientifically)- but because for relativistic velocity, we use a different formula: KE = m*c^2 - m0*c^2 where m0 is rest mass and m is relativistic mass.

    NOTE: Black body Equation is Planck’s E=hf equation

    Coming to the black body equation, E represents the energy of photon. The nu in your comment (f in my comment) is the frequency of the particle and depends on particle’s momentum. It is not a constant and not equal to rest energy represented by the other equation. You can’t equate a variable with a constant.

    Please use a calculator for the left out questions

  78. 78
    Querius says:

    Me_Think,

    ????I don’t know what you are trying to prove.

    Simple—it’s that while you launched into an attack against Gerald Schroeder, you yourself don’t understand what you’re claiming against him.

    You confuse squared with double in the equation for kinetic energy (which you later “clarified”) and you accuse him of not knowing the difference between mass and weight.

    You criticize my comment on time being relative to velocity—Dr. Schroeder’s point–yet you didn’t do the math for converting your days into the estimate I provided for years.

    You apparently assumed that the Greek letter nu in Planck’s law was a v for velocity and asserted that Dr. Schroeder didn’t know about the (non-existent) velocity of a (unspecified, non-existent) particle in an interaction involving blackbody radiation.

    Personally, I don’t mind if you don’t know about something, but it’s unethical to pretend that you do, especially when you’re criticizing a physicist with a PhD from MIT who happens to be an orthodox Jew.

    And then you accuse me of not being constructive.

    Just think about your behavior on this forum, OK?

    -Q

  79. 79
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 81
    SIGH!

    You confuse squared with double in the equation for kinetic energy (which you later “clarified”) and you accuse him of not knowing the difference between mass and weight.

    From comment #80
    He describes mass of particle as mass or weight. As you probably know,rest mass is intrinsic to the particle and does not depend on reference frame , weight depends on gravity and relativistic mass depends on velocity of particle and both depend on reference frame All three are different.
    From # 78, again repeated from # 80
    3 times velocity is irrelevant for the speeds we are talking about, not just because 3 x 0.99999999999999c is FTL and is impossible (at least scientifically)- but because for relativistic velocity, we use a different formula: KE = m*c^2 - m0*c^2 , where m0 is rest mass and m is relativistic mass.

    You criticize my comment on time being relative to velocity—Dr. Schroeder’s point–yet you didn’t do the math for converting your days into the estimate I provided for years.

    Converting into days matters ?!! You think converting units is going to reconcile Biblical days with 13.8 billion years of Universe ?! Is that why you keep insisting on calculating it- just like you kept insisting on tripling velocity in non-relativistic formula?

    You apparently assumed that the Greek letter nu in Planck’s law was a v for velocity and asserted that Dr. Schroeder didn’t know about the (non-existent) velocity of a (unspecified, non-existent) particle in an interaction involving black body radiation.

    No. ‘nu’ was neither used by me nor Schroeder- we both used hf (f instead of nu). There is no scope for confusion with ‘v’.
    Again from #78 and #80
    NOTE: Black body Equation is Planck’s E=hf equation
    Coming to the black body equation, E represents the energy of photon. The nu in your comment (f in my comment) is the frequency of the particle and depends on particle’s momentum. It is not a constant and not equal to rest energy represented by the other equation. You can’t equate a variable with a constant.

    Personally, I don’t mind if you don’t know about something, but it’s unethical to pretend that you do, especially when you’re criticizing a physicist with a PhD from MIT who happens to be an orthodox Jew.

    🙂 I have a Ph.D.in Disordered waveguide lattice, and no, sloppily not using the right word- squared- doesn’t disqualify me! Schroeder is not the only one I have criticized. I have criticized Frank Tipler for his Omega point theory, Brian Cox for his silly ‘rubbing diamond affects every particle in the universe’, ‘moon phases are shadows, etc. Then there are crackpots like Peratt,Alfven,Vranjes, Miles etc. BTW, since you think argument from authority is valid, what is your qualification in physics?

  80. 80
    RexTugwell says:

    Me_Think declares:

    I have a Ph.D.in Disordered waveguide lattice

    Hmmm, Google comes up with ~30 unique hits on that topic. Usually if one is patient enough, those like Me_Think expose themselves for what they really are, one-trick ponies who rely on their advanced degrees to expound authoritatively on just about everything else for which they have no degree. If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Alas, a Ph.D. in physics but a kindergartner in logic, philosophy and biology as is evident in this thread and elsewhere. Following one non sequitur with another and conveniently creating his own definitions hoping that will settle the matter. Utterly clueless about Behe and he offers only hostile reviews in return; never bothering to grasp Behe’s true argument.

    I must agree with Dr. Donald Prothero when he states:

    [Y]ou don’t need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either. As those of us who have gone through the ordeal know, a Ph.D. only proves that you can survive a grueling test of endurance in doing research and writing a dissertation on a very narrow topic. It doesn’t prove that you are smarter than anyone else or more qualified to render an opinion than anyone else. (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, p. 16)

    BTW, the above quote is found under the heading “Arguments From Authority and Credential Mongering”

    I’m sure we’re all impressed with your expertise in disordered waveguide lattice but it’s difficult to take you seriously on most other things.

  81. 81
    Querius says:

    RexTugwell,

    Thank you. Brilliantly articulated!

    Me_Think continues to evade my clearly stated questions. I’m not necessarily agreeing with Gerald Schroeder, but I just think that disparaging statements need to be supported and not include misunderstandings of physics or other errors.

    -Q

  82. 82
    Me_Think says:

    RexTugwell @ 83

    Hmmm, Google comes up with ~30 unique hits on that topic.

    Hmmm, apparently the topic is not popular among philosophers. Thank God we don’t rely on Google for literature reviews.

    Me_Think expose themselves for what they really are, one-trick ponies who rely on their advanced degrees to expound authoritatively on just about everything else for which they have no degree

    I have never mentioned my credentials anywhere on UD except this thread, and that was because Querius brought up Schroeder’s authority in an attempt to defend him :

    ….especially when you’re criticizing a physicist with a PhD from MIT who happens to be an orthodox Jew.

    .

    Utterly clueless about Behe and he offers only hostile reviews in return; never bothering to grasp Behe’s true argument

    I think you are in the wrong thread.We are discussing Schroeder. In any case, AFAIK , Behe hasn’t said anything on relativity.

    I’m sure we’re all impressed with your expertise in disordered waveguide lattice but it’s difficult to take you seriously on most other things.

    Thank you for the first part of your sentence.

  83. 83
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 84

    Me_Think continues to evade my clearly stated questions.

    I am sure given enough time and a calculator, you can work it out yourself

    I’m not necessarily agreeing with Gerald Schroeder,…

    I am glad you agree with me, at last.

    I just think that disparaging statements need to be supported and not include misunderstandings of physics or other errors.

    You haven’t even seen the errors in the other book! Don’t even get me started on gravitational time dilation errors. He is not even good with Torah. You can find a 105 page Torah related critique of his book at https://torahexplorer.com/genesis-and-the-big-bluff/
    Here is a brilliant quote on string theory

    On page 59 of Genesis and the Big Bang,
    Dr. Schroeder tells his readers that traditional Torah sources presaged String Theory:
    To form the universe, God chose from the infinite realm of the Divine, ten dimensions or aspects and relegated them to be held within the universe. These dimensions are
    hinted at in the ten repetitions of the statements “and God said…” used in the opening chapter of Genesis. The cabalists believed that only four of the ten dimensions are physically measurable within today’s world. The other six contracted into submicroscopic dimensions during the six days of Genesis…
    With an amazing congruity, particle physicists now talk of the String Theory, a unified description of our universe in ten dimensions… These dimensions according to the physicists are the four that we know, length, width, height and time, plus six others. These six are contracted into a size far too tiny ever to be observed even by the best of microscopes…

    Let us begin with the fact that Dr. Schroeder does not provide a source for this claim. It’s just “The cabalists believed…” There are several such unsubstantiated claims made in Genesis and the Big
    Bang:…

    “and God said” used 10 times represents 10 dimensions of universe? Do you still want to defend him?

  84. 84
    RexTugwell says:

    Me_Don’t_Think @ 85

    Hmmm, apparently the topic is not popular among philosophers. Thank God we don’t rely on Google for literature reviews.

    I was merely using Google to show the very narrow scope of your specialty which supports Prothero’s observation thank you very much. Apparently that point escaped you.

    I think you are in the wrong thread.We are discussing Schroeder.

    It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Once again, you’ve helped me prove my point that you are indeed a one-trick pony. Lenin had some insight into useful people like yourself. AFAIK, the thread is entitled “Do You Believe in Evolution?” and AFAIK, Behe has a lot to say on the topic. You, however, have shown your ineptitude on all subjects non-physics related.

  85. 85
    Me_Think says:

    RexTugwell @ 87

    I was merely using Google to show the very narrow scope of your specialty which supports Prothero’s observation thank you very much. Apparently that point escaped you.

    I am sure Prothero is important person for you. I am glad that you are gleeful that I some how proved his profound observation. Just tell him the narrower a research, the harder it is.

    It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Once again, you’ve helped me prove my point that you are indeed a one-trick pony. Lenin had some insight into useful people like yourself. AFAIK, the thread is entitled “Do You Believe in Evolution?” and AFAIK, Behe has a lot to say on the topic. You, however, have shown your ineptitude on all subjects non-physics related.

    If you haven’t noticed, We weren’t discussing Behe. We were discussing relativity when you jumped in and started insulting me for no reason! I am sure Behe has a lot to say about the topic but I haven’t discussed it, nor did you discuss it in this thread. I really don’t see the point you are trying to make.

  86. 86
    Querius says:

    RexTugwell,

    Once again, you’re spot on. Rather than meeting your observations directly, Me_Think attacks your methods (Google searches), your sources (Prothero), and your logic (as in “I don’t see the point you’re making”).

    Me_Think still hasn’t answered my direct questions, choosing instead to push them back on me. One begins to wonder why.

    Frankly, I suspected that Me_Think was using cut-and-paste for arguments without understanding them, unfortunately even in physics. Oh well. Thanks again for your posts.

    -Q

  87. 87
    Me_Think says:

    Querius @ 89
    The more evidence I give you about Gerald Schroeder’s erroneous work, the more you double down. I am not able to figure out why. Is he from your country? That shouldn’t be a reason to support him.

  88. 88
    Querius says:

    Thanks for trying RexTugwell. Great observations!

    And complete baloney, MT. Goodbye.

    -Q

  89. 89
    Me_Think says:

    That’s not Goodbye, that’s running away from fact that you tried to defend the erroneous work of Gerald Schroeder and failed miserably. Neither his target audience, nor we agree with his calculations. He is right in no one’s book.

Leave a Reply