Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Icons of Evolution


Figure 1

Icons of Evolution


Finally the source of Myers animosity becomes apparent. He wants to be socially acceptable outside his atheist acquaintances.

We don’t have a problem with scientists being accepted socially. We have a problem with atheists> being accepted socially. We wouldn’t have to worry about this as a problem in science education if those two sets did not intersect…but unfortunately, they do. They intersect a lot. So what do you want that intersecting set to do? Never, ever mention their disbelief to avoid adding that unnecessary layer?

I don’t really think his atheism in and of itself is the problem. Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t socially acceptable to most people either but that’s not because of their beliefs, per se, it’s because they feel compelled to tell everyone what they believe. Anyone, unless you’re among your own kind, is generally a social pariah if they bring up their religious beliefs to people who may have different beliefs. What a faux pas. So yes, Paul, exactly what you do is keep your religion and your politics to yourself if you’re concerned about making friends and influencing people in whatever mixed group you find yourself in. If you don’t care to be socially accepted then by all means be the guy that never gets invited to the same place twice – burning bridges behind you can be great fun and they cast a such a lovely light. But if you want to get invited back then stifle yourself at least until you know who’s safe to talk about what with. For you, it’s probably too late to expect to fit in with like the parents at your kids’ school because with the internet everyone’s going to have your number right from the word go. Word travels fast. I’m sure that really endears you with your wife if she hasn’t left you yet. At this point you might have to change your name and move to a new city. Or join an evangelical atheist church or whatever you people do to meet others of your own kind and plan on that being the only place you’ll ever find anyone that doesn’t try to stay on the other side of the room when you’re around.

Like anybody cares what Lenny Flank thinks about anything. I've never known anyone who contributed less to an online discussion than Flank. DonaldM


Okay, so we can't be 100% certain that mutations are naturalistic as opposed to the work of a designer. That leads to a metaphysical question, but in light of no compelling evidence to the contrary it's reasonable to assume for now that natural causes and effects are at work. Unless you can show that there was a designer with the ability to create those things who was around when they were created.

I see that you often claim ID is "glaringly obvious" because some things in nature have some similarities to human designs. How much similarity in these analogies is necessary to assume the cause must be the same? As humans have designed spherical objects does that mean we should conclude any spherical objects in nature (eg. planets and stars) must therefore have been designed? How do you know that nature and humans cannot independently arrive at solutions which have some (but not all) things in common?

That leads to a metaphysical question This presupposes that designers are metaphysical. I'm a designer. I don't feel metaphysical. In fact at my age I feel way TOO physical. -ds Unless you can show that there was a designer with the ability to create those things who was around when they were created Wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is no evidence whatsoever that complex machines such as the digtally programmed ribosome can come about without intelligent agency. We already know intelligent agency exists. What we don't know is if intelligent agency came about only in the very recent history of the universe. Given there's abundant evidence of design (illusory in your opinion I'm sure but not illusory in the opinion of many others) in living things the reasonable presumption is that intelligent agency existed in the past and was responsible for the appearance of design. The unreasonable thing is to posit there's a mysterious unintelligent process that created these complex machines without any positive evidence at all that such a thing is even possible much less to promote it with an assurance that excludes even mentioning that an intelligent agency might have been the cause. Your position is untenable and rests on ancient assumptions about the simplicity of life at the cellular level that we know today are incorrect in the extreme. -ds dene_bebbo
Here are some comments which struck me (as they come from atheists):
Comment #107909 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24, 2006 05:22 PM (e) I wouldn’t want to live in a world run by PZ. Comment #108260 Posted by Tom Curtis on June 25, 2006 02:34 PM (e) PZ has invited us to argue. I’m not interested, but I will comment just once. I am an atheist. I accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and find creationism abominable. I have also, for all intents and purposes retired from the creation/evolution debate. The reason is simple - fanatics like PZ. Salvador PS Though I disagree with atheists, it is not my custom to treat them poorly or as second class citizens in society. I have friends who are atheists and who have supported my IDEA work, such as the poll mentioned here done by the JMU Freethinkers, a group of atheists and agnostics. IDers should also remember that former atheists are now key supporters of ID: John Sanford, Allan Sandage, Antony Flew, Frank Tipler, Richard Smalley, Lee Strobel, and more than I can even list....I encourage IDers then to bear in mind a future Antony Flew may be reading our posts.
Nuts to Mike Gene writing a book. Dave Scott! WRITE A BOOK!!!!! Doug
Gnashing of teeth.... this is what happens when one gets nightly news from Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. The satire turns to anger, anger then feeds upon itself as the light exposes the myths they live in. Popcorn anyone? Michaels7
RE the above comment could that not be '(petting and stamp-collecting)'?? I forget...:) lucID
Well of course Eugenie et al. would have recommended the site as an important evolution resource! Where else would our junior wannabee Richard Dawkins' learn the not-so-subtle art of outright lying-screaming-thieving-cheating and general appalling behavior associated with world class Darwinists????? I mean this is out and out GENuINE on-the-field practice for our budding young evilutionists. PT participation is actually a prerequisite site experience course for all Bio majors at 3 of the 5 major universities these days according to the NCSE (besides pippetting and stamp-collecting). Obviously they don’t want this practical course totally in-house atour esteemed centres of education so that there’s some room for plausible deniability in case it gets too much out of hand. But so far it’s really working! lucID

Dave, since you think documented processes in nature (RM + NS as you put it) aren't able to create novel cell types, tissue types, and body plans; can you explain what evidence there is for ID being able to do it beyond an analogy to human designers?

First of all these are not "documented" processes in nature. To call any mutation "random" requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic and 2) you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that no unknown directed process is involved. I won't hold my breath while you show me where these are demonstrated. What random in this case really means is "unknown cause". Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology which can be restated as survival of survivors. If you want an explanation of the evidence for design in nature beyond the glaringly obvious observation that cells have digital program driven machines in them and that in all cases where the origin of such machines can be determined they were the result of intelligent agency and no unintelligent process has been shown as even remotely capable, then I suggest you read Bill Dembski's books. -ds dene_bebbo

haha lol

Hell hath no fury as a enraged atheist!


Hey folks, you shouldn't take it seriously. It's just a piece of street theatre.


Do cartoons look serious to you, Bob? Oh hold it... I forget who I'm talking to. Anyone that thinks there's [cough] "overwhelming" evidence that RM+NS can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans is not going to be able to distinguish a cartoon from reality. Soldier on, Bob. -ds Bob OH
The other things that came out was PT co-founder Gary Hurd inviting co-founder Ed Brayton to a fist fights. Can you feel the love over there at PT!
Pandas Gone Wild and Gary Hurd's Lies The fact is that Gary Hurd behaves exactly like Gribbit. In fact, when things got heated on the PT list, one of the first things he did was give me his address to come see him so he could beat me up (this after bragging about his long history of bar fights and what a tough guy he is). This is the sort of behavior one might expect from a 19 year old thug, not from a grown man and a scientist. The bottom line is that this man needs a shrink badly. .... He has said many times directly to me that he drinks to the point of getting drunk regularly and that he has a long history of getting into bar fights.
When Eugenie Scott visited GMU December 1, 2005, she listed 3 of the most important internet resources to learn more about Darwinian evolution. PandasThumb was one of them. scordova

Almost reminds me of that time someone tried to convince his fellow IDers that common descent was supported by science, and then someone else got upset that it would alienate such a huge sector of the camp. Who was that again?

Perfect example of Darwinian math there, ebola boy. You take one blog article from me and one blog article in response from Bill Dembski and equate that with a 648 (and counting) comment flamefest starring PZ Myers and Lenny Flank. That's exactly how you tally up your [cough] "overwhelming" evidence for RM+NS being able to create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans - take little numbers and pretend they're the same as big numbers. Thanks for the example in how you charlatans think. It was just perfect. :razz: -ds


Nice! Although I think it should be Myers with the propeller cap (or maybe a dunce cap). Of course, that's not to say that Flank doesn't deserve it.


Leave a Reply