Okay, Darwin follower …

groovamos: Well according to the Wikipedia definition of “cognition” as “in science”, artifacts of sensory processing/perception do not seem to be a big deal in “cognition” as “in science” much less a reason to consider them somehow limits. We started with a "little deal" to make it easier for you. Your claim was that "There are no possible experiments which can establish ANY limitations of human cognition." We started with a 'little deal' to show you a simple example contradicting your claim. groovamos: We can’t even “see” atoms, so why wold that be a “limit” on “cognition”? Humans have little conception of the actual size of atoms. Zachriel

Zachriel: Sure there are. You might start with optical illusions. Well according to the Wikipedia definition of "cognition" as "in science", artifacts of sensory processing/perception do not seem to be a big deal in "cognition" as "in science" much less a reason to consider them somehow limits. We can't even "see" atoms, so why wold that be a "limit" on "cognition"? In other words your example is meaningless since we can see the interesting graphic, and not only that, we can perceive from it that "seeing" is not all it's cracked up to be in the end. This is not a limit, it can be novel knowledge that "seeing" is not reality, not in concrete. Now for wikipedia, It's like "in science" human existence has some walled-off meaning. Not saying I care a whole lot about the opinions of scientists holding forth in wikipedia on high-sounding terminology regarding human existence. We already know what they think of philosophers. Actually in my view, "cognition" is a big time buzz term for materialist scientists to employ, it can heap street cred upon themselves. The term "cognition" does kind of have a techno-buz to it, all the more for the unwashed masses who need psychological help with human existence from materialist science. And really each of us has a picture of the world that gets us by every day in ordinary consciousness, and that picture is drastically different from person to person, so I don't see where sensory perception matters as a "limit" since there is not a such thing as the Universal Picture Of The World. Even though many people in power think there is, and they are privy to it. And may not like it and want to use whatever means to force other people to change it for them, like our current regime. So if you were interested in human consciousness research you would have read the book review entirely. And you would have seen the section in the book review on aesthetic phenomena, where the discussion of sensory artifact manifestation can be explored in non-reductionist fashion. But I think it possible you did not read the review. Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition groovamos

>>How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution? I was raised in a religious household. I'm not so religious any more, but I think the perspective I had from when I was a kid made me more open to an ID point of view. I learned the scientific problems with the (at the time anyway) current versions of evolutionary theory when I was growing up in the 80's. At that time I was pretty convinced that (what I interpreted as) the "everything's an accident" version of evolution was essentially unsupported by the evidence. About 25 years ago I got divorced. That was understandably traumatic, and it triggered a re-thinking of my fundamental beliefs. I talked to a couple of friends who were (still are) intelligent, sincere, and committed athiests to get some ideas of what convinced them. One of them recommended a few books (I remember Dragons of Eden in particular) which I read. The thing that stood out the most was that the pro-athiest (or at least anti-ID) arguments were weak. I read some other books, such as Bones of Contention, and realized just how tentative the anti-ID arguments are. Since then I've occasionally revisited the issue, but I always come away more convinced that ID is correct. It conflicts with religious beliefs I have held in the past, but it does seem to me to be where the evidence leads. dl

groovamos: There are no possible experiments which can establish ANY limitations of human cognition. Sure there are. You might start with optical illusions. http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/story/20150130-how-your-eyes-trick-your-mind/media/17_snakes_v1_alamy_2560-hr.jpg Zachriel

Zachriel There are many tests which show the limitations of human cognition. That’s why scientific findings that impact human beliefs are often resisted so strenuously. Totally bogus. There are no possible experiments which can establish ANY "limitations of human cognition". If confident materialist thinks there are, it's because materialist is confident in confident materialist researchers with a priori beliefs in what must be disallowed in empiricism, which is kind of like the definition of methodological materialism. Of the confident kind. So this confidence becomes a necessary part of methodological materialism. Human cognition, let's call it what it is, human consciousness, is wide open for empirical study, but here is the catch: reductionism is what is hampered by limits, not consciousness. To indicate why this is the case I'm linking a book review linked to before. The deal is for you guys to understand that the best data for understanding consciousness is mined in studies of non-ordinary states of consciousness, purposely induced. This researcher/author with M.D. and Ph.D., has been trashed on RationalWiki as a crank, because materialists cannot get, and historically have never gotten past fear of reality while leaving their worldview intact. Which is kind of like the definition of philosophical materialism. Link: http://www.amazon.com/review/R93YN1VTGE33U/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0670590517&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books groovamos

bornagain77: you are playing games with the word imagination No. We are using it in its conventional sense. Zachriel

Zachriel you are playing games with the word imagination, , Moreover, despite what you believe, Darwinism is a non-falsifiable pseudo-science that has been falsified in many of its 'predictions' and which also predicts contradictory results and which also has no demonstrated empirical basis, i.e. all of the evidence for Darwinism is 'imaginary' in nature. Thus for you to be consistent, you should reject neo-Darwinism!

"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

bornagain77

It's true groovamos, I don't think there is a big distinction between IDers and creationists. Especially not in this topic, which is about how people come to accept (or not) the mainstream scientific view of evolution. wd400

bornagain77: i.e. we ‘imagine’ the danger to be either greater (or lesser) than it actually is Our claim is that humans *judge* the danger to be either greater (or lesser) than it actually is. bornagain77: Moreover, I did not say imagination was unimportant Nor did we say you did. Your claim was that imagination makes perception untrustworthy. That is not necessarily the case. While it is possible to conflate the imagination with the real world, most people at least understand that they are different, at least in principle. bornagain77: And as I said before, Darwinism’s entire evidential basis is imaginary and thus you should, to be consistent in your thinking, reject it. The Theory of Evolution make many empirically demonstrable predictions, i.e. scientific evidence. Zachriel

OK I have a question for the crew. One of the ways I see myself contributing is when an ID principal makes an assertion that is scientifically incorrect, and this happens often when the writer is relatively untrained as in a STEM discipline. I feel then that the credibility of the project needs bolstering by a correction from yours truly. I link below an article on ENV which sports the phrase: ... is better at reflecting infrared light (heat). So the two are not identical, radiant energy is not thermal energy. Absorption of radiant energy is accompanied by an equivalent increase in thermal energy (absent an external energy sink as in a photovoltaic cell or convection cooling), by conservation of energy. Without an external or nuclear energy source, a body radiating is characterized by giving up thermal energy, dropping in temperature. My question would be can you notify the writer of the piece and hopefully they will be more careful. Link: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/lizard_wizardry094401.html groovamos

Well, I find it very hard to believe that their answers are representative of the path most creationists/Iders take to their beliefs.... What would be the definition of a "creationist/Ider"? I think what we have is contributor that gets jollies out of this confusing conjunction, thinking it a slight. How about this: An ID'er as a person who contributes monetarily to this website and to the DI (such as yours truly) or who is involved in publishing online or in print. Creationists post on this website but probably don't monetarily contribute to it. given how uniquely American creationism is. This belies naivete. Every person on the planet lives by a creation story, whether a just-so story of mindless matter magically coming together to make creatures (root: create), or people knowing better than nature having created itself. Organized creationism (with which I have nothing to do) as it exists in this country is a natural and understandable outgrowth of the blatant perversion of the First Amendment, which under the "modern" doctrine of the "living, breathing constitution" intentionally ignores the word "Congress" and substitutes all intent of the writers of the document with all kinds of intent of modern busybodies wanting control of the culture, such as the tearing down of crosses. Just ask an atheist what the cross means to them, and typically they say "nothing" which is a lie (in most cases). This perversion of the US Constitution is the sole generator of its opposition, you know, law of karma. And since all civilizations are founded in the context of divine guidance, especially great ones such as ours, how could the situation have been otherwise, with a loud contingent denying the foundation. The other industrialized nations have no situation resembling this one. groovamos

Zachriel Are you a troll? If so I'll stop feeding you. Andre

Zachriel, I beg to differ, you stated: "People easily become confused, such as on matters of scale or statistics. For instance, faraway violence depicted in the media often has inordinate effect on their nervous systems far beyond any real danger." i.e. we 'imagine' the danger to be either greater (or lesser) than it actually is Moreover, I did not say imagination was unimportant, (i.e. Einstein's thought experiments for example), I said that imagination was the reason why some things we perceive with our minds turn out to be false. In fact it can be forcefully argued that empirical science is successful precisely because it weeds out what we imagine could be true from what is actually true. And as I said before, Darwinism's entire evidential basis is imaginary and thus you should, to be consistent in your thinking, reject it. bornagain77

bornagain77: you complain about imagination making some things we perceive about reality with our minds to be untrustworthy We didn't mention the imagination, much less make a complaint. The imagination is important for making sense of the world: It's how the human mind forms generalizations. Zachriel

Zachriel, you complain about imagination making some things we perceive about reality with our minds to be untrustworthy, but take no note that practically the entire evidential edifice of Darwinism is built upon imaginary evidence and not on real empirical evidence. To be consistent in your complaint against imagination making some things untrustworthy to believe with your mind, you should reject Darwinism:

"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html

bornagain77

Andre: Science does not support your materialist worldview That wasn't the question raised, but whether human "thinking" is trustworthy. While human thinking is not completely, what was the word, oh yeah, "bollocks", it is certainly not completely trustworthy. People easily become confused, such as on matters of scale or statistics. For instance, faraway violence depicted in the media often has inordinate effect on their nervous systems far beyond any real danger. Zachriel

Zachriel if there was a nobody award for bollocks you'd be the winner, P.S. Science does not support your materialist worldview so maybe you should stop being so dogmatic about what you want to believe as true. Andre

Andre: how can I trust my own thinking to be true? There are many tests which show the limitations of human cognition. That's why scientific findings that impact human beliefs are often resisted so strenuously. Zachriel

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." C.S. Lewis Andre

wd400: "Why is ID only really A Thing in the US? And in particular, why is only really A Thing in the same place that creationism is?" First of all, it isn't true that ID is limited to the US. ID started there, but it has spread, and there are active groups of supporters (including people with Ph.D.s in various sciences) all over the place, in countries as different as Britain and Brazil. Second, it is not surprising that in the USA, the center of world scientific activity, there would spring up alert scientific minds who noticed that the facts of molecular biology did not always square with neo-Darwinian theory and that there is an incredible level of integrated complexity, complete with complex feedback systems and a multiple-level genetic code-reading mechanism, in even the simplest life forms. Third, because the US is less monolithic intellectually than most other modern countries, it is more likely that one would find divergence of opinion there over fundamental matters of biological theory than in countries like, say, most of those in the EU, where there is herd mentality among intellectuals in everything from to climate change through to socialism and secular humanism. As for the connection with creationism, it is obvious that any scientific evidence that there is design in nature would be welcomed by creationists. And it is obvious that ID books will sell better in a culture where many people still believe in God than in a culture which has thrown out any idea of revelation or transcendence. This is not because ID is about religion, but because ID, by inferring design, makes religion at least plausible; and the intelligentsia in most of the "advanced" countries of the world does not regard religion as even plausible. The American mind is still the freeest mind in the world, even though there are many in the American intelligentsia who would stamp out religious thought if they could, and stamp out any disagreement with established political correctness if they could, and stamp out any disagreement with reigning scientific doctrines if they could. It is that freedom which allows ID to exist, and which allows creationism to exist. In countries where the intelligentsia is concerned only with seeming up-to-date and in line with consensus, such freedom is not valued. Timaeus

podcast - Examining the Evidence for Evolution, pt. 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/03/examining-the-evidence-for-evolution-pt-1/#more-28011 On this episode of ID the Future, hear part one of a recent talk Casey Luskin gave on evolution and intelligent design, in which he presents some of the biggest problems with the case for Darwinian evolution. In this first segment, Casey discusses the often-heard myth that there are no credible scientists who doubt the teachings of Darwinian evolution on the basis of evidence (or lack thereof). bornagain77

"Following that, the question I would put to the believers here, whatever their particular faith, is this: is there anything – anything at all – that could ever persuade you to abandon your belief in God?" Professor Greenleaf's journey was very similar to mine and since he explains his investigation into Christ better than I can I'll quote him. "Simon Greenleaf was royal professor of law at Harvard and a main founder of the Harvard law school. Greenleaf, was considered to be the greatest expert of evidence the world had ever known. He wrote the famous legal volume—A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which many consider to be the greatest legal volume ever written. Greenleaf was a skeptic firmly set against Christianity, and taught his students Christianity was false. When one of his students challenged him to investigate evidence for Christianity for himself, he set out to disprove the Biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Greenleaf was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all myths at the heart of Christianity, and disprove it once and for all. However, this legal scholar concluded Bible eyewitnesses were reliable and that Christ’s bodily death and resurrection were objective fact. If anyone should be qualified to state the reliability of Christ’s resurrection as an actual historical event according to the laws of legal evidence, it is Greenleaf. After years of exhaustive research and analysis, Greenleaf concluded: “ The foundation of our belief is a basis of fact – the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge … it was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. ” Simon Greenleaf, LL.D., The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Classics 1995. Regarding the character of Jesus Christ portrayed by the Evangelists, Greenleaf determined: “ the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless being, of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. ” Simon Greenleaf, LL.D., Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, with an Account of the Trial of Jesus, Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown 1846, p. 67. We then have the eye witness accounts both for and against Christ and the list goes on... Faith has its place no doubt but the evidence supporting Christ and historical Christianity is there should one wish to research and invest the time. The evidence has led me to follow the one we call "Jesus Christ" today. It is NOT simply a matter of faith but rather a result of many years of research and careful consideration of the evidence(s) available. Even for those who cannot accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, he was a very real historical being whose life and death set a standard for human behavior that will never be matched. Einstein accepted the historical Jesus and so do I. “No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 196 In short, why would I abandon God when the evidence for his existence is so strong? humbled

wd400 From the link I provide above:

Providing a unique map of creationism in Europe, the authors chart the surprising history of creationist activities and strategies there. Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames. Antievolution messages gained such widespread approval, in fact, that in 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution advising member states to “defend and promote scientific knowledge” and “firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution.”

Why do you think 'creationism' (I think that article includes ID in that category) is "spreading swiftly" in those sectors of Europe? Silver Asiatic

In any case, ID and creationism are both very much American movements, aren’t they?

Yes, but I think your point is that both are merely religious reactions to science, but there are non-theists who support ID, while creationism is mainly based on religious texts. The fact that both are American movements doesn't mean that they're both outputs of American religious interests alone. As I said above, there is a lot more freedom of inquiry and exploration in America than there is elsewhere, and ID is a product of that.

What is innovative about ID?

There's quite a lot. Some of the best critiques of Darwinian theory have emerged from the ID world - and a few anti-ID scientists have admitted that ID does a lot to keep scientific claims honest. But more importantly, ID has been very innovative in getting some key concepts to the table (so to speak) -- and the discussions surrounding those concepts have not been seen as much elsewhere. Concepts: Design, functional complexity, specified information, irreducible complexity, biological code/language, teleology in evolution -- and several other aspects of the origins debate have been addressed in a unique way by ID researchers. The idea that science shows evidence of intelligence in nature itself is a very innovative concept. Two very innovative projects ID continues to develop: How do we (or can we) scientifically identify what a designed thing is? CSI and FCSI and related discussions have been the most progressive work on that topic. Critics don't like it muoh, but they offer no alternative (Design doesn't exist? We can observe it but can't measure or explain it?). Similarily, Michael Behe's work to try to discover the Edge of Evolution has been unmatched by anyone else in science. Critics also don't like what he says -- ok, then what do they think the Edge of Evolution is? Nobody wants to go there -- apparently, evolution can do absolutely everything imaginable? Silver Asiatic

Seversky you ask:

"is there anything – anything at all – that could ever persuade you to abandon your belief in God?"

Certainly not the scientific evidence that you stated weakened your belief in God. In fact you stated exactly this:

"My belief in God slowly weakened and dissipated as I learned more about what science had discovered about the Universe."

Yet, completely contrary to you, my belief in God has been greatly strengthened as I have learned more and more about what science had discovered about the Universe. Here is an overview:

1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (video) http://vimeo.com/34084462

Thus contrary to your experience with what science has revealed about the universe Seversky, science, and what it has revealed, is a great pillar of my faith in God. As well it should be. Modern science was born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview and out of that worldview alone:

Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf

Verse, Music, and Quote:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. You are Good - Nichole Nordeman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9XyoLjFLOo “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s

bornagain77

"How do you gius (sic) think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution". I wasn't initially sceptical. Back in my school days evolution wasn't taught or even touched on. It didn't bother me back then. I didn't know much about the theory other than the consensus seemed to support it so it must have been true. It wasn't until many years later I decided to look in to evolutionary theory properly. I was surprised how little evidence existed to support the theory. I was also shocked to discover that what little evidence there was was in fact not evidence at all but rather assumption or speculation. It didn't take long to recognise a pattern. I asked some simple question on a few forums and was immediately attacked and branded a creationist. The response and behaviour I received was similar and familiar to the answers I received on religious forums when questioning Christian dogma. It became clear to me that evolution was more than a scientific theory. I became painfully aware that the theory was defended and cherished above all else. That dissent and scepticism was not tolerated as all science should be. It became apparent that for many evolution had become a lens with which to view the world. It seems that like religion, evolution was a means by which to understand the world around them as well as their place in it. I recognised the theory was in fact a religion substitute. It was after this realisation that the aggressive and dismissive attitude and behaviour I received started to make sense. humbled

So no disconfirmation of Darwinism – explicitly – makes any difference at all if those who get a salary off it don’t dispute it? That is what the fellow seems to be saying.

If all our knowledge can be regarded as beliefs of one sort or another, it doesn't mean all beliefs are equal. We have greater confidence in some beliefs rather than others and there are reasons for that. The question that occurs to me is can we argue that a test of rationality is how far you would be prepared to go in changing or abandoning strongly-held beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence? I was raised as a Christian. As a child, I believed in the existence of God without question. He was as certain as the Sun or the air I breathed. As I grew older, however, I became interested in science and a rational/skeptical approach to life. My fictional heroes tended to reflect that in characters like Sherlock Holmes or Mr Spock. My belief in God slowly weakened and dissipated as I learned more about what science had discovered about the Universe. It wasn't that there was any sudden epiphany, just a growing realization that the God I had been raised to believe in probably wasn't there. I couldn't rule out the possibility that something was there but if there was it was radically different from the comforting God of Christianity. I also believe in the biological theory of evolution. I'm not sure what you mean by "Darwinism". It seems to be either a pejorative epithet for the theory which is intended to frame evolution as an ideology rather than a science or it sees the theory as nothing more than Darwin's original version. That Darwin's work is now ancestral rather than central to the theory is not acknowledged. Could evidence persuade me to abandon evolutionary theory as it stands? Yes, it could, although it would take more than a single rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian, I think. On it's own such a find would certainly cause a lot of head-scratching but it would probably be seen as an anomaly rather than the death-knell of the theory. But supposing a little later they found a modern cat and then a dog and a pig and sparrow and so on? Then, to top it all, in rocks dated to 3.5 billion years ago, the remains of what is apparently some sort of space-ship are dug out which contains technology far in advance of our own. In the face of sufficient evidence I can envisage changing my mind about evolution. it might be unsettling but it would also be exciting given the prospect of new lines of research and an even better understanding of the Universe. Following that, the question I would put to the believers here, whatever their particular faith, is this: is there anything - anything at all - that could ever persuade you to abandon your belief in God? Seversky

OK Timaeus. Why is ID only really A Thing in the US? And in particular, why is only really A Thing in the same place that creationism is? wd400

wd400 asks: "Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?" To which the counter-question is: Why is wd400 asking a question about the sociology of American religion on a site dedicated to ID? ID theory has nothing to say about "creationism." ID theory is about detecting design in nature. If you want to know about "creationism", ask your question on a creationist web site: Answers In Genesis, etc. Or read a book by a professor of sociology on the social basis of creationism in the USA. Does wd400 have anything useful to say about the actual arguments made by ID writers? Probably not. It's precisely because he has nothing to say about the arguments that he turns to talking about "creationism." Timaeus

I don't know what I'm accused of dodging? In any case, ID and creationism are both very much American movements, aren't they? wd400

Well, I find it very hard to believe that their answers are representative of the path most creationists/Iders take to their beliefs, given how uniquely American creationism is.

The dodge continues. You are equating ID with creationism and you know that it not true. So why do it? Take ID out of your discourse on this and maybe one will consider you seriously. jerry

In my opinion, it's largely a product of American Protestantism, arising from the abandonment of Christian theological development through the Holy Church in favor of a strongly individualistic re-interpretation of Bible under the guise of Sola Scriptura, which goes far beyond the intention and actual practices of Martin Luther himself. The result has been an explosion of Protestant variants in America that can justify just about any stance in the absence of any other source of knowledge. rhampton7

WD400, What you would call "Creationism" or the like is only heavily American in the context of Europe and its direct extensions; the core reason being that radical secularism is less further along in the US and maybe has hit its high water mark and is palpably receding as did Marxism before it . . . explaining the air of desperate rage joined to sophomoric reasoning and trollishness so often shown by New Atheists. It is after all evidently self-defeating. KF kairosfocus

Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?

It is because people in the US truly believe in democracy and don't like being told what to believe in. It's all about freedom from know-it-alls. Mapou

WD400, I can speak for myself. 30+ years ago, I came to see that evolutionary materialism was inherently self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#slf_ref Later, as I looked at the issue of thermodynamics and information, I came to first try the design argument as a for argument view. Observing the balance of responses led me to conclude that I was seeing the same sort of willfully obtuse ideological indoctrination I had seen with the Marxists long since. As Lewontin et al document. (The current exchanges that pivot on refusal to acknowledge that 100+ years ago, 2LOT was placed on a statistical foundation are sadly typical.) KF kairosfocus

But why the dodge? Why not deal with those who answered your first question or do you accept their answers as accurate.

Well, I find it very hard to believe that their answers are representative of the path most creationists/Iders take to their beliefs, given how uniquely American creationism is. wd400

with all those PhD’s clapping in loud approval.

Great illustration of the word claptrap. Gullible people are trapped into clapping for something that is bogus because it superficially appears true. Hence the origin of the word "claptrap." jerry

When I was a pubescent child, I started reading a couple of creationist books that belonged to my dad; I don't remember titles, but I know at least one was Henry Morris and maybe a Duane Gish tossed in there for good measure. Anyway, they spoke profoundly to me. Now, I am no young-earth creationist, though I am not prepared to say dogmatically that it's not true. It's just that their ideas about starlight and radiometric testing don't hold up to TRUE scientific scrutiny. However, those authors did open to my eyes to the evolutionary fairy tales that have circulated for the past 100 years. Those books inspired me to continue studying, so during my freshman year in college, I proposed to write my end-of-course paper for my composition class on the frailty of evolutionary theory. My instructor, very kind and sympathetic, nonetheless warned me that I wouldn't be able to write an objective paper on the topic. I told her I could, and she said very well, go ahead and try. Fast forward a few weeks, and she awarded me an A AND admitted she was wrong, which was far more important to me than the grade (well, in hindsight it is). I say all that not to brag, because all I did was present evidence. Most people never take time to study the evidence for themselves. Science is still viewed as a high, holy priesthood that issues infallible dogma, and only fools would dare entertain doubt. When people start peeling that onion, they discover there's not much beneath it except a few old stories about moths on trees, fake embryos and finches. Oh, and Richard Dawkins. OldArmy94

Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?

It is part of some forms of Protestant Christianity and they mainly developed in the United States. Since I am not a YECm others may want to comment on that. But why the dodge? Why not deal with those who answered your first question or do you accept their answers as accurate. jerry

What is innovative about ID? wd400

Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?

There was this news item last week ... How creationism has gained ground in Europe in the last few decades https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/creationism/how-creationism-has-gained-ground-in-europe-in-the-last-few-decades/ But I think the answer is that the USA is scientifically more adventurous. There's a climate of freedom to challenge and come up with new ideas that one doesn't find in other parts of the world. ID is a very innovative theory -- and I think the item I posted above shows that it's catching on in Europe. Silver Asiatic

The boss here is an American, so he tends to be courteous

I thought the boss was Barry Arrington? Well I guess he is American. Mark Frank

And the follow up: Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)? wd400

wd400

How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?

Thanks for an interesting question. I think it starts with a gut feeling that "something isn't quite right". Education on the basics of evolution seems good enough - if you don't really think about it too deeply. But for me (and I'm guessing many other IDists) there a nagging thought that the theory makes an enormous claim but the way it's presented is in little bits and pieces of ideas. Evolution goes against a lot of basic intuitions (and common sense) and when some effort is made to get answers to the problems that the theory poses (for itself) -- a lot of confusion and negativity often results. This can push a person farther down the anti-evolution pathway. That's what happened to me. I didn't think evolution could even be challenged by anyone who was reasonably educated. I didn't have any taste for the earliest, bible-oriented creationists (I admire them more now) - so I was actually biased against them and would never take anti-Darwinism seriously. It wasn't until Michael Denton's book and then later Michael Behe's first book that I was shocked to find a highly-informed critique and some solid evidence for Intelligent Design. Once that happened, all the pieces of the puzzle came together. I discovered that there were some significant problems with evolution, and at the same time, the people defending it seemed more shrill and incoherent as the challenges arose. I discovered more and more that evolution was used to support a materialist philosophical worldview and that explained (to me) the exaggerated claims and limited actual evidence in support. Even the very best, most reasonable, seemingly most educated defenders of the theory that I've met on the web had a lot of trouble dealing with various critiques. So I disagree with the idea that evolution is opposed (and ID supported) mainly on religious grounds. I think religion can be a starting point for some intuitions about the problems with evolution, but I think research and investigation and a search for answers is the stronger impulse. Silver Asiatic

wd400: How do you gius (sic) think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution What it was for me was the stupid (or maybe just desperate) attempt at take down of Irreducible Complexity by Kenneth Miller, you know, mousetraps and secretory systems and all, and I was pretty open to Darwin until then. Then prior you had Dawkins and his famous light sensitive patch that just happens to grow a circular ridge around it which was supposed to bring more "focus" to the patch, whatever that means. Not only that, but these two lame efforts shot around the world of scientific and philosophical materialism like legends of revealed truth. And widely repeated among the supposed intelligentsia as the salvation of Darwin. I even bought the Dawkins story for years (even with 2 engineering degrees) until I gave it some thought, and then along came irreducible complexity and Miller's response was the nail in the coffin, with all those PhD's clapping in loud approval. But see if one is a typical materialist, one will fool himself into accepting all the just-so stories because you have to and they have to be true to make one right. There are some agnostics and atypical materialists out there who are thinking very hard on ID right now, e.g. Thomas Nagel, and in the past Anthony Flew who reversed his worldview as a result. Anyway the ID project is very fortunate to have Dawkins and Miller opposing it. groovamos

The "anti-science" campaign being waged by the atheist/Darwinist camp is a sign that science has been taken over by a cult. The truth is that there can be no good science unless it is continually criticized. Over and over. The Popperian principle is that science must be falsifiable. In other words, a scientist should not be on the defensive but should welcome all criticisms with open arms. Don't accuse others of being anti-science because that, too, is anti-science. Good science is strongly criticised science. Should I also mention that peer review is essentially a pretext to continue the "good old boys network"? Isn't peer review a way to tell the lay public who pay their salaries that their opinion is not worth a nickel? It's arrogant, in-your-face and insulting. And it's also elitist and fascist. I don't mind peer-review inside a private organization but as soon as they begin to receive the taxpayer's money, peer review should make way for public review. That's right: ballot, vote, etc. Everybody should have a say if they so wish. Mapou

How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?

Can't speak for everyone but for myself who believed that Darwin's ideas explained life 20 years ago, went through the effort to look at the science and found no one who could defend Darwin's ideas or any other form of naturalistic processes including every single one of those that appeared here and every book I read. But given the lack of information by those who defend Darwin, I have to say that many who oppose Darwin do so on the same basis. But less on this site since many here are very well informed. It is interesting to see how people defend naturalistic evolution though and what distortion and tortuous reason they use. jerry

wd400, "How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?" Most of us guis arrive at our position on evolution the same way that most of you guis arrive at your position -- we follow the people that are leading us. Some of us guys, however, struggle through the issues with great care -- as discussed in my post above. Most follow, some think, those who think don't all fall into the well of the current paradigm. bFast

How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution? wd400

This is a fun post. I am mostly intrigued by this statement:

Most of us are not in any position to test every scientific claim personally. We believe in the theory of evolution because we trust people who have spent their professional lives studying it that there is good evidence to support it, better than for any other explanation.

I really think that this accurately portrays the reason that most people buy into the theory. This statement holds the understanding that most people have as to why anyone would doubt the scientists. (Note that the doubt is not in the science, but in the integrity of the scientific community.)

Reasonable people also doubt the theory of evolution in many cases because the religion they believe in – and which is very dear to them – says different

So the question is, is religion the only rational reason to doubt the integrity of the scientific community. I say that it is not. Let me share a personal story. When I was in my late 30s, I suffered from debilitating back pain. I was a Canadian living in the USA at the time. Though I had a good job, I had no medical coverage. I remember once, however, feeling shooting pains throughout my chest, that radiated up my left arm. I was sure I was having a heart attack. I remember looking at the phone, trying to decide if I should call 911. I knew that if I did I would be in financial ruin, but. I had heard from many that Chiropractic was the best solution to back pain. However, some years earlier I had had a conversation with a med student friend who explained to me that the scientific research showed chiropractic to be no better than a placebo. I believed his "science". One day I was listening to the radio, and I heard that the US Medical Association supported abortion. If there is anyone who should realize that a fetus is a baby, it is the medical community. (After all, the father of medicine, Hippocrates, did -- and without any Judeo-Christian influence.) That event convinced me to consider that medical science is unbelievably blind and selfish. I responded by seeking chiropractic care -- after all if they were so idiotic about abortion, they couldn't be trusted regarding chiropractic. The Chriopractor showed me what was wrong with my back. He popped my back 3 times a week, and I began to heal. It didn't take too long, and he began popping my back only twice a week, then once. Treatments were required less and less often, with me experiencing less and less back pain until, after a few years, I found that I only needed chiropractic once every few years -- usually as I recovered from a cold or flu. Is my reason for suspecting the truthfulness of medical science simply religious? I have looked into "the science" on evolution. I am finding that "The science" is driven by philosophy, not by data. This is most clearly illustrated by Dr. James Shapiro, who says,

"One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process."

(http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/) Note the philosophical dismissal of the "designer" hypothesis. This is not conclusion based upon data, it is conclusion based upon philosophy. Scientists know that no designer is needed because they have a philosophical commitment to finding no evidence to support that theory. If you check out the above link (thirdway), you will see that these same scientists are bending over backwards to find an explanation for the data because the data doesn't fit the theory. But not "goddidit" because that is illegal. I cry foul. As medical science couldn't find any value in Chiropractic, so evolutionary scientist can't find design because, and only because, they refuse to consider the idea. It is denialism, plain and simple. There is truth in the arithmetic, design = designer, designer (most probably) = God. If one holds to design one gets to God. However, "sciences" doesn't begin with a blank slate, "science" begins with "not god" therefore despite the evidence "not god". Science cannot be trusted more than used car salesmen can. bFast

as to:

"Missed this part I guess: They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they’ve a mind."

And when someone has a 'mind', (which Darwinists deny having), to check the 'evidence' for Darwinian evolution, the supposed overwhelming 'evidence' for Darwinian evolution always evaporates into thin air:

Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance - December 31, 2013 – Cornelius Hunter PhD BioPhysics Excerpt: The evidence simply does not support evolution,,, unless it is turned upside down and forced to support the theory. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-pew-forum-poll-reveals-more.html “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Michael Behe: Intelligent Design – interview on radio program - ‘The Mind Renewed’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SmPNQrQHE "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).

At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word 'evolution' as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature:

Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase "Design Principles" - November 28, 2014 Excerpt: The word "design" appears 24 times in the paper. "Selection" appears twice, in the phrase "selective pressure" (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word "evolution" appears just once:,,, We see, therefore, that "design" references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find "machine" or "machinery" four times, "coding" or "encoding" 15 times, "information" (in terms of information to be processed) five times, "accurate" (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, "precision" 29 times, "efficient" four times, and "optimal" or "optimum" 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1. Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,, The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, "Yep, it's fit. It's optimal." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/biologists_are091531.html

bornagain77

So no disconfirmation of Darwinism – explicitly – makes any difference at all if those who get a salary off it don’t dispute it? That is what the fellow seems to be saying.

Missed this part I guess:

They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they’ve a mind.

goodusername

Whether it's Global Warming or Darwinism, its proponents never acknowledge the "...good evidence…" AGAINST it. It is always framed as religion versus science. It is never, "let's compare the pros and cons and see which is the best explanation." No, can't have that. It must always be, "you disagree because of your religion but science trumps religion so I'm right and you're wrong." Never mind that the science more readily supports a designer and there is good evidence that warming is not a threat to mankind. I am never sure if is because they are just ignorant of the evidence or if they really are so dumb as to believe that "unbelief" is just a religious position. Maybe that just helps them sleep at night but I've given up trying to figure it out. I just respond that the evidence is on my side and let them try to shoot holes in the proposition. Florabama

Evolution Darwin style is the best just so stories for feeble people. Andre

I commented on the original thread ... but also, I think it's right to point out that most people cannot test and scientifically evaluate every claim for evolution. So the theory is accepted on a basis of trust. An atheistic bias causes many people to accept evolutionary theory even when they can't explain what the theory is and they don't know what the evidence actually shows. Silver Asiatic