The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 29, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

Comments

To all anti-IDists: ID is based on observations and experience. ID can be tested. Your position, OTOH, is based on the refusal to accept the design inference. There now it is easier to see which is scientific and which is based on personal worldviews.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when.
Are you running for the "poster child of ID ignorance"? How do you propose IDists do that- determine the precise method and time? Could it be as I have been saying for years- In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination(s) about the who, how, when, where is by studying the design in question. As Wm Dembski stated in NFL- ID does not avoid those questions, it just makes them a separate issue- and for very good reasons.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Mr Tribune7, David –Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when. And how is that different from neo-Darwinism? Population genetics?Nakashima_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy: Some detail can be better than none. It depends on whether that detail is fabricated or guessed.
Tell me the Intelligent Design theory of bird evolution.
What an ignorant statement. Tell me the gravitational theory of vitamin C deficiency.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

David --Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when. And how is that different from neo-Darwinism? When did whatever was the ancestor of birds become birds? How did it happen, specifically? How were the bird genes added to the ancestor? Mutations? What mutations and in what order and with what frequency? HGT? How did the genes to be transferred come into existence? What was the ancestor of birds anyway? And is or is not OOL part of NDE?tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews
I can’t explain bird evolution in any detail
Some detail is better then no detail, which is all you/ID has to offer. No? Prove me wrong. Tell me the Intelligent Design theory of bird evolution.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
~~Fixed that for you.~~ Oh, no! I just realized that I don't have any idea what caused reptiles to evolve into birds or how it happened. I'll just parrot old attacks on ID and maybe no one will notice that I can't explain bird evolution in any detail and I've been throwing rocks from my glass house.
Thanks.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
You point the finger at ID, which makes a ~~simple~~ simplistic inference and ~~backs it up~~ produces books and blogs, and then try to pass off a bunch of ~~guesses and stories~~ peer-reviewed experimental and observational reports as science.
Fixed that for you.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

ID has nothing to do with mechanisms, for reasons that you’ve read countless times but don’t seem to reach you.
What does it have to do with again? Identifying the "poof" moments? What contribution to understanding is ID supposed to make? Does it make any positive arguments? Your arguments are all about what you say evolution can't do.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: I didn't throw in the towel on ID. ID has nothing to do with mechanisms, for reasons that you've read countless times but don't seem to reach you. Thermometers don't tell you why it's hot. Fingerprints don't tell you why a person touched something. ID is not about how something was made. Read that several times. Inherited variation - that's just another way of saying something changed and passed it on. You're just saying the same thing in different words. What variation? How? Why? All you're saying is that things changed because they changed. Poof!ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg @66: It didn't take very many answers before you decided to call it quits. If you don't think ID explains anything, then you don't understand what it is or what it is meant to explain. In the meantime, the so-called explanations provided by evolutionary biology are nonsense that doesn't explain anything at all. We're certain that between reptiles and birds there was some mutation and some selection or some epigenetic inheritance or maybe something else we haven't heard of yet, and whichever factors they were, and somehow over a few million years the arms grew into wings and the scales turned into feathers, the heart and lungs adapted for what was about to happen, and poof! there were birds. You're long on what happened and short on the how and why. Science improves and changes, but that's not the same as one wild guess after another, which is all you have to offer. You point the finger at ID, which makes a simple inference and backs it up, and then try to pass off a bunch of guesses and stories as science.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Sorry - accidentally left one of your paragraphs at the end of the previous commentMark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

#65 ScottAndrews I will continue this game. I should like to point out that you threw in the towel as far as ID was concerned from the kick off. By which currently observed mechanisms did they evolve? Inherited variation - we see that all the time. Selection - we see that at the microlevel all the time and we use it when we breed animals for our own purposes Speciation - that takes a long time and very few complete cases have been observed - but we see plenty of examples where it is in process - ring species are a good example The specifics are important - they are only way I know you’re not making it up. Sort of like when someone’s alibi is that they were watching TV - you ask them which show and what it was about.Mark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg @ 66 You go dude, right on! Well Played sir and all that Jazz, ID does nothing to advance science. But if I'm wrong, please respond to my post in 67. :)Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

ok, last one for tonight! Promise! ScottAndrews @ 64 : OK, it's an honest question, but you must understand how difficult your question would be if we had LIVE specimens on all the transitional creatures between X and Y, but working backward from fossils and *cough*speculation*cough* is not easy. This is the same response to Dr. Hunter, what you are asking for is not easy, but what you propose instead is not science. Lol, does that sound fair? P.S. the speculation I hate to admit above is very EDUCATED speculation, but the ID movement makes scientists afraid to use 'bad' words like that for fear of being unfairly criticised, but what is the alternative? I shall read your response eagerly in the morning, and any response that doesn't support the scientific endeavour shall be frowned upon! lol P.P.S. please dont quote mine me, I dont want to appear on the front of answersingenesis with the headline "EVO Admits it's all Guess work!", cause i dont speak for nobody but me! Love you all!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Even though such explanations have nothing to do with ID. Entemology [sic] doesn’t explain birds - is it thin on science?
Do you mean "entomology"? The problem is that ID doesn't just not explain birds -- it doesn't explain anything. You're just playing a game where you are asking for the science and then saying "not enough."David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
”Evolved from a reptile using currently observed mechanisms” is a significant improvement over “poof”
Good, so you do have some specifics. By which currently observed mechanisms did they evolve? The specifics are important - they are only way I know you're not making it up. Sort of like when someone's alibi is that they were watching TV - you ask them which show and what it was about.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Nnoel: No, I'll settle for an explanation of the mechanism or mechanisms that caused such changes. How did they operate? What factors influenced them. In the case of birds, just one tiny example, there are a number of details including the lungs, heart, feathers, and of course the wings, which vary greatly from reptiles. They aren't differences that lend themselves to small steps. ID is "thin on science" for failing to explain the specifics of how birds came to be. (Even though such explanations have nothing to do with ID. Entemology doesn't explain birds - is it thin on science?) So I'd like to see what "real" science has to offer by comparison.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

#54 My explanation of how birds came into the world is poof! - someone made them. Not very scientific, is it? Agreed. Let’s get back to yours. I don’t need a great deal of detail. The specifics you offered were that they descended from reptiles and that changes were made through mutation and natural selection. Has epigenetic inheritance been ruled out, or are were sure on RM+NS? Or was it a combination of the two? Or were there other mechanisms? Which branch of reptiles? What selective pressure caused the limb changes that eventually resulted in wings? What was the advantage of the pre-wing limbs? I could go on, but I’ll stop there. Except for one more question which applies to all the above: How do we know? Anyone can guess. As I said I am not a biologist so I am not in a position to answer most of these questions. But I can make a few points: * Any account of what happened millions of years ago is going to be short on detail. * There are going to be some aspects of which we are fairly certain and others which are debatable. * The evidence has to come from what we can observe now *”Evolved from a reptile using currently observed mechanisms” is a significant improvement over “poof” * The hypothesis is falsifiableMark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

No, I have no intention of grilling you on the speculative lineage of birds. Most likely your explanation will be several generations of obsolete before you can post it. How did these changes occur? Surely there must be more to evolution than, ‘we can tell that they evolved.’ No speculation or guessing. You don’t want to be ‘thin on science’ like ID. How did it happen?
You seem to want a total mechanism for bird evolution and, absent that, will snipe that it's just a guess. Sorry. Not playing. Do you have any explanation for the converging evidence of anatomy, genetics, fossil history, and geography that birds evolved? Do you have any evidence that counters this beyond bad analogies to found CDs?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

oh ffs! ScottAndrews @ 59 : No speculation or guessing. You don’t want to be ‘thin on science’ like ID. How did it happen? what do you want? A 3d animation of molecules making mistakes in the coping process? A narrative of how those changes were selected by natural selection? Oh wait, the PDF posted today showed NS to be mostly insignificant... good thing someone is DOING SOME SCIENCE! hehe, night night.Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Anyway, thats me on this topic for this day, I'm done. I have NO IDEA how two people (me and ) can have such differing opinions, but we do. We both think the other side are dishonest. We both think the other side should let science do it's thing (stop censoring me!!) (stop butting in with your religious mumbo jumbo!) It's a pity we cant just both agree that ID needs to do more than propaganda and DO SOME SCIENCE! lol :) Love you all.Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg: No, I have no intention of grilling you on the speculative lineage of birds. Most likely your explanation will be several generations of obsolete before you can post it. How did these changes occur? Surely there must be more to evolution than, 'we can tell that they evolved.' No speculation or guessing. You don't want to be 'thin on science' like ID. How did it happen?ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

I, personally, have not seen a SHRED of dishonesty among those that propagate pro-evolution ideas, while I cannot find a single honest proponent of ID. I am not commenting on the 'supporters' (the people that post on the internet) opinions and behaviours, but on the people that actually stand up and put themselves in the spot light. I don't expect any standards from 'walk-ins' [what I'd call myself]. So you can understand my consternation that 'ID appears more honest than Evo'. Just my two cents. tribune7 : All? And Michael Behe and William Dembski are not? [referring to honest hard working scientists] I'm sorry but Micheal Behe writes what the religious right want to hear, and never responds with any substance to his critics, to me, that is dishonest [intellectual dishonesty is still dishonest]. Maybe I'm showing what standards I like to judge people in the spotlight, but I've seen P.Z. Myers respond openly to critics, while is critics wont link to his site or even mention his name fearing to appear in the same page on a search engine so people can read both sides of the story. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/im_getting_under_ken_hams_skin.php http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/06/22/a-professors-falsehoods-and-poor-research/ And by the way, both posts are a good read, but you wont enjoy it if your pro-ID. ShawnBoy, you and me are just not going to get along. Afraid and terrified is not at all how I'd describe what I've seen, I've only seen open contempt, and usually because someone is asking 'so how does a cat give birth to a dog'. If thats scared anyone you've seen, then I pity that person. Love you! (even you ShawnBoy)Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews, if you need all your questions answered definitively before accepting bird evolution, then you're likely to create more questions along the way. For the anti-evolutionist, every transitional form just produces two new gaps.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews, any answers I provide will be similar to those for language evolution: sure you can't prove that French didn't emerge from Latin because it was designed to, but all the evidence is that (a) French really did emerge from Latin, and (b) it happened naturally. For birds as well, the evidence is from all sorts of directions: fossil, anatomical, genetic, and geographical evidence all suggest that birds are related to each other and to pre-avian reptiles. Drawing this conclusion is more than a "guess"; it's the best inference we have. Heck, those data are even supported by the architecture of the brain: that is, the relative size of different brain parts in birds modern and ancient. See Burish, M. J., Kueh, H. Y., and Wang, S. S. H. (2004), 'Brain architecture and social complexity in modern and ancient birds', Brain Behavior And Evolution, 63 (2), 107-24.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Then ID is a mighty thin science.
Then you'll be more than happy to take up the challenge I issued at 54. My challenge is that you have no specific explanations for bird evolution.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @52: My explanation of how birds came into the world is poof! - someone made them. Not very scientific, is it? Let's get back to yours. I don't need a great deal of detail. The specifics you offered were that they descended from reptiles and that changes were made through mutation and natural selection. Has epigenetic inheritance been ruled out, or are were sure on RM+NS? Or was it a combination of the two? Or were there other mechanisms? Which branch of reptiles? What selective pressure caused the limb changes that eventually resulted in wings? What was the advantage of the pre-wing limbs? I could go on, but I'll stop there. Except for one more question which applies to all the above: How do we know? Anyone can guess. Science doesn't just tell stories like poof! someone made it. The answers to these questions are central to explaining evolution. Perhaps someone will care to demonstrate how evolutionary theory provides specific answers in contrast to ID's lack of explanation.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Hi ScottAndrews, The problem with your analogy is that we don't just find a computer disk containing the text of To Kill a Mockingbird. Rather, we have thousands of computer disks containing slightly varying versions of the text which they receive by natural replication; and we have a fossil record of disks containing some features of the text going back many generations of naturally-reproducing disks.
ID doesn’t answer any of that. ID says that some intelligent agency was responsible for its existence.
Then ID is a mighty thin science. A better example would be language. Do we know that languages didn't arise as a consequence of intelligent intervention? No. But languages as systems do evolve. They diversify through geographical separation and selective pressure (as French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian diversified from Latin). We have "fossil" records of the languages (in written texts), "genetic" differences (as in the Great Vowel shift), and we even postulate likely ancestors (as in proto-Indo-European). They even exhibit symbiosis, as when the Norman Conquest created Middle and later Modern English out of the collision between Old French and Anglo-Saxon. In short, we have lots of convergent evidence of relatedness and ancestry from a range of sources. And although occasionally people do try to direct the evolution of languages, designed langauges are either failures (such as Esperanto and Basic English) or are superceded by the natural evolution beyond the rules (as in American Sign Language).David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

#50 Please scientifically explain how birds came to be in the world. It is a matter of how much detail you want. I am not a biologist. I believe that they gradually evolved from a branch of reptiles through mutation and natural selection. I am not qualified to give any more detail. Can you explain scientifically how they came into the world? And can you answer two very simple questions. Do you believe 1) All birds have at least one parent? 2) There was a time when there were no birds? ThanksMark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply