← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 17639 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2005-04-04
2005-04-04 12:21 | User Profile
Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science By Michael Shermer Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the author of "Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown" (Times Books, 2005).
March 30, 2005
According to intelligent-design theory, life is too complex to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore life must have been created by a supernatural force ââ¬â an intelligent designer. ID theorists argue that because such design can be inferred through the methods of science, IDT should be given equal time alongside evolutionary theory in public school science classes. Nine states have recently proposed legislation that would require just that.
The evolution-creation legal battle began in 1925 with the Scopes "monkey" trial, over the banning of the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. The controversy caused textbook publishers and state boards of education to cease teaching evolution ââ¬â until the Soviets launched Sputnik in the late 1950s and the United States realized it was falling behind in the sciences.
Creationists responded by passing equal-time laws that required the teaching of both creationism and evolution, a strategy defeated in a 1968 Arkansas trial that found that such a law attempted to "establish religion" in a public school and was therefore unconstitutional. This led to new equal-time laws covering "creation science" and "evolution science." In 1987, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, said teaching creation science "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind."
This history explains why proponents of intelligent design are careful to never specify the true, religious nature of their theory and to insist that what they are doing is science. For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution": "Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity."
But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses. Lee Anne Chaney, professor of biology at Whitworth College, a Christian institution, wrote in a 1995 article: "As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidenceââ¬Â¦. I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable ââ¬â there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective."
Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been observed and tested, and Charles Darwin's theory has been refined.
Intelligent-design theorists admit the difference, at least among themselves. Here is ID proponent Paul Nelson, writing last year in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: "Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' ââ¬â but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
If intelligent design is not science, then what is it? One of its originators, Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC Berkeley, wrote in a 1999 article: "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism versus evolution to the existence of God versus the nonexistence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' "
On March 9, I debated ID scholar Stephen Meyer at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. After two hours of debate over the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of IDT, Meyer admitted in the question-and-answer period that he thinks that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian God and that suboptimal designs and deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent or malevolent designer, but instead were caused by "the fall" in the Garden of Eden. Dembski has also told me privately that he believes the intelligent designer is the God of Abraham.
The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic place-filler for something unexplained by science. It is saying, in essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the explanation must be a supernatural one. Proponents of intelligent design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo, they conclude, it was intelligently designed. But saying "intelligent design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.
In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler can only result in the naturalization of the deity. God becomes just another part of the natural world, and thereby loses the transcendent mystery and divinity that define the boundary between religion and science. [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer30mar30,0,7924556,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions[/url]
2005-04-04 12:51 | User Profile
[B]Michael Shermer[/B], the Jewish writer of this article, also happens to be an expert in "exposing the irrationality of Holocaust revisionists":
[COLOR=DarkRed][I]"[B]Denying History[/B] is a courageous and accessible study of "a looking-glass world where black is white, up is down, and the normal rules of reason no longer apply." Authors [B]Michael Shermer [/B] and Alex Grobman have immersed themselves in the conferences, literature, and Web culture of Holocaust deniers; they have engaged the pseudo-historians in debate; and they have visited the concentration camps in Europe to investigate the truth of what happened there." [/I] [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520216121/qid%3D979062400/sr%3D1-3/ref%3Dsc%5Fb%5F3/104-7552323-7122320[/url]
[COLOR=Blue][I]"Since the publication of his original 1994 article in Skeptic, Shermer has been working on a book-length treatment of Holocaust revisionism. Why People Believe Weird Things is not that book,2 but it does contain three chapters on Holocaust revisionism, alongside three muddled chapters on skepticism, science, and logical fallacies, and a chapter each on the paranormal, near-death experiences, alien encounters, witch crazes, and cults of personality (focussing on the cult the sprang up around writer Ayn Rand). [B]He also devotes three chapters to creationism, and one to race[/B]. Two final concluding chapters deal with the role of science and why people (presumably he means "persons") believe weird things (presumably he means "hold weird beliefs"). "[/I] [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.corax.org/revisionism/misc/shermer.html[/url]
Secularist revisionists and Nazis may not like this analogy, but it is actually very good: whether they like it or not, revisionists are in the same boat with creationists, and both are dismissed by the establishment in power with the same cavalier contempt and suppressed from "respectable" outlets with the same smug self-righteousness.
Petr
2005-04-04 14:15 | User Profile
In my view, proponents of "Intelligent Design" are simply Creationists who lack the spine to lay it on the line and declare a belief in a literal 6-day creation. It's a vague, pseudo-religious, and yet also pseudo-scientific haphazard half-way-house between Young Earth Creationism and Evolution that ends up with the shortcomings of both and the merits of neither.
"Intelligent Design" cannot lay claim to any kind of cultural inheritance from the great religious tradition of Western Civilisation, because it makes a point of skirting away from explicit references to God. And at the same time, it fails to meet the empiricalist standards of modern science because it cannot incorporate into it's framework the objective data that supports the theory of Evolution.
I would label myself a "Theistic Evolutionist", but I have some respect for literal Creationists in that they are willing to state bluntly their beliefs without watering them down one drop. I also accept that the book of Genesis has a cultural and spiritual legitimacy as one of the most significant documents of Western Civilisation, regardless of it's status as empirical science.
With ID on the other hand, what's the point? It's the worst of both worlds. If you're going to compromise on the literalness of the Bible, why not just go the whole hog and accept Evolution? IMHO, you can believe in Evolution and still accept the Bible as spritual truth without reading it as a scientific document, so what does ID offer in this regard that Evolution doesn't?
And then there's that small matter of volumes of evidence supporting Evolution as a scientific theory...
End of Rant :)
2005-04-04 15:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The evolution-creation legal battle began in 1925 with the Scopes "monkey" trial, over the banning of the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. The controversy caused textbook publishers and state boards of education to cease teaching evolution ââ¬â until the Soviets launched Sputnik in the late 1950s and the United States realized it was falling behind in the sciences.
Creationism, and indeed mere criticism of Evolution, got the boot from the public schools in the last several decades, not because of Sputnik but because of the social/legal revolutions in America. The feds no longer respected Constitutional limits on their power and started to impose racial preferences, restrictions on academic freedom and freedom of speech, obliteration of much local control, refusal to follow the Constitution and control the borders, and other such things. The government became hostile to traditional values and Christianity.
Michael Shermer lies because he wants to present the prohibition of Creationism from public schools as a response to a scientific crises where he accuses Creationism of being the problem. Godly Creationists gave birth to modern science and when the USSR launched Sputnik, the US was still far ahead of every country in the world in scientific knowledge.
This history explains why proponents of intelligent design are careful to never specify the true, religious nature of their theory and to insist that what they are doing is science. For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution": "Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity."
Biblical literalists are still Creationists. Members of the Intelligent Design movement are not Creationists. And, reading their work, it looks like to me that Michael Shermer lies again. IDers don't rely on religous commitments. Many of them are not biblical literalists and would have no reason to not support Evolution if Evolution were true.
Is it a scientific sin that most IDers are not hostile to the concept of God, and that some of them believe that God is behind design? A theistic Evolutionist is welcome among Evolutionists because they are hypocrites, claiming to give credit to God without giving God any quarter.
Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been observed and tested, and Charles Darwin's theory has been refined.
This Evolutionist lie is the bait-and-switch. Natural Selection (a truism, some animals die before reproducing) is not Evolution nor is it a mechanism that explains Evolution. This is an example of Evolutionists putting forth claims as proof of Evolution that would be true whether or not Evolution is true.
We've seen Natural Selection working. It doesn't produce Evolution.
Evolution has no working mechanism.
In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler can only result in the naturalization of the deity. God becomes just another part of the natural world, and thereby loses the transcendent mystery and divinity that define the boundary between religion and science.
Evolutionist thinking always comes down to philosophy. Allowing any room for God is anti-scientific, they reason. And, those atheist Evolutionists even want to do us theists a favor by saving God from being trivialized as a mere watchmaker.
2005-04-04 17:24 | User Profile
[B]And then there's that small matter of volumes of evidence supporting Evolution as a scientific theory...[/B]
Here's one site that provides volumes of evidence supporting Evolution:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/[/url]
The FAQ is of particular interest:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html[/url]
2005-04-05 11:38 | User Profile
Intelligent Design is based on Information Theory. IT holds that the more information an item contains the more likelyhood of Intelligent Design.
For example the Bible is cram-packed full of information:
[url="http://www.biblewheel.com"]www.biblewheel.com[/url]
and therefore indicates Intelligent Design far above that which man is capable. When one's study spreads out to the Physical Creation and you become aware of the information contained in each part, Intelligent Design becomes pretty obvious.
2005-04-05 14:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=messianicdruid]Intelligent Design is based on Information Theory. IT holds that the more information an item contains the more likelyhood of Intelligent Design.
For example the Bible is cram-packed full of information:
[url="http://www.biblewheel.com"]www.biblewheel.com[/url]
and therefore indicates Intelligent Design far above that which man is capable. When one's study spreads out to the Physical Creation and you become aware of the information contained in each part, Intelligent Design becomes pretty obvious.[/QUOTE]
Well put. DNA isn't a natural occuring pattern like, say, silicon crystals. Crystals can be extremely complex, but they do not convey any information (at least as far as we know), they merely repeat a pattern. An extremely complex pattern, perhaps. But a "mindless" one nevertheless.
That simply isn't the case with DNA, which is far more complex than even the most sophisticated manmade computer program. DNA is a set of instructions that clearly evinces a mind generating the instructions.
It would be as absurd to look at MS Word and deny the existence of a programmer as to behold the DNA of even the simplest organism and fail to infer the existence of a designing Intelligence.
Folks like the author are very wedded to the emotional feeling of crass 19th century materialism. They find it limiting and therefore reassuring. They don't like it when their warm and cozy theoretical womb is disturbed.
But the discovery of DNA and the astonishing development of biochemistry has revealed that even the tiniest mutations require mind-bogglingly complex chemical instructions. Their comfy little world has been shattered, and it will take a generation before Intelligent Design becomes orthodox Darwinism.
2005-04-05 14:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Well put. DNA isn't a natural occuring pattern like, say, silicon crystals. Crystals can be extremely complex, but they do not convey any information (at least as far as we know), they merely repeat a pattern. An extremely complex pattern, perhaps. But a "mindless" one nevertheless.[/QUOTE] Well, according to evolution DNA is a naturally occurring pattern, formed over millenia through natural selection. To use that as a premise on which to base a case for intelligent design is to beg the question. You are committing a logical fallacy by "affirming the consequent". DNA is a naturally occurring phenomenon, just not within a time period directly observable by human scientists. [QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That simply isn't the case with DNA, which is far more complex than even the most sophisticated manmade computer program. DNA is a set of instructions that clearly evinces a mind generating the instructions. Why are there unused sequences of DNA in the genome?[/QUOTE] Explain redundant DNA. A computer program may contain redundant lines of code, but only if written by a poorly skilled programmer. [QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It would be as absurd to look at MS Word and deny the existence of a programmer as to behold the DNA of even the simplest organism and fail to infer the existence of a designing Intelligence.[/QUOTE] One could argue that natural selection is in fact an "intelligent" process, even if there is no consciousness behind it. [QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Folks like the author are very wedded to the emotional feeling of crass 19th century materialism. They find it limiting and therefore reassuring. They don't like it when their warm and cozy theoretical womb is disturbed.[/QUOTE] "Crass 19th century materialism" does not offer an explanation for the enigma of human consciousness. So in a sense that womb is disturbed regardless of evolution. In any case, that is a meaningless ad hominem argument. It's more true of the Creationist, and let's be honest, "Intelligent Design" is just Creationism that dare not speak it's name. [QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But the discovery of DNA and the astonishing development of biochemistry has revealed that even the tiniest mutations require mind-bogglingly complex chemical instructions. Their comfy little world has been shattered, and it will take a generation before Intelligent Design becomes orthodox Darwinism.[/QUOTE] I predict that future research into the human genome will only strengthen the case for Evolution, which is already accepted by a majority of biologists.
2005-04-05 15:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]A computer program may contain redundant lines of code, but only if written by a poorly skilled programmer. [/QUOTE] Any non-trivial software project will contain redundant code no matter how skilled the engineers. Software engineering as an analogy contains justification for redundancy in intelligent design. From a stability viewpoint it's unwise to rewrite code which has already being tested and utilised in various modules merely because part of its functionality has become redundant - if itââ¬â¢s not broken donââ¬â¢t fix it (due to the probability of the ââ¬Ëfixââ¬â¢ breaking something else). That said I don't consider analogies helpful in distinguishing between intelligent design and macro-evolutionary theory because both have far more attributes in common than they do in contrast.
2005-04-06 02:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Explain redundant DNA. A computer program may contain redundant lines of code, but only if written by a poorly skilled programmer.[/QUOTE] Or multiple programmers; ie. the programming has been hacked into and modified. Think about how DNA is passed on, or actually how it is inherited, and from whom.
2005-04-06 03:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Any non-trivial software project will contain redundant code no matter how skilled the engineers. Software engineering as an analogy contains justification for redundancy in intelligent design. From a stability viewpoint it's unwise to rewrite code which has already being tested and utilised in various modules merely because part of its functionality has become redundant - if it’s not broken don’t fix it (due to the probability of the ‘fix’ breaking something else). That said I don't consider analogies helpful in distinguishing between intelligent design and macro-evolutionary theory because both have far more attributes in common than they do in contrast.[/QUOTE]
Ok, point taken. However you wouldn't get large amounts of random, meaningless data amongst the functional code inside a computer program, like is found inside the DNA of most organisms. That's the point I'm making.
Also, many optimising compilers/linkers remove functions and modules that aren't called from the final executable. But like you say, that's probably stretching the anaology a little too far.
2005-04-06 03:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=messianicdruid]Or multiple programmers; ie. the programming has been hacked into and modified. Think about how DNA is passed on, or actually how it is inherited, and from whom.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point, and illustrates one difference between ID and standard Creationism that I hadn't considered: the possibility of multiple dieties.
2005-04-06 05:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Ok, point taken. However you wouldn't get large amounts of random, meaningless data amongst the functional code inside a computer program, like is found inside the DNA of most organisms. That's the point I'm making.[/QUOTE]
That's another reason I reject Evolution. Large amounts of random, meaningless data amongst the functional code, exactly as you have said.
Evolution has nothing but pure randomness to selectively cull. So, why the extreme lack of evidence of function built on top of randomness? For example, a cow and a banana both share the same genetic language. In all the distance (hypothetical generations) between bananas and cows, why hasn't a different genetic language developed?
Among animals, what doesn't have two and only two eyes (aside from blind animals)? Are we to believe that a third eye cannot be used in any fashion where it would have a net benefit? How about two eyes in front for binocular vision and an eye in back for catching those predators sneaking up? How about that third eye also being very different from the other two eyes?
When you find randomness, it's, as you say, meaningless data. Randomness is decay. We all agree decay happens.
Evolutonist's point to commonality as evidence of common ancestory (except when it contradicts the relationships they have already established, then they dismiss it as convergent evolution). That may be fine for dogs and wolves. But, why does a banana have Tryptophan, Threonine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Cystine, Phenylalanine, Tyrosine, Valine, Arginine, Histidine, Alanine, Aspartic acid, Glutamic acid, Glycine, Prolin, and Serine while a Cow has the same thing? Why doesn't one have radically different proteins from the other, or even non-proteins replacing proteins?
If Evolution were true, species would look like they were built from randomly produced information and Evolutionists would be pointing to that functional randomness as evidence against an intelligent designer. As it is, they're stuck asking "What's with the worthless randomness?" as if that's a problem for people who reject Evolution.
2005-04-06 10:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]That's a good point, and illustrates one difference between ID and standard Creationism that I hadn't considered: the possibility of multiple dieties.[/QUOTE] I wasn't refering to multiple dieties, but miscegination. Cain married a woman from the land of Nod which of course changed the DNA of his descendents. Also the "sons of God" whether they be Adam's offspring or something else took wives of the "daughters of men" and propigated "men of renown" Gen. 6:4-5. You could infer multiple dieties, I suppose, if these "sons of God" were actually something besides mankind {aw-dawm}, which might be ignorantly considered as a something to be worshipped, but still able to breed with them. There are several descriptions in the book of Jasher of creatures with modified DNA {half man and half something else}.
2005-04-07 09:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That simply isn't the case with DNA, which is far more complex than even the most sophisticated manmade computer program. DNA is a set of instructions that clearly evinces a mind generating the instructions. There is no need for a conscious mind behind DNA. The "information" contained in DNA did not get there purely randomly, but as a result of random mutations being acted on by dynamic environments.
It would be as absurd to look at MS Word and deny the existence of a programmer as to behold the DNA of even the simplest organism and fail to infer the existence of a designing Intelligence. Apples and oranges. Computer programs do not evolve; they do not reproduce with mutations, compete directly with other computer programs for survival on one's computer, or face hostile environments. Biological systems are a different matter.
Folks like the author are very wedded to the emotional feeling of crass 19th century materialism. They find it limiting and therefore reassuring. They don't like it when their warm and cozy theoretical womb is disturbed.
But the discovery of DNA and the astonishing development of biochemistry has revealed that even the tiniest mutations require mind-bogglingly complex chemical instructions. Their comfy little world has been shattered, and it will take a generation before Intelligent Design becomes orthodox Darwinism.[/QUOTE]You have things quite backwards. First of all, it is those who reject science who are fighting against truths that don't conform to their cherished (but wholly unsupported) dogmas. Religion serves an important purpose in most peoples' lives. No one wants to die; most people would rather live forever, especially in a "perfected" state. If given the choice, who would rather enter oblivion than live forever in paradise with long-lost relatives? Nevertheless, what people want is far different from what is, and that's why religion is based on wishful thinking. Science is based on facts and explanations verified by accurate predictions. When the discoveries of science start cutting into the comfort zone of religious folks, the latter will play all sorts of mind-games with themselves in order to keep their comfort zone intact.
The discovery of DNA and the development of biochemistry have certainly not undermined evolution; they have strengthened it enormously. Evolution has already been proven, but the proof will continue to mount.
If you evolutionary skeptics applied 0.0000001% of the amount of skepticism to the Bible that you apply to evolution, you would no longer be Christians.
2005-04-07 10:12 | User Profile
[B][I] - "The discovery of DNA and the development of biochemistry have certainly not undermined evolution; they have strengthened it enormously. Evolution has already been proven, but the proof will continue to mount."[/I][/B]
You do mouth pious Darwinian platitudes like a true simple-minded believer.
Petr
2005-04-07 19:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Apples and oranges. Computer programs do not evolve; they do not reproduce with mutations, compete directly with other computer programs for survival on one's computer, or face hostile environments. Biological systems are a different matter.
There's nothing preventing a computer program from reproducing, mutating, and facing a hostile environment. So, why no real demonstration of the mechanisms of Evolution producing Evolution in a virtual world? I know, a simulation of billions of generations just is not enough time. Or, do you have a better excuse for not being able to demonstrate Evolution on a computer?
You have things quite backwards. First of all, it is those who reject science who are fighting against truths that don't conform to their cherished (but wholly unsupported) dogmas.
You must be talking about yourself in regard to the truth that Evolution doesn't happen.
The discovery of DNA and the development of biochemistry have certainly not undermined evolution; they have strengthened it enormously. Evolution has already been proven, but the proof will continue to mount.
Evolutionists resisted the discovery of DNA because it didn't fit into their idea of the fluidity of the species. It wasn't until the discovery of mutations in DNA that Evolutionsts were really willing to accept the discoveries of the founder of the modern science of genetics.
If you evolutionary skeptics applied 0.0000001% of the amount of skepticism to the Bible that you apply to evolution, you would no longer be Christians.[/QUOTE]
Show me Evolution and then I decide if I should or shouldn't be skeptical.
2005-04-07 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Show me Evolution and then I decide if I should or shouldn't be skeptical.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, HH. Show me the money.
When I see Cha-Ka from the Land of the Lost running around, then maybe I'll revise my thinking on the matter. Until then, I just aint buyin' it.
2005-04-08 02:26 | User Profile
I get the tired answer that Evolution happens too slow to be seen. Yet, good luck getting the Evolutionist to explain why Evolution works too slow to see in even in the many thousands of observed generations of organisms with generations of minutes or days. They compound their problem with the appeal to Punctuated Equilibrium, where they pretend to explain that Evolution happens too fast to be seen in the fossil record (other than a tiny handful of highly doubtful claims of transitional forms). Why are there few, if any, fossils of fish with developing legs? Evolution happened too fast to leave such fossils.
As Fred observed of Evolutionists, they refuse to take such objections seriously else they'd be forced to try to answer.
Welcome to the computer age where any natural process can be simulated, often thousands or millions of times faster than in real life. So, why cannot anyone demonstrate Evolution (Mutations and Natural Selection resulting in increased fitness and sophistication of virtual organisms) on a computer?
Like with any of my questions about Evolution, I doubt I'm going to get any answers, aside from such things as pleading and appeals to authority. None of which answer my questions. Why no computer simulated Evolution? Does Evolution still take too long, just because they say-so?
I did an Internet search and found evidence of a great deal of effort to simulate Evolution on a computer, and as any real scientist could have predicted, it's all a joke. The mechanisms offered for Evolution do not produce Evolution.
I found the website for Technology Research News which has a whole category of content called "Artificial Life and Evolutionary Computing; Applied Technology." Bingo!? I found an article there called [URL=http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/052103/Simulated_evolution_gets_complex_052103.html]Simulated evolution gets complex[/URL]. The research addressed in this article was published in the May 8, 2003 issue of Nature. There's enough there to warm the heart of any faithful Evolutionist.
Researchers from Michigan State University have used software to prove Charles Darwin's postulation that small, seemingly inconsequential changes over thousands of generations can result in the evolution of complex functions... The simulation proved that digital organisms could, over many generations, acquire the many separate steps ultimately needed to perform a complex logic operation.
But, like any Evolutionist claim, the simulation doesn't even begin to stand up to an amateur's scrutiny.
From the article, apparently there was 15,873 generations of 50 different populations, each of 3,600 individuals. Each individual began with 50 lines of code. As the populations "evolved", fitness was measured by their ability to solve nine logic problems. The most complex of which was to compare if two inputs are the same (XOR). The Evolutionists behind the fraud claim they thought this would take 19 instructions, but their brilliant organisms found a way to do it with 17 instructions. An XOR function takes 4 transistors (four binary switches) to physically build. It takes 1 instruction of computer machine code.
Sixteen thousand generations for something as simple as four switches? That strikes me as brute force rather than a demonstration of Evolution's creativity. Even then, less than half of the populations managed even this very simple thing.
A great real-world problem that this computer simulation avoided is the problem of non-viable transitional forms. Assuming that there is ââ¬Åirreducible complexityââ¬Â which is something that cannot be evolved to by viable transitional states (every message ever posted on OD is an example of substantial irreducible complexity). In this computer simulation, the virtual organisms had no need to be viable. Only the relative fitness was considered.
But, what puts a capital F in the Fraud of this is that the logic problems were all pre-conceived and the virtual organisms were tested against these. That would be like if Evolution has always had access to the full human genome for the sake of selection to turn a rock into a man!
It's easy to see through the article the gushing of pride of the Evolutionists. But, without faith, I can only see it as a lie. Comments? Angler? Rowdy? Show me Evolution.
2005-04-08 06:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]But, without faith, I can only see it as a lie. Comments? Angler? Rowdy? Show me Evolution.[/QUOTE] Well, to be honest I have to agree with you that some computerised simulations of evolution are a little contrived. However I think they could be useful for trying to run simulations of how evolution might work, even if they are inadequate for convincing hardened evo-skeptics like yourself. It really depends what the point of the experiment is.
For an example of evolution with a clear fossil record, including transitional forms, read this article on Whale evolution:
[url]http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html[/url]
It includes this little gem:
[QUOTE]Basilosaurus also had legs, but they weren't functional--Gish could scarcely argue that Basilosaurus was some kind of terrestrial Mesonychid and "not a whale." Indeed, several species of modern whales have developed rear limbs as embryos; would Gish cite this as proof that they are "not really whales"?[/QUOTE] which shows that the phemenon of embryos displaying artifacts of previous evolutionary forms isn't limited to the controversial "human foetuses have gill sacs in early stages of their development" argument.
It also makes an interesting point about the semantic games surrounding the notion of "transitional forms":
[QUOTE]Gish is here playing a word game, similar to the one he uses in his "Archaeopteryx is just a bird" arguments. The system of classification which biologists use, which places all organisms into categories consisting of kingdoms, classes, phyla, orders, families, genera and species, makes it difficult to acknowledge the transitional chacter of many species which possess characteristics of two quite different categories, since every organism must be placed in one pre-labelled category or another, and no categories exist for something that is "half-this and half-that." As L. Beverley Halstead puts it: "With many groups we have what we term mosaic evolution; beginning with animals that are completely reptilian one ends up with forms that are completely avian or mammalian. The whole picture gradually changes over as more birdlike or mammalian features develop. What we have to do, because the transition is so gradual, is draw an arbitrary line: if it has character X we will call it A, if not we will call it B. Hence by definition there can never be an intermediate, because we have drawn arbitrary lines in such a way that an animal is forced to be either one thing or another." (Montagu, 1984, p. 253)[/QUOTE]
2005-04-08 06:52 | User Profile
Evolution has been shown to be a fact. Over and over again. I keep posting the evidence, yet you ignore it and say it's not there. That's simply because you want to believe that the Bible is literally correct, even though it obviously is not.
I don't mean to sound rude -- honestly -- but you folks have been brainwashed and are literally incapable of thinking outside the strictures of your religious beliefs. Evidence plays no role in your thinking on matters of religion or of science when the latter conflicts with your religion. Your beliefs have simply been hard-wired into your brains and cannot be changed. If the Bible said that Jonah had swallowed the whale, you would believe it. You cannot consider that your beliefs might be false.
Therefore, I give up. I will no longer argue about evolution on this board with you, as I feel it's a waste of time. If you want to argue with evolutionists -- including more than a few who work in fields such as biochemistry and genetics -- I recommend the Evolution/Creation board at Internet Infidels:
[url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66[/url]
That's the place for you if you enjoy endless debate about evolution and don't mind stepping out of your comfort zone. I don't participate in evolution debates on that board, but I do read threads there from time to time. If you're polite to people there, they'll generally be polite to you.
Have fun....
2005-04-08 09:49 | User Profile
I think you're right, angler.
Here's an example of such an obscurantist mindset:
Sadly, an Honest Creationist by Richard Dawkins
[QUOTE]Creation ââ¬Åscientistsââ¬Â have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.
There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto ââ¬ÅChrist Above Allââ¬Â) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.
Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they donââ¬â¢t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one ââ¬Ådayââ¬Â in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core ââ¬Åyoung earth creationistsââ¬Â who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wiseââ¬âflying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and educationââ¬âis among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.
Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged ââ¬Åhuman bonesââ¬Â in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these ââ¬Åbonesââ¬Â would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, ââ¬ÅFossil rabbits in the Precambrian!ââ¬Â). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were ââ¬Åinorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.ââ¬Â Unusually among the motley denizens of the ââ¬Åbig tentââ¬Â of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.
All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that
. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wiseââ¬â¢s concluding paragraph:
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists donââ¬â¢t go out of their way to admit that Scriptureââ¬âa local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herdersââ¬âtrumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: ââ¬ÅDo you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?ââ¬Â
Kurt Wise doesnââ¬â¢t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wiseââ¬âand presumably others like him who are less candidââ¬âhas suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.
Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationismââ¬â¢s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.
Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? Iââ¬â¢m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.
Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. An evolutionary biologist and prolific author and lecturer, his most recent book is Unweaving the Rainbow. [url]http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-04-08 10:35 | User Profile
Kurt Wise doesnââ¬â¢t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wiseââ¬âand presumably others like him who are less candidââ¬âhas suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.
Childhood brainwashing is probably to blame in most cases. The brain is very malleable at a young age, and I suspect that it can become hard-wired in such a way that from childhood onward reality is viewed through a filter that sorts out certain inputs. In the case of someone who has been raised from birth to believe in Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism, etc.), the mind is incapable of digesting evidence contrary to its religious programming. I've seen much evidence of this in other people, including my own family members and friends. I even suffered from it myself for a while -- I used to be a Catholic Christian, but my natural curiosity and fervent desire to seek the "steel truth between the velvet lies" (to paraphrase Ronnie James Dio) eventually led me to start asking painful questions. After years of struggle, I finally found some answers. But make no mistake: deconverting from long-held religious beliefs is a very uncomfortable process. It's like Neo's awakening in The Matrix. But once the process is over with, the feeling of freedom is exhilarating. For the first time in your life, your mind is your own.
The case of Kurt Wise seems different from those of other brainwashing victims, however, because he's aware of his irrationality. Nearly all brainwashing victims I've come across were blissfully unaware of their state. They see nothing wrong with accepting as "absolute truth" a collection of fables compiled by a voting council of ordinary mortals. It's both fascinating and alarming.
Incidentally, I wonder if all the religious violence that's occurred throughout history -- Catholics versus Protestants, Muslims versus Christians, etc. -- can be traced back to religious adherents' tremendous fear of any ideas that might conflict with their hard-wired dogma. The mind can act as a powerful filter by itself, but perhaps one aspect of that filter is a drive to physically eliminate those who pose a threat to the internal programming. It's a plausible notion. After all, when did anyone ever go to war over belief in a mathematical or physical theorem?
2005-04-09 05:10 | User Profile
Happy Hacker,
Just to show I'm not completely dogmatic about evolution, here's an interesting discovery that is as-yet unaccounted for by evolutionary theory (although given the timescales involved, it's also imcompatible with Young Earth Creationism).
I predict that sooner or later this will become a big ID talking point :)
[url]http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-fossil-biodiversity.html[/url]
[QUOTE]BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent.
“What we’re seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it,” said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, and UC Berkeley’s Physics Department. “While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations.”[/QUOTE]
What do you make of it?
2005-04-09 05:23 | User Profile
Deleted (accidental double post)
2005-04-10 21:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]However I think they could be useful for trying to run simulations of how evolution might work, even if they are inadequate for convincing hardened evo-skeptics like yourself. It really depends what the point of the experiment is.
I'd really like to see a computer demonstrate that random mutations and some sort of natural selection could create Evolution. Every computer simulation that I'm aware of either creates deteriation or cheats by using a template for the purpose of selection.
Why hasn't there been a computer program to demonstrate the creative power of mutation and selection?
For an example of evolution with a clear fossil record, including transitional forms, read this article on Whale evolution:
[url]http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html[/url]
I'll only address the part you quoted, |Basilosaurus also had legs, but they weren't functional--Gish could scarcely argue that Basilosaurus was some kind of terrestrial Mesonychid and "not a whale." Indeed, several species of modern whales have developed rear limbs as embryos; would Gish cite this as proof that they are "not really whales"?|
I do not believe that any species of modern whale has developed rear limbs as embryos, given that I do not believe in Evolution. Could you provide a link that demonstrates such a thing, rather than the mere assertion of such a thing? My belief is that any demonstration will be more a matter of imagination, sort of like seeing folds in a human fetus and calling them gill slits.
As for Basilosaurus, let me remind you that there are trillions of fossils. Millions are given or sold to school children every year. There is a great deal of diversity. There are billions of fossils in poor condition, incomplete condition, or of deformed individuals. Given these facts, it would absurd to think that an Evolutionist couldn't find some fossils that he could imagine to be transitional fossil forms.
It is just as absurd to not expect millions of transitional fossil forms, if Evolution is true.
We know the history of the accuracy of Evolutionist statements about fossils, like Nebraska Man that turned out to be a pig's tooth, once the rest of the pig was found. Or, the lobbed-fin coelacanth, of which there are many good fossils, that was suppose to have been a fish that used its fins as protolegs to journey on to shore. But, scientists turned out to be wrong about it being extinct for many millions of years after it was found alive. And, Evolutionsts turned out to be wrong about how it used those fins. The reason it stayed hidden so long is because those fins didn't function at all as proto legs nor did the fish ever get close to shore.
It's not a litte gem (that might be glass) that you need, it's a diamond mine you need.
What makes Basilosaurus anything other than an aquatic reptile? Its name even says its a big lizard, not a whale cow. |"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth made it plain that these archaeocetes [ancient whale] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales." (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History, 1985, p. 489)| It looks like even some Evolutionists think that Basilosaurus is not a gem of a link between cows and modern whales. Even the best examples fall short of good gem.
which shows that the phemenon of embryos displaying artifacts of previous evolutionary forms isn't limited to the controversial "human foetuses have gill sacs in early stages of their development" argument.
Again, what makes any part of a human fetus a gill sac?
It also makes an interesting point about the semantic games surrounding the notion of "transitional forms":Gish is here playing a word game, similar to the one he uses in his "Archaeopteryx is just a bird" arguments. The system of classification which biologists use, which places all organisms into categories consisting of kingdoms, classes, phyla, orders, families, genera and species, makes it difficult to acknowledge the transitional chacter of many species which possess characteristics of two quite different categories, since every organism must be placed in one pre-labelled category or another, and no categories exist for something that is "half-this and half-that." As L. Beverley Halstead puts it: "With many groups we have what we term mosaic evolution; beginning with animals that are completely reptilian one ends up with forms that are completely avian or mammalian. The whole picture gradually changes over as more birdlike or mammalian features develop. What we have to do, because the transition is so gradual, is draw an arbitrary line: if it has character X we will call it A, if not we will call it B. Hence by definition there can never be an intermediate, because we have drawn arbitrary lines in such a way that an animal is forced to be either one thing or another." (Montagu, 1984, p. 253)[/QUOTE]
If the definition of a bird is an animal with feathers, then Archaeopteryx is a bird, 100% bird because it has 100% feathers. It's not a semantic game unless you propose that one day a scaled dinosaur gave birth to a feathered bird. Maybe because Evolution doesn't happen, Evolutionists have trouble finding species with transitional features, like skin covering that is partially scales and partially feathers. So, they're stuck talking about "mosaic evolution" and complaining about semantic games. Why does everything fit within existing classifications? There is some exception, like the discovery of dinosuaurs. But, that didn't fall within the gaps of existing classifications.
If the apparent lack of transitional forms is just an artefact of the Linnean classification system, maybe the Evolutionists need to scrap this Creationist system and create a new classification system.
Masaics themselves are a mere artifact of the assumption of Evolution. Why shouldn't Archaeopteryx have teeth, unless you assume Evolution and that all birds evolved from one bird. If you assume that birds evolved many times, that creates other problems.
2005-04-10 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]I think you're right, angler.
Here's an example of such an obscurantist mindset:
Sadly, an Honest Creationist by Richard Dawkins[/QUOTE]
Richard Dawkins has no credibility. He's a militant atheist and a proven liar. If you're going to quote someone expressing judgement on the credibility and authority of Creationists, I suggest you find someone else.
I wouldn't dispute that many Creationists have science degrees that tend toward practical sciences (e.g. marine engineering) rather than the theoretical sciences. I would expect this given the Darwinian religious click that controls the theoretical sciences (with the government's backing), as well as access to these fields.
I would also expect those lacking support from the evidence to tend toward anything other than the evidence when dealing with criticisms of Evolution. You know, like attacking the authority of the messenger.
Creationists are very religious. They don't deny that. That doesn't make their criticisms of Evolution wrong. But, there is also a growing body of anti-Evolutionists who are not Creationists (i.e. people that don't start with a certain interpretation of Genesis at start of their reasoning).
2005-04-11 00:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Happy Hacker,
Just to show I'm not completely dogmatic about evolution, here's an interesting discovery that is as-yet unaccounted for by evolutionary theory (although given the timescales involved, it's also imcompatible with Young Earth Creationism).[/QUOTE]
I can only explain it if the Earth is young. I provided that explanation (it has to do with quantum changes in 'c') but then deleted it, thinking it would distract from the debate about Evolution.
:smartass: