Joined: May 2006
Just recording my (not posted at this time) response to Luskin on Stein's blog, in case they decide to censor them in the future:
|--Listing some pro-ID Rebuttal links?--|
Yes, of course. Why don't you answer the questions, particularly the ones asked of your DI propaganda? You know very well that virtually everything the DI has put out has been answered, usually without the DI addressing the points made by those who responded. Instead we get the same droning nonsense over and over again.
Why don't you answer the questions I raised in post #389 and in #1031? I know why, it's because you have no good answers to them.
I'll link to a few of the responses made to the ID propaganda.
--This is a fascinating and incredibly long discussion, but I?m glad to see the interest that is being sparked by this movie. Some Darwinists try to pretend that ID proponents imagine the discrimination that in many cases has actively harmed their careers,--
Of course we don't deny that unevidenced religious bias presented as "science" isn't largely rejected by academia. What we do deny is that it is anything that shouldn't be done, as astrologists, homeopathists, and alchemists are also rejected (well, usually).
--but I suspect it will be difficult to make such claims with a straight face after this movie comes out.--
Quit changing the subject. The issue is the false claim that ID is being "censored", as Ben claims, which it is so very clearly not, as Casey's list of links shows. That it isn't accepted by academia in lieu of its miserable showings on the evidentiary front, and its attempts to change science so that "it looks designed" counts as evidence, is only to the credit of academia (which is hardly perfect, certainly).
--Thanks to Ben Stein and others behind this movie for being willing to stand up for the persecuted minority:--
We're waiting for evidence of the "persecuted minority". Not that the lack of evidence stops IDists from making outrageous claims.
--they will be viciously attacked for making this movie, as they already are being attacked.--
Yes, we are so mean for calling ID on all of its false claims, and Ben's unsupported charges.
--They should be commended for standing up for those whose voices are often silenced, even if that means they themselves become attacked for making the film.--
Why aren't you standing up for genuinely ignored science, instead of for long-falsified claims, and subsequent non-predictive claims which avoid falsification by denying the obvious predictions which an honest ID theory would make?
--Regarding this thread: internet Darwinists often think that by throwing up links to websites like TalkOrigins that they can win an argument. I?ve surveyed many of the links repeatedly posted on this list by such internet Darwinists and unfortunately there have been few posts to some of the many rebuttals to these arguments.--
They're rebuttals, not actual answers.
--I only have time for one post on this thread, but I?m going to post some pro-ID rebuttals to many of the links Darwinists have posted in this discussion:--
And why didn't you post the rebuttals to the DI's sorry nonsense? You know very well that, quite unlike the charges of "censorship" suggest, that you have been amply answered. And most importantly, your "rebuttals" are largely attacks on "Darwinism", not at all evidence for your theological intrusions into science.
1. A few Darwinists have posted a link to the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ But there is a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to that FAQ at:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald?s ?29 Evidences for Macroevolution?
It is not direct, nor comprehensive. It's an attempt to nickel and dime the real predictions of evolution to death, without addressing the real predictions made by evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, the "29 Evidences" could have been written more carefully (for there is no inherent prediction that all life should be related, and for other reasons), however it does get to the gist of evolutionary prediction, while the "response" merely cavils on minor aspects and mistakes by the "29 Evidences" authors. I can hardly respond to the entire piece, but here's an example I picked up at the very beginning:
--Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits. There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages.--
Of course there is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages (which would be something like abiogenesis, only of too-complex organisms), it's because of what we've learned about evolutionary mechanisms that insists that this cannot happen. The author is trying to make a point that is entirely specious in the overall theory of evolution, which is based upon many limiting factors. Thus his argument here is entirely bogus, except as a cheap debating tactic.
Here's a really quite good response to some of the above link's many claims, one that I think is really a better source than "29 Evidences" ever was:
Note in particular how it mentions how desert grasses have the same photosynthetic machinery as do grasses in cool moist areas do, NOT the better photosynthetic mechanisms of cacti. One would predict this from known evolutionary mechanisms (or at least, that whatever desert grasses have would not be the same as those of cacti, and that convergent evolution would be evident from any recent evolutionary convergences), and one would naturally predict a designer to design desert grasses for their environments, not to mimic grasses in cool wet regions (IDists don't predict this, solely because they'd be immediately falsified).
And here's another link that covers only one aspect of where Casey's linked site goes so very wrong:
--Many of the individuals arguments made in the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ are rebutted in other locations, such as these links:
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
As usual, Casey only attacks evolutionary theory, he doesn't support design or creation at all. Furthermore, he's faulting evolution over punctuated equilibrium, when the real proponents of punctuated equilibrium recognize the familiar evidences of non-teleological evolution to be compelling. Casey writes:
--Another study, "Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse," found a bird (as well as a mammal) "Early Tertiary 'explosion'" because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms.--
This appears to be a deliberate, or very ignorant, confusion of what is meant by "explosion" in those contexts. Not even the "Cambrian Explosion" is as Casey characterizes it, but I'll concede that it's still an issue, no matter that evolution during the Cambrian is evident and chordates do not appear at the beginning. Birds and mammals do radiate rapidly at times, particularly after the Cretaceous, but that's all we see, rapid evolution. We do not see novelty appearing, as one might expect from ID.
--34 Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, "a genetic revolution"35 where "no australopithecine [ape] species is obviously transitional"35 leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a "big bang theory" of human evolution.--
Again the twisting of what is meant by "explosion" there. Certainly the evolution of H. sapiens from H. erectus is well accepted by scientists, and australopithecines have no obvious reason to exist at all except as part of a hominin adaptive radiation, whether or not any are our direct ancestor. Indeed, why do IDists suppose that australopithecines, were "designed", only to go extinct? It's an answer that Casey, like the others, never gives to us.
--36 While these papers appeal to adapative radiation, niche-filling, and "genetic revolutions" as the mechanisms for these explosions, the pattern of rapid appearance of diverse morphologies without transitions remains an important pattern in the fossil record.
Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."1 And, at least to this point, it appears to be an objection that is unsolved by evolutionists. --
Casey seems not even to know what punctuated equilibrium is meant to answer, which is the problem of speciation. There are in fact very many transitionals identified in the fossil record (he's just wrong about that), and all vertebrate classes have at least one intermediate form extant in the fossil record.
As far as Casey's quote mining of Darwin goes, Darwin went on from the "gravest objection" to give a number of possible reasons why intermediates to the species were not found (as it was at that time, not at the present).
More importantly, Casey has utterly failed to explain why transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx are in fact "poorly designed" compared to modern birds, just as non-teleological evolutionary theory predicts (that's the short version of how we even know that they are transitional), and ID would not.
--Human Origins and Intelligent Design
Here's a link that partly addresses Casey's claims in the above link:
--The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories http://www.discovery.org/scripts....Science --
--Intelligent Design and the Death of the ?Junk-DNA? Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Such "ignorant yammerings" (as Matzke calls them in the link) are routed here:
--Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
A short, pithy response to such meandering nonsense is found here:
And frankly, that's enough. For anyone with an honest desire to learn, those alone answer so much of what IDists claim, and show up how pathetic their little apologetics pieces actually are. More importantly, I've shown by finding responses to almost every one of Casey's links on the web that the responses are out there, so that anyone can find them. Casey just doesn't acknowledged that, far from being censored, ID has been exposed for the sham that it is, and IDists simply link the same quote mining and worthless argumentation no matter how many times they have been answered.
And I repeat that virtually everything written by the DI and Casey merely attacks current science, it rarely even purports to produce any evidence for ID, and never comes close to presenting any legitimate evidence that organisms have been designed. Indeed, if they had that, they'd have answered the two posts that I pointed out have gone begging for answers from the IDists, post #389 and post #1031. They have no answers, so that even if #1031 was posted after Casey had written the comment that I have responded to here, it's safe to say that it hasn't been answered properly and won't be merely because IDists have no answers, not because of any "censorship".
I'll only respond further to Casey's closing paragraph:
--I do not have time to make any further posts on this blog thread--
And still you've written dozens, if not more, posts on the internet which have failed to give any evidence for ID. I'd think you could answer our questions, if you had any answers to our questions.
--but I hope that some of these links are helpful to you all in your discussions.--
They are not. I posted several which are helpful, and which are generally written by actual scientists, not lawyers like Luskin (he does have degrees in earth science, reportedly, not, however, in biology).
--Thanks and I hope all will do their best to keep the discussion here friendly and civil!--
Yes, IDists always want us to "be civil" as they attack science with the most worthless bilge, quote mines, and frequent false claims. We have answered them, they continue to avoid telling us how ID can account for different patterns of evolution in prokaryotes vs. those in eukaryotes, and why vertebrate wings are modifications of legs, not designs from first principles or even modifications of good wings (posts #389 & #1031 respectively). Furthermore, they almost always do nothing but attack science, while refusing to make even the obvious design predictions expected (because they know that they'd fail), and never providing any evidence of rational thought behind the "designs" of organisms. Rational thought is more than a little evident in nearly all of human creations, and would be expected from alien designs as well (if aliens do not produce rational signals and tools, we likely could never detect their designs). It's God (or "the designer") alone which is supposed to design without anything actually appearing to be designed, or to be techne, as the Greeks called it.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy