The "Theory" of Evolution- Its Weaknesses and Holes

In the January 2009 issue of Scientific American, dishonest assholes Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch ask what are the alleged holes and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.

You've gotta be kidding- yet they are not.

The following lists will be added to-

Weaknesses:

1- It cannot muster a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed mechanisms

2- It is too vague to be of any practical value- Variation? Variation to what exactly? No specifics have ever been produced.


Holes:

1- It cannot explain the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES observed.

2- No one even knows whether or not those afore-mentioned differences can be accounted for via genetic differences.

3- It does not attempt to explain ORIGINS and ORIGINS have a DIRECT impact on any subsequent evolution.

Wow- those aren't just holes. They demonstrate the "theory" doesn't even deserve that status.

So I wonder if Eugenie and Glenn would be OK with science teachers informing their students about those weaknesses and holes?

What is Science? (revisited)

I believe the time is right to post this again- What is science? The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.” “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology. Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.” “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be. As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge. So how do we do that? We use our senses. We make observations. We try to figure things out, i.e. we try to understand what we observe and/ or sense. This “thing” we are trying to understand could be an object, event, structure or phenomena. (I used to think that we were the only animals on this planet that did so, i.e. tried to understand the things around us, but with first-hand observations of what indigenous wild-life do preceding an impending natural disaster common to that area, it appears that some other animals have already come to an understanding. But anyway…) We formulate an idea as to how it works and we devise a way to test that idea. If successful we have others check our work. If they like it, it gets published. However not getting published is not a falsification or refutation of the idea or the data. How do we test an idea? We break it down into something that is measure-able. In industry this is done via DMAIC- Define (the customer’s requirements), (Figure out how to) Measure (them); Analyze (the requirements and measuring systems); Improve (the process to reach the goal); Control (the process). In science we define what it is we are observing. Rocks, life, populations or individual organisms, planets, stars, motion, falling, abruptly stopping, etc. Can this observation be measured? If not how can we qualify our inference or conclusion? (This is where we figure out a way to test our inference.) Analyze all work to date for errors and/ or improvements. Initiate or improve a process to reach the desired goal. In science the desired goal would be to understand what it is we are observing, i.e. what we had previously defined. Then you control that process. Documentation at each step is key throughout the process and will facilitate the controlling of said process. Once you have completed the above and feel you have an understanding, you have others who are qualified check your work. That is why documentation is key. From the NCSE linked to U Berkley website on Evolution: UC Berkley “Science is a particular way of understanding the natural world. It extends the intrinsic curiosity with which we are born. It allows us to connect the past with the present,… (references a picture)” It continues: “Science is based on the premise that our senses, and extensions of those senses through the use of instruments, can give us accurate information about the Universe. Science follows very specific "rules" and its results are always subject to testing and, if necessary, revision. Even with such constraints science does not exclude, and often benefits from, creativity and imagination (with a good bit of logic thrown in).” What anti-IDists try to do is to either re-define science to only include “natural” processes, as if intelligent causes are non-natural, or try to tie ID to the supernatural. They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science. Either that or they try to hold ID to some other arbitrary rules of science, never thinking that the reigning paradigm has no chance of meeting those same standards. The origin of nature could not have occured via natural processes as natural processes only exist in nature. However even though misguided that tactic is of no relevance:

In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the "teach the controversy" model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy.-- page xxv of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

It should also be noted that just because something is conceivable, that does not also make it possible. IOW just because the “collision theory” is the best conceivable naturalistic explanation for the formation of the Earth-Moon system, does not mean that such a scenario is even possible. More on the rules of science: In 1981 there was a Court case (McLean v. Arkansas) involving Creation. In it Michael Ruse testified for a theory to be scientific it must be: guided by natural law explanatory by natural law testable against the empirical world tentative in its conclusions falsifiable The contradictions are numerous: Is the origin of life explained by natural law? No. Is all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms via common descent/ descent with modification explained by natural law? No. Is the origin of nature explained by natural law? No. The origin of nature, by definition, could not have been guided by natural law. And yes, what about the origins of those natural laws? How do we falsify the notion that the evolution of cetaceans from land animals proceeded via natural selection acting on random variations caused by random genetic mutations?

”As a result of such contradictions *, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question “What distinguishes science from nonscience?” as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is “scientific” according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. As Laudan explains, “If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’…they…do only emotive work for us.” As Martin Eger summarized,”[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that is a different world." “-- Ibid pg. 77 *discussing the contradictions in Ruse’s 1981 falsifiability criteria.

The bottom line is the evidence from which IDists infer ID exists in the physical world and is observable. IOW it is the same DNA, life, Earth, solar system, etc., that all scientists and non-scientists observe, research or hear about. I will discuss the evidence below. On science & the supernatural:

”It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion: “Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind”.” (Dr. Behe)

Even though what Dr. Behe is saying makes it obvious that a priori exclusion is not the scientific way, it hides the fact that all “first-cause” scenarios require something non or super natural. If it is true that everything which has a beginning requires a cause, then seeing science has told us the universe, i.e. nature, had a beginning, it also had a cause. Nature by definition could not have originated via natural processes because natural processes exist only in nature. It also shows that there is still more work to be done even once an initial cause/state has been determined. The point being, of course, is that it all “turtles-down” to something beyond nature/ beyond the universe. Even positing multi-verses does not get around the origins issues. And just as Ockham’s Razor would favor one designed universe over a universe constructed from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, Ockham’s Razor would favor one designed universe over a multi-verse, and also metaphysical, explanation. What the above demonstrates is that one cannot define ID out of science without doing the same to any anti-ID position. Science Asks Three Basic Questions:

What’s there? The astronaut picking up rocks on the moon, the nuclear physicist bombarding atoms, the marine biologist describing a newly discovered species, the paleontologist digging in promising strata, are all seeking to find out, “What’s there?” How does it work? A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?” How did it come to be this way? Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”

We exist. The verse we live in exists and since it is the only observable verse we have labeled it the universe. If the multi-verse hypothesis is held to the same standards as ID it has to be able to tell us, at a minimum, how many verses there are, where those verses exist and what number we live in. But anyway, we exist. What are the options to our existence? IOW how did the universe (and us) come to be this way? 1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes 2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes 3) A combination of 1 & 2 (If other options exist I would love to hear about them so they too can be discussed.) Only option 1 excludes the design inference. The motives of IDists are clear- we want to know the truth, i.e. the reality, behind our existence. If that reality, i.e. the evidence, leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. We explain the evidence and we don’t have to explain the metaphysical to do so. The great scientist Max Planck said the following during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

Years of scientific research were the root cause of that statement.

Banned for telling it like it is!

Censorship is the only way!

Yes that is right- once again the evolutionitwits prove my point. This time it was The Curmudgeon who couldn't take it.

As I said these imps have big mouths only in venues in which the other side is either censored or whose testimony is ignored.

Meanwhile Intelligent Design Awareness Day is in its second year at my kids' school...

Eugenie C. Scott & Glenn Branch are Dishonest Assholes and the NCSE is a Nazi-like Propaganda Machine

Eugenie C. Scott & Glenn Branch are Dishonest Assholes and the NCSE is a Nazi-like Propaganda Machine-

In the January 2009 issue of Scientific American, Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Spreading Evolutionism, I mean for Science Education, have an article titled “The Latest Face of Creationism”.

The article starts with a caption-

“Creationists who want religious ideas taught as fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises.”

So I assumed (wrongly it turns out) that somewhere in the article there would be names of these Creationists and the religious ideas they want taught in public schools.

But there wasn’t anything in the article which would support that claim! No names and no evidence to support the claim. That is a bad way to start and then write an article. It is a demonstration of dishonesty.

Also what else is wrong with that opening caption is that science can neither be legislated nor adjudicated! It is stupid to think that politicians and judges are in any position to make a determination as to what is and isn’t science. (science is world-wide and does not yield to the arbitrary rules one country places upon it)

Yet that is what the anti-IDists do. Heck Eugenie and Glenn even quote Judge Jones as saying ID is not science. Too bad Judge Jones didn’t know what was being passed off as science. If he had then he could have compared. But anyway, as I said a judge isn’t in any position to decide what is and isn’t science.

Moving on- Another error committed by Eugenie and Glenn is the way they throw around the word “evolution”. They do so as if neither ID nor Creation holds that “evolution” occurs.

This tactic is very misleading and very dishonest. Heck Bill Nye the science guy thinks that Creationists hold that species are fixed and no change takes place!

This is the sort of ignorance that is rampant in the evolutionary camps. And the NCSE likes/ wants/ needs it that way.

So here it is you two and your ignorant minions. My article that tells us what is being debated (however I doubt that neither Eugenie nor Glenn will ever admit to it):

Biological Evolution: What is being debated

HINT- the debate is all about a) origins and b) mechanisms

Another error they make is to conflate ID with Creation. This is a sure sign of willful ignorance and dishonesty. Eugenie, for one, should know better- here is why-

In 2000 Michael Behe wrote the following:

Intelligent Design is NOT CReationism
Response to "NOT (JUST) IN KANSAS ANYMORE" BY EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SCIENCE (MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others--abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing] conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.

1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).

Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Hmmm...

What else is being said:

The Creationist Fabrication, which includes standard accepted definitions:

Dictionary.com defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

“Essentially the same definition even appears in the scientific, peer reviewed literature” MG:

Creationists are those who believe that God created the universe, and all species alive today, in a geological instant several thousand years ago. The usual motive for creationism is conformity to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesisor some analogous scripture. (Leigh EG Jr. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:495-498.)

Futuyma’s Glossary:

The doctrine that each species (or perhaps higher taxon) of organism was created separately in much its present form, by a supernatural creator.

Creation stands and falls with the Bible. ID doesn’t require the Bible NOR a belief in “God”.

To try to make the case that ID = Creation they rely solely on Barbara Forrest’s interception of a rough draft of “Of Pandas and People”. Got that- a ROUGH draft that had the word “creationist” (small c), as the authors were searching for the proper term that would fit their position.

That is why we call them ROUGH drafts- because they are NOT ready for prime-time.

In another rough draft "creationist" was replaced with "cdesign proponents". And guess what? These two jump all over that too! (the "c" was over-looked)

For some reason these imps think that a rough draft means something. Too bad the publisher did not have a chance to defend itself during the trial*. And it is pretty sad that evolutionists can only “defend” themselves in venues in which there isn’t any opposing view that could refute there nonsense.

For example I doubt that SA will give any press to the sound refutations of their articles. I know this because last year they trumpeted the coming IPCC meeting in Asia. But when the outcome wasn’t what they wanted to hear they didn’t publish anything about that meeting. But anyway…

Let’s look at their claim. Their claim is that the word “creationist” in a rough draft means that ID – the book really has no bearing on the ID of today- equals Creation- even though ID does not fit the definition.

However if we hold the theory of evolution to the SAME standard then it becomes obvious that it too is a Creation theory:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)

That is in a RELEASED edition. Yet do either one of the authors mention that? Hell no!

And Earth to Eugenie and Glenn- The “Kitzmiller” case was decided on the weakness of the school board- as in the school board didn’t have any idea as to the tenets of ID.

So what is the evidence for evolution they provide? Antibiotic resistance for one. But what does antibiotic resistance really tell us?

Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.

Abstract:

Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

Not to mention that even the most ardent YEC is OK with bacteria “evolving” into bacteria. IOW their example proves they are out to misrepresent the Creation position. And they never demonstrate that they know anything about Intelligent Design.

A book exists that has both ID and anti-ID passages/ essays/ articles. It is titled Darwinism, Design and Public Education. On page 92 it is stated that Intelligent Design is based on three premises (with the inference that follows):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

But is any of that mentioned? No.

Why don’t they tell us what is being debated? Why do they use the word “evolution” as if both ID and Creation argue against change of any kind?

I know why- they are dishonest assholes with an agenda of malicious misrepresentations and grandiose, albeit vague, claims of a superior position.

Also in the opening caption was a part about “hiding their true aims”. As If the true aims of evolutionism is not to force atheism on students! At least people like Richard Dawkins and his ilk admit to that fact.

The real sad part about their article is that they attack academic freedom because the “know” what is REALLY going on.

Did they use scientific methodology to come to this “knowledge”? They don’t say. But we are to be assured that they know what is best.

So please take me to Court for calling you dishonest assholes and exposing the NCSE as a Nazi-like propaganda machine.

Be prepared to provide a testable hypothesis for undirected processes. And also be prepared to provide the scientific advances that have been made in the name of undirected processes.


*additional information pertaining to "Of Pandas and People" from the publisher:

Darn! Due Process Summarily Denied; Lost the Very First Lawsuit We Were Never In

After learning that the case turned on specific allegations about key passages in Pandas, and more importantly, the allegation that “Intelligent Design”originated with creationism, FTE sought to intervene. Why? Because the term “Intelligent Design” was first introduced into current public discourse through FTE’s 1989 publication of Pandas, and the only two eyewitnesses to the question of continuity with creationism and to the other historical events in the core allegations at issue initiated the project themselves in 1982 and worked at FTE to produce the book. But Judge John E. Jones, III, ruled against FTE’s intervention. Perhaps he felt that the Plaintiffs knew more than the eyewitnesses about the events surrounding the publication of Pandas, or that the intervention would just drag the trial out even longer. For whatever reason, uncontested allegations made by persons who were not eyewitnesses proved to be sufficient evidence for the court on this matter. Sadly, FTE was not even allowed to participate in a trial over its own book, and was denied the opportunity to explain and defend its own publication.

No wonder John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University marveled, “Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.”

In addition Judge Jones insisted at the hearing that the Thomas More Law Center (the public interest law firm defending the Dover School Board) would defend FTE’s interests also. But by the time FTE was served a subpoena by the ACLU, TMLC had not so much as sent FTE a copy of the Complaint, nor even notified FTE the Complaint put FTE in serious jeopardy. These facts hinted as to how well they would defend its interests!

The real truth about the key passages of the book and the origin of Intelligent Design are laid out for the visitor to this site. See the links to “Is ID creationism in disguise?”, “Does ID require supernatural creation?”, and “Did Pandas ever advocate creationism?”

A question for mightymort

mightymort,

You posted something pertaining to nested hierarchy.

I thought I had published it but I cannot find it- I wrongly assumed it was in my latest thread pertaining to NH.

Could you please tell what thread you posted in so I can resopond to it? (I can't find it)

Thanks, now back to the snow-blower

An evolutionary hypothesis- why "evolution" is a useless heuristic

In the thread The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins part II, Zachriel, I mean Olorin, offers the following as an evolutionary hypothesis:

[2] You continue to claim that there is no testable hypothesis. Well, here it is: evolution proceeds by heritable variation, overfecundity(sic), and natural selection. (“Natural” selection is used vaguely at times. I mean it to include environmental, sexual, group, and other forms of selection.) This is the basic theory that has been tested and confirmed for a century and a half.

1- Variation to what? Notice no specifics. And that is because "evolution" doesn't have any. It is a vague premise that is useless because of this vagueness.

And this vagueness reflects ignorance on the part of those who accept the theory.

IOW ignorance is a conerstone of the theory of evolution.

2. heritable selection and fecudity are the processes that make up natural selection.

IOW the above "hypothesis" reads evolution proceeds by natural selection and natural selection.

Which means this person who claims to have scientific qualifications is nothing but a dolt.



But I do thank Zachriel/ Olorin for proving my point- that "evolution" is too vague to be of any use.

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins part II

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design.

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.

The Richie Hughes non-blog blog

Yeah you got it- the non-blog blog.

Take a look for yourself:

Richie's non-blog blog

He states:

Let’s look closely and the dishonesty, bad science and hypocrisy of the ID movement.

But absolutely nothing. So I take it that Richie couldn't find anything and couldn't make up anything either, because there is absolutely nothing a place holder for his blog and a violation of rights for his "other" post.

So let's look at Richie's claim:

1 Dishonesty- Yup that fits Richie and his retards to a tee

2 bad science- if you can call sheer dumb luck "science"

3 hypocrisy- saying publish in peer-review all the while stifling any attempt to do so and destroying careers in the process.

No I understand why fate intervined and changed my path to engineering. Had I been in Gonzales' shoes at ISU I would have beaten Hector to a pulp. But it would be in the name of science- natural selection and all.

Richie retardo ends his bold claim with:

But they DO have God on there side…

We DO? Not necessarily...

The CSI of a baseball?

How pathetic and moronic are the anti-IDists?

Well Rich Hughes and others, have asked for the CSI of a baseball.

The CSI of a baseball.

Did you get that?

Let me explain- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.

IOW Rich Hughes and his band of mental midgets have some doubt in their pointy little heads pertaining to how baseballs came to be the way they are.

I understand their position. Heck if chance and necisssity can bring about something as intricate as a living organism, something as plain (in comparison) as a baseball should be a piece of cake.

However I digress.

To know the SI of something all you have to do is count the bits. If the number of bits is 500 or more, then you have CSI.

So if you really wanted to know the SI of a baseball all you have to do is to figure out how to make one, write down the instructions, and count the bits.

And I also see that countinmg would also be a problem for Richie and his minions...

Back on line after a blow by mother nature

Now THAT was interesting! We got clobbered! Three trees in my yard were uprooted!

Power has been restored and my ISP is up and running.

Sorry for any delays in posting but this was the last thing on my mind....

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

Some time after William Dembski had his “The Design Inference” published, John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry wrote a scathing review of the Explanatory Filter.

Some history is required- The Explanatory filter is a process/ procedure that aids in determining how the object / structure/ event came to be- remember that is one of the three questions that science asks- How did it come to be this way?. See Explaining the Explanatory filter revisited and especially The Explanatory Filter (EF)- Who uses it? . You really don't want to miss that one.

It is a flowchart consisting of three decision nodes. The first asks if X can be explained via laws of nature/ regularity/ necessity.

If not you move to the next node which asks if those processes in step one plus chance can account for what is observed. Think time and erosion processes acting on exposed rock.

Again if not you ask does X have some pattern, some specificity? Does X exhibit work, i.e. counterflow, or some recognizable pattern?

If it does not, then we initially, this is key because the EF is just for initial inferences. And as with all inferences it can be either confirmed or refuted with future knowledge. But that is how science operates- no departure there.

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.

They go on to say:

and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly.

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Please stay tuned for more…

A PRE-Natural Intelligent Designer

Thanks to my buddy Rich Hughes we have hammered out the proper adjective for the Intelligent Designer and the forces that brought nature into existence- Pre-Natural- as in before nature.

As Rich and I were bickering back and forth- as buddies are known to do- I came to realize that the designer of the cosmos cannot go beyond what does not yet exist. Therefore the prefix of super does not fit.

However, as Rich so rightly pointed out, the designer of the cosmos did come before the universe! And the prefix for before is pre-.

So I introduce you to the pre-natural intelligent designer.

If/ when the designer is caught violating the laws of nature we can then supersede the prefix pre-, with super-.

Can the "theory" of evolution even muster a hypothesis?

For several years I have been asking for a testable hypothesis for evolution via an accumulation of random mutations- ie genetic accidents.

The best I have seen so far only include hypotheses for descent with modification minus the mechanism.

And in each case I was able to take the hypothesis and turn it so that it supported ID or convergent evolution. That is why a testable hypothesis for the stated mechanism is key.

Any takers?

Nested Hierachy and evolution- another refutation of the premise

Zachriel and others continue to spout off that descent with modification will lead to a nested hierarchy.

I have already provided enough reasons to refute that premise but here is one more:

Nested hierarchies have a direction-

For example in the nested hierarchy of living organisms we have the animal kingdom.

To be placed in the animal kingdom an organism must have all of the criteria of an animal.

For example:

All members of the Animalia are multicellular (eukaryotes), and all are heterotrophs (that is, they rely directly or indirectly on other organisms for their nourishment). Most ingest food and digest it in an internal cavity.

Animal cells lack the rigid cell walls that characterize plant cells. The bodies of most animals (all except sponges) are made up of cells organized into tissues, each tissue specialized to some degree to perform specific functions.

The next level (after kingdom) contain the phyla. Phyla have all the characteristics of the kingdom PLUS other criteria.

For example one phylum under the Kingdom Animalia, is Chordata.

Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:

Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):

bilateral symmetry
segmented body, including segmented muscles
three germ layers and a well-developed coelom.
single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain)
tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development
pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development
ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system
complete digestive system
bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present.

The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.

This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.

Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.

All of that means we should not expect a nested hierarchy with descent with modification.

Natural, non-natural and supernatural

natural- produced by or existing in, nature

non-natural- not produced by or involving natural processes.

supernatural- Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous

“Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system

“Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system


Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:

Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.

IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.