Lord J-Bar has a post called Intelligent Design Is Actually Quite Clever (from a PR Standpoint) (see what reading PA prevents you from missing? :)), whose reading I recommend, and which probably deserves a printout to give to any friend of yours who believes that “there may be something to that ID thing “.
Some excerpts:
Since most of the public has no idea that scientific theories must be falsifiable, ID advocates can push a “theory” that is impossible to falsify, and the public accepts it out of a lack of knowledge. When actual scientists or people who understand science speak out, IDists turn around paint themselves as victims of scientific dogma, saying that science is a religion that refuses to allow new ideas and will never let go of its evolution “myth.”
and:
Finally, Americans like to encourage free and open discussion. It’s an essential part of our culture. When ID advocates pop up demanding equal time and debate, Americans feel inclined to support that debate, regardless of the fact that no actual debate exists within the scientific community. Now, I’m all for freedom of thoughts and discussion, but that debate should not occur in a high school classroom. If we were to let every fringe idea that comes up have “equal time” in science classrooms, then schools had better include ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Hindu creation myth in their curriculums.
What am I getting at? Even though most scientists scoff at those who support ID, we need to realize that ID advocates have actually been extremely clever. They’ve done an excellent job disguising the scientific shortcomings of ID by relying on public ignorance. Furthermore, they appeal to Americans’ sense of freedom and equal opportunity to demand equal time in science classrooms. Since most people are confused about the nature of ID, it sounds like a reasonable demand. Plus, the straight-up lies that IDists tell by claiming that there’s a debate within science over the validity of evolution certainly helps their case. To the average layperson, it might sound like evolution is not accepted just because a few people with science PhDs, regardless of whether or not they are biologists, speak out against evolution.
That is, indeed, a tactic I’ve seen used on the web. IDists present their creationism as an “alternate theory”, using some big, scientific-sounding words, and not mentioning God too obviously… and when scientists, naturally, say “that’s bullshit”, they turn to the people and say “see, it’s just dogma! They worship evolution like a religion, and are too closed-minded to consider alternatives! But don’t YOU want both sides of the story?” People, naturally, say yes.
IDers cleverly make use of a common fallacy: that, between two opposite positions, the truth is probably in the middle. As Dawkins (I believe) said, that’s not always the case - sometimes, one side is simply wrong. If you say that 2+2=4 and I say it’s 5, the answer isn’t 4.5, but still 4. There’s no “evolution debate” among biologists; the amount of evidence is large enough so that anyone who managed to disprove evolution would have a huge amount of explaining to do. In other words, there is a lot of evidence for evolution, and zero for creationism. In yet other words (as J-Bar suggests), if all you have to do for people to consider your side as “equally valid” is present an “alternate theory”, never mind the evidence, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally deserving of mention…
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I couldn’t agree more…the problem is, how do you effectively combat that? As an RN, I run into people daily that have college degrees in clinical fields that still fall prey to the ID campaign. As an Atheist, my views look skewed once my lack of religious affiliation is known. I will never give up the fight, however. As a parent, I am under pressure from my mother in law(not that that’s going to change how I raise my kids), to not expose them to atheism. My children will not be shackled like I was with the dilemna of truth versus faith. I may not get as angry as Dawkins or Harris but I can keep forging ahead.
I don’t think Dawkins or Harris are “angry”. I’d say “frustrated”, and Harris sometimes sounds a bit scared, too, and with good reason - guys who believes that the destruction of the world will bring about the “rapture” have their fingers, right now, on the nuclear buttons…
Thanks for the plug Pedro.
I feel sorry for them because they act as though evolution disproves the existence of God. I don’t think it does or ever could. My God is powerful enough to have created evolution.
In the evolutionary scope of things I would like to know this:
What developed first feathers, wings or hollow bones? All three are required for flight so which happened first?
Or, more mystically, what developed first, eyes or the part of the brain that perceives visual images? More importantly, if there were no eyes how did the creature know there would be any “visual” stimuli to be perceived?
Yes, I agree things evolve. What did they evolve from? That is the question religion purports to answer and shoudl stick to.
I think it more to the point that faithful people are tired of non-believers putting forward evolution like it disproves the existence of God.
Now, let me ask you a simple favor. Show me something in all of existence that can be shown to be chaotic and unorderly. That doesn’t appear to follow a natural law, show complete randomness and doesn’t in some way lend itself to belief in creationism/ID.
I’ve been looking for that thing for a long time but haven’t found it yet.
Daryl,
I’m no Bible expert, but isn’t it the case that the according to the Bible, the earth is only 6,000 years old? If so, any fossil that’s found to be 10,000 years old at least disproves THAT claim.
Before somebody else says it, yes, carbondating can be wrong. There are many other ways to date things though. (Rock layers, tree rings, ect…)
[quote post="205"]What developed first feathers, wings or hollow bones? All three are required for flight so which happened first?[/quote]
I don’t know the answer to this question, but it doesn’t prove God. In fact, if nobody knows the answer to this question it doesn’t prove the existance of God…
[quote post="205"]Show me something in all of existence that can be shown to be chaotic and unorderly. That doesn’t appear to follow a natural law, show complete randomness and doesn’t in some way lend itself to belief in creationism/ID.[/quote]
This one’s a bit too difficult for me.
Complete randomness isn’t reality. We can always come up with 1-1=0. That doesn’t mean that someone had to make 1-1=0.
In the grand scheme of things though, you have chaos along with patterns. Otherwise few mistakes would happen. None of this proves that someone created us though.
Kren,
I wouldn’t say that the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old though I’m sure someone that has a different understanding of the Book might think that.
As for the questions concerning feathers, wings, bones, eyes, etc… They were not meant to prove the existence of God. They were meant to call evolution, not as a fact of evolving, but as to the basis for all existence into question. Why would these features evolve?
The randomness bit, again, not trying to prove the existence of God. But, again, no answers to my questions have been put forward.
[quote post="205"]They were not meant to prove the existence of God. They were meant to call evolution, not as a fact of evolving, but as to the basis for all existence into question. Why would these features evolve?
The randomness bit, again, not trying to [/quote]
Well I wouldn’t say “all existence” but all life.
It seems to me that it usually happens for the sake of an entire species.
Taking to the air definately cuts down the predator factor. And no, I refuse to try to explained the duck billed platipus.
[quote post="205"]The randomness bit, again, not trying to prove the existence of God. But, again, no answers to my questions have been put forward.[/quote]
Well, to give it another shot. Complete randomness doesn’t exist. With complete randomness, evolution would never be successful. Nobody can show you complete randomness. As far as I know, the closest we could get is an electron. Everything is governed by laws of gravity, inertia, ect.
This can very well lend itself to the idea of creationism, IF a creator is assumed to be. However, without any evidence of a creator, there is no reason to.
Kren,
First off I would like to say that I very much enjoy your writing style. You also seem to be one of the more open-minded people here. Please nobody take offense to that because it is, after all final analysis, simply my opinion.
As for the reason for evolution, “for the sake of an entire species”, I understand that fully. Lets focus on the eyes a bit more. If there were no way of knowing that anything would be perceived why did eyes develop? How did they come to be so fantatically good at perceiving something the creature without eyes had no reason to expect existed? I find it curious that the development of eyes from an evolutionary standpoint almost seems to have had to happen on faith alone. Curiosity may be another good answer.
And no, I don’t want anyone to try and explain the duck billed platipus
Thanks for the conversation.
I googled “How did eyes evolve?” and got this.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/23803
I know this doesn’t prove anything, but I was going to guess about the same.
Basically the reason for a species to develop an eye, is totally understandable.
Heat sensetive/light sensetive cells are everywhere, so devoloping those cells to be more efficient doesn’t seem too far fetched to me.
So it seems that an eyeless species probably DID have reason to believe that there was something to “see”.
More on topic, it would seem to me that every living thing HAS been inteligently designed. Not by any mystic creature though. But by evolution.
I don’t think it more on topic at all. Did the very first single cell organism consist of a heat sensitive/light sensitive cell? If not then we could transfer the question to those cells and it would still stand. The point is simply that evolution is in no way a sufficient answer for how all this got going. At least I don’t think so. So, if I choose not to believe in God(s) I wouldn’t hang my hat on evolution as a counter argument. In fact, I think that the insistence by some that evolution disproves a God has severly hurt the acceptance of evolution.
I do agree, none of this proves anything but, there is definately a rather large body of evidence “pointing toward” some the involvement pf some intelligence.
[quote post="205"]I don’t think it more on topic at all. Did the very first single cell organism consist of a heat sensitive/light sensitive cell? If not then we could transfer the question to those cells and it would still stand.[/quote]
I’m sure we could ask why a self replicating cell replicates itself in the first place… without an explanation to that you can always come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is incomplete. It doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
As of now (IMO) most evidence points towards evolution.
[quote post="205"]there is definately a rather large body of evidence “pointing toward” some the involvement pf some intelligence.[/quote]
What evidence?
Kren,
If you look across the various posts you will see what I’m talking about when I say evidence “pointing toward”, not proving, the existence of a greater intelligence.
Yes, the theory of evolution is incomplete - and that is my point. It is not a competitor to religion in my mind at all. In fact, I think pitting it against religion has done more harm to a fantastic area of scientific study (evolution) than good (by supposedly offering a different answer).
And yes, we could ask why a self-replicating cell replicates itself in the first place. Neither side has proven or disproven their case. I guess that makes me an agnostic that thinks the probability leans toward a creative intelligence.
Kren,
Actually nature does an amazing job of pointing in totally the opposite direction of some sort of guided design: congenital defects, mutations e.g. two headed pigs, and the cultural status of Paris Hilton being just a few examples.
My last post was directed at Daryl not Kren–sorry it’s past my bedtime, and I’m getting a bit grogy
As for the original post herein—Well put, but unfortunately the American public has a long record of being duped by logical sounding arguments that have no basis in fact. All we can do is ensure that we are vocal about disenting opinions, and push for courts and other such outlets to enforce the rules, laws, and constitution that they are appointed to protect and uphold.
R Nicolas,
Do you mean no law governing Religion? Yes, I agree, the government should have no say one way or the other. Our government should no more support the destruction or up-lifting of a belief system, including yours.
I won’t bother discussing the anomolies you’ve mentioned earlier (especially Paris Hilton) because there is not sufficient proof for my views as to their cause. But, I still hold that the general nature of the way things works points toward a creative intelligence. Again, I recognize this is belief not unavoidable fact.
Daryl,
[quote post="205"]If you look across the various posts you will see what I’m talking about when I say evidence “pointing toward”, not proving, the existence of a greater intelligence.[/quote]
Actually, I just looked and couldn’t find any.
… if you could point them out?
Kren,
Actually, most of it is in posts directed to you. I’m sure you don’t see it as “pointing toward” anything though. Sigh… Either way, at the base of it we can never know, in a scientific sense, the answer as there are no scientific suggestions that come close to explaining where all this stuff came from. But, I think that also points to the answer…
A side note, I’m not your typical Christian. You may want to read some of my posts in “You Atheists Don’t Have An Open Mind” to better understand where I’m coming from. I don’t think that God exists in the same way most Christians today seem to think of Him. But I do believe that what the Bible is trying to describe exists and that Christ very clearly points the way toward it. My views would probably best be understood as Panentheistic with a twist. ;>
A good starting point when looking at the world’s religions might be to ask “What is this trying to describe/teach me?” Not “What does Joe Say This Says?” or, after settling on the first or most popular answer “Do I believe this?”
Again, my suggestion is to seek the truth in every possible way using every possible tool. But, if you choose to limit yourself to the scientific method, well, good luck.
[quote post="205"]What developed first feathers, wings or hollow bones? All three are required for flight so which happened first?[/quote]
Umm, just a little nitpick here. But feathers aren’t required for flight, and a moment’s thought will supply several counter examples to the assertion that they are. (hint, hint, hint)
Noone,
Well said. That is correct and I stand corrected. I don’t think it changes the main point but it is true none the less.
However, those feathers are necessary for most birds to fly. That is why we clip them when they are pets.
Daryl,
It does change the main point because it notes that there are assumptions which are false as the primary premises for the argument. What this means in short is that the conclusion is not supported by the argument (the argument fails to be sound).
TXStorm,
Actually, it just means I didn’t word the question specifically enough. Here you go:
What developed first feathers, wings or hollow bones? All three are required for birds to fly so which happened first?
You have not addressed the core problems already cited. Rephrasing the misguided question in no way alleviates those issues.
To make matters worse you are making the assumption that the way that SOME X are is the only way all X could possibly be. “Is” does not mean “must be.”
The fact that SOME X happen to have some set of traits is itself insufficient to demonstrate that ALL X MUST NECESSARILY have had those traits.
TXStorm,
I’m sorry, would you please show me the core problem? Also, even if we drop that example, would you care to take a stab at the eye question?
[quote comment="8736"]Daryl,
It does change the main point because it notes that there are assumptions which are false as the primary premises for the argument. What this means in short is that the conclusion is not supported by the argument (the argument fails to be sound).[/quote]
I take it that you missed this post? This describes the core problem (that being the absence of a reasoned much less sound argument supporting your assumptions).
I note that the other issues which are also fatal to the position were also ignored.
As for the “eye problem” this is a problem in your assumptions about the nature of evolution. With false assumption as the sum total of your premises the fact that a strange and false conclusion follows is only to be expected.
No, I didn’t miss that post. I just disagree with you. I believe it to be a matter of wording.
As to the “eye problem”
Since you have obviously found my assumptions about the nature of evolution. Please explain it to me as, if I am incorrect, I am willing to change. However, stating only that I have a false assumption doesn’t prove it and provides me with little guidance on what exactly may be false.
You disagree about what constitutes a sound argument?? Well then your issues are deeper than merely the absence of any evidence supporting your claims for even were you able to find some evidence and offer it, without understanding what actually constitutes a sound argument you cannot offer up an argument which actually proves the conclusion.
Would you care to address the issues raised? I continue to ask for this, and you continue to wholly ignore them entirely.
Again, let me suggest that the forum is far better suited to this exchange than is Pedro’s blog. Out of that same basic respect for persons which has been explained several times, perhaps you would take this to the forum instead of continuing this effort to harm the blog?
I’m sorry, I didn’t see the blog being harmed by a hearty discussion. Unless the purpose of all the posts was just to build a kind of “cyber-church” for atheists to get together and support each others views.
As for the rest of your post, do you really think so hypothetically and one-sidedly that you cannot address a question asked of you?
Is this the argument that you feel I haven’t addressed?
[quote post="205"]To make matters worse you are making the assumption that the way that SOME X are is the only way all X could possibly be. “Is” does not mean “must be.”
The fact that SOME X happen to have some set of traits is itself insufficient to demonstrate that ALL X MUST NECESSARILY have had those traits[/quote]
I did not address this because it hardly seems like a sound argument to me. On one hand you want proof for anything that is said, then you continue to make claims that have no proof.
Is does not mean must be? Logically I would agree with that but, that does not mean it is expressive of reality. Please provide scientific evidence of the contrary. Birds have feathers AND need them to fly. If you are of the opinion that this has not always been the case please provide some form of proof that birds, not bats, without feathers have existed.
BTW, that “argument” didn’t even come close to addressing the orginal point I was trying to make.
Sigh,
Yes since this is so very far off topic and since you seem completely disinterested in honest civil discussion, I (and I do NOT speak for Pedro, rather I am simply trying to show him a bit more than that basic respect which you refuse to allow or acknowledge) do believe that this exchange where I have to continually point out that your claims about me, about your presumptions of omniscience, and about the logically invalid nature of your arguments does limit or discourage discussion of the actual issues. Were you to change your methods and mind and discuss the actual issues, answer questions, address the refutations offered, and the like, then perhaps you might have a point about such a discussion not being distracting or harmful to the blog, but this exchange is FAR from that sort of discussion.
As for not addressing the point you were wanting to make, I can only address what you actually say for I do not share your belief in mind-reading ability. I simply take your words at their actual meaning, in this case in your doubting the nature of sound arguments, and address those. If/when you mean something else entirely you cannot honestly or reasonable fault others for not knowing this.
As for your claim that all of those are necessary for flight, you try to separate logic from reality which is not merely bizarre but absurd. Doubly so when your own claim is one of necessity, which is the core of the point I made. Recall that you use the word “need” which is clearly a necessitation, meaning that there exists no other possible method by which any bird could ever have come to fly. So the fact that birds are transported via airplanes, while admittely a silly example, is a perfect use of argumentum ad absurdum which demonstrates that in fact, as a matter of yearly, if not daily, practice, birds do in fact fly without NEEDING those traits. However we need not rely upon the simple and most common logical method of obvious counter-example from the real world, we can also simply point out that other creatures, such as the bats you mention, evolved other methods of flight, and that birds evolved other methods of survival that do not involve flight, such that we can quite easily understand that 1. Flight is not necessary for birds, and 2. That feathers etc. were not the only possible methods by which flight could have been achieved. This logically leaves your claim without a hint of a footing upon which to stand.
Just to not overlook this oft repeated false claim: [quote] then you continue to make claims that have no proof[/quote], your constant stipulation/accusation of this does not and never will serve as evidence of any such occurance. I would ask that you refrain from such obviously false accusations.
For another, you yet again claim that your questions are not address simply because do not play your little game where I offer up some strawman position that you can easily knock over, but instead simply and repeatedly refute the claims you offer. Your questions have all been addressed in some detail, this effort at deception is pointless.
However just so there can be no doubt, since you claim that my citation of what constitutes a sound argument is not proof, how many links to logic sites would you accept as proof? How many texts would you be willing to actually look at which also explain the nature of sound reasoning and what constitutes a sound argument?
Let me recommed Wendy McElroy’s The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival as a wonderfully easy to understand introduction not only to the basics of sound reasoning, but also to many of the other notions I have mentioned such as the basic respect for others, not treating ideas as your children, not reacting emotionally to refutations of some argument or claim you have made, and more.
You might also want to check out http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
For a list of and explanation of fallacies (forms of unsound arguments)
Here is another source explaining soundness and validity as well:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm
Thank you, I will look into these resources.
[quote post="205"]As for not addressing the point you were wanting to make, I can only address what you actually say for I do not share your belief in mind-reading ability.[/quote]
Well, since I don’t believe in mind-reading, I guess that’s good! I mean that I think there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning, back to perception again it seems.
I’m sure your argument holds to your satisfaction. No more needs to be said. Each will interpret the results as they see fit.
[quote] I’m sure your argument holds to your satisfaction. [/quote]
This is certainly true since I am a great fan of soundness. Since soundless is purely objective, not mere pereception as you try in vain to mislabel it, the soundness of the refutations is easily verifiable to any who are willing to not place their own small positions above reality.
The difference between you and I is…. that you believe you know soundness when you see it…. That you continue to accuse the one person who has directly said his beliefs mean “I know nothing except for the fact that I know nothing” of claiming omniscience is hilarious. However it is founded in the literal interpretation of some of my comments.
Please explain to me how soundless (I presume you meant “soundness”, though I did find the slip up humorous) is beyond perception.
Or, did you mean that soundless is pure objective and beyond perception? That is, after all, the only logical meaning for what you said.
Do you not understand that I am calling your actual perceptions of reality into question? Most people would say my car is blue, the info about my car says it’s blue and it hasn’t been repainted. Is my car blue or every color but blue? I would think you, of all people, would be capable of understanding what I am saying.
One more thing, when you say something is off-topic, do you mean for a particular posting or for the blog itself?
Daryl,
[quote post="205"]The difference between you and I is…. that you believe you know soundness when you see it…. That you continue to accuse the one person who has directly said his beliefs mean “I know nothing except for the fact that I know nothing” of claiming omniscience is hilarious.[/quote]
I would go as far to say that you do not know nothing. There’s nothing wrong with being humble, but don’t give yourself ZERO credit. You do know some truths, upon which you can and DO build more.
Easy example… you know 1 1=2… you can take any other number and build 1 onto it and come up with 1 more and you are NEVER wrong.
[quote] The difference between you and I is…. that you believe you know soundness when you see it….[/quote]
It is more than a mere belief, it is direct, objective, certain knowledge. I have repeatedly cited the criteria for soundness, I have repeatedly offered several sources so that you too could familiarize yourself with the notion so that we can be on the same page concerning the purely objective evaluation of arguments, but you seem wholly disinterested in discussing these matters sensibly, honestly, and reasonably.
[quote] Please explain to me how soundless (I presume you meant “soundness”, though I did find the slip up humorous) is beyond perception.[/quote]
The objective nature has been repeatedly explained in quite simple terms, and you have been given numerous resources upon which you could avail yourself if you were to choose to interest yourself in an answer to this question. At some point you actually have to contribute some effort, or at least join us on the only possible common ground we can have: reality.
[quote]Do you not understand that I am calling your actual perceptions of reality into question? [/quote]
Yes I understand that you are doing this (with no basis nor cause other than mere personal attack) but also you are clearly and indefensibly simply denying reality because it does not fit your preconceived notions. You can doubt my ability to understand, you can continue to fail to show the basic level of respect for others as you have been, but neither of these approaches will ever reveal reality to you, nor will they cause soundness to cease to be soundness. You are denying necessitation and sufficiency themselves, which merely reveals a lack of understanding of either. Why not check out the links and resources offered if you are so very unwilling to read the explanations already offered?
Daryl,
It seems likely to me that feathers were the first to evolve, as they could have been used as insulation, perhaps allowing the early dino-birds (so to speak) to hunt at night, thus avoiding predators. Archaeopteryx is a commonly cited “missing link” of the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, though I believe it is not considered a direct link to modern birds, but an extinct off shoot. It had feathers used for flight, but it probably evolved from a species which used feather for another purpose, after all there is not just one type of feather.
Though flight in birds does require feathers, and wings and hollow bones, not all birds do fly. Take the kiwi, ostrich and extinct dodo for example. They have the feathers and the wings (though these are truncated). As for the hollow bones, I am unsure as to whether the ostrich has hollow bones, it would seem unlikely to me, as it relies more on its legs than its wings, and for the kiwi and dodo, I cannot comment, though at a guess I would say they would have hollow bones as they evolved from birds of flight (the dodo at least, not sure about the kiwi, not really my area of expertise).
Also bats do not require wings, being mammals, for flight, and instead use a stretch of skin. There are also flying snakes, which really glide, rather than fly, but are perhaps on their way to some greater level of flight.
Hope that at least intrigues you, if not answers you.
Alex