Nelson vs. Ruse “undebate”

| 36 Comments

Is it just me, or is there something particularly ludicrous and pitiful about Ruse (or anyone) discussing with Paul Nelson what evidence would make Paul Nelson change his mind about ID, when Nelson isn’t even man enough to lift his head up out of the sand the tiny bit required to admit that the earth is old, that this is a hard evidentiary fact, that denying it is as perverse as denying that the Earth is round, and that the promotion of the young-earth view in evangelical churches is one of the greatest frauds in American history?

Of course, Ruse is too much of a softy to ask these kinds of questions,* which is exactly why the IDers keep inviting him (and paying him) to do these debates.

(* To be clear: Ruse is useful and a pro-science warrior on many things, but one thing he doesn’t do much of is challenge the creationists scientifically and force them to deal with the hard evidence that challenges their beliefs. Doing this takes a lot more work of course and only a few people are good at it.)

36 Comments

Yes, I agree with all of that, including Ruse’s good points.

With this ludicrous episode you have again the equation of a mostly good thinker, Ruse, with someone whose “thought” in these matters is always checked against his religion. Ruse will be mostly on target scientifically, while Nelson will do everything in his power to change what evidence is needed to “convince him” of evolution to move it away from the familiar ‘make entailed predictions, and if these are borne out, accept the theory so long as a more predictive theory does not exist.’

The whole point of ID is to change science from a relatively unbiased evidence-based enterprise, into one in which assuming God’s workings in nature (sans evidence) is every bit as good as relying upon what can be demonstrated. Ruse is entirely playing into Nelson’s attempts to change science, by having the two exist side-by-side as if they were both reasonable positions.

It’s as if Cotton Mather and Ruse were arguing over what should count as evidence of witchcraft, where the “witness” of the girls who saw the witchcraft is to be presented as being just as legitimate as hard evidence. Ruse has to tell of what would convince him that the witchcraft is real, when it isn’t even a legitimate hypothesis, and Paul Nelson gets to demand that every single event has to be explained (including the girls’ likely hallucinations), before he will be convinced that the accused aren’t witches. To naive religionists, Nelson will sound reasonable, while Ruse will be trying to explain why the witchcraft isn’t real after he’s already essentially conceded the accusations to be at least sensible.

The only truly sensible debate would be where both debaters agree to the rules of science, and the two come up with sufficient evidence under those rules. What’s the point of asking Nelson what the rules should be? He’s only going to make the rules impossible for us to meet, while he’ll write God into the rules so that God is assumed wherever God cannot be absolutely ruled out.

Yes, it’s a propaganda gain for the IDists. Shame on you, Ruse.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

the comments section is amusing, with them speculating on how ruse might answer. of course, their speculations are absurdly simple-minded like “i want to meet the designer!”

for those of us that read talk.origins, you may remember my “CSI challenge” threads that offer a blind test for design detection. thats all i need! just pass a simple double blind test to prove that they can actually detect design.

Yes, it’s a propaganda gain for the IDists. Shame on you, Ruse.

Ruse has been doing the publicity and talk show circuits with Dembski et. al. for at least a couple of years now.

It’s little more than a dog and pony show.

I have vids back from when he first started touring with Dembski, and Dembski himself admits they pre-script a lot of these “debates”.

yes, shame on Ruse, thought doubtless he just thinks nothing debated is really serious, and he’s just having fun.

Likely he even thinks anyone intelligent has already seen the ridiculousness of ID, and as for the rest, he probably doesn’t even care.

Nelson did admit, back in 2002, that science teachers could teach an old age of the earth and ignore young earth claims, just as science ignores claims that UFOs demonstrate that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. I know that’s not anywhere near a patch on what Nick would like Nelson to do, but it is something.

Nelson did admit, back in 2002, that science teachers could teach an old age of the earth and ignore young earth claims, just as science ignores claims that UFOs demonstrate that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. I know that’s not anywhere near a patch on what Nick would like Nelson to do, but it is something.

In some ways that’s worse, because it indicates he *knows* the evidence is against him, and he holds the YEC position *in spite of* the evidence. And then he and the other IDers have the chutzpah to lecture real scientists about “following the evidence wherever it leads.”

Nelson did admit, back in 2002, that science teachers could teach an old age of the earth and ignore young earth claims, just as science ignores claims that UFOs demonstrate that extraterrestrials are visiting earth.

maybe at some level Nelson recognizes his psychological limitations, and simply is doing his best to say:

“don’t pay attention to what I’m saying, I’m nuts”

In which case, shouldn’t we be encouraging him in that endeavor?

:P

I’ve forgotten now, but isn’t Nelson also an HIV denier?

Sorry, but I can not muster the energy to care what either Ruse or Nelson think.

More interesting would be what it would take to get Britney Spears to wear underwear.

Or, what it would take to get my cat to eat Tender Bits.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that. While we can empirically see that the earth is round, we cannot empirically see that the earth is “old”. The age of the earth is more in line with “forensic science” (gathering a wide range of evidence to support a given hypothesis about something that happened IN THE PAST).

But even so, Nelson won’t be discussing the age of the earth with Ruse, but Darwinism and ID.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.

That’s funny, I walked outside just the other day and the Earth looked pretty flat to me.

Mats wrote:

“Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.”

Well I don’t know about Ruse, but I can sure think of lots of things that could potentially falsify the hypothesis that evolution has not been guided by an intelligent force that directs it towards certain goals.

For example, if humans used a genetic code that was drastically different from that used by other organisms, then they would not be susceptible to diseases caused by many types of viruses. That would certainly be hard to explain as an evolutionary adaptation and might be evidence of foresight and planning on the part of some designer. Likewiae, organisms using vastly different genetic codes that could not easily be derived from each other by ordinary evolutionary pathways might be taken as evidence against unguided evolution, especially if they were fundamentally similar in the rest of their molecular biology. In the same way, mitochondria that were not distinctly prokaryotic in nature would be difficult to explain, since that would be hard to reconcile with the endosymbiotic theory and would prevent many problems with certain types of antibiotics. That might also indicate some foresight and planning on the part of some designer for the benefit of mankind.

One could go on and on with such examples. However, there is no evidence of any such foresight or planning in nature. What we see is perfectly consistent with lack of planning and foresight and constraint due to historical contingency. Either that or the supposed designer is really ignorant, stupid, incompetent and just plain mean. The simple fact that evolution has already taken billions of years with no end in sight should be enough to at least call the competence of the supposed designer into question. Of course you are perfectly free to believe that nature can be interpreted as displaying design, foresight and planning. But in that case your opinion of the designer might be inflated by your own ignorance and lack of imagination.

Nick (Matzke) Wrote:

In some ways that’s worse, because it indicates he *knows* the evidence is against him, and he holds the YEC position *in spite of* the evidence.

In a partial defense of Nelson, I must “hold the flying reindeer position” because I have stated it as fact to many people over the years, in spite of the (lack of) evidence. Given how Nelson never challenges any IDer who holds the old Earth position, or even the pro-common descent position that he seems to deny, I think that its fair to suspect, if not outright conclude, that Nelson’s “belief” in YEC is more like my “belief” in flying reindeer than that of a typical pre-schooler. Or that of Glenn Morton before he got rid of his “demon”.

Mats,

Exactly how old do you think the Earth is? I don’t care how you arrive at the answer, just give us a number. Not a range, but a single best-estimate. And while you are at it, do the same for the age of the first life on Earth. Then tell us whether or not you agree with Michael Behe that humans share common ancestors with broccoli. Like you, Behe (apparently) doubts that “impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism” is the driving force for species change, so if you have any disagreements, you can challenge him directly, without having to bait-and-switch the proximate causes with the ultimate ones.

Mats,

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that.

That is incorrect. You have heard, I’m sure, of the Old Earth Creationists? Most of the people in that camp would hold to that view. And they most certainly would agree that the argument along the lines of you can’t really say anything about it because it happened in the past is one of the most absolutely insane, virulently anti-science (and therefore anti-general-revelation, and therefore non-biblical) positions anyone with an interest in creation could possibly hold.

It’s tantamount to saying: the heavens declare your glory–not!

From first-hand experience: the YEC business is the third rail of the ID movement. Any scientific endeavor, such as ID claims to be, cannot have a big tent. All scientific questions should be on the table. There’s no crying in science. There’s no whining in science. There is no scientific question (age of the earth) that can be designated as the-topic-that-shall-not-be-mentioned. This, along with the fact that it makes no testable predictions, is a strong indicator that ID is not science.

Is it just me, or is there something particularly ludicrous and pitiful about Ruse …

No, it’s not just you.

“There’s no crying in science.”

LOL

That’s a great line. I’ll have to remember it.

When it comes to the evidence for evolution versus the evidence for ID, another line from the same movie comes to mind:

“well then, this would be more wouldn’t it?”

Mats wrote:

Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.

Well, I bet if we had evidence of a dog giving birth to kittens, or something along those lines, Ruse (and scientists everywhere) would pretty much admit that the theory of evolution (and possibly even “evolutionism”) had been falsified.

That’s just a guess, mind you, but I’m pretty confident about it.

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that. While we can empirically see that the earth is round, we cannot empirically see that the earth is “old”. The age of the earth is more in line with “forensic science” (gathering a wide range of evidence to support a given hypothesis about something that happened IN THE PAST).

…the argument along the lines of you can’t really say anything about it because it happened in the past is one of the most absolutely insane, virulently anti-science (and therefore anti-general-revelation, and therefore non-biblical) positions…

Wow, I actually agree with Heddle, although I’m neutral on whether or not Mats’ comments are “anti-biblical” (hopefully Heddle doesn’t think I’ve “quotemined” him by using a snippet; his original is right above and I don’t think I’ve distorted his meaning).

At a broader level, parts of the Bible speak as if the earth were flat. If you don’t think the earth is flat, then you don’t think the Bible is “literally” true. Therefore your choice of how to interpret it is subjective. This suggests that your anti-science and anti-democracy biases come first, and your Biblical interpretations, consciously or unconsciously, are simply molded to justify your biases.

But even so, Nelson won’t be discussing the age of the earth with Ruse, but Darwinism and ID.

The age of the earth is important to the theory of evolution.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

You’ve added a lot of meaningless or redundant words here - impersonal, unguided, undirected, blah, blah, blah.

Of course the theory of evolution is easy to defend.

Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.

For the benefit of third parties capable of independent thought, I will point out that any lack of evidence of common descent at any point during the history of biology would have eliminated the theory of evolution as we know it. Beginning with nested hierarchies based on anatomy during the eighteenth century (and noted at many times prior to that in history) through the development of biochemistry, physiology, classic genetics, cell biology, microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genomics, and so on over the last two hundred years, all new discoveries have reinforced the theory of evolution, even though each one could have seriously challenged it

See David Stanton’s post above for a more detailed example.

Re Nick

“n some ways that’s worse, because it indicates he *knows* the evidence is against him, and he holds the YEC position *in spite of* the evidence. And then he and the other IDers have the chutzpah to lecture real scientists about “following the evidence wherever it leads.””

This is the position taken by Kurt Wise who admits that virtually all the scientific evidence points to an old earth but he continues to believe in a young earth anyway as a matter of faith.

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that. While we can empirically see that the earth is round, we cannot empirically see that the earth is “old”.

It all depends on from what perspective one observes the earth. In that respect there is not much difference between the earth being old and the earth being round.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

You are using imprecise terminology, as Ruse would quick to point out, Darwinian processes are hardly undirected or unguided. Constraints of many forms as well as the environment itself, guide evolution along its pathways.

In addition Matts seems to be creating a strawman of Darwinian theory which says nothing about impersonal… God may very well be using Darwinian processes to guide it all along… It takes faith however to accept this… Some seem to lack faith and instead have to confuse matters… That’s ID to you in a nutshell, scientifically vacuous, theologically risky and devoid of faith.

Too bad Kurt Wise isn’t in on the debate. I can just hear his answer now: “What would it take to convince me to change my mind and accept evolution? Why, a passage in the Bible that I have overlooked!”

You’re right. Ruse does more challenging theologically than scientifically. But since Literal Creationists are really believing a religious belief and not a scientific one, this is exactly the approach, imo, that will work better with them. We can throw all the science at them we want, but since they are operating with a different worldview paradaigm that puts theology first, we need people like Ruse to speak to the theology first. I speak as one who was once a Literal Creationist and then saw the Light.

Glen Davidson

With this ludicrous episode you have again the equation of a mostly good thinker, Ruse, with someone whose “thought” in these matters is always checked against his religion.

As opposed to say, Richard Dawkins, who “thought” on anything is always checked against his atheism? Is the assumption that if you’re a philosophical naturalist (or outright atheist), then its perfectly okay for your “thought” to be checked against that, but if you’re a Christian you can’t? What if the atheists and philosophical naturalists are wrong – whose “thought” is off the rails, then?

The whole point of ID is to change science from a relatively unbiased evidence-based enterprise, into one in which assuming God’s workings in nature (sans evidence) is every bit as good as relying upon what can be demonstrated. Ruse is entirely playing into Nelson’s attempts to change science, by having the two exist side-by-side as if they were both reasonable positions.

So now anyone who might think that there is evidence of God’s working in and through nature is simply “unreasonable”? Since it hasn’t ever been established or confirmed scientifically that either atheism or philosophical naturalism is true, there’s nothing “unreasonable” about at all Nelson’s theism…nothing at all. Except it doesn’t sit well with some folks worldview. Why should Nelson, or any other theist for that matter, be taken to task simply because his theism informs his worldview?

David,

Mats wrote:

“Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.”

Well I don’t know about Ruse, but I can sure think of lots of things that could potentially falsify the hypothesis that evolution has not been guided by an intelligent force that directs it towards certain goals.

For example, if humans used a genetic code that was drastically different from that used by other organisms, then they would not be susceptible to diseases caused by many types of viruses.

If humans had a genetic make up different from other organisms, that would be used as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists would say “See?!! Evolution has taken what was at hand, and made life with another genetic makeup. Life was *bound* to happen anyway!”

Likewise, organisms using vastly different genetic codes that could not easily be derived from each other by ordinary evolutionary pathways might be taken as evidence against unguided evolution, especially if they were fundamentally similar in the rest of their molecular biology.

Same as above. Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it. Why do you think that Darwinists are in the front line in the search of extra terrestrial life? If they do find life out there, that would be used as evidence that, as I said above, “life was bound to happen”.

Secondly, biological universals is NOT an evolutionary prediction, but an evolutionary accommodation. Evolution NEVER predicted biological universals.

However, there is no evidence of any such foresight or planning in nature.

In the age of DNA, genetic codes (there is a reason it is called a CODE, you know), and in the age where we use “applied mathematics, informatics, statistics, computer science, artificial intelligence, chemistry, and biochemistry to solve biological problems usually on the molecular level”, it’s a bit outdated to say “There is no evidence for planning in nature”.

What we see is perfectly consistent with lack of planning and foresight and constraint due to historical contingency.

Not really. That there is design all around nature is agreed by all. The difference is that Darwiniacs say that such a design can be done by an impersonal force like natural selection. No evidence exist for that. There isn’t the slightest of evidence that a blind, impersonal force has the ability to create genetic algorithms.

PvM,

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

You are using imprecise terminology, as Ruse would quick to point out, Darwinian processes are hardly undirected or unguided.

That is why I added the word “impersonal”. In the standard Darwinian synthesis, there is no intelligent input. It’s only the natural, impersonal forces of nature doing all the job.

I would contest the notion that evolution is “guided by natural selection”. That’s like saying that ancient boats, which lacked mechanical machines, were “guided by the wind”. It’s not the wind guiding the boat, but the humans using their intelligence in taking advantage of the forces of nature to travel in high sea. See the difference?

In addition Mats seems to be creating a straw man of Darwinian theory which says nothing about impersonal… God may very well be using Darwinian processes to guide it all along…

The standard Darwinian theory has no place *anywhere* for intelligent input.

It takes faith however to accept this…

It takes greater faith to believe that impersonal forces have the ability to create genetic codes far greater than humans can even imagine.

Some seem to lack faith and instead have to confuse matters…

Darwiniacs like to confuse the matters when they used nonsensical terms like “Evolution is not random. It is guided by natural selection!”

That’s ID to you in a nutshell, scientifically vacuous, theologically risky and devoid of faith.

On the other hand, Darwinism is philosophically rich, anti-theologically clear and filled with faith (in naturalism).

What is unnatural about intelligence?

On the other hand, Darwinism is philosophically rich, anti-theologically clear and filled with faith (in naturalism).

So go and have your ID friends do some ID stuff or something so that PVM doesn’t have to. That way you and they get all the credit. Problem solved!

Mats wrote:

Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it. Why do you think that Darwinists are in the front line in the search of extra terrestrial life? If they do find life out there, that would be used as evidence that, as I said above, “life was bound to happen”.

And the evidence that supports your assertion that “Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it” is what, exactly? The “fact” that “Darwinism” is a worldwide conspiracy dedicated to suppressing truth?

Have you checked the calibration on your tinfoil hat lately? I think the some of the CIA mind-control rays might be leaking through.…

Mats wrote:

“Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it.”

You asked what evidence would be taken as evidence against unguided evolution. I provided you with an answer. I am the one who is claiming that this evidence could not be explained by conventional evolutionary theory. Are you claiming that it could be?

There are good theoretical reasons why we believe that it is very difficult to make even minor changes to an arbitrary genetic code once it has arisen. We have good models to explain the minor changes that have occurred and they all show that any major changes would be neartly impossible. To that you could add that certain types of changes could be interpreted as planning and foresight, therefore your criteria are more than met.

If evolutionary biologist did indeed discover such a thing and did indeed come up with an explanation, you would be free to challenge it, just as you are free to challenge any scientific theory presently being used. But “I don’t trust you” is not an argument.

Completely unrelated to the post, but I just read ‘Monkey Girl’ which had some wondeful details about Nick Matzke’s involvement in the Dover, Pennsylvania trial. I had no idea that you were that immersed in the plaintiff’s case. Thank you for your efforts!

Unfortunately, it probably means you’re on some creationist hit list somewhere…

Some thanks are due, I believe, for Mats for helping to lay bare the ID agenda.

Mats said (among other things):

Same as above. Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it.

Actually, what a Darwinist (or any scientist who does not toe the ID party line) would do would be to posit hypotheses, based on what we know, and test them. I am pretty sure that Mats knows this, and that it is the process of “hypothesize, test, revise” (that he abbreviates as “making up an ad hoc story”) that he truly detests.

As opposed to say, Richard Dawkins, who “thought” on anything is always checked against his atheism?

now all you have to do, Quacky, is show that one, atheism is a religion (and not just your projections again), and two, that all of Dawkins work extends entirely from that.

uh, good luck.

idiot.

With this ludicrous episode you have again the equation of a mostly good thinker, Ruse, with someone whose “thought” in these matters is always checked against his religion.

As opposed to say, Richard Dawkins, who “thought” on anything is always checked against his atheism?

Was I opposing Nelson to Dawkins, and do you have any evidence that his “thought” is checked against his atheism? I was discussing Ruse and Nelson, if you care to read properly.

Is the assumption that if you’re a philosophical naturalist (or outright atheist), then its perfectly okay for your “thought” to be checked against that, but if you’re a Christian you can’t? What if the atheists and philosophical naturalists are wrong – whose “thought” is off the rails, then?

Oh please, why do Xians, Buddhists, Hindus, and at least some members of virtually all major religions accept science? It’s because science is universal, not a sectarian Western idea like ID and its medieval metaphysics.

The whole point of ID is to change science from a relatively unbiased evidence-based enterprise, into one in which assuming God’s workings in nature (sans evidence) is every bit as good as relying upon what can be demonstrated. Ruse is entirely playing into Nelson’s attempts to change science, by having the two exist side-by-side as if they were both reasonable positions.

So now anyone who might think that there is evidence of God’s working in and through nature is simply “unreasonable”?

They’ve been shown repeatedly to be unreasonable.

Since it hasn’t ever been established or confirmed scientifically that either atheism or philosophical naturalism is true, there’s nothing “unreasonable” about at all Nelson’s theism…nothing at all.

Did I say that there was anything unreasonable about Nelson’s “theism” (would depend upon what you include in the term “theism”)? No, I related that his science is junk.

Except it doesn’t sit well with some folks worldview. Why should Nelson, or any other theist for that matter, be taken to task simply because his theism informs his worldview?

Because theism would need to be established before it would legitimately inform anybody’s scientific view. Why can’t you figure out what is explicitly written in response to you, ever?

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Mats:

Mats Wrote:

Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism,

“Evolutionism” is a strawman creationist philosophy, evolutionary biology is the science.

Note that David Stanton describes different genetic codes without pathways, which would not be predicted by evolution. AFAIU different genetic codes with pathways could have been a possibility, by a failure of different genetic lineages deriving from different progenotic communities to compete efficiently. But today we observe a general code.

Mats Wrote:

Evolution NEVER predicted biological universals.

Since evolution is path dependent and admits variation, we would see pathways and nested hierarchies within it.

And as you mention it, we would also specifically see those codes pathways. And we see one.

[Also, while it wouldn’t be a firm prediction, I personally believe the competitive nature combined with hereditary nature of evolution makes the process itself fairly robust and universal. If we would observe singular existences elsewhere, biological or mechanical, the bet would be that they are on a path bounded to extinction.]

Torbjorn wrote:

“Note that David Stanton describes different genetic codes without pathways, which would not be predicted by evolution. AFAIU different genetic codes with pathways could have been a possibility, by a failure of different genetic lineages deriving from different progenotic communities to compete efficiently. But today we observe a general code.”

You are absolutely correct. The genetic code is largely arbitrary and thus a cannonized code is primarily due to stochastic lineage extinction and historical contingency. Many other codes are possible, but once a single code is cannonized it becomes very difficult to alter it significantly. This is in fact one of main lines of evidence that demonstrates that all known life forms had a single origin. Other origins could have occurred, but we don’t find any trace of their descendants today.

The point is that discovery of a completely different genetic code, in an organism with no other close relatives would be almost impossible to explain as being derived from the cannonized code. It could certainly exist, but probably not as the result of descent with modification from the other known life forms on this planet. That would be something that modern evolutionary theory could not explain. Something more would be needed to account for the observation. If the new code were not simply arbitrary but somehow indicative of foresight and planning, then that could possibly imply a completely novel mechanism that has never been observed before.

Of course this is only one example of something that would be difficut to explain for modern evolutionary theory. Many other possibilities exist, they simply have never been discovered, at least not yet. That is because the theory is falsifiable but has not been falsified.

I guess that is why ID advocates are so obsessed with DNA sequencing and determining the genetic codes for so many different organisms. I guess that explains why they spend so much money on genetic research and have so many publications in this area. Wait … never mind.

One problem with Mats is that he is so utterly ignorant (probably deliberately) that his arguments are almost too incoherent to rebut. He confuses abiogenesis, evolution, and natural selection with one another.

Nevertheless…

If humans had a genetic make up different from other organisms, that would be used as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists would say “See?!! Evolution has taken what was at hand, and made life with another genetic makeup. Life was *bound* to happen anyway!”

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. You asked for an example of something that would more or less falsify the theory of evolution. You were given one.

Your immature response is to make up a silly lie about what “evolutionists” “would” do. What you say others would do is completely unrelated to what they actually would do.

Secondly, biological universals is NOT an evolutionary prediction, but an evolutionary accommodation. Evolution NEVER predicted biological universals.

Once again the crazy theology words. “Universals”. But anyway, yes, the theory of evolution DOES predict this. Of course it does. When the next new species of bacteria or insect is found, which won’t be long after I finish this post, we can predict that it will have a DNA genome and many biochemical pathways in common with the rest of life.

It’s unbelievable that you would argue that a theory of common descent does not predict common features in ancestors and descendants.

You truly are beyond good and evil. You exist only to advocate for an agenda, no matter what the evidence or logic. You are like a defense attorney for authoritarianism, except an attorney who keeps yelling long after the trial is over. Honesty does not even exist for you. It is an alien concept.

In the age of DNA, genetic codes (there is a reason it is called a CODE, you know),

How dare you use a condescending tone? I’m sure you couldn’t even begin to explain what is meant by “genetic code”. The reason it is called a “genetic code” is NOT that we think it was created by magic.

However, for the most part, cellular and post-cellular life, with which evolution deals, came after the genetic code. The first genetic code could have been poofed (not that I think it was) and the theory of evolution would still describe what happened next.

and in the age where we use “applied mathematics, informatics, statistics, computer science, artificial intelligence, chemistry, and biochemistry to solve biological problems usually on the molecular level“, it’s a bit outdated to say “There is no evidence for planning in nature”.

Really? Are scientists who use these tools endorsing ID? Are ID advocates using these tools to solve any biological problems?

The difference is that Darwiniacs say that such a design can be done by an impersonal force like natural selection.

You really don’t have clue what the theory of evolution “says”, do you?

And for you, it doesn’t matter. You are beyond honesty and dishonesty. You are committed to advocating for an ideology, and you have little or nothing to lose. You will make any claim that seems to serve your purpose. Of course there must be some cognitive dissonance - otherwise you wouldn’t be here at all - but it’s suppressed.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on September 13, 2007 4:38 PM.

Hovind’s Goons use Fraud to Remove Critical YouTube Videos was the previous entry in this blog.

Farewell to Alex is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter