The arrows of my title are not being directed toward Richard Dawkins, one of the two people engaged in this extraordinary conversation. My title is directed toward creationist Wendy Wright. Her obstructionist tactics suggest that it is simply not fruitful to discuss evolution by natural selection with someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to understand it.
I’ve pasted Part 2 of 7 of this exchange above. The other parts are available at Youtube. Richard Dawkins is a model of patience here. Ms. Wright repeatedly invokes a handful of tactics to stretch out this ostensible conversation endlessly. One tactic is to change the topic whenever Dawkins tries to focus upon real world facts. Another is to send out broad accusations, such as accusing Darwin of racism when, in reality, the Victorian world was filled with people who held views that would now be considered racist and, in fact, Darwin and his writings were notably not racist. In fact, Darwin expressed abolitionist views.
In a recent comment I wrote the following:
I’m tempted to begin a new “policy” from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.
It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.
There’s a lot more discussion about this video a website with a most extraordinary name: WhyWontGodHealAmputee.com. Soricidae’s Blog offers a play by play for one section of the Wright-Dawkins exchange.
Karl writes:—”This is why so many people with faith in God will get bent out of shape thinking they need to defend the object of their faith. It is also why people with faith in “whatever other beliefs they have” will also occasionally get bent out of shape thinking they need to either convince, ignore or belittle those with contrary worldviews.”
Kind of goes without saying, though, doesn’t it? This is schoolyard pecking order crap and one of the signs of “maturity” is that we control such impulses.
However, it is interesting to note that the defensiveness—and it does indeed happen, I’m not denying that at all—is over things that often do not need defending.
Surely, when the believer has his god insulted and leaps to the defense, it’s like the flea defending the dog from the mosquito. God doesn’t need defending.
But the defender needs to defend the position he or she has taken. So it’s not the object that’s being defended but the decision of the believer.
Likewise with a scientist—proof is in the work and for anyone capable of understanding the work, defense is either a formal explication or a defense of the decision to believe the implications.
In other words, both of us get bent out of shape over second order issues. Which puts it on the same level as someone arguing over any aesthetic choice.
The objects themselves are not defended at this point only the personal sanity of the deponents.
Almost every encounter I have ever had with someone who derides my positions on certain subjects (almost, I say, not all) have tracked thusly:
How come you believe that nonsense?
It’s not nonsense.
Prove it.
[explication on my part of the thing in question]
That’s stupid.
How so?
You can’t believe that. No one in their right mind would believe that.
Why not?
It’s not normal. You must be a [insert label: socialist, marxist, atheist, liberal, etc] Only a frakkin’ [whatever] would believe that.
Now, I’ve compressed this mightily for the sake of brevity, but my explication of the thing being discussed is almost always totally ignored and my personal make-up is called into question in lieu of any kind of reasoned discussion.
At some point, I lose patience and allow that this person is an idiot.
Whereupon I am accused of making ad hominim attacks. (How’d that happen? This yawping moron has been calling me everything but a respectable human being up to that point, but those aren’t ad hominem? Of course not, because he/she is arguing from received wisdom, from Righteousness, from…whatever.)
Now, this is a personal anecdote and you may consider it for what it’s worth. But having seen more than a few public debates between scientists and scientific Objectors, this happens more often than not, and in that direction. By the time the scientist or whoever has reached the point of making a personal remark, his or her character, ability to think, political persuasion, patriotism, etc have been under persistent assault. Maybe it doesn’t justify the counterattack, but I listen to people who claim that personal bias and ad hominem attacks are equally freighted on both sides with a few bags of salt on my end.
Generally, people who can hold up their end of a debate on a scientific subject don’t indulge such tactics—they are used only by those who won’t even bother to look at the evidence, because for them it’s not a matter of evidence for one side or the other, but a question of personal choice, first last and always.
This is not a skeptics viewpoint.
I know it’s almost heresy to say this in this day and age, but all opinions are not equal, nor is everyone entitled to an opinion—they are entitled to an INFORMED opinion. Without information, it’s all just hot air. But in my experience, ninety percent of the time, in arguments with the religiously convinced over subjects like evolution or geology or even religion itself, the one arguing against my position doesn’t know squat. And isn’t interested. Facts don’t matter, only faith.
Which, yes, I consider the epitome of stupid.
Karl
Throwing out objections that sound scientific do not make your objections well founded.
Where do you think membrane shape comes from, if not the genome? Where do you think every inherited trait comes from? You are simply making noises. Random conjugation of phonemes does not make intelligible speech. That's what you are doing to science.
You can't even spell Lenski's name right!
Perhaps you should focus more on trying to comprehend what the actual, published, respected experts in micro-biology say, and less on the fact-free utterings of the DI and it's cronies.
Feel free to object – or better, since you are not a published micro-biologist, provide citations to papers that refute the findings to which you object. You can find published papers via Google Scholar – and can get access to the actual texts at your local college library.
You are right on one thing, though. On this topic – it's the sack for you.
Karl
One last parting comment.
You closed your last statement with But then I don’t know anything about science…
If that were the case, we wouldn't care. We would agree to disagree, or you would accept some pointers to primary sources (something we all provide) and we'd expect you to come back when you have some more information under your belt. That doesn't happen here.
The problem is not that you don't know anything about science (whether you do or not is irrelevant to this discussion).
It's that you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of science – both the process and the outcomes. You demonstrate a lack of awareness of current positions – and how strongly those positions are held (and evidenced) within science. You demonstrate an overweening arrogance that somehow, all of the scientists who have spent their lives learning and studying to refine and extend our composite knowledge are somehow missing a vital point – that is supplied in every comment by you, as an "ah hah! Maybe that, but what about THIS!".
You fail to demonstrate any rational skepticism, any humility regarding your knowledge or lack of knowledge in any field, and are unwilling to accept that there may be others, extremely learned others, who might just know more than you on a given subject.
When pushed, you confidently state that it is we – the rational skeptics – who are wrong, or arrogant, or blind. If only we would accept your god, then we would see as you see and all would be well.
Sounds just a tad hubristic to me. And I am not drinking that kool-ade!
The sack is tied with an extra-tight knot, this time.
I have no problem with people who want to believe as Erich, Dan, Grumpy and Tony that there is nothing after physical death – that is a worldview they are entitled to.
What grieves me is the way they consider that others that even consider the possibility of something more are raving lunatics and have no business talking about science because science to them can only be used to support their worldview and not the worldview of others.
Karl writes:—"What grieves me is the way they consider that others that even consider the possibility of something more are raving lunatics and have no business talking about science because science to them can only be used to support their worldview and not the worldview of others."
No, that's not it, Karl. What bothers me is the idea that the possibility of life after death is (a) used as the starting point of a refutation of established science because (b) what established science says seems to argue against the idea of post corporeal continuation.
You cannot (no, that's wrong, you CAN argue any position you care to)…you may not expect due consideration when you use a belief that defies material demonstration of any kind as a foil to discredit science.
You may believe anything you want. But some things are of completely different ontological orders and when you fling them together and find they either conflict or simply don't mix well, it's disingenuous to claim it's entirely the fault of the thing you don't like and that your position is obviously superior because we won't acknowledge the seriously wrought semantic effort you've put into it.
I don't consider folks who believe in an afterlife raving lunatics because of that belief—I begin to doubt their honesty or their capacity for reason when you claim their belief trumps evidence.
Tony,
You have referenced DI a couple of times in the last few posts and I”m not sure whether your referent might be Dangerous Intersection, Intelligent Design or something else.
Thanks for noting my spelling error of Lenski’s name.
Karl – DI in that context is the Discovery Institute – a cDesign Proponentist group that produces no original research, but seeks only to discredit any and all actual research that runs counter to Intelligent Design (this week, at least). You may find them stating that they have published research papers, but none are peer-reviewed in any science journal, and none of them displayed any actual experimentation or actual scientific research (it’s all polemics and argumentation) – like the ‘paper’ you quoted attacking Lenski’s multi-generational experiment.
Behe (whom you have quoted as a source many times) is a member. You may recall how his ‘expert evidence’ was thoroughly discredited at the Dover ‘trial’. He is not a respected scientist in the scientific community. He has zero credibility, since he continually and demonstrably cherry-picks data to try to support his hypothesis (irreducible complexity is his baby) which is nothing more than his preferred brand of wishful thinking.
Hope this helps.
I also hope that seeing this, seeing how we respond, seeing how those opposed to science respond, will help you understand why we in the reality based community are often so immediately dismissive — we’ve seen the arguments before and they bring nothing new. When you quote known charlatans, do not, therefore, expect us to accept your arguments as new and exciting.
Do the actual research. Look at what the vast majority of scientists are saying. Crack a few of the more accessible periodicals for a layman’s summary – or visit and read more of the fact-based bloggers. Then you can argue any position you wish to take in good faith. Right now you come across as simply being willfully ignorant. It doesn’t reflect well on you, and makes us look like ogres for slapping you down – continually.
Karl
We have no problem with your belief that there is something after physical death. It’s simply that there is no evidence for it. Trying to pretend otherwise, yet claim science as your own, is an act of lunacy!
Science is based on evidence. It is based on repeatability. It is based upon everything being essentially tentative, because everything is open to question.
Your belief in an afterlife has been questioned in a number of ways. Near death experiences (for example) have been studied to death (if you pardon the pun). Everything points to normal brain chemistry as the causative agent. As for any other evidence – nothing has ever been found. Ghosts, goblins, and things that go bump in the night are figments of our imagination. We even have reasonably sound theories, based on actual cognitive science, why we have such figments – largely it’s a result of our ‘pattern matching’ looking for order and causality – an evolutionary trait, needed for survival, but suborned into seeing ‘monsters under the bed’ due to lack of reliable input or ‘gods making weather’ when we can’t discern causation.
As for that thing you call a soul…. Where is it? What is it? How does something immaterial interact with the material? What are the mechanisms? How can anything be immortal (such as a soul)?
Let me know your detailed experiment plans – I’ll find a way to fund it and together we’ll be famous (Nobel prize at least)! What – you can’t provide such plans? Bother! [/snark]
Lastly, how do you know? What evidence do you have – again without reference to your book, or to someone’s internal dialog.
It’s not that we don’t believe. It’s that there is simply nothing to believe.
There is no there, there!
There are some things to consider regarding evolution vs intelligent design. There are some features that are too complex to have been created randomly. I know scientists would argue that there are very few when comparing to the entire universe, however there are some nonetheless. An example is the flagellum. Flagellum have whip-like appendages arising from the cell which is specialized for locomotion. All of the appendages have to be present in order for locomotion to occur. This organelle would not be functional in the event of evolution. Another example, is the eye. For proper vision, a million microscopic optic nerves must find and match up to its precise mate within the optic center of the brain to function perfectly. How would survival take place without proper eyesight? Evolutionists would call this our God of the gaps, because science can't prove it so we creationists call it intelligent design with no further attempts at scientifically explaining it. I would say to those scientists "keep looking", but it won't be found. There has been absolutely no observable (under a microscope) example of a gene being created by natural process. Polyploidy has been observed, but that is just making another copy of already existing
information.
Then consider the fine tuning of the universe. In Grant Jeffrey's book "Creation remarkable evidence of God's design", he describes the Anthropic Principle. This principle states that there are more than 100 scientifically fined tuned vital values that make life possible. Examples, include the composition of our atmosphere, the distance to the sun, the strength of gravity, magnetism and
many others. If the Earth was closer to the Sun, we would have extreme temps and if we were further away we would have much colder temps, making life impossible. The Earth rotates a 1,002 miles per hour, which allows for a 24 hour cycle. If the planet did not rotate once every 24 hrs, the non rotating side facing away from the Sun would be too cold to sustain and life and opposite for the side facing the Sun, too hot for life. These are just a couple examples of many of the fine tuned elements that allow for life on this planet. This doesn't even include the precise nature that supports the galaxies, stars and planets, that gets into an entirely different complex matter.
Walter. I will not respond because you are not locking horns with real scientists. You have the science of natural selection monumentally incorrect. You are attacking a straw man. Go read a good book on the science of evolution (I recommended several to you, and so did Tony) to get your facts right. All of your arguments have been devastated by careful scientists, but you are writing as though these are unanswered attacks on science.
Walter,
The flagellum has been gone over as a feature easily evolved. It's not a mystery, no more than the eye is.
See: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
or: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/ar…
or: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/irreduc…
Erich, I have read good books on science and evolution. Unfortunately, they are views opposing yours. Here is a good site for you to ponder over http://www.icr.org/.
Walter
The Institute for Creation Research is a mouthpiece for apologetics. It is not, by any reasonable standard, an institute for science. It's a think tank devoted to figuring out how to discredit science.
Sorry, but you'll have to do better. Hint: find a scientist without a religious agenda who has written on the problems of evolution. And good luck with that.
Walter,
I checked out the website to which you refer, and I have to thank you. I needed a good laugh. Check out some of what we can learn from that font of knowledge:
See, everything in the universe is caused by something else. The universe was created by god. Apparently, they are still working on the problem of what caused god? I guess he gets a free-pass on the whole causation thing, because the bible says so.
Oh, this is a goodie! The universe is made up of a trinity: time, space, matter. What else is a trinity!? You guessed it, the Holy Trinity! Any more proof needed? Also, 1x1x1 = 1. I'm sold, this is solid evidence.
Under the "evidence for God" section, you can find the following sub-headings:
-God caused Beauty
-God caused Justice
-God caused Love
-God caused Meaning
-God caused Order
etc…
But, to be logically consistent, God must have also caused the opposite of all of those. God created the universe, and everything in it, right? So God also caused injustice, hate, ugliness, disorder, chaos, etc…
I'm still looking for the actual "evidence" that is promised.
Oh wow, I'm banging my head on the desk at their colossal misunderstanding of virtually everything. Check out their explanation for bacteria who have been evolving to develop antibiotic resistance:
Ow, the stupid, it hurts. Even when presented with clear examples of evolution in action, the creationist response: that's not evolution, that's decay! One wonders what they must think about reptiles evolving to give birth to live young, rather than laying eggs. I bet the devil did it, right?
Walter (& Karl, and any other creationists lurking)
Read the title of this post.
(I'll give you a BIG hint: How to refuse to look at evidence and how to evade simple questions)
Now read it again, and try to understand what all the words mean, individually and together.
That is creationism.
I'll help again, because I can see you shaking your head. What it means, in very simple terms is:
Evidence is presented. It is ignored.
Questions are asked. They are evaded.
This is what you do. These are the defining behaviors of creationism. This is what frustrates the hell out of anyone with a modicum of knowledge and even a tenuous finger-hold on reality.
Evidence. It's not what you make up, it's what you observe!
Conclusions. It's not what you start with, it's where you end up – based entirely upon the evidence (observed, not imagined).
Research. UR DOIN IT RONG!
Mark, et al.
My favorite creationist canard is the perfection of the human eye! Humans are the 'pinnacle of creation' and the eye is our organ for 'observing the beauty of creation'! One would expect it to be pretty well designed. So why is the retina the wrong way round? Why is our color/light gathering so relatively poor?
Cephalopod eyes seem to be much better designed (including having a greater color range, depth and resolution) since their retina is not obscured by blood vessels (sensibly the blood vessels are behind the light-sensitive surface, not in front of it!)
Cats have much better light-gathering, most owls are even better. Eagles (most raptors, in fact) have a high-resolution fovea – we have a zero resolution blind spot! Why don't we have sonar (like bats and cetaceans) so we can get around when it's dark or foggy? Why don't we have a magnetic sense (like migratory birds) or the ability to see polarized light (like bees, shrimp, and many other critters)? Why don't we have a nictitating membrane – reptiles use theirs to keep their eyes shiny clean, and stop their eyes from drying up in the desert!
All of these design enhancements would have been of immense help when populating the earth – it would have made the command to go forth and multiple a lot easier! So – why does god hate us?
I could go on and on – but I won't. Suffice to say, our eyes are not the best, are arguably worse than many others, and not much better than most. They are certainly nowhere the pinnacle of creation, unless you are willing to settle for a C+ in creation class.
Now don't, whatever you do, get me started on our vertical posture, cervical compression damage, the presence of soft skull bones, the fontanel and their direct impact on infant mortality, and our long suffering abdominal integument (unless you want to suffer a groin strain)
———————-
(Sorry for the rant, but I thought it time for the reality-based version of the Gish Gallop!)
This is for Mark http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm
walter
If you look at the list of 'scientists'* – ask yourself these questions:
1) Did they pre-date Darwin? (was evolution by Natural Selection even a hypothesis?)
2) Are they Biologists? (i.e. As a CS major, I can argue with elegance and authority on CS topics – as an amateur biologist I can only argue as an amateur, and rely on publishing research scientists for experiments, insights, and findings. I can have an opinion, it simply won't be an informed opinion.)
3) Are they peer-reviewed in biology? (have they published, in recognized journals, subject to normal rigor and analysis)
4) Are they current? (if their last paper was 1835, they might be a little out of date)
Hope this helps.
* prompted by some of the scientists on the list: Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun — FYI, none pass the tests above.
Tony says Evidence. It’s not what you make up, it’s what you observe!
Has anyone (scientist or whomever) observed (under a microscope) a gene being created by natural proccess (spontaneous generation)? Not a gene being created from already existing information. I can't find any evidence and I've looked.
Walter
Just a quick check on some of the names listed in your suggested site reveal the first four "contemporary" scientists mentioned are, in order–
Henry Morris—civil engineer
John D. Morris—engineer
Larry Vardiman—atmsopherics and climate
Steve Austin—Geologist
When that article about 700 scientists disagreeing with evolution first appeared, there was some to do about it and almost none of them are biologists.
Now, there's nothing wrong with a scientist disagreeing with his or her colleagues. But when a real scientist gets into a snit with those colleagues, they battle it out with superior evidence, they don't stand on the sidelines and throw tomatoes. Many of these guys resigned in a snit and went to work for DI or ICR, which pretty much was an admission that they didn't HAVE evidence, just a personal opinion.
Still, even that is okay.
But now we come to you. Don't weasel out of doing the hard work of finding out for yourself by throwing a list of sites at us that reference other authority figures who seem to bolster your prejudice. If you want to understand what the issue is about, DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF.
This is a pitiful example from my own work, but it'll serve. I write prose. That's my thing. I do not do poetry, mainly because I dislike most of it, and can't much see the point behind a lot of it.
Acknowledging that I am lame and biased about poetry, I do not offer professional opinions on it. Nor should I. Taste is another matter.
Some people will reject evolution for personal reasons. The science is solid, though.
There are still some scientists, btw, who support geocentrism. (Yeah, it surprised me, too.) Just because there are a handful who do, though, doesn't mean we should up and call five centuries of observation into question for the sake of "teaching the controversy."
Walter: Take a look at this article about atavisms. You can read all about true human tails, for example. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/section2.cfm
There is an immense amount of skeptical scientific reading at the Talk Origins site (it's a link on the right column of this website http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm ). You'll read about a lot of things your preacher doesn't want you to know about. You can do it in the privacy of your home. You can also think for yourself in the privacy of your own home. Some of the most skeptical people in the world are scientists. They are reluctant to believe things without evidence. You should try it for a week or two; you might find it liberating and a bit scary, but you really do owe it to yourself to try it.
Walter writes:—"Has anyone (scientist or whomever) observed (under a microscope) a gene being created by natural proccess (spontaneous generation)? Not a gene being created from already existing information. I can’t find any evidence and I’ve looked."
It doesn't work that way…(yeesh)
Changes to membrane shape can come from disease where a cell loses an ability to properly maintain homeostasis and then its internal functions also are modified because of what is allowed into or out of the cell.
Can initially non-fatal diseases be passed along through the generation cycles of bacteria? I would think this would be the case.
We see all the time how diabetes doesn't end the life of a living thing quickly but it takes a while before other modified homeostatic functions take a while to reveal the true harm of this type of disease.
Maybe what Lenski's team may have discovered are bacteria that are passing an initial slowly progressing deleterious fatal disease onto the next generation.
Call it a "new species" if you like – but lets see the true nature of what it means to be able to bypass a part of the normal way a cell is suppose to process glucose.
I call it a generational disease.
Karl Kunker
Karl – call it a generational disease if you like – you are not in a position to make an informed comment in any case. Neither am I. I am in a position to make an informed choice based on expert testimony, as are you. The difference between us is that I accept the consolidated position of domain experts – you support the position of kooks on the fringe.
Walter – I'll say it again – read a book. A science book. By a scientist. One with relevant credentials. Then you may be in a position to comment.
To Karl, Walter, and any other brainwashed cult members who may be lurking:
To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, "Not only are you not right, you're not even wrong!" When you understand why that is so, then maybe we can have a dialog.
I am often skeptical of those who would distort the message of Jesus. Even the experts in theology that I normally wouldn't have any issues with cannot be fully believed without reservation or you do get cultish activity.
Followers of cultish and junk science will defend every shred of evidence to support their worldview as though the last shards will one day provide the pieces for the sword that will destroy the opposition.
The shards are all that are left but more shards are hoped for every day. That's why clear thinking and careful analysis of works like Lenski's are left to the experts to comment upon.
Tony is not skeptical of the experts in the domains that provide him with the evidence that supports his worldview. I guess we'll need to see how well Lenski's work holds up to the rigors of other interpretations – if he ever allows the actual data into the hands of someone other than experts who agree with him.
Seems a great deal of published evolutionary "evidence" has bit the dust in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Karl: The following quote shows that you are delusional: "Seems a great deal of published evolutionary “evidence” has bit the dust in the past and will continue to do so in the future."
Unless you are referring to the "evidence" from sites like Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
BTW, I just read an article in Answers in Genesis about Darwin's thoughts about whether something as complicated as the eye could really evolve naturally. I've got to admit that this article is somewhat of a breakthrough. AIG actually set out the entire relevant passage from Origin of Species, and warned creationists that it is not appropriate to claim that Darwin thought evolution incapable of producing the eye (Many creationists selectively quote Darwin on this topic).
At least AIG got some of the basic facts correct. This is a good thing. Now they need to follow the big horizon of skepticism wherever it leads and, eventually, they will see that evidence in support of natural selection is ubiquitous.
You know, Karl, sometimes it feels to me like you talk about "world views" as if they were somehow innate, that people are born with them. I know you don't believe that, but that's how your discourse about them seems.
I arrived at my world view through a process of (sometimes faulty) analysis and the gradual discarding of that which I decided was nonsense. It left me where I am. It is natural, I suppose, that I would seek (when I do seek it) reaffirming information to support what I rather painstakingly arrived at.
Not all the scientists you bash by inference could be so blindsided by so-called world views that if something substantive came up to counter their perceptions that some of them wouldn't remark upon it. The scale of conspiracy you imply defies reason. In a field where finding the next new thing and disproving everyone else's work is the path toward fame, fortune, and immortality, if there was merit to some of the stuff you throw out here, SOME of them would talk about it.
Some of them do, in fact. But it is to show how it tends to be in error.
But for myself, you're right, I tend to look at that with which I am pretty much already in agreement. Because I already done been through the weeding out process and right now feel pretty comfortable with what I've concluded.
I put myself in the hands of the theists for a good number of years, wanting them to provide answers that made sense to me. They couldn't. I was not predisposed to disbelieve them. It was a lot of disappointing work to get where I am now.
You worked hard to get where you are.